2017 Game Plan

[Rankor]

I've read a few times people wanting ryder a CHF. Why? He was OK there in 2015 but it was when he was moved into his true ruck spot that he showed his real strength and worth to the team. If Lobbe has not learnt how to take an overhead mark yet then I think he adds very little to our team. Shit, he can't even tap to advantage.

 

[Visenfest]

Agree.....but I would give him the chance to prove these skills in the AFL to start with...Interestingly his Bio points to him being a mobile forward, strong overhead and a good kick at goal...........

Hope he brings it!

Matthew, you might need to prove it in the Sanfl first

 

[Schulzenfest]

I really don't get all the 'it'd be great if Lobbe could earn his role back' stuff. AFL is a competitive business, and we can only play one ruck at a time, especially with the new third man up rule.

Imagine for a second you were an Adelaide United fan (gross). Eugene Galekovic is between the sticks. He's competent, but he's no world beater. Suddenly, there's a steroid abuse scandal in the Bundesliga and Manuel Neuer decides to come to the A-League to get away from it all.

The correct response: "Gee, it's awesome that we're going to have Manuel Neuer in goals for us"
The soft response: "Galekovic is such a hard worker, I hope he can earn his way back into the side. Then we can use Neuer to fill the hole at right back".

It'd be great if Lobbe can dominate the SANFL and fill a role for us if Ryder gets injured or suspended. That's the absolute best thing he can do for us in 2017. If he takes away Ryder's ruck minutes by 'earning his spot back', he'll be doing more harm than good.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

There is room for 2 rucks against certain opponents and certain games. Unless Lobbe plays like he did in 2014 he will struggle to play more than 3 to 5 games as the 2nd ruck to a fully fit and firing Ryder. Sydney won a GF with Pyke and Mumford. Hawthorn won one with Bailey and Hale and then 2 with Hale and McEvoy. There are always match up opportunities for 2 rucks.

 

[BillyW]

I get that Ryder (and Lobbe) had his best year as sole ruck and I also get that Lobbe has been well down on form....

However, I want a game plan and structure that will set us up for finals and players that are strong and experienced enough to do it so we can have a crack at the ultimate, the reason we exist!
And IMO to give us the best chance of this happening we need Westhoff as the tall link up forward going as far back as he needs, Ryder patroling the 50 arc and Dixon the square with occasion rotations to throw out oppo match ups........for this to work though we need a fit and firing Lobbe ......so I'm choosing to be positive at this stage and am picking him on previous form (sure 2 years ago is a stretch but hey we need it)

 

[Schulzenfest]

There is room for 2 rucks against certain opponents and certain games. Unless Lobbe plays like he did in 2014 he will struggle to play more than 3 to 5 games as the 2nd ruck to a fully fit and firing Ryder. Sydney won a GF with Pyke and Mumford. Hawthorn won one with Bailey and Hale and then 2 with Hale and McEvoy. There are always match up opportunities for 2 rucks.

There's room for two flexible rucks. Ryder and Trengove are flexible rucks. Lobbe isn't.

 

[Papa G]

Lobbe plays 8-12 games in 2017 when a second workhorse ruckman is required and to cover some inevitable injuries. Doesn't make Grand Final 22.

 

[woffy]

I really don't get all the 'it'd be great if Lobbe could earn his role back' stuff. AFL is a competitive business, and we can only play one ruck at a time, especially with the new third man up rule.

Imagine for a second you were an Adelaide United fan (gross). Eugene Galekovic is between the sticks. He's competent, but he's no world beater. Suddenly, there's a steroid abuse scandal in the Bundesliga and Manuel Neuer decides to come to the A-League to get away from it all.

The correct response: "Gee, it's awesome that we're going to have Manuel Neuer in goals for us"
The soft response: "Galekovic is such a hard worker, I hope he can earn his way back into the side. Then we can use Neuer to fill the hole at right back".

It'd be great if Lobbe can dominate the SANFL and fill a role for us if Ryder gets injured or suspended. That's the absolute best thing he can do for us in 2017. If he takes away Ryder's ruck minutes by 'earning his spot back', he'll be doing more harm than good.

