Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Backline/defence

  • Thread starter Thread starter manboob
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

manboob

manboob

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts The Cult of Robbo
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Posts
28,079
Reaction score
35,083
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
#rompingwins
So this season has again seen the return of Bartel to our backline alongside Cowan, Ruggles and at times Guthrie. With Thurlow looking more likely to miss the rest of the season our remaining options are as follows:

Plan A
Lonergan - 197cm
Taylor - 193cm
Henderson - 196cm
Kolo - 192cm
Enright - 187cm

Plan B
Mackie - 1192cm
Ruggles - 185cm
Bartel - 187cm
Guthrie - 186cm
Cowan - 184cm
Bews - 181cm


Simply, this is a place to have a yarn about our best back 6 or 8. And who should make it up. There has been much consternation on this board about how the backline lines up. Especially when it comes to Bartel, Guthrie and Cowan. I think, the reason they are down there is to mop up when the ball hits the ground and take small forwards. However, there must be more to it than that because simply they don't really seem the best option to do this.

So are they guarding space? Filling holes? Being shoe-horned into the side?

Please don't turn into another lame shit fight about our coach instead, if you are able to - offer some in-depth analysis about what is taking place.

Obviously, this discussion is coloured by our backline of years past which contained Scarlett, Harley, Milburn, Hunt and Wojo. Which I might add had the benefit of a stronger midfield which allowed them time and space to absorb forward attacks from opposition teams.

So that may make it a broader discussion about team defence which starts from our forward line... or does it.

2014-04-14-archer1.jpg
 
On the positive side of things, most of the guys above are capable of doing a fine job in defense depending upon the makeup of the opposition and how things pan out on the day. With the exception of Lonergan perhaps, all the bigger guys are pretty mobile, and the smaller guys give us a bit of flexibility as most of them are creative enough to play elsewhere. I suppose when you're assembling an on-paper best 22 you're looking for perfection but even at our best a few years ago we'd have an opposition or individual get under our guard every now and again. Slippery small forwards seemed to always cause us problems whether it was Josh Hunt trying to play on one, or James Kelly, or Bewsy of late.

Ruggles & Cowan I suppose are unknown quantities down there, so we'll just have to wait and see. I'd be giving Bewsy the first crack at the opposition's best small forward, 2 AFL seasons in I'm not sure we've seen enough to write him off. Like others I just don't see the benefit of playing Jimmy down there. The club would know what his physical capabilities are I suppose but I'd prefer him as a bit of an inside workhorse in the middle when required and floating around the forward line kicking the odd goal, we know he is a terrific mark for his size.

The kick-ins are a bit of a worry now though, Hunt & then Thurlow were giving us something there that the no one else has quite been able to give us.

Hopefully we are more competitive all over the ground this year so it might not even be an issue at all!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Cezz The Catter said:
Get around Parsons as a potential role filler. Looks like Ruggles will easily get the rookie upgrade however.
Click to expand...
Parsons isn't in full training yet due to a stress reaction IIRC
 
ChookNorris said:
Parsons isn't in full training yet due to a stress reaction IIRC
Click to expand...

Aware mate, been watching him pretty close... however if he does come back he is a very good cantidate. Similiar to Thurlow with disposal, outside game is better then Thurlows though imo. But Thurlow has him covered everywhere else, consistency, contested possesions, body, etc. Similiar stature though. Love to see hIm play
 
sarah.13 said:
Think we will know more after we play Fremantle next week.
Walters and Ballantyne will be a very good test.
Liked the look of Ruggles, his disposal was neat and he looked composed with ball in hand.
Click to expand...

Good to see you posting.....

Be interesting to see how Ruggles goes against better opposition.
 
Quite simply we're trying to get speed back there as I'm sure the coaching staff would be sick of opposition small forwards carving us up each week forever and we also want to develop speed on the rebound.

Bartel was always going to play loose back because as I said previously he has no speed, can't jump anymore, doesn't win the contested ball, and so has no weapons that are useful forward, unfortunately these days he needs extractors to get it out to him where they hope he'll be able to use it from defence.

By the late rounds of the season I doubt he'll be getting a game, I reckon they'll get his 17 in to him and then phase him out for GHS, Cowan, or if we have both Selwood's in, Guthrie.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

BlightysCats said:
Quite simply we're trying to get speed back there as I'm sure the coaching staff would be sick of opposition small forwards carving us up each week forever and we want to develop speed on the rebound. Bartel was always going to play loose back because as I said previously he has no speed, can't jump anymore, doesn't win the contested ball and so has no weapons that are useful forward, unfortunately these days he needs extractors to get it out to him where they hope he'll be able to use it from defence.
Click to expand...

