Backline Woes

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

I think we put a lot of eggs in the Seedsman basket and lost out a bit there. Need that metres gained type half back desperately to control our rebounds.

 

[frizzle]

It really isn't. We all know at least Sinclair, Toovey, Frost and Williams can defend.

Williams is the best of the bunch when attacking, while it's hard to judge Maynard and Marsh and Langdon is more of a Jack of all trades.

I'm telling you, it is purely coming down to the gameplan. For some reason or another, they are being coached to defend that way and it's just not working.

I refuse to believe that the players of Sinclair, Toovey, Frost and Williams, all who at one point another we were raving for legitimate reasons about their defending, have all suddenly gone to shit purely based on their performance.

It's the gameplan.

Absolutely correct. Our game plan requires every player pushing up to block space. This leaves forwards out the back with way too much room to work in & our defenders have no hope of getting back in time to stop them. Let them defend one on one & then we don't give up 6 goals to spuds like Vickery.

 

[Sunbot]

I observed from ground level the major structural weakness of our back line against the Tigers. It wasn't game plan. It wasn't match ups. It wasn't coordination of the backs. It wasn't transition of kicking or the so called "nothing to play for". It wasn't gear failure, surface conditions or leadership. And it wasn't the old adage that the ball was coming in too quickly or even the perennial it's been a long season. The key problem was a passenger, a non footballer, a bruise free player, the Jonah. Sinclair. Rubbish. Delist.

 

[ppoiter]

Ben Reid going back will make a positive difference. Hard to pinpoint exactly what's going wrong but we are far too easy to score against. On a related topic, does anyone have any stats for goals conceded in the final minute of a quarter? Would be surprised if we're not the worst in the comp

 

[jmac70]

I observed from ground level the major structural weakness of our back line against the Tigers. It wasn't game plan. It wasn't match ups. It wasn't coordination of the backs. It wasn't transition of kicking or the so called "nothing to play for". It wasn't gear failure, surface conditions or leadership. And it wasn't the old adage that the ball was coming in too quickly or even the perennial it's been a long season. The key problem was a passenger, a non footballer, a bruise free player, the Jonah. Sinclair. Rubbish. Delist.

Let me guess, if we had not played Sinclair we would have won?

 

[jmac70]

Ben Reid going back will make a positive difference. Hard to pinpoint exactly what's going wrong but we are far too easy to score against. On a related topic, does anyone have any stats for goals conceded in the final minute of a quarter? Would be surprised if we're not the worst in the comp

Should have happened at the start of the game.

 

[Buckley is my hero]

Williams was our best defender yesterday. Frost was OK. Sinclair was serviceable. By the time Reid went back the flood gates had opened. Maynard and Marsh were both terrible. Our best most experienced defender didn't play which might explain why two first year players with a handful of games were overalled by the situation. Brown was the natural choice to play on Vickery, so we were undersized in the back line. You know you're in trouble when you end up having to play 188cm Toovey on 200cm Vickery.

 

[Buckley is my hero]

Should have happened at the start of the game.

All hypothetical.

 

[jmac70]

All hypothetical.

How so?

 

[Sunbot]

Let me guess, if we had not played Sinclair we would have won?

No we would have lost, but not by 91

 

[cleomenes]

The undersized argument doesn't wash. West Coast are managing that. Our inability to break out of defence quickly, with accurate kicks, as all of our opponents do is our major problem. Our defenders have no confidence in their kicking, with good reason in some cases, will not make risky kicks to players that are only just free (instructions I presume) and therefore only rarely produce a surprise change of angle as they go forward. Because the angle of attack is always predictable, the forwards are almost always covered.
The solution is less easy to see than the problem. Changing to a less safety first method will inevitably see more turnovers before the passes start to land and the marks under pressure start to stick. We are going to complain bitterly about that. The coaches will have to be mentally very strong to take that path.
Suddenly finding half a dozen blindingly fast players who kick with laser accuracy and mark like John Coleman is the easy fix.

 

[jmac70]

The undersized argument doesn't wash. West Coast are managing that. Our inability to break out of defence quickly, with accurate kicks, as all of our opponents do is our major problem. Our defenders have no confidence in their kicking, with good reason in some cases, will not make risky kicks to players that are only just free (instructions I presume) and therefore only rarely produce a surprise change of angle as they go forward. Because the angle of attack is always predictable, the forwards are almost always covered.
The solution is less easy to see than the problem. Changing to a less safety first method will inevitably see more turnovers before the passes start to land and the marks under pressure start to stick. We are going to complain bitterly about that. The coaches will have to be mentally very strong to take that path.
Suddenly finding half a dozen blindingly fast players who kick with laser accuracy and mark like John Coleman is the easy fix.

Richmond flooded our forward line yesterday and when we turned it over were able to move the ball very quickly and accurately to score heavily. Seems to be a pretty standard way to beat Collingwood and expect it to continue next Friday.

 

[mike123]

Richmond flooded our forward line yesterday and when we turned it over were able to move the ball very quickly and accurately to score heavily. Seems to be a pretty standard way to beat Collingwood and expect it to continue next Friday.

We flooded our forwardline as well. The amount of times I saw Toover charging in there was ridiculous.

 

[jmac70]

We flooded our forwardline as well. The amount of times I saw Toover charging in there was ridiculous.

We played right into Richmond's strengths. It was the equivalent of soccer teams playing on the break. The rebound they got off their half back line was enormous.

 

[Maggie5]

Toovey was the most experience player on the backline. We missed Goldsack and Brown therefore there was no-one down there to organise the group.
If only Maxwell could have stayed fit enough for one more year.

 

[HFF]

It's the system, not the personnel.

Agree to an extent.
System is broken, however that back six he mentions have no football intelligence or actual rebound ability ball in hand. They are all poor ball users and poor decision maker. You can only cover the cracks from "pressure" up field for so long.
We cannot start any chains of attacks from defence. It's sad.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

You just learn to ignore the toxic posters
See their names, skip.
Constructive criticism fair enough, reasoned argument fair enough
But some just bag everything, everyone all the time. But they are perfect without flaw.

It must be hard being so perfect and "supporting" an imperfect team

There are also posters at the other end of the spectrum who trot out the same old defences week after week about the players being young and injuries taking their toll. To me these posters are unwilling to be honest about the genuine worth of individual players (e.g. Langdon's lack of pace and ordinary disposal doesn't stop him being hailed a future star by posters who refuse to see his deficiencies). Too often the discussion in these threads is between those who refuse to see negatives versus those who see no positives. Our position on the ladder where we are placed firmly in the lower half of the competition is a reliable indicator of where we are at as a club. I find it unhelpful posters saying week after week that only inexperience is holding us back when it is painfully obvious that we lack class and have too many players who cannot kick a football.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I think we put a lot of eggs in the Seedsman basket and lost out a bit there. Need that metres gained type half back desperately to control our rebounds.

For several years Seedsman has been hailed as the messiah on this forum. Now, we are all pretty much in agreement about his ability and his delistment would ruffle very few feathers. He is not the only player whose worth has been overvalued. There is as much danger in positivity that refuses to acknowledge flaws or vulnerability as there is in blind negativity.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

There are also posters at the other end of the spectrum who trot out the same old defences week after week about the players being young and injuries taking their toll. To me these posters are unwilling to be honest about the genuine worth of individual players (e.g. Langdon's lack of pace and ordinary disposal doesn't stop him being heiled a future star by posters who refuse to see his deficiencies). Too often the discussion in these threads is between those who refuse to see negatives versus those who see no positives. Our position on the ladder where we are placed firmly in the lower half of the competition is a reliable indicator of where we are at as a club. I find it unhelpful posters saying week after week that only inexperience is holding us back when it is painfully obvious that we lack class and have too many players who cannot kick a football.

