List Mgmt. Geelong Premiership, why not? Drafting utilities, that's why.

[MaybeItsGreg]

Kicked the football. Cheers
We've been playing the 3 + Mackie for over a decade and it is not why we lose.

We lose big games under pressure when our 2nd tier mids don't stand up and when we butcher the ball going forward, what happens on fast transition going the other way is inconsequential. We'd concede big scores on turnover with a small defence too in those circumstances. That first half v Richmond it was the defence, particularly Lonergan, that kept us in the game, and it happens often where this tall defence some deride are actually saving our bacon in bad games/halves/quarters.

Now, losing Mackie and Lonergan with no replacements seems to suggest we may see a different structure but I do laugh at the constant "we're too tall down back" rhetoric. It's not why we lose, but it has been part of why we win.

Our tall defence has been the cornerstone of our team for a long time, but the game has changed significantly over the last 10 years, and I wonder if it hasn't reached a point where such a defence no longer lends itself to September success. Teams pressure better now than they ever have before, and cumbersome movers and average ball users make for easy prey. The game's too quick.

More run and better kicking from the back half would increase the speed at which we can attack, which would then have a flow on effect on the rest of our game.

 

[year of the cat]

The problem with the “too tall” thesis is that wins and good performances are mysteriously ignored whilst losses are blamed on the phenomena.

For a theory to hold up to scrutiny it at least has to follow a simple pattern.

Can be explained with the ground we win on versus the one we lose on. At KP the taller structure works quite well on the tight confines where opposition teams are unable to run and therefore are inevitably forced to kick long to a contest. Allows Henderson, Taylor and Lonergan to pick off marks which they all do very well.

Move to the wide open spaces of the 'G, and face a team providing manic frontal pressure - we wilt. We don't get the run we need which causes stagnancy of our forwards with the ball moving so slowly forward.

You were right in an earlier post that we need to alter our game plan and movement. But I'm a firm believer that we won't be able to adopt a more fluid, dynamic game plan without tweaking our structure. In my opinion we need to move to a 2 talls backline and get some fast, elite kicking outside runners into the side. You can tell a team all you like to play a game a different way but you still need the personnel to be able to play it.

 

[catempire]

I don't do that. I believe there is clear advantage playing an extra tall backline at KP.
Not so on wider grounds.
Results over the past couple of years would hold up to that simple pattern.

Show your workings.

 

[catempire]

Can be explained with the ground we win on versus the one we lose on. At KP the taller structure works quite well on the tight confines where opposition teams are unable to run and therefore are inevitably forced to kick long to a contest. Allows Henderson, Taylor and Lonergan to pick off marks which they all do very well.

Move to the wide open spaces of the 'G, and face a team providing manic frontal pressure - we wilt. We don't get the run we need which causes stagnancy of our forwards with the ball moving so slowly forward.

You were right in an earlier post that we need to alter our game plan and movement. But I'm a firm believer that we won't be able to adopt a more fluid, dynamic game plan without tweaking our structure. In my opinion we need to move to a 2 talls backline and get some fast, elite kicking outside runners into the side. You can tell a team all you like to play a game a different way but you still need the personnel to be able to play it.

This attributes everything to the KP phenomena. We have a high winning rate elsewhere too. With tall teams.

 

[year of the cat]

This attributes everything to the KP phenomena. We have a high winning rate elsewhere too. With tall teams.

Not in finals.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Our tall defence has been the cornerstone of our team for a long time, but the game has changed significantly over the last 10 years, and I wonder if it hasn't reached a point where such a defence no longer lends itself to September success. Teams pressure better now than they ever have before, and cumbersome movers and average ball users make for easy prey. The game's too quick.

More run and better kicking from the back half would increase the speed at which we can attack, which would then have a flow on effect on the rest of our game.

I'm not dismissing the possibility of changing the structure, in fact I think we will next season.
I just don't agree that it's a reason why we lose. That's the part I find nonsensical.

 

[catempire]

Not in finals.

You tend to play good teams in finals. Normal not to win as often.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Not in finals.

Correlation does not equal causation. We beat Adelaide on a narrow ground in the H&A and they knocked us out on a narrow ground, where supposedly we're good with a tall defence.

 

[MaybeItsGreg]

The problem with the “too tall” thesis is that wins and good performances are mysteriously ignored whilst losses are blamed on the phenomena.

For a theory to hold up to scrutiny it at least has to follow a simple pattern.

Isn't the pattern that it falls apart in September, which is when the pressure goes up a few notches? Under immense pressure, that structure struggles. Our only convincing finals win since 2011 was with a smaller setup. That fits a pattern.

 

[catempire]

Isn't the pattern that it falls apart in September, which is when the pressure goes up a few notches? Under immense pressure, that structure struggles. Our only convincing finals win since 2011 was with a smaller setup. That fits a pattern.

Why attribute it to height though? Why not soft players or poor tactics or weak fringe players or poor skills? There’s no evidence that height is the cause.

 

[Ratcat]

We looked far better with Harry back with Lonners and Hendo, Buzza crashing packs with Tommy roaming the forwardline.
5 talls with Parsons the medium fwd including Menzel.
And the bigger mids in Dangerfield and Menegola were dominant.
We smashed GWS tall, our smalls are never fit and never rise to expectations.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Show your workings.

Since 2014:
KP 115m Width: 25w 5l
Docklands: 129m: 13w 3l 1d
G 141m: 14w 11l
Couldn't be arsed doing interstate grounds.

 

[catempire]

Since 2014:
KP 115m Width: 25w 5l
Docklands: 129m: 13w 3l 1d
G 141m: 14w 11l
Couldn't be arsed doing interstate grounds.

How does that prove height is the cause of the difference in records?

 

[Cronin]

Yeah that 2016 PF thrashing in particular was evident of that. Our forwards didn't move or lead in the first half and I mean all of them

Why was that do you think?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Since 2014:
KP 115m Width: 25w 5l
Docklands: 129m: 13w 3l 1d
G 141m: 14w 11l
Couldn't be arsed doing interstate grounds.

Losses at the G since 2014

Round 22 2014 v Hawthorn
QF 2014 V Hawthorn
SF 2014 v North Melbourne
Round 1 2015 v Hawthorn
Round 20 2015 v Hawthorn
Round 22 2015 v Collingwood
Round 9 2016 v Collingwood
PF 2016 v Sydney
Round 6 2017 v Collingwood
Round 8 2017 v Essendon
QF 2017 v Richmond

So in 4 of those we lost to the threepeating Hawks in 2014/15 whilst we were on pre-Paddy decline. 3 v Collingwood who beat us regularly by tagging Joel out of the game and getting midfield ascendancy. The one I would concede in that lot as being a loss due to being run off our legs is Essendon 2017. They run us ragged.

Overall correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Vdubs]

Why attribute it to height though? Why not soft players or poor tactics or weak fringe players or poor skills? There’s no evidence that height is the cause.

What has been neglected is that we did not play our pressure player enough in our 3 finals- Murdoch.
Not kidding either.

 

[year of the cat]

Correlation does not equal causation. We beat Adelaide on a narrow ground in the H&A and they knocked us out on a narrow ground, where supposedly we're good with a tall defence.

The Adelaide Oval is 8 metres wider than KP but nevertheless we would have been beaten on a thimble that night we played so poorly.

Surely you accept that the taller a team is the slower that it will generally be (unless you pack it with Usain Bolt clones)?. All of our talls are slow. Lonergan, Taylor and Henderson. No leg speed at all. Take one out, replace him with an offensive runner then already you change the dynamic of your back six. We saw against the Swans with the absence of Lonergan that night that we looked far more mobile in our back half. Was it a coincidence? I don't think so.

You only need to make a tweak here and a tweak there and I think we can be very competitive next year. So I am optimistic IF Scott is prepared to make changes. However if we play the same way with the same structure the same result will happen.

 

[Vdubs]

The Adelaide Oval is 8 metres wider than KP but nevertheless we would have been beaten on a thimble that night we played so poorly.

Surely you accept that the taller a team is the slower that it will generally be (unless you pack it with Usain Bolt clones)?. All of our talls are slow. Lonergan, Taylor and Henderson. No leg speed at all. Take one out, replace him with an offensive runner then already you change the dynamic of your back six. We saw against the Swans with the absence of Lonergan that night that we looked far more mobile in our back half. Was it a coincidence? I don't think so.

You only need to make a tweak here and a tweak there and I think we can be very competitive next year. So I am optimistic IF Scott is prepared to make changes. However if we play the same way with the same structure the same result will happen.

With Lonergan retired, and Mackie, he has no choice.