Just really can't see him playing back mate, we are already far to slow back there and bartel and enright would be a bad combination on the flanks. If he plays forward he could easily play a lead forward role while going on the wing or the guts for stints. Hes a good ball winner and hes still got his jooks.

Also how do you conclusively say he cant jump anymore, because he hasn't taken a hanger in a while? I dunno mate I just don't think you can write his froward game off completely.
 
Defense is based on work rate. You either want to outnumber your opponent at the ball or where the ball is going to be. I believe that there isn't too much different in the total work rate done between teams but some teams offensive games require less running to "work" then others which leaves more in the tank for two way running.

Our defensive workrate has been shit the last few years since our offensive game was so dependent on rebounding off half back which is pretty much your only option when your clearance work is so deficient. It's easier to flood than it is to use a forward press so that what we've been doing. We get cut open when the other team rebounding faster than we can get numbers back since we're not doing much up the ground to slow them down.

It's all linked, fix the ruck and the clearances and our offensive game becomes more efficient. Our players have more in the tank for two way running, we start defending higher up the ground, we're less likely to be out numbered down back and allow easy goals over the top.

At the same time the other teams offensive game becomes less efficient since they're not as dominant in the ruck, their offensive game requires more
running which means there defensive running isn't as good.
 
Cezz The Catter said:
Just really can't see him playing back mate, we are already far to slow back there and bartel and enright would be a bad combination on the flanks. If he plays forward he could easily play a lead forward role while going on the wing or the guts for stints. He once was a good ball winner and hes still got his jooks.

Also how do you conclusively say he cant jump anymore, because he hasn't taken a hanger in a while? I dunno mate I just don't think you can write his froward game off completely.
Click to expand...
They'll just use rotations from the midfield to limit all of our slow guys being in defence at once. Bartel might get a bit of time in the middle but will mainly play loose in defence. The biggest problem I see for us with Bartel back is if tactically aware opposition coaches don't allow us an extra in defence and make him accountable because then they could really exploit him.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Having not taken part in the previous discussions, defence is a concern for me. It's reliant on old and slowing players (who were never that quick to start with) and Thurlow was both a big hope and an important part of the side in defence. I assume we will continue to play tall and seek to dominate the air, which will leave us exposed to small forwards as usual.

We have had the luxury for many years of being able to contain big forwards through Harry and Domsy and they are a big chance to have some guys get away from them this year.

Cowan will not make it IMO. Bews should be persisted with. We need Guthrie both back and mid, and I don't think Ruggles we can rely on. Many thoughts not many answers though.
 
Cowan and bews both no good.
Our best small defender by far is Guthrie just have to look at the preliminary a few years a go when he shut Rioli out of it. He plays down there he will go close to All Australian squad!
 
Sel2hawk said:
Cowan and bews both no good.
Our best small defender by far is Guthrie just have to look at the preliminary a few years a go when he shut Rioli out of it. He plays down there he will go close to All Australian squad!
Click to expand...
He's too valuable either off HB or through the midfield to be a lock-down small defender. They need to develop someone else
 
10lana said:
Defense is based on work rate. You either want to outnumber your opponent at the ball or where the ball is going to be. I believe that there isn't too much different in the total work rate done between teams but some teams offensive games require less running to "work" then others which leaves more in the tank for two way running.

Our defensive workrate has been shit the last few years since our offensive game was so dependent on rebounding off half back which is pretty much your only option when your clearance work is so deficient. It's easier to flood than it is to use a forward press so that what we've been doing. We get cut open when the other team rebounding faster than we can get numbers back since we're not doing much up the ground to slow them down.

It's all linked, fix the ruck and the clearances and our offensive game becomes more efficient. Our players have more in the tank for two way running, we start defending higher up the ground, we're less likely to be out numbered down back and allow easy goals over the top.

At the same time the other teams offensive game becomes less efficient since they're not as dominant in the ruck, their offensive game requires more
running which means there defensive running isn't as good.
Click to expand...
Great post. And I think we're already starting to see it. From what we have seen in the first two NABs our approach to bringing the ball out of defence isn't as kamikazee as it used to be. It doesn't rely on flinging it forward as quickly as we can. We are happy to maintain possession and switch sides of the ground until the right approach opens up rather than incessantly attacking the corridor and flipping the ball around by hand (high risk/high reward/very predictable).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom