Roast Inefficiency

[daicosdemis]

And I wish they were as simple as "all coaching."

It's not, it never is but atm our extremely offensive structures is our No1 problem.

 

[Mame]

It's not, it never is but atm our extremely offensive structures is our No1 problem.

So you retract your initial remark. Excellent.

 

[daicosdemis]

Ok, so what would you do differently?

We don't necessarily have to abandon zonal marking but our positioning has to be more defensive, much more defensive. Alternatively, man on man worked just fine for us in the second half of last season even with a side crippled by injury.

 

[jmac70]

We don't necessarily have to abandon zonal marking but our positioning has to be more defensive, much more defensive. Alternatively, man on man worked just fine for us in the second half of last season even with a side crippled by injury.

Would that have won the game last night though?

 

[daicosdemis]

So you retract your initial remark. Excellent.

My initial remark was that all fault/responsibility lies with the coach if he demands from a player something that he is not capable of delivering.

 

[loki04]

Would that have won the game last night though?

Likely yes.

Would of restricted the amount of easy goals they got ans also opened our f50 up allowing better opportunities and room for our forwards.

 

[daicosdemis]

Would that have won the game last night though?

How could I possibly answer that with any certainty ? What I can say is, it's definitely a step in the right direction to make our opposition work hard for their goals.

 

[jmac70]

How could I possibly answer that with any certainty ? What I can say is, it's definitely a step in the right direction to make our opposition work hard for their goals.

The coaches and players have trained for months on the current game plan. Had we kicked straight we may well have won last night, at the very least we were competitive. Why would we abandon all that training after one narrow loss in round 1?

 

[jmac70]

Likely yes.

Would of restricted the amount of easy goals they got ans also opened our f50 up allowing better opportunities and room for our forwards.

Likely? Have to disagree with you there.

 

[loki04]

Likely? Have to disagree with you there.

Sorry very likely.

 

[loki04]

The coaches and players have trained for months on the current game plan. Had we kicked straight we may well have won last night, at the very least we were competitive. Why would we abandon all that training after one narrow loss in round 1?

Not about abandoning it, rather need to tweak it.

All it requires is for us to adjust the zone not abolish it.

 

[daicosdemis]

The coaches and players have trained for months on the current game plan. Had we kicked straight we may well have won last night, at the very least we were competitive. Why would we abandon all that training after one narrow loss in round 1?

Apart from the fact that this game plan was a complete failure last year ? Ok here is another reason - the current game plan requires minimal mistakes, minimal turn overs. Otherwise we get exposed. Do you think we have the cattle to do this ? Even our better players like Treloar & Adams are not great kicks.

 

[Mame]

My initial remark was that all fault/responsibility lies with the coach if he demands from a player something that he is not capable of delivering.

So simple.

 

[mike123]

Last night we had the dominant midfield and won in important areas like contested ball, clearances and inside 50's.

And yet we've come away defeated.

Again.

This is something I've identified and raised in the past and it's become rather common place these past few seasons under Buckley.

We seem to have no problem getting our hands on the ball but doing something constructive with it time and again and getting the reward on the scoreboard is the problem.

Last night we had the 4 leading possession winners on the ground and 7 of the top 10.

Sidebottom, Pendlebury, Treloar and Adams staggeringly had more than 30 touches each.

You'd think for most sides that would equate to an almost certain victory but for us it seems at best a 50/50 proposition we'll get the 4 points.

So what's going wrong?

To me it would indicate 3 probable scenarios.

a)A fundamental flaw in the game plan.
b)Real inadequacy in one area of the field.
c)Below average skill of the playing group.

I guess the answer could be d) all of the above but I feel we're doing quite a bit right and it's frustrating that we continue to let games slip we could and should be winning.

For me the glaring difference between the two sides last night and the reason we lost was our costly mistakes by foot especially on the break which stopped golden scoring opportunities as well as some poor decision making deep inside our forward 50 arc.

But there were others areas that are a continuation of problems we've seen over the last few seasons:

1.Is it just me or do we seem to have to work bloody hard just to create scoring opportunities and goals?

In comparison to many of our opponents it seems an easy goal is hard to come by for us and we seem to often rely upon weight off inside 50 numbers and creating contests to score.

While hard work and pressure should be applauded it's a very taxing way of playing the game and maintaining it for 4 quarters or across a 22 game season is unrealistic.

For me this is the number one thing I've questioned Buckley on these last few seasons. While no doubt we have many set plays and positioning that make up our game plan I often feel we rely on pressure first and foremost to make the other aspects of our game function, to hide some flaws if you will, whereas top sides can be off a little in the area of pressure but there style of play is robust enough in other areas to still find ways to win enough games across the season to make finals.

2.Seeing the dogs break our wall across high half forward and coast to a number of easy goals last night is something we've all become accustomed to in recent years and it does our head in.

Now it's easy to lay blame and wonder why it continues to occur but the reasons for it are quite likely linked to our ability to often gain more forward 50 entries than our opponents like we starkly saw last night.

The question is is it the best option for us?

It's obvious that the opposition know what we want to do and there response is to simply flood our forward zone to make it near impossible for us to find space to find a free target and as stated above we often then have to scrap and fight for the ball on the ground to achieve a scoring opportunity and to often resort to kicking the ball long and high to our forwards giving them little chance.

As we saw last night though if we make a mistake by foot and the ball is intercepted by our opposition or they win an easy clearance at ground level then all to quickly they can break our line and waltz down the other end for an easy shot on goal.

