Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis Inside 50s

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Our efficiency to score and nullify the entrees has made it a smaller problem but I agree we can't let it get out of hand.
 
Basically so far our forward line and defence have been elite and our midfield poor. If we can get that midfield up to middling standard we will be laughing.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Yeah it is a problem at the moment. But it hasn't been too costly so far.

Just really need to sort it out before the GWS game
 
To many turnovers in critical ares.

Jobe and Kelly were our worse today but as a whole we are bad across the whole board.

Scarily enough its when a player has time and space they still manage to turn it over.

No point coming on here critisizing Hurley or Bags when they are continually caught out of position because of turnovers.

Its been going on for a long time!
 
eth-dog said:
Basically so far our forward line and defence have been elite and our midfield poor. If we can get that midfield up to middling standard we will be laughing.
Click to expand...
eth, please. Our defence elite. Surely you're having a laugh.

Hurley - average
Baguley - poor/average
Gleeson - poor and dropped
McGrath - good.
Stanton - poor
Kelly - good
Ambrose- good.
McKenna - average

Not sure how we can have an elite defence when pretty much all have been way under the required level to be a finals side.

Our inside 50's are not just about the midfield. We lack so much drive from defence that we can't get the ball transitioned into our 50 quick enough and lock it in. Our kick ins are pretty poor and allow for repeat entries way too often.

Our rucks have been poor so allow the opposition first use of the ball most of the time.
 
kelvin_sheedy said:
eth, please. Our defence elite. Surely you're having a laugh.

Hurley - average
Baguley - poor/average
Gleeson - poor and dropped
McGrath - good.
Stanton - poor
Kelly - good
Ambrose- good.
McKenna - average

Not sure how we can have an elite defence when pretty much all have been way under the required level to be a finals side.

Our inside 50's are not just about the midfield. We lack so much drive from defence that we can't get the ball transitioned into our 50 quick enough and lock it in. Our kick ins are pretty poor and allow for repeat entries way too often.

Our rucks have been poor so allow the opposition first use of the ball most of the time.
Click to expand...
Hurley was a goliath today. McGrath was brilliant. Ambrose is also brilliant. So consistent.

I'll agree on the rest though, save for maybe Gleeson. Far too good for VFL, just needs to get continuous solid performances.
 
Entries against are high due to repeats from bad rebounds. Combination of poor ball use coming out of defence, lack of pressure from the midfield and just the general costly nature of playing corridor football.
 
kelvin_sheedy said:
eth, please. Our defence elite. Surely you're having a laugh.

Hurley - average
Baguley - poor/average
Gleeson - poor and dropped
McGrath - good.
Stanton - poor
Kelly - good
Ambrose- good.
McKenna - average

Not sure how we can have an elite defence when pretty much all have been way under the required level to be a finals side.

Our inside 50's are not just about the midfield. We lack so much drive from defence that we can't get the ball transitioned into our 50 quick enough and lock it in. Our kick ins are pretty poor and allow for repeat entries way too often.

Our rucks have been poor so allow the opposition first use of the ball most of the time.
Click to expand...
21% goal/inside 50 conversion rate for our opposition so far this year. Only team that has a better defensive rate is Richmond. So, being 2nd overall in the best defensive metric available to the public means that the defence isn't elite?
 
eth-dog said:
21% goal/inside 50 conversion rate for our opposition so far this year. Only team that has a better defensive rate is Richmond. So, being 2nd overall in the best defensive metric available to the public means that the defence isn't elite?
Click to expand...

I generally hate stats but that is a pearler, tangibly measures effectiveness.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

eth-dog said:
21% goal/inside 50 conversion rate for our opposition so far this year. Only team that has a better defensive rate is Richmond. So, being 2nd overall in the best defensive metric available to the public means that the defence isn't elite?
Click to expand...
Yet all you do is criticise Hurley, Baguley and Brown:thumbsu:
 
Killer_Mike said:
Yet all you do is criticise Hurley, Baguley and Brown:thumbsu:
Click to expand...
Where did I criticise Brown? Baguley has been shit for 4 straight games, deal with it. And my criticism over Hurley's game was by and large over his poor kick outs.
ghostdog said:
Won the clearances and stoppages today though.
Click to expand...
Yep. Was weird, our spread wasn't as good as it usually is.
 
