Analysis Bloods' Performance Discussion 2022

[Heeney2Franklin]

Where soft af at times and overrated

Won’t do anything this year come finals , that’s if we make it

Pretty obvious playing a good quarter or two wont get you far.

The amount of times we turned the ball over in the corridor in the 4th quarter just no composure and decision making.

We definitely overachieved last season.

 

[Bloods86]

I think there's a hint of arrogance in the narrative that it's our "slow starts" that are costing us. In the games where we had slow starts, such as GWS, Geelong and Hawthorn, we actually ended up winning comfortably. We want to look at our worst performances this year and we can hardly blame our slow starts.

Against North Melbourne, we were 3 points in front at half time. Then we came out in the third quarter and lost the inside 50s 16 to 14, and the contested possessions 38 to 33. Against arguably the worst team in the competition.

Against Brisbane, the scores were level at quarter time. Then we came out in the second quarter and lost the inside 50s 20 to 8, and tellingly, lost the tackles inside 50 count 4 to 1. Intent wasn't there.

And then worst of all, against the Suns, the scores were level at three quarter time. With just a quarter to go to put away one of the lesser teams in the comp, we lost the inside 50s 18 to 7, yet somehow they more than doubled our tackles inside 50 (5 to 2) and, most damningly, in the crucial last 10 minutes of play, they had 49% time in possession compared to our 17%.

That's a second quarter, a third quarter and a fourth quarter where we almost, or did, cost ourselves the game. These weren't games where we started poorly and then had to scrap our way back into it over the next three quarters. These were games where we got ourselves back into the game and then just let the game slip away again through lack of effort, intent and hardness.

I think there's a hint of selectiveness in the above narrative, picking and choosing where to draw the line about "starts". I don't think I referred to it being a guarantee of a loss (a slow start), but it certainly reduces your chances if you're pushing uphill for large chunks of the game, you risk running out of steam or having to take more risks, before you can get a lead and put more pressure on the opposition.

Against North, we were down at quarter time, and yeah we got up by 3pts at the half, after letting them kick a few more.

I'll grant you Brisbane, where we battled it out for a quarter before getting jumped early in the 2nd.

Against the Suns, we were down by a couple (of goals) at quarter time and we struggled to get traction until later in the 3rd.

I feel like the Dogs game has been forgotten. For me, that was as poor as Lions, North or the Suns. You can excuse getting beaten by the Dogs more than the Suns, or a tight win vs North, but it was the manner. We got pummeled by a team in questionable form, whatever the scoreline reads. It was a slow start (first 3 goals to them), and one that just kept on going, until we battled back in the 3rd. Match them in the 1st and things might be different.

Anyway, as I said again, it was more in response to someone using 6 day breaks as a reason, we've obviously been poor in other quarters. I'd just prefer we come to play at the opening bounce, then if you're level instead of down at qtr time, or a few goals in front, instead of level, it changes the game. You don't have to suddenly try different things, or play catch up, the opposition has to respond to you instead. If that's arrogance, somehow, I guess I'm guilty.

 

[caesar88]

I think there's a hint of selectiveness in the above narrative, picking and choosing where to draw the line about "starts". I don't think I referred to it being a guarantee of a loss (a slow start), but it certainly reduces your chances if you're pushing uphill for large chunks of the game, you risk running out of steam or having to take more risks, before you can get a lead and put more pressure on the opposition.

Against North, we were down at quarter time, and yeah we got up by 3pts at the half, after letting them kick a few more.

I'll grant you Brisbane, where we battled it out for a quarter before getting jumped early in the 2nd.

Against the Suns, we were down by a couple (of goals) at quarter time and we struggled to get traction until later in the 3rd.

I feel like the Dogs game has been forgotten. For me, that was as poor as Lions, North or the Suns. You can excuse getting beaten by the Dogs more than the Suns, or a tight win vs North, but it was the manner. We got pummeled by a team in questionable form, whatever the scoreline reads. It was a slow start (first 3 goals to them), and one that just kept on going, until we battled back in the 3rd. Match them in the 1st and things might be different.

Anyway, as I said again, it was more in response to someone using 6 day breaks as a reason, we've obviously been poor in other quarters. I'd just prefer we come to play at the opening bounce, then if you're level instead of down at qtr time, or a few goals in front, instead of level, it changes the game. You don't have to suddenly try different things, or play catch up, the opposition has to respond to you instead. If that's arrogance, somehow, I guess I'm guilty.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. Literally every publication has made our slow starts the focus of our woes. It has an arrogant vibe because it assumes that if we had our burst of good footy in the first quarter that our woes wouldn't exist. When in reality, as we've shown in all our games, we're susceptible to those same woes at any stage of the game.

I will say I agree that a very strong start, as opposed to just a competitive start, can be a good launching pad for a very good overall performance.

 

[Bloods86]

I wasn't referring to you specifically. Literally every publication has made our slow starts the focus of our woes. It has an arrogant vibe because it assumes that if we had our burst of good footy in the first quarter that our woes wouldn't exist. When in reality, as we've shown in all our games, we're susceptible to those same woes at any stage of the game.

I will say I agree that a very strong start, as opposed to just a competitive start, can be a good launching pad for a very good overall performance.

All good. Obviously I think there's more to it, since we did it quite a bit last year too (although we were able to overcome it quite often, even against some good sides). But you and others are quite correct in saying that it's not just the starts.

Edit: I'm probably also bringing in some A-League frustration into it too. Adelaide United, until quite recently, had a ridiculous number of games this year where we'd go down or be level, only to come back late and equalise, or win it in the last 10 or so mins. I'd just like my teams to bring it early.

 

[rustycrate]

All good. Obviously I think there's more to it, since we did it quite a bit last year too (although we were able to overcome it quite often, even against some good sides). But you and others are quite correct in saying that it's not just the starts.

Will be interesting to see how we start this week.

 

[Bloods86]

Will be interesting to see how we start this week.

We're pretty much guaranteed to kick 10 by qtr time and coast to a 35 point win, after this. I await the tags with joy.

 

[kelpie_X]

Agree with this but it's harder to respond when the opposition have figured your game plan out. It's too much corridor or bust for us in recent times and when we try a different approach like run and carry, we don't have the hand skills for it. So our "responses" are kinda fizzling before they can even do too much damage.

I think with the "run and carry" approach, its as simple as "We aren't working hard enough". I think this is all in their heads and they just need to pull their ******* fingers out of their arses and work harder.

 

[caesar88]

I think with the "run and carry" approach, its as simple as "We aren't working hard enough". I think this is all in their heads and they just need to pull their ******* fingers out of their arses and work harder.

We have our work rate issues no doubt, but run and carry isn't something that can come about from just effort. It requires a lot of practice. Like whole pre-seasons of practice. It's hand-skills, it's running patterns, it's communication. Can't just conjure that up mid-week after a bad loss, takes a long time to perfect. Tbh it doesn't even look like we made it a priority over the summer one bit.

 

[SGBeach]

We have our work rate issues no doubt, but run and carry isn't something that can come about from just effort. It requires a lot of practice. Like whole pre-seasons of practice. It's hand-skills, it's running patterns, it's communication. Can't just conjure that up mid-week after a bad loss, takes a long time to perfect. Tbh it doesn't even look like we made it a priority over the summer one bit.

yep sure, run and carry, same as using the corridor, is all those things you mention. All teams know our game plan, its no secret.
but.. We've shown that we're bloody good at it, over the last 30 odd games, we've won most of them.
The Swans success, their successful execution of their game plan all comes down to effort.
effort is running harder, effort is pressure.
Run and Carry, and using the corridor comes off the back of pressure
When the Swans are flying is when their pressure is way up there - elite.
When they lose, its because their pressure is way down.

 

[kelpie_X]

We have our work rate issues no doubt, but run and carry isn't something that can come about from just effort. It requires a lot of practice. Like whole pre-seasons of practice. It's hand-skills, it's running patterns, it's communication. Can't just conjure that up mid-week after a bad loss, takes a long time to perfect. Tbh it doesn't even look like we made it a priority over the summer one bit.

But it worked last year! Surely we worked on it some more over the Summer?! If not then sack Horse!

It's work rate I think. It's why we've had slow starts.

General statement from me.... As for last week's use of the corridor A lot of those turnovers were from poor disposal. Not because of poor decision making or another team shutting down our game plan.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I think our first 2 months have been mostly where i thought we would be losing one of our most important players in Dawson and having Hickey out for a few weeks.

Weekend loss is where i feel is the unacceptable losses where we need to eliminate if we are to progress in the top echelon of teams.

So i think we are exactly where we belong.

 

[kelpie_X]

yep sure, run and carry, same as using the corridor, is all those things you mention. All teams know our game plan, its no secret.
but.. We've shown that we're bloody good at it, over the last 30 odd games, we've won most of them.
The Swans success, their successful execution of their game plan all comes down to effort.
effort is running harder, effort is pressure.
Run and Carry, and using the corridor comes off the back of pressure
When the Swans are flying is when their pressure is way up there - elite.
When they lose, its because their pressure is way down.