Normally I hate references to soccer, but this is a good one

 

[PAFC66]

Ryder isn't a forward. Never will be.

 

[Power Raid]

Im thinking we should kick it long to Roy

 

[BillyW]

On the game plan.......fast, decisive ball movement is the best way to create space in the forward line...let's hope it returns in 2017!

 

[Pedro59]

Just want to mention this

Beating your man

In the most simple view when the ball was kicked towards Wanganeen and his opponent.....
.....I always relaxed because I just knew Wangas was going to win that contest and dispose of it well...

How many current Port players can we say that about?

 

[Kingfish73]

The faith shown on westhoff being an effective forward is staggering. Plenty of bashing of other players and the Hoff seems to get a lot of leniency. Don't get it

 

[BillyW]

The faith shown on westhoff being an effective forward is staggering. Plenty of bashing of other players and the Hoff seems to get a lot of leniency. Don't get it

The Hoff to me is a swing man and link up forward...if he gets 1 or 2 goals, takes a few grabs down back to halt an oppos momentum and links up through the middle of the ground assisting a few inside 50s I think he's done his job.....
He is not a KPF who should be relied upon to kick bags and hall in contested mark after contested mark

 

[Janus]

So the whole "Our forward line sucks" argument got me thinking, and I decided to do some statistical analysis. The results will surprise.

Port Adelaide scored 2055 points from 1208 forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.70 points per entry. Adelaide, the best forward line in the competition, scored 2483 points from 1389 forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.79 points per entry.

If we kept the same ratio of scoring and just increased the amount of forward 50 entries to the level Adelaide had (that is, our side was as committed to the contest as Adelaide) we would have scored an extra 308 points. That's an extra 14 points per game...which would have got us wins against Carlton, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs.

Conversely, Port Adelaide conceded 1939 points from 1204 opposition forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.61 points per entry. Adelaide conceded 1795 points from 1195 entries, at a ratio of 1.50 points per entry. This is where the real issue was - the ease of which opposition sides could march the ball down and score. We had exactly 9 more entries into our defensive 50 than the Crows, yet they managed to concede 144 points less. That tells me that too many players were slacking off defensively and making it too easy for opposition players to get into easy positions to score.

If we want to make finals this year, it's not our forward line, but our defensive efforts that have to improve. The Bulldogs conceded only 1.38 points per opposition forward 50 entry. Sydney was 1.06. GWS 1.32.

What does this tell us? That having a dominant forward line is no real advantage in the modern game, but having a dominant defense is. The four preliminary finalists all had a defensive inside 50 to points conceded ratio of less than 1.5, and while GWS and the Dogs were evenly matched at 1.32 to 1.38, hence the closeness of the contest, Sydney and Geelong were miles apart with 1.06 to 1.44 - hence the blowout.

To put it another way - if Port and Sydney conceded the same amount of opposition forward 50 entries in a match (lets say 55), Sydney would be looking at 58 points against. Port, on the other hand, would be looking at 88 points against - a difference of 30 points.

Sydney and the Bulldogs are contested ball winning sides that make defense their primary focus. GWS is a side full of elite talent. Adelaide (1.5 points per entry) and West Coast (1.49 points per entry) are the level we should be aiming for. 1204 opposition entries at 1.5 points per entry (as opposed to the 1.61 we actually conceded) would have us conceding 1806 points over the season. That;s 249 points, or 11 points per game.

So in conclusion, if we kept our forward line scoring ratio exactly the same, increased the production of our midfield (forward 50 entries generated from defensive efforts) and focused more on defensive efforts to the level of a top eight team, we would be 25 points per game better off.

25 points is enough to win against Carlton, Hawthorn, GWS, Fremantle, Adelaide, Western Bulldogs and West Coast. 17 wins, instead of 10, and a top four spot.

Maybe now you'll appreciate why it's defense, rather than attack, that will get us where we want to go.

 

[BillyW]

So the whole "Our forward line sucks" argument got me thinking, and I decided to do some statistical analysis. The results will surprise.

Port Adelaide scored 2055 points from 1208 forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.70 points per entry. Adelaide, the best forward line in the competition, scored 2483 points from 1389 forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.79 points per entry.

