- Apr 16, 2014
- 10,474
- 23,458
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Sorry for intruding, someone quoted this on our board and i thought I'd come over and say great read. I love reading on bigfooty other peoples take on games.So I’ve had the (dis)pleasure of sifting through this result a number of times now.
Rewind-replay, watching repeated errors and brain-fades on the red-eye flight until my eyes feel like bleeding.
We lost by ten goals, yet were flattered by the result.
We were comprehensively beaten in all areas of the ground, across nearly all positions.
It is a serious dose of reality in regard to where we may lie as a team this coming season. Combined with the continual postponement on the returns of Naitanui and Kennedy, who seem to be joining Ah Chee, Vardy and now Rioli in missing much of the early part of the season, any optimism built-up over this pre-season has suffered some severe deflation this week.
So without doubt the principal question this week regarding the “performance” on Sunday is how much consideration did the club place upon the result?
My inferred opinion is that whilst there was little emphasis placed upon the scoreboard outcome, the club will be bitterly disappointed with the almost complete loss of cohesive structure and offensive ball movement that occurred during significant periods of the match.
Two things that jump out for me are the following:
- We didn’t appear in the right condition to play a match.
- Midfield ball-carriers in Shuey, Yeo and Gaff were kept away from midfield contests.
Conditioning: There is no hiding that something was going on in regard to the player fitness out there – the squad looked tired at quarter time and several of our terrible unforced turnovers during the match appeared to be products of tired decision-making. So what was going on? The commentary team seemed to conveniently forget that we had already played against Port and Fremantle in the previous two weeks and had it in their collective heads that this was the club’s first preseason match for the year and the players were underdone because of it. We know that is obviously incorrect. It was clearly apparent however that Fremantle were physically better prepared to run out this match than we were. Considering they [Fremantle] had the exact same seven day turnaround between matches and venues, it suggests activities in the training area are behind the poor condition of the players. Now this is the fifth pre-season Simpson has managed at the club and our early games record has been good during his tenure (6 from 8 over Rounds 1 & 2), so it would be safe to assume that he and the coaching staff have a good awareness of what they are doing and that the player conditioning for this match was intentional.
Thus the inference is that the prior week was a very hard training week and the squad had not fully recovered to full fitness before Sunday.
Two weeks ago at Leederville against Port was a test in adapting a gameplan towards applying forward pressure. This match against Fremantle was a test of the squad in their decision-making and cohesiveness whilst under fatigue against real opposition. In other words, this was an end of training red-time drill that lasted for four quarters.There are actually a lot of studies that have been conducted on effort under fatigue from the round-ball game (in addition to some recent studies on effects in the local game). The majority of outcomes point to similar conclusions – that managed correctly, training under fatigue will not provide any noticeable improvement to fitness, but does provide positive improvements to both running biomechanics and technical execution (kicking), which in itself leads to a lower risk of soft tissue injury.Some examples are linked:
Injury Prevention in Football – Paul, Nassis & Brito, Dec 2014
http://www.aspetar.com/journal/upload/PDF/201412893133.pdf
Incremented fatigue and kicking performance of elite U18 Australian footballers – Joyce & Woods, April 2016
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301358989_Incremented_fatigue_and_kicking_performance_of_elite_U18_Australian_footballers
Further link to 2014 article of the Crows placing emphasis upon fatigue training – our new midfield coach was the captain there at the time.
Adelaide focuses on composure under stress
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-01-29/stress-factors
Midfield ball-carriers kept away from midfield contests: Throughout most of this match, our senior ball-carriers in Shuey, Gaff and Yeo were kept away from midfield congestion. Shuey and Gaff on the wings with respective outside remits and Yeo stationed in the forward line. This had two desired outcomes: it minimised the risk to injury of these players and provided the opportunity for the next tier in the midfield to take the lead at contests against senior opposition.
So how did it play out? It makes for some pretty bad reading…
View attachment 470317
View attachment 470318
To say we were destroyed is an understatement. We were utterly outmatched everywhere on the ground.
Shuey and Gaff, despite being kept in cotton wool on the outside were subjected to tags in a pre-season match. They looked lost as a result, not knowing whether to contest against the tag whilst keeping to the remit of self-preservation. That however does not excuse their poor performance – this may well be the worst performance that we ever witness from them in blue and gold.
In just half a match Sandilands made Lycett look third-rate and the stoppage ranks provided with opportunity were barely able to touch the ball, let alone provide supply to the starved forwards.
In defence Barrass was so comprehensively beaten by Taberner that (despite it being a pre-season match with little apparent care for the result) he was swapped with McGovern after barely a quarter. Meanwhile our defensive smalls were made to look amateur by Fremantle’s crumbing brigade.
It was a truly awful team effort.
Fatigued or not, there was a myriad of terrible decisions and terrible execution in this match that is not befitting of AFL standard. In addition to our complete loss of any structure during large periods of the match (including the near entirety of the second quarter) there will be a lot that the coaching panel will be unhappy with from this final run-out before the season proper commences.
But, let’s also be fair to the opponent. Yes, it is the scorned younger sibling from down the street, but they do look very much improved coming into this season. Their backline looks settled and the pickup of Wilson provides them with a counterattacking edge that has been missing for them in previous seasons. Their midfield is developing a depth to it that will now allow Fyfe to operate as a CHF for longer periods, and the key forwards combined have played less games than Darling has alone. That arguably their three best ball carriers when fit in B.Hill, S.Hill and Bennell missed this match speaks volumes about their progressive development. The fixture this season gives them an extra home game and if Sandilands remains healthy, I expect they will be challenging for a top eight spot.
They played us very well on Sunday and their ball movement on the back of Wilson was particularly impressive.
Coming out of defence, this is how Fremantle moved the ball:
View attachment 470319
Fremantle Ball Movement:
1. Kick-in is received wide near the boundary.
2. West Coast zone moves across in anticipation of ball moving to the wing.
3. Ruck and CHB feign leads and drag West Coast marking players away from the 50 apex.
4. Multiple players move to the vacated space to receive the incoming switch kick.
5. Before the switch is even set in motion, numbers behind the ball make aggressive runs down the fat side of the ground to receive the long diagonal kick forward.
6. West Coast defence caught between attending the runners or staying with their markers, which results in a mark and shot on goal.
Draw the zone to one side of the ground and then rapidly switch to unmarked runners on the opposite wing. That diagonal kick has been killing us now for the past two seasons – and from all appearances looks set to continue this season as well. You know things aren’t going right when you are getting beat up by Ross Lyon on offense...
That however wasn’t my greatest point of concern from this match. What concerns me the most is the continuation of us not being able to move the ball with any efficiency from defence into attack. Continuously we move the ball out wide from defence, only to find inside options are covered and then get caught on the wing with nowhere to go. Either we retreat backwards and attempt another ineffectual switch or ultimately bomb a hopeful kick forward to a contest where the chances of taking a mark are very low.
View attachment 470321
West Coast Ball Movement:
Opposition spare in corridor prevents options on the inside from being available and thus possession gets stalled on the wing.
This in turn kills the operation of the forward line, as leads go unrecognised and opposition defenders are unable to be isolated in mismatched contests against our forward targets.
It is the price we pay for being conservative. Since post-2015 we routinely deploy a spare in defence to provide rotational cover for McGovern if the opposition attempt to drag him up the ground to negate his intercept marking. It means the defence is exceptionally hard to break down, given they have time to setup effectively. However this causes the opposition to have a spare available also – which is commonly deployed to cut-off access to corridor targets from wide areas – because we always move the ball out of defence to wide areas.
Without the option of finding targets in the corridor, we become stuck on the wing and our offense implodes. Any turnovers that occur are often in our own defensive half, which places significant pressure upon the defence to recover and ready themselves in time to receive the opposition attack – almost ¾ of Fremantle goals came off turnovers; they more than doubled our score off intercepts alone.
The solution to our woes in getting the ball forward is to either remove the spare in defence or populate the backline with a majority of ball-carriers to allow sufficient run from defence in order to punch through the opposition setup. Until then, our offensive movement will remain ponderous.
I do feel that this result is more aberration than trend however; and I am also sure that the team will be adequately prepared for Sydney’s Round 1 visit.
Individual Notes:
#1. Liam Ryan: Was our best during the first quarter. His work up the ground was impressive before tiring badly. Still needs to learn when to keep his feet on the ground. Laid one of the best pre-season bumps I’ve seen on Langdon. Has ticked all the boxes for a Round 1 debut.
#2. Mark Lecras: A much better performance in comparison with his showing against Port. Was one of only four players in the team that kicked above 70% effectiveness. Participated in many centre bounce contests and won 7 contested possessions (half his total disposals). Contributed two of our three goal assists for the match. Positive signs for Round 1 here.
#3. Andrew Gaff: Wrapped in cotton wool and still tagged by Fremantle. Left to feed off scraps on the outside yet still gained over 20 disposals. Survived without injury – positive result.
#4. Dom Sheed: Given a larger responsibility in the midfield, but was taught a lesson by Neale – hopefully he learns from it.
#5. Brad Sheppard: The continual quiet achiever. Considering the number of attacking forays Fremantle had; keeping a larger opponent in Kersten quiet [10 disposals, 0 goals] is a rare positive in a poor result. Only member of the team that disposed above 80% effectiveness.
#6. Elliot Yeo: Started up forward and (like Gaff and Shuey) was kept away from most of the contested areas. Floated around following Fyfe for periods, but almost appeared to watching rather than competing. Looked tired and that translated into his disposal effectiveness being less than 40%.
#8. Jack Redden: Given a lead role in the midfield and failed to step up. Was repeatedly blocked out at stoppages by Mundy far too easily in the first half especially. Just 4 disposals, 4 clangers in the first half. Improved in the second half, but the damage was already done.
#10. Jarrod Brander: Spent the final 8 minutes of the match on the ground. Didn’t get to touch the ball. Obviously being managed – expect to see him play for East Perth this week.
#13. Luke Shuey: As mentioned above, given an outside role to minimise injury risk but was tagged anyway, much to his bemusement. Looked lost for periods and decision-making was awful. 15 disposals, 11 clangers, 7 free kicks against. A terrible game from Luke. Spent much of the match with a “WTF?” expression on his face and was noticeably frustrated by its end. Hopefully nothing more than an anomaly.
#14. Liam Duggan: Was our best after McGovern. Finishes what has been a very impressive pre-season from him and happy to see he has now re-committed to the club also. Cleaned up the ball in defence and didn’t hesitate to get further up the ground either. Still beaten by Walters in this match however.
#15. Jamie Cripps: Our most productive forward on a day that was not good for our forwards. (Lack of) accuracy from set shots is currently undoing his hard work. Will definitely feature against the Swans in Round 1.
#18. Daniel Venables: Another step in the right direction. 10 possessions in 66% time on ground – half of those contested. Left the ground for treatment during the third quarter but returned shortly thereafter. Such an exciting talent with so much potential – his development should be fast-tracked. Looking more and more likely to get a Round 1 debut.
#20. Jeremy McGovern: By far our best. Possibly the only player in the team that could honestly say that they were not beaten by their opponent. Need to get that contract sorted out.
#23. Lewis Jetta: Played exclusively on the ball for large periods of this match and did better than what I would have expected. Kicked a goal, won 7 contested possessions and maintained disposal efficiency near 80%. On this performance he is more than capable of providing the team with another stoppage rotation, much like Walters does for Fremantle or C.Rioli does for Hawthorn. By far his best pre-season with the club this year.