Yep. Work rate

 

[caesar88]

But it worked last year! Surely we worked on it some more over the Summer?! If not then sack Horse!

It's work rate I think. It's why we've had slow starts.

General statement from me.... As for last week's use of the corridor A lot of those turnovers were from poor disposal. Not because of poor decision making or another team shutting down our game plan.

Did it work last year? IMO we weren't good enough with our hand skills last season either and looked less formidable under pressure because of it.

We all see it differently of course, but to me it's absolutely not work rate, because every time we try to get a handball chain going it falls apart, and it's not through lack of effort, but through fumbles, double-grabs, mistimed handball receives. Just a general lack of skill and awareness that make it clear our team have no real idea how to run and carry by hand.

 

[kelpie_X]

Did it work last year? IMO we weren't good enough with our hand skills last season either and looked less formidable under pressure because of it.

We all see it differently of course, but to me it's absolutely not work rate, because every time we try to get a handball chain going it falls apart, and it's not through lack of effort, but through fumbles, double-grabs, mistimed handball receives. Just a general lack of skill and awareness that make it clear our team have no real idea how to run and carry by hand.

If I could only care less.....

 

[Kapers]

Ok ok ok ok ok, I think with Essendon we saw exactly how we want to play.

Our handballing isn't good enough, but imo, instead of following other teams I would focus in on our kicking and double down on it.

Of course, off season we should work our handball game and get out contested numbers up, but fact of the matter is we are just not good enough at them yet. We have two options, lose games improving (handballing and contested possessions) or double down on what made us dangerous last year (pressure and kicking).
IMO, I just want to see how far we can take this game, I want to see extreme pressure and elite kicking, and just see how far it takes us.

 

[wills2g]

Ok ok ok ok ok, I think with Essendon we saw exactly how we want to play.

Our handballing isn't good enough, but imo, instead of following other teams I would focus in on our kicking and double down on it.

Of course, off season we should work our handball game and get out contested numbers up, but fact of the matter is we are just not good enough at them yet. We have two options, lose games improving (handballing and contested possessions) or double down on what made us dangerous last year (pressure and kicking).
IMO, I just want to see how far we can take this game, I want to see extreme pressure and elite kicking, and just see how far it takes us.

Establish a different brand of footy where others copy and follow. Waste of the strength of the players trying to get handball game going

 

[Kirkswan]

Damn, you lot are mostly pretty harsh critics!

This is still a really young team, which means there will be up and down games all year. We're hanging between 4 & 6, and Gold Coast are a much better team than most of you think. But I reckon how well our mids play is largely dependent on whether Hickey is playing, (in other words our structure). With good coaching and solid development, this should keep improving throughout the year.

T McCartin has a really solid shot at becoming the best key defender in the comp; and at the other end, we have McDonald, who has a really solid shot at becoming the best key forward in the comp! Ladhams is developing nicely, but this is still his first year in our system. Given a year and a pre-season with Cox, next season is likely to be much, much better! Parker and Mills are champions, Warner is having a breakout season, and Blakey is sublime a hell of a lot of the time! McInerney & Errol are both having another solid year, Heeney is solid with periods of brilliance, Campbell is learning the trade in defence and will likely come into the mids next year with really solid two way skills, and Papley is working his way back after a long period out, but can only be considered an asset to the team! To support these guys, we have Florent (23) who plays whatever role he is given in any game, and plays it well; Hayward (23) whose numbers say he is above average and in my view is likely to continue to improve; Rowbottom (21) who hasn't had the best season, but is likely to continue to improve with fitness and good health; Wicks (22) who also hasn't been great, but who's pressure work when on is outstanding; Ronke (24) who is very similar to Wicks; and P McCartin (26) who has slotted into our back six without missing a beat! We also have a number of aging players, whose experience in the crunch moments is still required, such as JPK, Rampe and Franklin. They may be older, slower and produce their best less often, but they are still important... for this year at least.

We also have a whole swathe of youngsters in development. While our depth isn't as good as say Melbourne or Brisbane, a lot of our players can play two or three positions without missing a beat. This allows us to bring in our talented depth where they can play best, and shuffle the rest of the deck. I reckon this is a simply outstanding advantage to have, and will make all the difference over the next 5 years!

Late 23 and all 24 is where we should be looking for solid consistency throughout the season, demanding top 4 finishes and flags. Anything before that is bonus time!! I still believe we have a good shot this year, we're going okay... just chill a little and enjoy the ride, instead of worrying all the time about what might be wrong!

