Roast Inefficiency

[frizzle]

I didn't watch all the games this week but did see our game & the Freo Geelong game.
Both the dogs & cats employed spare defenders & were never scored against on the quick rebound.
Cats & Dogs went forward to open forward lines that gave their players a chance. Pies & Freo both had congested forward lines where their talls forwards had no room to move & were basically irrelevant for the whole game. We need to employ a fall back to stop the easy goals out the back. It must absolutely drain any momentum or energy we have built up to watch the other team waltz in to goal from point blank range 5 or 6 times a match. Stop that on Friday night & we win comfortably.

 

[doodles98]

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.

Because they have the talent to kick quick snaps and shots under pressure and on the run on the left from the boundary (like Pendles did). If we have a team of 18 Pendles and Sideys you might have a point... we don't.

Just to clarify.. are you saying that because pendles and sidey could kicks a couple of goals our forward line wasn't congested??

You are right our forwards needed to work smarter and take their chances. But with the way we play we don't exactly make it easy for them to find space and be spotted up..... is my point. We will always have a high probability of poor i50 efficiency if we allow f50 to be clogged up like that. You also have to give credit to the bulldogs for the way they defended and shut down space too.

It is NOT as simple as saying our "our players can't kick", "our players are dumb", "our players don't work hard enough". There's nothing majorly wrong with the skill base of the team we had on the park on Friday compared to most other teams. I also thought the effort and work rate of the whole team was excellent including the forwards (maybe Fasolo aside). They looked like they were working their arses off to me.

 

[CFC2010]

Because they have the talent to kick quick snaps and shots under pressure and on the run on the left from the boundary (like Pendles did). If we have a team of 18 Pendles and Sideys you might have a point... we don't.

Just to clarify.. are you saying that because pendles and sidey could kicks a couple of goals our forward line wasn't congested??

You are right our forwards needed to work smarter and take their chances. But with the way we play we don't exactly make it easy for them to find space and be spotted up..... is my point. We will always have a high probability of poor i50 efficiency if we allow f50 to be clogged up like that. You also have to give credit to the bulldogs for the way they defended and shut down space too.

It is NOT as simple as saying our "our players can't kick", "our players are dumb", "our players don't work hard enough". There's nothing majorly wrong with the skill base of the team we had on the park on Friday compared to most other teams. I also thought the effort and work rate of the whole team was excellent including the forwards (maybe Fasolo aside). They looked like they were working their arses off to me.

I will copy the reason that Robroy22 bolded/highlighted above why we lost the game.

"You don't take your chances = You lose."

Against the best teams you must take your chances........you can never beat score board pressure in a game.
Pendles did it.......Steele did it (I will use that word = brains) but Blair in the first quarter crucified us and Cox and Moore well lets just say they didn't.

Like I said from my vantage point at the ground the forward line was NOT congested..........TV can be deceptive some times doodles!

 

[doodles98]

I will copy the reason that Robroy22 bolded/highlighted above why we lost the game.

"You don't take your chances = You lose."

Against the best teams you must take your chances........you can never beat score board pressure in a game.
Pendles did it.......Steele did it (I will use that word = brains) but Blair in the first quarter crucified us and Cox and Moore well lets just say they didn't.

Like I said from my vantage point at the ground the forward line was NOT congested..........TV can be deceptive some times doodles!

Not really disagreeing with you re: taking the chances. Moore and Cox clunk a few and convert and we win. But smart play and tactics also maximize your chances of taking your chances.. if you know what I mean. Don't think we do that when the forwards often only have space to lead deep into pockets.

On TV our forward line was very congested when we had the forward press going and were getting repeat entries. (as you would expect; and that was a fair chunk of the game). It was also congested by the dogs playing men back at center bounces because we were smashing them there (which effectively negated our dominance). Bombing it in from a center clearance was clearly not working with an opponent set up for it.. yet we kept doing it all game. Not sure how the camera could lie about all that.

 

[CFC2010]

Not really disagreeing with you re: taking the chances. Moore and Cox clunk a few and convert and we win. But smart play and tactics also maximize your chances of taking your chances.. if you know what I mean. Don't think we do that when the forwards often only have space to lead deep into pockets.

On TV our forward line was very congested when we had the forward press going and were getting repeat entries. (as you would expect; and that was a fair chunk of the game). It was also congested by the dogs playing men back at center bounces because we were smashing them there (which effectively negated our dominance). Bombing it in from a center clearance was clearly not working with an opponent set up for it.. yet we kept doing it all game. Not sure how the camera could lie about all that.

You know they played with an extra man on the wing doodles for two quarters??

Players bombing it like you say straight to the Dogs player is another example of dumb footballers.........not much Bucks can do about that.
I think people are getting blinded by the fact the Dogs got easy goals and we worked our arse of for ours.