#25. Shannon Hurn: Looked very tired. Spent most of the match with an unhappy look on his face. What little pace he had has dropped off considerably so far this year. Possibly more concerning is what appears to be a significant drop in the penetration of his kicking. Perhaps he has had some tightness and simply doesn’t want to risk a hyperextension during pre-season? I’m just speculating. That Jetta seemed to be the preferred kick-in taker however suggests that something is going on. [Edit – have now heard reports that he has a back strain] Struggled to compete with the athleticism from Banfield.
#27. Jack Darling: Competed better than a fortnight ago but presented no problems to Fremantle’s key defenders. 0 goals, 0 behinds, 0 goal assists, 3 marks, 1 tackle – terrible. Is woefully out of form but is guaranteed a Round 1 spot due to injuries in the squad. His regression correlates with our ball movement – address the issues with our inefficient ball use and you will probably find that it also addresses the issues currently concerning Darling.
#28. Thomas Cole: One of our best. Remained composed in possession, unlike many of his more senior teammates. Won an equal team high of 10 contested possessions in addition to contributions further up the ground. Allowed Ballantyne far too much space however and was punished for it. Still looks a certain start for Round 1 after what has been an impressive pre-season.
#29. Scott Lycett: May as well have not been there when Sandilands was on the ground, as he did nothing to negate his influence on the match. Improved in the second half, but should have been dominant against a 19 year-old ruckman that is yet to play a senior game. 10 possessions for 7 clangers. Will face the Swans due to there being no other option available – thankfully Sydney are going through their own crisis in the ruck.
#33. Brayden Ainsworth: 5 possessions in 56% time on ground. Seems to be a player that always provides energy and intensity and has been rewarded for his efforts this pre-season. Spent much of his time on ground up forward. Would be surprised if he were handed a Round 1 debut however.
#34. Mark Hutchings: Had a great first quarter [7 disposals, 5 tackles] and then faded severely thereafter. Went off with the blood rule late in the second quarter and looked a pace behind the game thereafter.
#36. Fraser McInnes: That it is looking like he could be in for a Round 1 berth gives insight to where we really are as a club. There is a reason that he has played just 11 AFL games despite now entering his 7th year on our list. He is just a very average player. 6 disposals, 0 goals, 0 behinds, 0 goal assists, 0 marks, 0 tackles in 80% time on ground – witches hat.
#37. Tom Barrass: As mentioned above, easily beaten by Taberner early. Regained his composure after swapping to McCarthy and improved as the game wore on.
#44. William Rioli: Forced off with a rolled ankle during the first quarter and did not return. Will need to prove his fitness with East Perth now before any chance of a senior debut.
#45. Jake Waterman: Our best key forward in this match and the only player in the team that managed multiple marks inside attacking fifty. With that said, 1 goal, 0 goal assists and 4 marks is not what one would consider a productive day for a CHF. Is unlikely to play Round 1 as he cannot offer a ruck rotation in comparison to McInnes.
For those who may be wondering about the relative ground sizes that we have played on this pre-season in comparison to AFL venues; here is how they match-up:
View attachment 470322
As you can see, these suburban grounds are considerably larger than the major AFL venues.
Interesting to note that the match against Port where the defensive zone operated successfully was at a venue that has the same width as Optus Stadium.
So, that’s it for another pre-season.
New players, new logo, new stadium and hopefully renewed expectations.
Can’t wait to see 60,000 in the new home, making noise and giving the Swans merry hell.
You mentioned that we sat people on Shuey and Gaff all game. I didn't see any hard tags from my viewing, who was it that was on them? Was it just midfielders being accountable for other midfielders? Our first yearer Brayshaw spent some time with Shuey but i wouldn't have called it a tag.
Also you mentioned Shuey playing an outside role which I'm not sure is entirely true. Just checked the Centre bounce attendances and Shuey was your highest.
Other than those queries great indepth write up.