If we kept the same ratio of scoring and just increased the amount of forward 50 entries to the level Adelaide had (that is, our side was as committed to the contest as Adelaide) we would have scored an extra 308 points. That's an extra 14 points per game...which would have got us wins against Carlton, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs.

Conversely, Port Adelaide conceded 1939 points from 1204 opposition forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.61 points per entry. Adelaide conceded 1795 points from 1195 entries, at a ratio of 1.50 points per entry. This is where the real issue was - the ease of which opposition sides could march the ball down and score. We had exactly 9 more entries into our defensive 50 than the Crows, yet they managed to concede 144 points less. That tells me that too many players were slacking off defensively and making it too easy for opposition players to get into easy positions to score.

If we want to make finals this year, it's not our forward line, but our defensive efforts that have to improve. The Bulldogs conceded only 1.38 points per opposition forward 50 entry. Sydney was 1.06. GWS 1.32.

What does this tell us? That having a dominant forward line is no real advantage in the modern game, but having a dominant defense is. The four preliminary finalists all had a defensive inside 50 to points conceded ratio of less than 1.5, and while GWS and the Dogs were evenly matched at 1.32 to 1.38, hence the closeness of the contest, Sydney and Geelong were miles apart with 1.06 to 1.44 - hence the blowout.

To put it another way - if Port and Sydney conceded the same amount of opposition forward 50 entries in a match (lets say 55), Sydney would be looking at 58 points against. Port, on the other hand, would be looking at 88 points against - a difference of 30 points.

Sydney and the Bulldogs are contested ball winning sides that make defense their primary focus. GWS is a side full of elite talent. Adelaide (1.5 points per entry) and West Coast (1.49 points per entry) are the level we should be aiming for. 1204 opposition entries at 1.5 points per entry (as opposed to the 1.61 we actually conceded) would have us conceding 1806 points over the season. That;s 249 points, or 11 points per game.

So in conclusion, if we kept our forward line scoring ratio exactly the same, increased the production of our midfield (forward 50 entries generated from defensive efforts) and focused more on defensive efforts to the level of a top eight team, we would be 25 points per game better off.

25 points is enough to win against Carlton, Hawthorn, GWS, Fremantle, Adelaide, Western Bulldogs and West Coast. 17 wins, instead of 10, and a top four spot.

Maybe now you'll appreciate why it's defense, rather than attack, that will get us where we want to go.

No real surprise there Janus.....the premiers have always been at the top defensively
There has been a lot of talk about the forward set up because I think personnel wise most think our defense is pretty good, me included.

I think the reason we give away those scores is because we turn the ball over way too often and way to easy around the middle of the ground creating fast breaks for the opposition to either catch our guys one out or hit there's on a lead.......
But I would agree our defensive efforts still need to get better

 

[Far Kern]

No real surprise there Janus.....the premiers have always been at the top defensively
There has been a lot of talk about the forward set up because I think personnel wise most think our defense is pretty good, me included.

I think the reason we give away those scores is because we turn the ball over way too often and way to easy around the middle of the ground creating fast breaks for the opposition to either catch our guys one out or hit there's on a lead.......
But I would agree our defensive efforts still need to get better

Nice move Matty. As you can tell there's some resistance to you playing on this board. It makes sense to ingratiate yourself first and then subtly bring the topic back up later.

 

[rignanv]

So the whole "Our forward line sucks" argument got me thinking, and I decided to do some statistical analysis. The results will surprise.

Port Adelaide scored 2055 points from 1208 forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.70 points per entry. Adelaide, the best forward line in the competition, scored 2483 points from 1389 forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.79 points per entry.

If we kept the same ratio of scoring and just increased the amount of forward 50 entries to the level Adelaide had (that is, our side was as committed to the contest as Adelaide) we would have scored an extra 308 points. That's an extra 14 points per game...which would have got us wins against Carlton, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs.

Conversely, Port Adelaide conceded 1939 points from 1204 opposition forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.61 points per entry. Adelaide conceded 1795 points from 1195 entries, at a ratio of 1.50 points per entry. This is where the real issue was - the ease of which opposition sides could march the ball down and score. We had exactly 9 more entries into our defensive 50 than the Crows, yet they managed to concede 144 points less. That tells me that too many players were slacking off defensively and making it too easy for opposition players to get into easy positions to score.