Is is a very fair point and correct.
Both ends of the spectrum are annoying in their way.
Constructive critisism is fair enough.
In general though those who are always negative have a tendency to be extra nasty.
By all means discussion is fair with all points of view, but my only beef is even in my short time here I can see the same few names who only say negative things, every time
Eg Buckley can't coach, Buckley this, Buckley that
If that's what they think fair enough
But it's a bit sad, I'm my opinion, to fe so negative and nasty all the time, must be very draining and not a good space to be in.
But each to their own

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Is is a very fair point and correct.
Both ends of the spectrum are annoying in their way.
Constructive critisism is fair enough.
In general though those who are always negative have a tendency to be extra nasty.
By all means discussion is fair with all points of view, but my only beef is even in my short time here I can see the same few names who only say negative things, every time
Eg Buckley can't coach, Buckley this, Buckley that
If that's what they think fair enough
But it's a bit sad, I'm my opinion, to fe so negative and nasty all the time, must be very draining and not a good space to be in.
But each to their own

I agree with you. Objectivity is what is required to make an accurate assessment of the team's worth. I am not anti Buckley as a coach, but the zone defence, ordinary disposal skills and some aspects of our recruiting do concern me. I have also been an avid supporter of the likes of Oxley, but realise now that I overlooked a lack of pace and at times courage in my positive assessment of him. Yet there is still a poster in this thread suggesting he can play an important role in the rebirth of our winning formula. Frost was heralded as a great defensive pick up but we are now seeing him trail opponents without providing any kind of offensive rebound. Positivity is great but lets not lose sight of reality when we demand that negative posters be more balanced in their opinions.

 

[Pendles!]

For several years Seedsman has been hailed as the messiah on this forum.

I always thought that was a piss take?

 

[wicksy]

The player switch has to stop..... Every goal Richmond scored was due to Collingwood defenders leaving their man to pressure the player with the ball. F#@& bullsh#t game plan is what it is!

 

[Obese Arachnid]

For several years Seedsman has been hailed as the messiah on this forum. Now, we are all pretty much in agreement about his ability and his delistment would ruffle very few feathers. He is not the only player whose worth has been overvalued. There is as much danger in positivity that refuses to acknowledge flaws or vulnerability as there is in blind negativity.

I think you'll find some rated him, a lot just enjoyed the ride of the jokes, kinda like TBS.

 

[sr36]

Agree to an extent.
System is broken, however that back six he mentions have no football intelligence or actual rebound ability ball in hand. They are all poor ball users and poor decision maker. You can only cover the cracks from "pressure" up field for so long.
We cannot start any chains of attacks from defence. It's sad.

You're right about the lack of ability with ball in hand costing us rebound - don't agree about the lack of football intellgence. From a personnel point of view, I think that it's the biggest issue that we've faced this year. However, if Reid goes back, Scharenberg comes good and Marley, Maynard, Langdon and Ramsay develop - it may not be an issue.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I always thought that was a piss take?

To some extent it was a pisstake but I believe more so because supporters saw him as a solution to our inoffensive back line, someone who had pace and could kick. He became a cult hero, perhaps partly because he was injured so much of the time that we didn't get to realise through regularly watching him play just how limited he was as a footballer.

Since the ANZAC game, as he become more and more exposed for his poor 1v1 ability and lack of intestinal fortitude, the hype and humour have totally disappeared, replaced with a general acceptance that he is not the messiah, in fact, doesn't even have a mean or aggressive enough streak to be a naughty boy. He is not even a realistic chance to become a tradable commodity. Even his disposal is not as good as we'd made it out to be.

In short, he would never have become the subject of a pisstake if he had not been the great white hope of so many supporters. Sure there were no doubt astute readers of the game who realised why he was still available at pick 76 in the draft, but I suspect that most of us really believed his flair, pace, disposal and even good looks were going to make our stodgy back line look potent. Now, though he may still be handsome, he is not a quality AFL footballer.