I still disagree our forward line was congested Friday night.

 

[doodles98]

You know they played with an extra man on the wing doodles for two quarters??

Players bombing it like you say straight to the Dogs player is another example of dumb footballers.........not much Bucks can do about that.
I think people are getting blinded by the fact the Dogs got easy goals and we worked our arse of for ours.

I still disagree our forward line was congested Friday night.

This has been the case for 5 years now. You have been saying this for 5 years now. We've had the biggest list change in the comp in that period. So we somehow managed to replace dumb unskilled footballers with dumb unskilled footballers? This is not true in my view; but if it was it says a lot about recruiting.

The players we put out there are not unskilled or stupid. If coaches can't improve ball use and efficiency over a 5 year period when it is a glaring deficiency.. why do we have them? what do they do? How can it not be seen as a coaching issue when it has been an acknowledged problem for 5 years and we've turned the list over like we have? Aren't coaches supposed to find ways to overcome these shortcomings??.. either through player recruitment and development or changes to gamestyle and tactics.

I think you will find we play a style which makes efficient ball use more difficult; and the consequences of inefficient ball use more damaging. If we have a poor game where we are rusty on the skills .. we look horrible and this one weakness becomes a killer; despite us dominating the contest. If we are allowed to execute well we look great...and nobody complains our players are dumb or unskilled (We looked like we had awesome kicking skills against Brisbane in the game I got to watch last year up here.... because they let us) Not sure that our style is a recipe for success in the pressure cooker of finals footy.

The Bulldogs aren't a great kicking team or what I would consider highly skilled; but they played to their strengths and won a flag.

 

[domin8tors]

Inefficiency can come in a number of forms. whilst yes we turned the ball over, overall I thought our general field kicking has improved. 3 key points here

1) the Dogs won the flag being the best at forcing clubs to turn the ball over
2) our inexperienced forward line as a group prompts them to lead into traffic which forces the ball carrier to kick to a contest rather then a lead
3) bring in Wells / Elliott / broomhead and they will bring the efficiency up.

 

[good4footy]

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.

I'm not saying it may not have been congested at times (like most clubs) but we had heaps of opportunities to hit targets going inside 50 that were free and we were incapable of doing so skill wise. Heaps of easy targets missed. The final one was the icing on the cake where Fasolo was free 5m away from his opponent, 30m from goal but Moore kicked straight to Suckling.

Also the Dogs shutting it down has little to do with our 'poor' gameplan but more to do with theres- a plan they were allowed to coninue with as there was no need to change due to our skills entering 50. Having our midfield being so dominant and translating that to the scoreboard would have freed up our forwardline as they would have had to do something about the pantsing they were getting upfield. For example moving their loose in defence up field to clog it up there.

Anyway none of us is privvy to the gameplans and can only with what we see - mostly confirming our confimation bias. Mine is our skills and the fact tht they are not up to scratch entering 50. Probably the most mportant kick of the game. I notive it each time it happens and it happens too often. Friday was an example.

 

[CFC2010]

This has been the case for 5 years now. You have been saying this for 5 years now. We've had the biggest list change in the comp in that period. So we somehow managed to replace dumb unskilled footballers with dumb unskilled footballers? This is not true in my view; but if it was it says a lot about recruiting.

The players we put out there are not unskilled or stupid. If coaches can't improve ball use and efficiency over a 5 year period when it is a glaring deficiency.. why do we have them? what do they do? How can it not be seen as a coaching issue when it has been an acknowledged problem for 5 years and we've turned the list over like we have? Aren't coaches supposed to find ways to overcome these shortcomings??.. either through player recruitment and development or changes to gamestyle and tactics.

I think you will find we play a style which makes efficient ball use more difficult; and the consequences of inefficient ball use more damaging. If we have a poor game where we are rusty on the skills .. we look horrible and this one weakness becomes a killer; despite us dominating the contest. If we are allowed to execute well we look great...and nobody complains our players are dumb or unskilled (We looked like we had awesome kicking skills against Brisbane in the game I got to watch last year up here.... because they let us) Not sure that our style is a recipe for success in the pressure cooker of finals footy.

The Bulldogs aren't a great kicking team or what I would consider highly skilled; but they played to their strengths and won a flag.

Pressure does funny things to players doodles (e.g Blair) personally I don't think we were as bad as some people are making out.

This week will be a good indicator for me on our fortunes this year.

 

[Anzacday]

Pressure does funny things to players doodles (e.g Blair) personally I don't think we were as bad as some people are making out.

This week will be a good indicator for me on our fortunes this year.

Treloar doesn't go back off the mark far enough, ball turned over and bang it's a goal to them.

