Analysis Making the Top 4 and building to a flag. 4TH is IRRELEVANT, MAKE IT TOP 3

[PAFC66]

I've been harping on for years our players lack composure and make poor decisions.

I just feel our experienced players will keep doing this until they are churned. Is Jackson the right player to churn? I'm not sure on that one.

My MAIN composure culprits are:
Broadbent
Hartlett
Westhoff
Boak

Broadbent the only one that might go. No way in hell any others get traded. The Hoff would be the next and that will be a retirement.

 

[FishingRick04]

Broadbent the only one that might go. No way in hell any others get traded. The Hoff would be the next and that will be a retirement.

I'm just targeting them as our longest term composure culprits

Not saying they need to go, maybe they do.

 

[PAFC66]

I'm just targeting them as our longest term composure culprits

Not saying they need to go, maybe they do.

I agree..

I'd have them all out tomorrow if I could.. Boak can stay but take away his responsibilities.

 

[Portology]

I reckon Ken wants a small forward who positions himself for defensive pressure rather than sets himself up to crumb. Neade should be that player and should have kicked about 200 goals in his career by now.

D Menzel is rated the worst for "forward pressure" in the AFL. allegedly the reason he got dropped. this trade season will be interesting.

Ken is an old school half back flanker and a lot of his philosophy must stem from that. In our system I think that has led to talented players being coached into "trying harder" too often in moments when cold judgement is required, and some less talented players being shoe horned into roles that minimize the impact of the talent they have. It's the psych link between 2014 helter skelter and the repeat poor choices we saw in the last few minutes on saturday night. Poor accuracy is a partial result - tired first, then inaccurate.

The rest of our inaccuracy is also straight out of old school half back flanker land: we're not the best users of the footy out of the midfield, and we're susceptible to rebound goals from good opposition, therefore aim for the pockets on F50 entries and maybe go for gold via Ryder at the restart. Again, a low accuracy/low risk philosophy. Can't change most of that with the current personnel. I mean West Coast went with the dinosaurs: Petrie, Vardy, Kennedy, Darling and Mitchell put just enough of it perfectly down their throats. It won't get them very far. They set up at one extreme but we could not have dreamed of taking such structural risks.

You used to say "can't kick can't play footy" well I'd modify that "can't kick, can't win a flag, no matter what else you do".

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I've been harping on for years our players lack composure and make poor decisions.

I just feel our experienced players will keep doing this until they are churned. Is Jackson the right player to churn? I'm not sure on that one.

My MAIN composure culprits are:
Broadbent
Hartlett
Westhoff
Boak

Add Impey takes a mark and runs off irrespective who or what is around him. Add Sam Gray. Add Neade. Add Pittard. Add Ebert. Add Robbie Gray having a set shot 30m out. Add Chad on bloody Saturday night.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

D Menzel is rated the worst for "forward pressure" in the AFL. allegedly the reason he got dropped. this trade season will be interesting.

Ken is an old school half back flanker and a lot of his philosophy must stem from that. In our system I think that has led to talented players being coached into "trying harder" too often in moments when cold judgement is required, and some less talented players being shoe horned into roles that minimize the impact of the talent they have. It's the psych link between 2014 helter skelter and the repeat poor choices we saw in the last few minutes on saturday night. Poor accuracy is a partial result - tired first, then inaccurate.

The rest of our inaccuracy is also straight out of old school half back flanker land: we're not the best users of the footy out of the midfield, and we're susceptible to rebound goals from good opposition, therefore aim for the pockets on F50 entries and maybe go for gold via Ryder at the restart. Again, a low accuracy/low risk philosophy. Can't change most of that with the current personnel. I mean West Coast went with the dinosaurs: Petrie, Vardy, Kennedy, Darling and Mitchell put just enough of it perfectly down their throats. It won't get them very far. They set up at one extreme but we could not have dreamed of taking such structural risks.

You used to say "can't kick can't play footy" well I'd modify that "can't kick, can't win a flag, no matter what else you do".

Ken was a highly skilled HBFer, actually he was a HFFer until Blight dropped him, played him at HBF in the reserves and got 50 disposals and never played in the reserves again. He was a dual All Oz HBFer and played for Victoria.

Ken had plenty of big targets to kick to in the forward line, Ablett, Brownless, Barry Stoneham an All Oz CHF, Mensch, Colbert and John Barnes rested up forward.

 

[Janus]

D Menzel is rated the worst for "forward pressure" in the AFL. allegedly the reason he got dropped. this trade season will be interesting.

Ken is an old school half back flanker and a lot of his philosophy must stem from that. In our system I think that has led to talented players being coached into "trying harder" too often in moments when cold judgement is required, and some less talented players being shoe horned into roles that minimize the impact of the talent they have. It's the psych link between 2014 helter skelter and the repeat poor choices we saw in the last few minutes on saturday night. Poor accuracy is a partial result - tired first, then inaccurate.

The rest of our inaccuracy is also straight out of old school half back flanker land: we're not the best users of the footy out of the midfield, and we're susceptible to rebound goals from good opposition, therefore aim for the pockets on F50 entries and maybe go for gold via Ryder at the restart. Again, a low accuracy/low risk philosophy. Can't change most of that with the current personnel. I mean West Coast went with the dinosaurs: Petrie, Vardy, Kennedy, Darling and Mitchell put just enough of it perfectly down their throats. It won't get them very far. They set up at one extreme but we could not have dreamed of taking such structural risks.

You used to say "can't kick can't play footy" well I'd modify that "can't kick, can't win a flag, no matter what else you do".

We don't aim for the pockets because we're not the best users of the footy out of the midfield, and it's not because we're susceptible to rebound goals.

We aim for the pockets because we want to give our defence time to setup behind the ball after transition and because turning the ball over through the corridor is the worst place you can do so due to the opposition having multiple options without having to work hard for them.

Everything we do is based around how it affects our defensive setup. Every selection - how it affects our defensive setup.

 

[Portology]

Ken was a highly skilled HBFer, actually he was a HFFer until Blight dropped him, played him at HBF in the reserves and got 50 disposals and never played in the reserves again. He was a dual All Oz HBFer and played for Victoria.

Ken had plenty of big targets to kick to in the forward line, Ablett, Brownless, Barry Stoneham an All Oz CHF, Mensch, Colbert and John Barnes rested up forward.

Yes. Exactly zero flags among them at Geelong, and apart from 1989 and the first half of 1992 barely fired a shot in four grand finals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OneGreatClub]

We don't aim for the pockets because we're not the best users of the footy out of the midfield, and it's not because we're susceptible to rebound goals.

We aim for the pockets because we want to give our defence time to setup behind the ball after transition and because turning the ball over through the corridor is the worst place you can do so due to the opposition having multiple options without having to work hard for them.

Everything we do is based around how it affects our defensive setup. Every selection - how it affects our defensive setup.

Bass is boss.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Yes. Exactly zero flags among them at Geelong, and apart from 1989 and the first half of 1992 barely fired a shot in four grand finals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rotten timing. Beaten by the Hawks 1980's dynasty maybe the greatest ever era of V/AFL footy by about 2 minutes. Beaten twice by an effective WA state team, the second time after they won the QF after the siren, Billy's kick, the second game they play the 2nd placed team, missing 5 All Oz players including the engine room Couch, Bairstow and Hocking all pulled out morning of SF v Carlton, win the PF after the siren and have spent their all their petrol tickets going into the GF and then play Carlton who were the first team ever to win 20 games in a season and had to bury 2 years of finals failures, the 1993 GF choke and the 1994 finish 2nd out in straight sets disaster the second one losing to Geelong.

1993 was the year they should have won. They missed the finals by percentage. None of the teams were dominate. It was a more even year than this year 12 of the 15 teams won at least 10 games in only a 20 game season. Ablett kicked 10+ goals 5 times, they lost 3 of those games and he is the only player ever before or after the 1993 season, to kick 10+ goals and lose more than one of those games in a career.

 

[Portology]

We don't aim for the pockets because we're not the best users of the footy out of the midfield, and it's not because we're susceptible to rebound goals.

We aim for the pockets because we want to give our defence time to setup behind the ball after transition and because turning the ball over through the corridor is the worst place you can do so due to the opposition having multiple options without having to work hard for them.

Everything we do is based around how it affects our defensive setup. Every selection - how it affects our defensive setup.

I understand the theory. In practice, when under pressure, something different seems to happen. I have a gut feeling that our "total defense spending", ie the sum of time+effort may be costing us accuracy at the other end of the petrol tank. Cars have brakes so they can go fast safely.

Yes, you can go too far the other way though...

Rotten timing. Beaten by the Hawks 1980's dynasty maybe the greatest ever era of V/AFL footy by about 2 minutes. Beaten twice by an effective WA state team, the second time after they won the QF after the siren, Billy's kick, the second game they play the 2nd placed team, missing 5 All Oz players including the engine room Couch, Bairstow and Hocking all pulled out morning of SF v Carlton, win the PF after the siren and have spent their all their petrol tickets going into the GF and then play Carlton who were the first team ever to win 20 games in a season and had to bury 2 years of finals failures, the 1993 GF choke and the 1994 finish 2nd out in straight sets disaster the second one to Carlton.