Donakebab said:
Entries against are high due to repeats from bad rebounds. Combination of poor ball use coming out of defence, lack of pressure from the midfield and just the general costly nature of playing corridor football.
Click to expand...
Was going to post pretty much this, especially kick ins.

Would like to know how often the ball comes back i50 straight after we kick in
 
eth-dog said:
Where did I criticise Brown? Baguley has been shit for 4 straight games, deal with it. And my criticism over Hurley's game was by and large over his poor kick outs.

When are people going to recognise this as a team sport?

Baguley played all 4 games and yet our defensive efficiency is second to Richmond! Confirmation bias....
Click to expand...
 
To be fair, there can be individual failures in an effective team. Like today Baguley was involved in at least 5 opposition goals yet we only conceded 11. Three or four which I would deem unforced errors, or mistakes that aren't reasonable. Two spoilable marks to Elliott, one poorly directed spoil to three Collingwood players, and lost his feet before Elliott marked at 50 and handed off to Wells for a running goal.
 
Last edited:

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Is it because our forward line is effective and able to make the most of their opportunities? Still quite a worry and needs to be fixed to keep pressure off defence.
 
It isn't just about our midfield being poor (which it has been). We concede a lot of repeat inside 50s because our kick ins aren't great. We just seem to bomb it to a contest more often then not instead of finding targets. That improved in the last quarter and it resulted in goals.

Sides have been better at kicking the ball in against us, which prevents repeated inside 50s in our favour. We've also been pretty efficient. I'd take 43 inside 50s for 100 points every day of the week over 60 inside 50s for 65 points like we used to do back in the day.

Stat watchers might think that we were smashed in the midfield based on inside 50s count, but we won both the centre and stoppage clearances yesterday so it isn't only about our midfield. It's just that our kick ins really inflate the number of inside 50s we concede.
 
In terms of our kick ins I really liked when McNeice got a few turns to kick out, he would quickly play on and get an extra 20metres and his kicking is brilliant so it often found a target. If we want to attack we cant have Hurley taking kick outs despite his kicking being long. Zac Merrett is another who is creative with those kickouts
 
So many yesterday were re-entries after a Collingwood behind and poor kick out structure down the ground that couldn't either A. Mark it or B. get the ground the ball and move it on. It was way too easily lost and brought back in, thankfully most of them were trash entries with no real purpose.
 
Red Black and Blue said:
We've lost the count every week so far.

Lowest number of Inside 50s for and second highest Inside 50s conceded.

How do we rectify it before it starts costing us games?
Click to expand...



We're getting beaten around the ball more often than we are not and then scoring when we get the ball inside 50. It's a recipe for poor numbers but it's not as bad as it looks. Inside 50s are misleading because the more inefficient sides tend to have high numbers and there is almost no correlation between those numbers and winning games. Kicking a goal for these teams is almost a disadvantage because the ball then goes back to the middle where an opposition is an even chance of winning the ball and exposing a suspect defensive structure (because the inefficient sides tend to have a forward defensive focus based on winning the ball).

If we want to correct the problem we need more depth of contested ball winners and strength around the ball. Watson is the only player we had against Collingwood that has the strength to compete with Treloar, Adams and Crisp. Heppell wins high numbers but he's not a bull and neither is Goddard. Merrett and Parish are light. Given that most ruck contests are dropped at the feet of the ruckmen there is no substitute for power around the ball.

Myers coming back into the side will certainly help but we'll still need more. Ideally, we'll have Laverde and Begley to add to the midfield rotation from the forward line in the coming years. It will mean punting one of the small forwards but that's fine.
 
Last edited:
This is the score Sources from the game:

Clearly turnovers is a big issue for us and we were fortunate that Collingwood didn't capitalize on it.

Essendon Collingwood

(5.4) 34 Stoppage (4.5) 29
(1.1) 7 Bounce (2.2) 14
(3.3) 21 Throw In (2.2) 14
(1.0) 6 Ball Up (0.1) 1
(8.6) 54 Turnovers (7.11) 53
(2.0) 12 Kick-Ins (0.0) 0
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom