2nd Qtr myth

Moti

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Posts
9,593
Likes
4,971
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Thread starter #1
I have just finished watching the game again and I don't know if anyone else picked up on it but the forward structure was the least of our worries during the quarter. Majak was only on half the quarter while Petrie and Black were there fully so the 3 talls wasn't operating all that much. In fact our first 6 entries were when Daw was off the ground and we operated with Nahas and Ziebell forward. We also had shots on goal, just missed a lot.

The midfield got smashed and that is why we were down. Then in the third, magically, we win the midfield and we get plenty of goals due to our forward thrusts almost every time being made with little to no Tiger pressure.

My concern is changing the 3 talls may affect the team as whole and that will result in a poor performance. I think it is a myth to say Petrie had more space, Black certainly didn't. Maybe waiting one more week to drop daw for Tarrant may be better than potentially giving up that structure.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RinoRoo

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Posts
306
Likes
324
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#2
The game turned on clearances and contested ball. Really nothing to do with Maj who I thought played his best quarter for the year in the first.

When we lose it is because we are being smashed in the middle and turning it over transitioning from half back to half forward. If the mids are awake and running hard for four quarters we should be in the game against anyone.
 

the big lebowski

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Posts
8,524
Likes
12,958
Location
The hood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#3
Yes and no. Sure Maj had nothing to do with the second quarter. And as you say, winning contested footy was the main reason for our dominance.

However, most of our goals came from Petrie. And the question then becomes, would he have had the same impact if Maj was out there.

The answer is............. we will never know.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Posts
2,683
Likes
5,182
Location
Mumbai Dustbowl
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Parthiv Patel
#4
Forward structure wasn't why we were losing at half time, but that's not the point is it?

We've had stages this year where we've been as dominant around the ball as we were in that third quarter (not too many quarters more dominant, but a few patches nevertheless) but we haven't looked as lethal as we have in the forward line this year as we did on Sunday after half time.
 

JD-Roo

Premiership Player
Joined
May 31, 2007
Posts
4,111
Likes
5,772
Location
Kilmore-East
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#5
The game turned on clearances and contested ball. Really nothing to do with Maj who I thought played his best quarter for the year in the first.

When we lose it is because we are being smashed in the middle and turning it over transitioning from half back to half forward. If the mids are awake and running hard for four quarters we should be in the game against anyone.
Agree 100%
 

Thewlis Dish

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
25,368
Likes
18,560
Location
Five Star Laundry
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
FGR
#6
Petrie deep and Black as the lead up option in the third made a world of difference.

But 90% of footy is midfield based. A dominant midfield will mask any attacking and defensive deficiencies.
 

RinoRoo

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Posts
306
Likes
324
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#8
I think the move that had the most impact on our forward line was putting Harvey deep. Little master conjured goals every time he touched it.
 

Istanbul Roo

All Australian
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Posts
720
Likes
950
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#9
I have just finished watching the game again and I don't know if anyone else picked up on it but the forward structure was the least of our worries during the quarter. Majak was only on half the quarter while Petrie and Black were there fully so the 3 talls wasn't operating all that much. In fact our first 6 entries were when Daw was off the ground and we operated with Nahas and Ziebell forward. We also had shots on goal, just missed a lot.

The midfield got smashed and that is why we were down. Then in the third, magically, we win the midfield and we get plenty of goals due to our forward thrusts almost every time being made with little to no Tiger pressure.

My concern is changing the 3 talls may affect the team as whole and that will result in a poor performance. I think it is a myth to say Petrie had more space, Black certainly didn't. Maybe waiting one more week to drop daw for Tarrant may be better than potentially giving up that structure.
Moti, good analysis. At the game I thought we were dominant in first 5 minutes or so of second quarter, cunners, ziebell missed gettable goals, and then the match turned. Nothing to do with Maj. In 3rd quarter we killed them in the centre. Didn't let tiges get it out, forced a secondary ball-up and then squirted it away. Best and most determined centre display for the year I thought. Swallow, Greenwood and Cunnington excellent, and Ziebell, Dal Santo and Anthony good back-ups.
Just on Anthony: sitting in the close pocket in last quarter when he turned it over, it was Patch's fault more I thought. Called for the ball, then waited for it to come. I'm surpised that Thompson is in Connolly's best 22 (in Age), was poor and weekend and insisted in trying to beat the tackle before handballing it off. Caught every time and lucky not to be pinged for incorrect disposal.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Posts
514
Likes
442
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#11
Petrie deep and Black as the lead up option in the third made a world of difference.

But 90% of footy is midfield based. A dominant midfield will mask any attacking and defensive deficiencies.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Just have to remember the Collingwood game...so easy to blame the defenders but not even West Coast's 1992 defence could have saved us that day.

So much of the forward line's efficiency is really just kicking it to the advantage of your forwards - into 1 on 1s, and on the preferred 'side' for the forward.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tas

Premium Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Posts
52,068
Likes
33,041
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
#12
I said in one of the post match threads that Daw wasn't the problem, Anthony didn't play a major role and our forward 50 entries in the second half were much deeper, we used the corridor and the ball came in a lot faster which didn't give Richmond time to get numbers back or setup a defensive structure.

Daw would have had a much higher probability of flourishing had the ball came rocketing in when he was on the ground.

However, without Daw we pushed Ziebell forward a lot more and I think him lifting was also one of the significant factors, he created goals, took marks and kicked goals around half forward and gave him greater confidence when he pushed up the ground.

While Daw isn't necessarily the problem, I think we are probably going to cause more problems for teams with a more mobile forward line... if we use the corridor like we did in the second half and if we move the ball faster, like we did in the second half. There is more a psychological issue with the players that when you have a lot of talls you can just pump rubbish kicks to anywhere in the forward 50, they were more mindful in the second half that they either had to go to the hot spot quickly or they had to hit up targets so went to the attacking side of the midfield before launching inside 50 a lot more often, we are much better at those short-to-medium range passes than the long passes.
 

Harris 10

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Posts
8,858
Likes
13,087
Location
hgfhkagk
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#13
What did change from the first half other than the midfield dominance was the movement in our forward half.

The first half Black, Petrie and Daw played like statues in the forward half. After Daw went off Petrie and Black were forced to move and because of Daw being off they actually had the room to move.

Black / Petrie pushed up doubled back created space behind for Ziebell, Harvey, Nahas and the like to work in to. Richmond couldn't get a third man up because we actually had space and areas of the forward 50 to move towards.

This is how we should play in my opinion and its what made us score so heavily last year.
 

Ocha905

Club Legend
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Posts
1,031
Likes
1,258
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Dallas Mavericks & Stars, Liverpool
#16
Petrie deep and Black as the lead up option in the third made a world of difference.

But 90% of footy is midfield based. A dominant midfield will mask any attacking and defensive deficiencies.
And that's why midfielders win brownlows...
 
Top Bottom