If we want to make finals this year, it's not our forward line, but our defensive efforts that have to improve. The Bulldogs conceded only 1.38 points per opposition forward 50 entry. Sydney was 1.06. GWS 1.32.

What does this tell us? That having a dominant forward line is no real advantage in the modern game, but having a dominant defense is. The four preliminary finalists all had a defensive inside 50 to points conceded ratio of less than 1.5, and while GWS and the Dogs were evenly matched at 1.32 to 1.38, hence the closeness of the contest, Sydney and Geelong were miles apart with 1.06 to 1.44 - hence the blowout.

To put it another way - if Port and Sydney conceded the same amount of opposition forward 50 entries in a match (lets say 55), Sydney would be looking at 58 points against. Port, on the other hand, would be looking at 88 points against - a difference of 30 points.

Sydney and the Bulldogs are contested ball winning sides that make defense their primary focus. GWS is a side full of elite talent. Adelaide (1.5 points per entry) and West Coast (1.49 points per entry) are the level we should be aiming for. 1204 opposition entries at 1.5 points per entry (as opposed to the 1.61 we actually conceded) would have us conceding 1806 points over the season. That;s 249 points, or 11 points per game.

So in conclusion, if we kept our forward line scoring ratio exactly the same, increased the production of our midfield (forward 50 entries generated from defensive efforts) and focused more on defensive efforts to the level of a top eight team, we would be 25 points per game better off.

25 points is enough to win against Carlton, Hawthorn, GWS, Fremantle, Adelaide, Western Bulldogs and West Coast. 17 wins, instead of 10, and a top four spot.

Maybe now you'll appreciate why it's defense, rather than attack, that will get us where we want to go.

Great post and analysis. I think it's the midfield, rather than the back 6, who is to blame. Like you say, too many times players running through without any pressure on them whatsoever giving them lots of time and space to find the right option. Plus we tried the press unsuccessfully early resulting in many goals where players ran in unmarked to the goal square. We got better as the season went on at that though

 

[BillyW]

Nice move Matty. As you can tell there's some resistance to you playing on this board. It makes sense to ingratiate yourself first and then subtly bring the topic back up later.

I'll leave the previous topic alone until my form can back my words.....could be a long hiatus...but hopefully i told em so! [emoji6]

BillyW on the go....

 

[Schulzenfest]

So the whole "Our forward line sucks" argument got me thinking, and I decided to do some statistical analysis. The results will surprise.

Port Adelaide scored 2055 points from 1208 forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.70 points per entry. Adelaide, the best forward line in the competition, scored 2483 points from 1389 forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.79 points per entry.

If we kept the same ratio of scoring and just increased the amount of forward 50 entries to the level Adelaide had (that is, our side was as committed to the contest as Adelaide) we would have scored an extra 308 points. That's an extra 14 points per game...which would have got us wins against Carlton, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs.

Conversely, Port Adelaide conceded 1939 points from 1204 opposition forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.61 points per entry. Adelaide conceded 1795 points from 1195 entries, at a ratio of 1.50 points per entry. This is where the real issue was - the ease of which opposition sides could march the ball down and score. We had exactly 9 more entries into our defensive 50 than the Crows, yet they managed to concede 144 points less. That tells me that too many players were slacking off defensively and making it too easy for opposition players to get into easy positions to score.

If we want to make finals this year, it's not our forward line, but our defensive efforts that have to improve. The Bulldogs conceded only 1.38 points per opposition forward 50 entry. Sydney was 1.06. GWS 1.32.

What does this tell us? That having a dominant forward line is no real advantage in the modern game, but having a dominant defense is. The four preliminary finalists all had a defensive inside 50 to points conceded ratio of less than 1.5, and while GWS and the Dogs were evenly matched at 1.32 to 1.38, hence the closeness of the contest, Sydney and Geelong were miles apart with 1.06 to 1.44 - hence the blowout.

To put it another way - if Port and Sydney conceded the same amount of opposition forward 50 entries in a match (lets say 55), Sydney would be looking at 58 points against. Port, on the other hand, would be looking at 88 points against - a difference of 30 points.