 

[year of the cat]

With Lonergan retired, and Mackie, he has no choice.

He could bring Gardener in to play back with Henderson and Taylor.

 

[Spazz Cat]

How does that prove height is the cause of the difference in records?

Don't think you need to be Norm Smith to know that it's easier to clog up space on a narrower ground.
Much harder on a wider ground. Plus you need to run much harder on a wider ground too.
Lucky we don't play at Waverley anymore.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Losses at the G since 2014

Round 22 2014 v Hawthorn
QF 2014 V Hawthorn
SF 2014 v North Melbourne
Round 1 2015 v Hawthorn
Round 20 2015 v Hawthorn
Round 22 2015 v Collingwood
Round 9 2016 v Collingwood
PF 2016 v Sydney
Round 6 2017 v Collingwood
Round 8 2017 v Essendon
QF 2017 v Richmond

So in 4 of those we lost to the threepeating Hawks in 2014/15 whilst we were on pre-Paddy decline. 3 v Collingwood who beat us regularly by tagging Joel out of the game and getting midfield ascendancy. The one I would concede in that lot as being a loss due to being run off our legs is Essendon 2017. They run us ragged.

Overall correlation does not equal causation.

I'd say we would've won at least half of those if played at KP.
We also had 3 top 4 finishes out of those 4 years. So it wasn't like all those teams were awesome and we were crap that whole time.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

The Adelaide Oval is 8 metres wider than KP but nevertheless we would have been beaten on a thimble that night we played so poorly.

Surely you accept that the taller a team is the slower that it will generally be (unless you pack it with Usain Bolt clones)?. All of our talls are slow. Lonergan, Taylor and Henderson. No leg speed at all. Take one out, replace him with an offensive runner then already you change the dynamic of your back six. We saw against the Swans with the absence of Lonergan that night that we looked far more mobile in our back half. Was it a coincidence? I don't think so.

You only need to make a tweak here and a tweak there and I think we can be very competitive next year. So I am optimistic IF Scott is prepared to make changes. However if we play the same way with the same structure the same result will happen.

Of course they are slower but it doesn't mean we automatically play slower purely because they lack leg speed, you can move the faster by foot than you can by running and handballing.
It's how you move the ball that matters, surely?

I don't attribute our QF belting to our tall defence, they actually kept us in the game. Losing Guthrie funnily enough killed us as Martin got off the chain after that and tore the game open, despite how atrociously we used the footy we were still in the game until that point.

The PF belting was similar, players butchering the footy and getting killed on turnover, we conceded 111 points from turnovers that night. There is no way you can argue that taking one tall out and replacing him with Thurlow or Ruggles or Murdoch etc would have alleviated that. It was a side wide problem. In fact this is our 10 worst players that night for disposal efficiency (worst listed first) Parfitt, Menegola, Hawkins, Bews, Lang, Kolodjashnij, Dangerfield, Duncan, Menzel and Mackie. Only 2 of those were playing in defence and none of those were tall defenders. There were 5 midfield/flankers in that list too which supports the belief we turned the ball over further afield and were dead ducks on transition as a result. Hard to make a case picking a smaller defense would have limited this given they fielded a tall forward line. They'd have just kicked long to Tex/Josh the goose instead of Cameron shredding Tuohy.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I'd say we would've won at least half of those if played at KP.
We also had 3 top 4 finishes out of those 4 years. So it wasn't like all those teams were awesome and we were crap that whole time.

Shock horror team playing at home ground would beat sides that they lost to on THEIR home ground.
That's not news, and doesn't provide evidence of the tall structure being the issue.

P.S. Top 4 in 2014 means diddily squat as we were cooked by finals. Read back over old threads, that was the sentiment.

 

[Vdubs]

He could bring Gardener in to play back with Henderson and Taylor.

True.
Can't comment on Gardiner- never have seen hm. Presuming tall AND slow?

 

[Spazz Cat]

Shock horror team playing at home ground would beat sides that they lost to on THEIR home ground.
That's not news, and doesn't provide evidence of the tall structure being the issue.

P.S. Top 4 in 2014 means diddily squat as we were cooked by finals. Read back over old threads, that was the sentiment.

Exactly because of the size of the grounds.
We don't win at KP cause of rabid fans tearing the stands down. It suits our structure.
You could not get a better example of all this than the 2 Richmond games this year.