1993 was the year they should have won. They missed the finals by percentage. None of the teams were dominate. It was a more even year than this year 12 of the 15 teams won at least 10 games in only a 20 game season. Ablett kicked 10+ goals 5 times, they lost 3 of those games and he is the only player ever before or after the 1993 season, to kick 10+ goals and lose more than one of those games in a career.

Once can be considered a mistake. Twice, unlucky. Three or more and it's ... cultural. Can you imagine just how different a place we would be minus 2004 ... after 2001-2002-2003?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Once can be considered a mistake. Twice, unlucky. Three or more and it's ... cultural. Can you imagine just how different a place we would be minus 2004 ... after 2001-2002-2003?

We didnt win home finals in 2001-2003 that's cultural. Sure we had to come up against Essendon who were the first team to ever go 21-1 but that was in 2000 not 2001-03, and then Brisbane who are up there with the Hawks 1980's era, but we weren't even good enough to beat them in a GF in 2001-03 because we couldn't get there. Of Geelong's 4 GF's only 1992 were they as good as their opponent. The other 3 the other side was the better team and 1994 they had a 3 finals run nobody else has ever had - win 2 after the siren and play 1 final against the 2nd best side in the H&A part of the season, without 5 all Oz players and some how win. That's not cultural that's a bit of rotten luck who you are up against some of the best teams in history.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

We don't aim for the pockets because we're not the best users of the footy out of the midfield, and it's not because we're susceptible to rebound goals.

We aim for the pockets because we want to give our defence time to setup behind the ball after transition and because turning the ball over through the corridor is the worst place you can do so due to the opposition having multiple options without having to work hard for them.

Everything we do is based around how it affects our defensive setup. Every selection - how it affects our defensive setup.

Do you think this approach has taken us as far as it can?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[El_Scorcho]

We don't aim for the pockets because we're not the best users of the footy out of the midfield, and it's not because we're susceptible to rebound goals.

We aim for the pockets because we want to give our defence time to setup behind the ball after transition and because turning the ball over through the corridor is the worst place you can do so due to the opposition having multiple options without having to work hard for them.

Everything we do is based around how it affects our defensive setup. Every selection - how it affects our defensive setup.

We also aim to the pockets because teams clog up the corridor against us because they are prepared to give us low percentage scoring opportunities if it means stopping us from getting any high percentage scoring opportunities.

I'd argue that we can't possibly win a flag under that gameplan, because even though we can generate a stack of repeat entries, we can't score off of them because they are predominantly low percentage scoring opportunities, if they are scoring opportunities at all.

The problem with grinding teams out, as we've found this year, is that good teams will score against you. They won't blow you away unless your midfield doesn't turn up, but they'll find a way through.

Against sides that made the 8 this year, we averaged 97.5 points conceded. If you take out the 2 games where our midfield didn't show up against Essendon and Adelaide, we still averaged 89.25 points conceded. I'd argue our defence was league best, maybe only behind Sydney. Good teams will still find a way to score 90 points a game against teams who know how to defend and who can manufacture goals against our defence.

I'd hope that we concede a bit of our defensiveness next season in order to be better able to punish mistakes. We generate a heap of them but we just can't make teams pay. It's a bit like watching a Ross Lyon side. Brilliant defensively but without enough on the attacking end to punish teams, and then never quite able to keep those teams at bay in the big games.

 

[Janus]

We also aim to the pockets because teams clog up the corridor against us because they are prepared to give us low percentage scoring opportunities if it means stopping us from getting any high percentage scoring opportunities.

I'd argue that we can't possibly win a flag under that gameplan, because even though we can generate a stack of repeat entries, we can't score off of them because they are predominantly low percentage scoring opportunities, if they are scoring opportunities at all.

The problem with grinding teams out, as we've found this year, is that good teams will score against you. They won't blow you away unless your midfield doesn't turn up, but they'll find a way through.

Against sides that made the 8 this year, we averaged 97.5 points conceded. If you take out the 2 games where our midfield didn't show up against Essendon and Adelaide, we still averaged 89.25 points conceded. I'd argue our defence was league best, maybe only behind Sydney. Good teams will still find a way to score 90 points a game against teams who know how to defend and who can manufacture goals against our defence.

I'd hope that we concede a bit of our defensiveness next season in order to be better able to punish mistakes. We generate a heap of them but we just can't make teams pay. It's a bit like watching a Ross Lyon side. Brilliant defensively but without enough on the attacking end to punish teams, and then never quite able to keep those teams at bay in the big games.