 

[good4footy]

This has been the case for 5 years now. You have been saying this for 5 years now. We've had the biggest list change in the comp in that period. So we somehow managed to replace dumb unskilled footballers with dumb unskilled footballers? This is not true in my view; but if it was it says a lot about recruiting.

The players we put out there are not unskilled or stupid. If coaches can't improve ball use and efficiency over a 5 year period when it is a glaring deficiency.. why do we have them? what do they do? How can it not be seen as a coaching issue when it has been an acknowledged problem for 5 years and we've turned the list over like we have? Aren't coaches supposed to find ways to overcome these shortcomings??.. either through player recruitment and development or changes to gamestyle and tactics.

I think you will find we play a style which makes efficient ball use more difficult; and the consequences of inefficient ball use more damaging. If we have a poor game where we are rusty on the skills .. we look horrible and this one weakness becomes a killer; despite us dominating the contest. If we are allowed to execute well we look great...and nobody complains our players are dumb or unskilled (We looked like we had awesome kicking skills against Brisbane in the game I got to watch last year up here.... because they let us) Not sure that our style is a recipe for success in the pressure cooker of finals footy.

The Bulldogs aren't a great kicking team or what I would consider highly skilled; but they played to their strengths and won a flag.

On these points I agree. The coaching issue for me is not the game plan but the recruitment. At some stage the coach needs to step up and take responsibility for the skills we put out on the ground. He can't continue to allow his tenure to be decided by others (or his if he is getting his head in where it doesn't belong) shortcomings. It is why we are mediocre - our football department is lacking in so many areas.

 

[Spatfers]

It stands to reason why Clokey had such an impact, just look at the way the Bulldogs use him moving around the ground rather than static one-on-ones. Even though we don't have him anymore, we still boot it into our 50 under pressure like he's still there.

The people bagging Moore are being ridiculous, expecting a kid to take a speccy every time the ball is roosted into our 50 is the same mistake we made with Cloke.

 

[doodles98]

Pressure does funny things to players doodles (e.g Blair) personally I don't think we were as bad as some people are making out.

This week will be a good indicator for me on our fortunes this year.

I thought we were great at winning the ball, executing the forward press, center clearances, bringing the pressure. We should have won on that effort and the dominance we had. It's a real concern we didn't.

We are not a dumb and poorly skilled side as people are making out so they need to think a bit harder than that to explain our chronic inefficiency over 5 years. It also does not make any sense to be exonerating the coaches for something that has remained an issue for 5 years; as many seem to want to do. It's a shared responsibility between the coaches and playing group.
If we play like that against the Tigers, in my view we will win comfortably, even with the same inefficiency.

Also, Slot Wells into our midfield and we have 3 absolutely elite inside 50 disposers of the footy .. will be interesting to see if the Wells can make a difference or not.

 

[CFC2010]

I thought we were great at winning the ball, executing the forward press, center clearances, bringing the pressure. We should have won on that effort and the dominance we had. It's a real concern we didn't.

We are not a dumb and poorly skilled side as people are making out so they need to think a bit harder than that to explain our chronic inefficiency over 5 years. It also does not make any sense to be exonerating the coaches for something that has remained an issue for 5 years; as many seem to want to do. It's a shared responsibility between the coaches and playing group.
If we play like that against the Tigers, in my view we will win comfortably, even with the same inefficiency.

Also, Slot Wells into our midfield and we have 3 absolutely elite inside 50 disposers of the footy .. will be interesting to see if the Wells can make a difference or not.

Agreed on the bolded part......I am not exonerating the coaches at all on the past but I still believe in the Dogs game they didn't do much wrong.

 

[PIrOed]

doodles98 and CFC2010 your both right. The disposal inside forward fifty was poor and when the ball was moved slowly or the press forced repeat inside fifties the forward line was congested making it harder for the forwards. If either of those problems was addressed on Friday night then the team should have won. However fix both and we can start talking premiership windows.

Both those issues are personnel related, with better players you won't see instances such as that in the first quarter where Blair, under little pressure, kicked straight to a defender when he had a forward(I believe it was Fasolo) leading into space. Then if the club had better small forwards available who could create goals from ground level like Sidebottom and Pendlebury did then a congested forward line would be less of an issue. Now those players are already on the list but simply unavailable. When players such as Wells and Aish filter back into the midfield/half forward line the delivery should improve and when players like Elliot, Broomhead, Daicos and Kirby start staking claims for forward roles the teams ability to generate goals from forward line congestion should also improve.

As for the tall forwards in Moore and Cox they both had poor games but they weren't out marked(turn over) and brought the ball to ground where once again the teams lack of genuine small forwards to do the crumbing hurt.

Now if the players required to improve effeciency continue to be unavailable for a significant period and the coaching group do not make any adjustments to compensate then it certainly becomes a coaching issue. Also on coaching issues Collingwood's poor ability to defend turn overs between the arcs is certainly one that needs to be addressed.

 

[cleomenes]

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.

There is much to agree with here. The passes delivered under minimal (for the competition) pressure are the biggest killer. Confidence (or its lack) is probably the biggest cause. Our lack of out the back goals can be sheeted home to these disposal failures when the opportunities have been created.
A second probable cause for the lack of goals on the break is that we play to wide when we get a break, and the small amount of extra time that this gives the opposition allows their defensive grid to move back and fill the usable space. By contrast, our opponents break up the middle when they can, and these moves give most of the slingshot goals.
Our players are clearly committing too far forward for their ability to cover running back. They persist with the zone a fraction too long to cover breaking players when the ball is lost.
I am firmly convinced that confidence is the biggest turnaround we have to make. The deft touches that gave Footscray a number of goals were not quite mirrored by our team. We tried a number. One by Cox was particularly noticeable. A win or two could turn this right around. A couple more losses and we will be consigned to the also ran basket again

 

[stefoid]

Sounds like our board under mcartney, and a fair bit of 2015.

Funny thing is last weeks game is a complete turnaround from our 2016 games where we dominated I50s, contested ball, etc.. but had very low scoring efficiency. We won all but 7 games using that style, probably down to a pretty good zone defence and insane pressure. I think you guys will too, if you can maintain the rage, but I guess its a very taxing style of play. I think you need to be able to throw a heap of guys through the midfield and then rest forward to 'keep up the energy around the ball' as bevo likes to say.

I suppose our next step seems to be the fast break down the corridor mixed in. Having Crameri and Cloke helps us in that regard, as does Murph who can play forward and/or rotate with JJ up there. That aspect was a surprise to us doggies fans and also the tapping the ball around instead of taking possession was new.

FWIW, I think you guys have shown an ability to play the high pressure, low efficiency game pretty well, and it might be a horse for course thing with your group - stick at it and double-down on the pressure and see where it takes you.

 

[loki04]

Pressure does funny things to players doodles (e.g Blair) personally I don't think we were as bad as some people are making out.

This week will be a good indicator for me on our fortunes this year.

Beating a middling and traditionally inconsistent Richmond side wont really tell us anything, the dogs game had concerns but also had positives to draw from.

Season is hardly started and no one claims we have no hope but people like to dissect where we need to improve to go from middling to genuine threat.

Dogs aren't the best team and weren't in 2017 despite the flag, weren't even top 2 team they had a good finals series combined with a lot of good luck and umpiring on side.(They finished 7 for a reason and lucky they won the 2 vs us due to our injuries in game or may have missed the 8 all together).

 

[loki04]

Agreed on the bolded part......I am not exonerating the coaches at all on the past but I still believe in the Dogs game they didn't do much wrong.

Should of adjusted the zone and perhaps made a move of Reid to the forward line to give us a genuine target up there.

 

[CFC2010]

Beating a middling and traditionally inconsistent Richmond side wont really tell us anything, the dogs game had concerns but also had positives to draw from.

Season is hardly started and no one claims we have no hope but people like to dissect where we need to improve to go from middling to genuine threat.

Dogs aren't the best team and weren't in 2017 despite the flag, weren't even top 2 team they had a good finals series combined with a lot of good luck and umpiring on side.(They finished 7 for a reason and lucky they won the 2 vs us due to our injuries in game or may have missed the 8 all together).

Is this the same Richmond we stole the game from last year?

I don't expect the Pies to be a genuine threat this year............that is why I believe this week is a must win game.

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

IF the skills are of the traditional Rich vs Coll variety then it's going to be a tough watch - win or lose.

 

[loki04]

Is this the same Richmond we stole the game from last year?

I don't expect the Pies to be a genuine threat this year............that is why I believe this week is a must win game.

Yes you know the one who finished 13th to our 12th, gain more on our fortunes from the dogs loss then a Richmond win imo. Although if those pretenders beat us gold help us for the rest of the year.

How Hardwick still has a job has me stumped.

 

[peatease]

I feel some of the inefficiencies was due to our players being conservative. Howe was good and is one of our better kicks. I think he could take more risks as his skills allow it. Treloar got a tone of it but hesitates on the forward half. Instead of trying to take on a man (which I think he can) he side steps to his left and kicks a Lumumba Seagull killer. Or he does a little chip kick off balance.

I think our midfield structures are not bad and the guys decision making will be quicker and a lot better going forward.

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

IF the skills are of the traditional Rich vs Coll variety then it's going to be a tough watch - win or lose.

Consider my expectations exceeded. Holy sheeeeeet

 

[TradeDraft]

Our Kicking is Disgraful