Sydney and the Bulldogs are contested ball winning sides that make defense their primary focus. GWS is a side full of elite talent. Adelaide (1.5 points per entry) and West Coast (1.49 points per entry) are the level we should be aiming for. 1204 opposition entries at 1.5 points per entry (as opposed to the 1.61 we actually conceded) would have us conceding 1806 points over the season. That;s 249 points, or 11 points per game.

So in conclusion, if we kept our forward line scoring ratio exactly the same, increased the production of our midfield (forward 50 entries generated from defensive efforts) and focused more on defensive efforts to the level of a top eight team, we would be 25 points per game better off.

25 points is enough to win against Carlton, Hawthorn, GWS, Fremantle, Adelaide, Western Bulldogs and West Coast. 17 wins, instead of 10, and a top four spot.

Maybe now you'll appreciate why it's defense, rather than attack, that will get us where we want to go.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-01-07/the-good-stat

"Their defence also held up well when under attack, conceding goals less than a quarter of the time their opponents went inside 50, which ranked fourth".

And what does the same article say about the Crows' attack which you derided earlier in the thread?

"The Crows were the only team to convert over 50% of their inside 50's last season".

 

[Janus]

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-01-07/the-good-stat

"Their defence also held up well when under attack, conceding goals less than a quarter of the time their opponents went inside 50, which ranked fourth".

And what does the same article say about the Crows' attack which you derided earlier in the thread?

"The Crows were the only team to convert over 50% of their inside 50's last season".

I never doubted their attack. I said it doesn't matter how good it is if their midfield is shit, because that's what generates scoring entries.

As for defense - yeah, if you go by goals conceded it looks fantastic. But guess what? When opposition sides kicked a point, and we brought the ball out of defense only to turn it over again and then they kick another point...and then the kick a goal from the next turnover - the stats will say 'Port Adelaide conceded 1 goal from 3 entries!' when the reality is, we turned the ball over 3 times and allowed 3 scoring shots. That's not defense, that's Russian roulette. And how many times did we lose playing that little game?

1650 of the the 1939 points were from goals. That means 289 points were conceded - that's another 13 points per game that you want to ignore to say our defense (and by defense I don't mean our back six, I mean the entire side) was good enough.

I think our back six is great. I'm more talking about the lack of defensive accountability from our midfielders and forwards - and it's not going to fix itself by playing another tall when our forward scoring ratio was more than acceptable given the lack of entries we had due to being pressured in the midfield.

 

[philreich]

CHB or CHF .. geez don't think he will ever play those positions. Ruck or nothing.
Have been watching matches 2014-15 and all he can do is lumber about. Players go past him at twice the speed.

When your ruckman actually takes a mark, and you're greatly surprised by this, there's a problem. In recent times, Lobbe has done so little around the ground, that he's become a liability.

 

[Pedro59]

So the whole "Our forward line sucks" argument got me thinking, and I decided to do some statistical analysis. The results will surprise.

Port Adelaide scored 2055 points from 1208 forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.70 points per entry. Adelaide, the best forward line in the competition, scored 2483 points from 1389 forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.79 points per entry.

If we kept the same ratio of scoring and just increased the amount of forward 50 entries to the level Adelaide had (that is, our side was as committed to the contest as Adelaide) we would have scored an extra 308 points. That's an extra 14 points per game...which would have got us wins against Carlton, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs.

Conversely, Port Adelaide conceded 1939 points from 1204 opposition forward 50 entries, at a ratio of 1.61 points per entry. Adelaide conceded 1795 points from 1195 entries, at a ratio of 1.50 points per entry. This is where the real issue was - the ease of which opposition sides could march the ball down and score. We had exactly 9 more entries into our defensive 50 than the Crows, yet they managed to concede 144 points less. That tells me that too many players were slacking off defensively and making it too easy for opposition players to get into easy positions to score.

If we want to make finals this year, it's not our forward line, but our defensive efforts that have to improve. The Bulldogs conceded only 1.38 points per opposition forward 50 entry. Sydney was 1.06. GWS 1.32.

What does this tell us? That having a dominant forward line is no real advantage in the modern game, but having a dominant defense is. The four preliminary finalists all had a defensive inside 50 to points conceded ratio of less than 1.5, and while GWS and the Dogs were evenly matched at 1.32 to 1.38, hence the closeness of the contest, Sydney and Geelong were miles apart with 1.06 to 1.44 - hence the blowout.

To put it another way - if Port and Sydney conceded the same amount of opposition forward 50 entries in a match (lets say 55), Sydney would be looking at 58 points against. Port, on the other hand, would be looking at 88 points against - a difference of 30 points.

Sydney and the Bulldogs are contested ball winning sides that make defense their primary focus. GWS is a side full of elite talent. Adelaide (1.5 points per entry) and West Coast (1.49 points per entry) are the level we should be aiming for. 1204 opposition entries at 1.5 points per entry (as opposed to the 1.61 we actually conceded) would have us conceding 1806 points over the season. That;s 249 points, or 11 points per game.

So in conclusion, if we kept our forward line scoring ratio exactly the same, increased the production of our midfield (forward 50 entries generated from defensive efforts) and focused more on defensive efforts to the level of a top eight team, we would be 25 points per game better off.

25 points is enough to win against Carlton, Hawthorn, GWS, Fremantle, Adelaide, Western Bulldogs and West Coast. 17 wins, instead of 10, and a top four spot.

Maybe now you'll appreciate why it's defense, rather than attack, that will get us where we want to go.

When you watch our defence

They aint that bad....,

Its just that the ball is coming in so much

In a few of my posts I have been harping on about our total inability to mark the ball from a friggen kick out from the D50 whether from a kickout after a point is scored against us or from a D50 clearance

What other teams do is mark the kick out on the wing....a midfielder runs past and is given the ball and nek minit they have an entry into their F50

What we do ( seems every friggen time) is kick out from the D50..
It is either marked by them or smashed to the ground and a contest and either way comes straight back in to our D50

Rinse and repeat

There folks is Janus's unequal ratio of defence vs forward scores right there and can be improved by getting more marks ,tactics and ownership from the kickouts alone

I believe that improving just this part of our game would have got us into finals last season

Then add winning more clearances and better entries, postioning, structure and personel in the forward line and we are now pumping

I also reckon our skills and drills training wasn't good enough across the board last year .

 

[Janus]

When you watch our defence

They aint that bad....,

Its just that the ball is coming in so much

In a few of my posts I have been harping on about our total inability to mark the ball from a friggen kick out from the D50 whether from a kickout after a point is scored against us or from a D50 clearance

What other teams do is mark the kick out on the wing....a midfielder runs past and is given the ball and nek minit they have an entry into their F50

What we do ( seems every friggen time) is kick out from the D50..
It is either marked by them or smashed to the ground and a contest and either way comes straight back in to our D50

Rinse and repeat

There folks is Janus's unequal ratio of defence vs forward scores right there and can be improved by getting more marks ,tactics and ownership from the kickouts alone

I believe that improving just this part of our game would have got us into finals last season

Then add winning more clearances and better entries, postioning, structure and personel in the forward line and we are now pumping

I also reckon our skills and drills training wasn't good enough across the board last year .

Our defenders (the back six inside defensive 50) are great.

Our defense (the rest of the side helping out the defenders by concentrating on making sure they pressure the ball carrier through forward and midfield) is not.

That's why you get your easy overlaps through the midfield like you mention. Who is tracking those runners? "Who cares, it's somebody else's problem," says our midfield. No, it's YOUR problem. Complementary football says that the midfield helps out the defense as much as possible. That was something that we could control (our potency in attack was a direct result of lack of clearance numbers) and we dropped the ball. Again.

So while top eight teams would push opposition forwards into the kind of spaces we deride our team for being pushed towards (pockets), making it harder for the forwards to create scoring shots, we would roll out the red carpet and say 'come in to our defensive 50 and put our defenders under pressure'.

If we're in pursuit of mastery, defense is where it starts. Defense creates EVERYTHING, because every goal you don't concede is one you don't have to score.

 

[PatientMental]

Aren't we glad we have Voss teaching our mids to be self centered while at the same time putting all of their efforts into self preservation.