The dogs had what 20 odd less inside 50's last night yet only 1 less scoring shot?

While the number of forward entries might look good on the coaches stat sheet if a high percentage of them are of low quality and not to any real advantage of our forward targets is it the best approach?

I don't pretend to have the answers but what I do know (or think I know) is that our style of play appears taxing and not overly efficient inside f50 and if like last night we have wave after wave of forward thrusts for no scoreboard benefit you've expelled a hell of a lot of physical and emotional energy only to see the opposition eventually break your line and add 6 points with relative ease.

I'm interested in peoples thoughts on the areas we need to improve in or rethink in order to take the next step and return to finals.

This

 

[good4footy]

A game plan that allows you 26 shots at goal (more than the opposition) is not a coaching issue. It is a recruitment issue. Our skills are deplorable.

Our entries into 50 that get run out arent a coaching issue, they are a skill issue. Missing blokes on their own but instead kicking it to the opposition is not a coaching issue but a skill issue.

Having a heap more inside 50's than the opposition actually supports a good game plan argument. It is our game plan that allows those entries. We struggle for goals because our entries inside 50 and our skill level within 50 is terrible.

It is laughable to blame a game plan when you have twice as many entries as the opposition. Further the opposition scoring from our turnovers inside our own 50 (6 goals-there's your match) is also as a result of our pathetic entries inside 50 where we turn the ball over to the opposition. It is not defensive breakdown but a forward entry breakdown. No game plan can overcome a skill set like ours when entering and within our 50.

 

[mike123]

A game plan that allows you 26 shots at goal (more than the opposition) is not a coaching issue.

It is because they weren't high quality shots.

 

[good4footy]

It is because they weren't high quality shots.

That supports my argument about our entries. Further, missing from 30m should be a given- at least another 4 goals which wins us the game.

We also don't even impact the scoreboard with another 40 entries. Mostly skill set issues.

 

[mike123]

That supports my argument about our entries.

Which is a coaching issue

 

[magpies42]

Our forward line only really worked when Fasolo was the target. We need to get Billy Elliott back in there ASAP, it's what we've longed for all offseason to have Fas and Elliott alongside Moore and White. If Cox can only contribute what he did (1 mark, 0.1, 0 tackles) against one of the league's smallest back lines, we're going to get killed on the rebound. I'm very skeptical about Mayne's value also.

Even in the preseason game, forward line went from below average to function and effective when Elliot played.

 

[good4footy]

Which is a coaching issue

Maybe for u11's when you are teaching them to kick. Hopefully by the time we recruit them skill set is no longer a major coaching focus and they can focus on the game plan.
Having as any entries as we do supports the game plan. Our last possession into 50 and within 50 is what kills us. Missing blokes on their own 30 from goal like Darcey did to get us within 8 points and misding goals from 30 out is about skill not gameplan.

What is a coaching issue for me is that Bucks is on his last legs and yet still allows our recruitment to be around hard workers with crap skills. The 'buck' stops with him. No use having a game plan that allows those entries if the cattle is crap and you have had 5 years to get it right.
As much as i hate MM he would never have allowed his tenure to be ruined by crap recruitment whilst he stayed silent.

 

[Finnishpie]

It really hurt us early when we had all of the momentum early in the first qtr but just couldn't convert with poor disposal going inside 50 and also around the ground. They then cut us apart with their quick and efficient ball movement to get us out the back.

Wells and Elliott whenever they are fit will help us in this department but we really need to improve a heap in this area going forward


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah, and though he's not a star, Aish's disposal is good. If DeGoey was playing instead of Blair we'd have kicked a couple more goals that Blair managed to mess up.

 

[Robroy22]

Al Clarkson said his side would have been a lot closer had they not kicked 1:9 in the same period of time that the Bombers kicked 5:5.
Friday night's game would have been a lot closer....maybe even a different outcome if a few set shots went through.

I know people don't like games coming down to goalkicking efficiency, they want uncontested posession stats and how many times players burp and fart a game...but the reality is: You don't take your chances= You lose.

Oh for a finisher like Daicos or McKenna now!

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Take Adams out of midfield and put him at half back and efficiency will improve.

 

[doodles98]

Maybe for u11's when you are teaching them to kick. Hopefully by the time we recruit them skill set is no longer a major coaching focus and they can focus on the game plan.
Having as any entries as we do supports the game plan. Our last possession into 50 and within 50 is what kills us. Missing blokes on their own 30 from goal like Darcey did to get us within 8 points and misding goals from 30 out is about skill not gameplan.

What is a coaching issue for me is that Bucks is on his last legs and yet still allows our recruitment to be around hard workers with crap skills. The 'buck' stops with him. No use having a game plan that allows those entries if the cattle is crap and you have had 5 years to get it right.
As much as i hate MM he would never have allowed his tenure to be ruined by crap recruitment whilst he stayed silent.

I think you are totally wrong. We have 2 absolute elite mids at hitting inside fifty targets in pendles and sidey. They couldn't do it despite both of them getting over 30 touches. It was clear as crystal that our forward line was congested and shut down by the dogs.

 

[CFC2010]

I think you are totally wrong. We have 2 absolute elite mids at hitting inside fifty targets in pendles and sidey. They couldn't do it despite both of them getting over 30 touches. It was clear as crystal that our forward line was congested and shut down by the dogs.

If it was so congested doodles as you say why could Pendles and Steele kick a couple goals each???

Our forwards didn't work smart & hard enough........simple.