P.S. For those who like brevity, oops! No problem with TLDR
PPS: While I'm trying not to say I told you so, I have said for years that a fairly good ruck would make all the difference to how we play!

 

[The King!]

Damn, you lot are mostly pretty harsh critics!

This is still a really young team,

its the seventh oldest team in the comp- older than Melbourne and Brisbane


though i like your post dont get me wrong.

I think we have a shot at Melbourne to be honest at our best, just need to get on a roll

 

[SGBeach]

Please Mods, or anyone who knows how to..
Can we please have a preview thread for Swans v Blues.

Really just want to say, if we can match or even beat their midfield, Swans can win this by 6+ goals

 

[wills2g]

Please Mods, or anyone who knows how to..
Can we please have a preview thread for Swans v Blues.

Really just want to say, if we can match or even beat their midfield, Swans can win this by 6+ goals

Well.. we clearly know who you have on ignore..

 

[Kirkswan]

its the seventh oldest team in the comp- older than Melbourne and Brisbane


though i like your post dont get me wrong.

I think we have a shot at Melbourne to be honest at our best, just need to get on a roll

I bet you that's not true... I bet you are talking about average age, which includes Buddy (34) and JPK (33). Take the two oldest out of every team, and see what happens to the averages.

Other than that, I agree

 

[SwansProudly]

Please Mods, or anyone who knows how to..
Can we please have a preview thread for Swans v Blues.

Really just want to say, if we can match or even beat their midfield, Swans can win this by 6+ goals

5 pages here Preview - Round 10 - Sydney vs Carlton @ Marvel Stadium, Friday Night Lights

 

[Millky95]

its the seventh oldest team in the comp- older than Melbourne and Brisbane


though i like your post dont get me wrong.

I think we have a shot at Melbourne to be honest at our best, just need to get on a roll

Got bored, wanted to do some maths. Based on last selected 22:

Melbourne Average Age: 25 years, 18 days
Sydney Average Age: 25 years, 158 days

Melbourne Average Age without 2 oldest and 2 youngest: 25 years, 1 day
Sydney Average Age without 2 oldest and 2 youngest: 25 years, 2 days

Melbourne Median Age: 26 years, 70 days
Sydney Median Age: 24 years, 121 days

Melbourne Median Age without 2 oldest and youngest: 26 years, 70 days
Sydney Median Age without 2 oldest and youngest: 24 years, 121 days

Wanted to do "best 18" without the outliers pulling the age up or down to try and find that "24-28" age bracket. It looks like our older players lift our age up a little bit more than Melbourne's do but our median age is lower by almost 2 years. So overall I do think we are younger but it isn't 19 year olds running around against 30 year olds type of age difference

 

[Kapers]

Got bored, wanted to do some maths. Based on last selected 22:

Melbourne Average Age: 25 years, 18 days
Sydney Average Age: 25 years, 158 days

Melbourne Average Age without 2 oldest and 2 youngest: 25 years, 1 day
Sydney Average Age without 2 oldest and 2 youngest: 25 years, 2 days

Melbourne Median Age: 26 years, 70 days
Sydney Median Age: 24 years, 121 days

Melbourne Median Age without 2 oldest and youngest: 26 years, 70 days
Sydney Median Age without 2 oldest and youngest: 24 years, 121 days

Wanted to do "best 18" without the outliers pulling the age up or down to try and find that "24-28" age bracket. It looks like our older players lift our age up a little bit more than Melbourne's do but our median age is lower by almost 2 years. So overall I do think we are younger but it isn't 19 year olds running around against 30 year olds type of age difference

Don't know why people care about avg age. Just look at your core under 23.

We aren't that young of a team, but we've got a good young core that can keep us competitive for a long time, the question is are they good enough to win premierships

 

[caesar88]

Don't know why people care about avg age. Just look at your core under 23.

We aren't that young of a team, but we've got a good young core that can keep us competitive for a long time, the question is are they good enough to win premierships

I love our young core and I'm fairly confident they are good enough to win premierships but if Horse wants to make that as close to a sure thing as he can get, then he's got two aces up his sleeve in Campbell and Rowbottom who would make it a slam dunk. Aces that he's not yet using and if he continues to do so, could end up pissing the opportunity away.

If we had Campbell firing missiles inside 50 and Rowbottom actually going after the ball in contests... gee whiz. I don't want to be dramatic as they are both kids but those two additions to the game plan alone would dramatically change the dynamic of our team for the better.