Right. Which is why you need to play an athletic tall forward who can push down the ground and pull the defence out of position while another tall forward remains as a target. As I've said - playing talls is fine but they need to be the right talls.

This is where Dixon and Trengove fell down. Dixon started off playing deeper and Trengove was the one who was supposed to roam (because that's how Ryder plays when he's forward), but it didn't work, so they swapped...and it still didn't work cause Trengove doesn't have a clue how to a) create space as a forward and b) create space for other forwards.

What happened was against the better teams this lack of cohesion was exploited - defenders screened off Trengove because they knew he wasn't a real threat, which made things worse for our forward line because it clogged up space having a tall that was just...tall.

It's not the game plan that is the issue, it's the personnel. It's why Hinkley was desperate to bring Marshall into the side and persisted with him for finals. There was no point going with Jackson because while we might have won the game, we would have won it through talent and not through the underlying ethos of what we are trying to achieve.

As for our defence - we can get so much better. Being exposed by shit half back attack based sides like Essendon and Adelaide proves that. I don't think I ever saw us put in a four quarter performance of team defence all season, and honestly, if it looks like it's taxing, it's cause someone has left a hole and everyone is scrambling to cover.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Right. Which is why you need to play an athletic tall forward who can push down the ground and pull the defence out of position while another tall forward remains as a target. As I've said - playing talls is fine but they need to be the right talls.

This is where Dixon and Trengove fell down. Dixon started off playing deeper and Trengove was the one who was supposed to roam (because that's how Ryder plays when he's forward), but it didn't work, so they swapped...and it still didn't work cause Trengove doesn't have a clue how to a) create space as a forward and b) create space for other forwards.

What happened was against the better teams this lack of cohesion was exploited - defenders screened off Trengove because they knew he wasn't a real threat, which made things worse for our forward line because it clogged up space having a tall that was just...tall.

It's not the game plan that is the issue, it's the personnel. It's why Hinkley was desperate to bring Marshall into the side and persisted with him for finals. There was no point going with Jackson because while we might have won the game, we would have won it through talent and not through the underlying ethos of what we are trying to achieve.

As for our defence - we can get so much better. Being exposed by shit half back attack based sides like Essendon and Adelaide proves that. I don't think I ever saw us put in a four quarter performance of team defence all season, and honestly, if it looks like it's taxing, it's cause someone has left a hole and everyone is scrambling to cover.

Agree totally. I don't think you can blame the defence for Adelaide or Essendon either, our mids just didn't show up and got killed.

I'd like to see Frampton come into the side along with Marshall and Dixon next year, or alternatively if Hombsch is fit and firing you can swing Howard back and forward as required.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It's not the game plan that is the issue, it's the personnel. It's why Hinkley was desperate to bring Marshall into the side and persisted with him for finals. There was no point going with Jackson because while we might have won the game, we would have won it through talent and not through the underlying ethos of what we are trying to achieve......

Now this is where I have my doubts. To use a cricket analogy I have used before, do you set a field for a Sri Lankan pop gun attack the same as that which Lloyd and Richards set when the Windies were terrorising batsman, or Australia would set if they had Starc, Johnson, Patterson and Cummins fully fit and playing their best, or do you change your field setting for the attack you actually have??

If Ken wants to play a certain way, then he needs to go get the players who can play that way. Now I know it takes time to get players, but he has had enough drafts and trade periods to get the right players ie enough KPF's, KPD's and ruckmen who are good enough to fit into it.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Now this is where I have my doubts. To use a cricket analogy I have used before, do you set a field for a Sri Lankan pop gun attack the same as that which Lloyd and Richards set when the Windies were terrorising batsman, or Australia would set if they had Starc, Johnson, Patterson and Cummins fully fit and playing their best, or do you change your field setting for the attack you actually have??

If Ken wants to play a certain way, then he needs to go get the players who can play that way. Now I know it takes time to get players, but he has had enough drafts and trade periods to get the right players ie enough KPF's, KPD's and ruckmen who are good enough to fit into it.

Having a well defined system that the players trust and know like the back of their hand will always work better than chopping and changing, although we are approaching a win-now scenario as Gray and Ryder age which could throw that out the window.

The argument Janus and I have often had on here regards what sort of player you pick if you have a hole in your list for the way you want to play. Janus has always argued that you pick a player who can defend first and go from there. I've always argued that you should get a player who we hope may be able to play that role at an AFL level in the future and get him in the side now for experience.

 

[Janus]

Now this is where I have my doubts. To use a cricket analogy I have used before, do you set a field for a Sri Lankan pop gun attack the same as that which Lloyd and Richards set when the Windies were terrorising batsman, or Australia would set if they had Starc, Johnson, Patterson and Cummins fully fit and playing their best, or do you change your field setting for the attack you actually have??

If Ken wants to play a certain way, then he needs to go get the players who can play that way. Now I know it takes time to get players, but he has had enough drafts and trade periods to get the right players ie enough KPF's, KPD's and ruckmen who are good enough to fit into it.

Look at the side we took into finals. These are the players we played that debuted after Ken arrived:

Howard
Bonner
Marshall
Neade
Powell-Pepper
Wines
Clurey
Byrne-Jones
Impey
Amon

We went and got

Dixon
Ryder
Polec

That's over half the side.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

Look at the side we took into finals. These are the players we played that debuted after Ken arrived:

Howard
Bonner
Marshall
Neade
Powell-Pepper
Wines
Clurey
Byrne-Jones
Impey
Amon

We went and got

Dixon
Ryder
Polec

That's over half the side.

Correct - we had the youngest and least finals experienced side in the 8.

Jonas the blockhead made it more difficult and every player should give him the glare.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Having a well defined system that the players trust and know like the back of their hand will always work better than chopping and changing, although we are approaching a win-now scenario as Gray and Ryder age which could throw that out the window.

The argument Janus and I have often had on here regards what sort of player you pick if you have a hole in your list for the way you want to play. Janus has always argued that you pick a player who can defend first and go from there. I've always argued that you should get a player who we hope may be able to play that role at an AFL level in the future and get him in the side now for experience.

I never said you chop and change. I'm asking how realistic is it, given the personnel you have and your ability to trade for and draft in the missing pieces in a relatively short period of time so they develop with the older "correct" players to be able to deliver.

 

[TeeKray]

I reckon Ken wants a small forward who positions himself for defensive pressure rather than sets himself up to crumb. Neade should be that player and should have kicked about 200 goals in his career by now.

Yeah. He hasn't really materialised into that player though unfortunately. He's not a natural goal kicker, he does his best work as a transition runner and opening up space with creative run and handball around half forward. I think he'd actually make a more natural midfielder but he's about 15cm and 15kg undersized for that role.

 

[bow and arrow]

http://figuringfooty.com/2017/08/10/the-quality-and-quantity-of-shots-created-by-each-club/

Hmmmm.

It's so depressing!

Continued list building is key. And a mixup in the midfield. Hopefully Atley/billy F and Marshall are regulars. Rocky & Motlop free agents would be gold.

But We had no injuries this year. You throw 6-10 into the mix and we are back in the 9-14 teams. Must have some cheap depth. Would keep Arch, young, Krak for this. Unless good draft prices were offered.

On SM-G900I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Look at the side we took into finals. These are the players we played that debuted after Ken arrived:

Howard
Bonner
Marshall
Neade
Powell-Pepper
Wines
Clurey
Byrne-Jones
Impey
Amon

We went and got

Dixon
Ryder
Polec

That's over half the side.

Neade and Impey have had time to establish themselves but they are marginal players. They are favourites of Ken but they have let him down too often. Amon's improving but he hasn't locked himself in yet. Bonner and Marshall have only just started their career so they haven't had the chance to make any impact.

 

[Jonts]

D Menzel is rated the worst for "forward pressure" in the AFL. allegedly the reason he got dropped. this trade season will be interesting.

Ken is an old school half back flanker and a lot of his philosophy must stem from that. In our system I think that has led to talented players being coached into "trying harder" too often in moments when cold judgement is required, and some less talented players being shoe horned into roles that minimize the impact of the talent they have. It's the psych link between 2014 helter skelter and the repeat poor choices we saw in the last few minutes on saturday night. Poor accuracy is a partial result - tired first, then inaccurate.

The rest of our inaccuracy is also straight out of old school half back flanker land: we're not the best users of the footy out of the midfield, and we're susceptible to rebound goals from good opposition, therefore aim for the pockets on F50 entries and maybe go for gold via Ryder at the restart. Again, a low accuracy/low risk philosophy. Can't change most of that with the current personnel. I mean West Coast went with the dinosaurs: Petrie, Vardy, Kennedy, Darling and Mitchell put just enough of it perfectly down their throats. It won't get them very far. They set up at one extreme but we could not have dreamed of taking such structural risks.

You used to say "can't kick can't play footy" well I'd modify that "can't kick, can't win a flag, no matter what else you do".

He got dropped because he broke team rules and had a few beers.