Ben the Gooner
Stand by Hird
That's a bit much. There's a pretty clear issue with tagging and Hocking's form. Spike isn't the answer to any clear issues in the side.
Opinion Our actual achilles heel
- Thread starter BrunoV
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #27
You and others are getting too defensive and ignoring what is being said. Our current set up is winning us enough games for us to have a serious crack at the top 4 (we are currently on top of the ladder). This I've already said.
The issues is what sides with great centre square sets up are doing to us. They are cutting through our hard bodies like they aren't there and we concede far too many soft entries into our defensive 50 for it not to be a concern.
Ablett; Dane Swan & Pendlebury; and now Cotchin and Deledio have ripped our midfield apart to the extent that otherwise inferior performing sides have either gotten far too close for comfort or beaten us. I don't see how that is being too harsh. It is clear to me that there is enough to identify a statistical trend (3 out of 4 games against sides with these sorts of players have resulted in 3 clear midfield losses). You'd be brave to suggest that we can simply continue on at the current rate before we are found out. I'd be worried about any rematches with Carlton, Richmond and West Coast in addition to Collingwood - these are the sides we have to continue to beat.
yaco55
Hall of Famer
What
Trengove - Has been horrid all year - Why would you tag him - Seems like you are inventing a position for no apparent reason.
And Ward hasn't shown enough this year to warrant a tight tag.
yaco55
Hall of Famer
Bruno
You raise valid concerns about the midfield clearance situation - Think it is something that can be tinkered and improved upon - I doubt it is emergency stations yet.
You raise valid concerns about the midfield clearance situation - Think it is something that can be tinkered and improved upon - I doubt it is emergency stations yet.
- Thread starter
- #30
I was probably a little emphatic with my last post. There isn't a need for us to panic. It is more that we are looking a little susceptible in some matchups based on what we simply don't yet have on our list. Frustrating as it may be there isn't a whole lot we can do about it.
Part of the OP was also focused on trying to draw attention away from players whose performances have been excellent, and are being criticised anyway, or whose performances are being unjustifiably held responsible for games like last night.
Part of the OP was also focused on trying to draw attention away from players whose performances have been excellent, and are being criticised anyway, or whose performances are being unjustifiably held responsible for games like last night.
ant555
The Oracle
- May 4, 2004
- 32,850
- 49,200
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Penrith Panthers
Have to say the second biggest over reaction for the year coming in second after my efforts on our skills after the first NAB game.
Lets start with clearance stats.
R1 ESS 40 NORTH 26
R2 ESS 33 PORT 41
R3 ESS 36 GC 41
R4 ESS 38 CARL 35
R5 ESS 38 COLL 45
R6 ESS 44 BRIS 28
R7 ESS 42 EAGLES 24
R8 ESS 36 RICH 30
Over all pretty good for mine, yes have lost 3 but have not actually been belted in any game and only under 35 once. Yes we have had games where blokes have got high possession numbers but when you look closely a lot of them have had a good number of short dinky nothing possessions making up a lot of that number.
The issue i had from last night was in the third quarter they continually left one side unmaned and when the ball kept going there we got done for pace off the mark and Richmond cleared.
It was clear in this situation we should not have been going with Watson, Hocking and Lonergan as they where getting done for 20 meter speed. They needed another change up player but it was not an issue all night and it was compounded by the fact that Melksham was hardly on fire so he was not a midfield option.
As far as possessions go, yes i would like to see Hocking and Lonergan getting 20 possessions as well but currently we are running a different set up where these blokes are being used to get to most contests and put the hard pressure on.
As long as we are getting 20 plus from Watson, Stanton, Zaka and a running half back in Dyson then the midfield is functioning like it should.
Lonergan can not be running outside and getting 25 touches as well as pressuring just about every contest .
We rely on our half back flankers to run up the 20 to 25 possessions, swooping in and picking up the ball after the opposition has been pressured in the contest.
Lets start with clearance stats.
R1 ESS 40 NORTH 26
R2 ESS 33 PORT 41
R3 ESS 36 GC 41
R4 ESS 38 CARL 35
R5 ESS 38 COLL 45
R6 ESS 44 BRIS 28
R7 ESS 42 EAGLES 24
R8 ESS 36 RICH 30
Over all pretty good for mine, yes have lost 3 but have not actually been belted in any game and only under 35 once. Yes we have had games where blokes have got high possession numbers but when you look closely a lot of them have had a good number of short dinky nothing possessions making up a lot of that number.
The issue i had from last night was in the third quarter they continually left one side unmaned and when the ball kept going there we got done for pace off the mark and Richmond cleared.
It was clear in this situation we should not have been going with Watson, Hocking and Lonergan as they where getting done for 20 meter speed. They needed another change up player but it was not an issue all night and it was compounded by the fact that Melksham was hardly on fire so he was not a midfield option.
As far as possessions go, yes i would like to see Hocking and Lonergan getting 20 possessions as well but currently we are running a different set up where these blokes are being used to get to most contests and put the hard pressure on.
As long as we are getting 20 plus from Watson, Stanton, Zaka and a running half back in Dyson then the midfield is functioning like it should.
Lonergan can not be running outside and getting 25 touches as well as pressuring just about every contest .
We rely on our half back flankers to run up the 20 to 25 possessions, swooping in and picking up the ball after the opposition has been pressured in the contest.
center clearances all match were almost always clean breaks, which was a bit strange. and richmond usually got it. it's something i noticed early on in the game. it may have been different in the 2nd, but yeah didn't seem that many times when the ball got tied up and there was a ball up, and that hurt us
- Thread starter
- #33
Well that puts a different slant on the role that Lonergan and Hocking are playing.
If I articulated it slightly differently as "the way we loose clearances (centre clearances in particular)" would that change anything? It seems that it would bring my OP closer to what you are saying about the third quarter.
I respectfully submit that the problem you have identified during the third quater runs a little deeper than that ; and that it also allowed Ablett, Swan and Pendlebury (in addition to Deledio, Cotchin and Foley) to run riot and that it is a little rich to pass off any of these games of as high possession games that did not have the impact that the stats sheet suggests they had.
Take me off your ignore list so we can have a sensible discussion
ant555
The Oracle
- May 4, 2004
- 32,850
- 49,200
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Penrith Panthers
Well that puts a different slant on the role that Lonergan and Hocking are playing.
If I articulated it slightly differently as "the way we loose clearances (centre clearances in particular)" would that change anything? It seems that it would bring my OP closer to what you are saying about the third quarter.
I respectfully submit that the problem you have identified during the third quater runs a little deeper than that ; and that it also allowed Ablett, Swan and Pendlebury (in addition to Deledio, Cotchin and Foley) to run riot and that it is a little rich to pass off any of these games of as high possession games that did not have the impact that the stats sheet suggests they had.
Take me off your ignore list so we can have a sensible discussion
You where never on ignore
As for sensible discussion i thought we had already started one. Just out of interest do you know where these guys who ran riot got most of their possessions and secondly how many score assists they created ?
Secondly how do we compare against other sides in the top 8 in comparison against these players ? A question i can not answer right now as i have not looked at the stats and i probably will not have time to.
I know the Ablett answer, he got a lot of short kicks or handballs under pressure between full back and the wing but had very limited touches in the forward half.
I know that Delidio had 13 score involvements(with 1 assist) and Cotchin had 9 but how many of their direct clearance wins resulted in goals ?
I see the problem and i would not be talking out of school by saying no we do not have the best midfield going around and it would be nice if we had had more genuine class but your opening post was nothing that has not been said before. It is not anything new. Of course we need Zaka to continue on averaging 25 possessions, of course we need Melksham to step up and of course weed Kavanah to be a class player. Yes we do need Heppell to play more of a midfield role and yes it would be good to see Myers in there as well but here is the reality, it will take the time it takes.
Myers may not get to fill the role he is able to play because of constant injury.He may never have the motor to do it.
Kav needs to play a couple of seasons being built up steadily so he no longer has injury issues and he builds his body . They should not rush him. If he is good enough he will take over in time.
Heppell will step in when he is needed and has learnt the defensive side of the game.
Zaka is already playing the role he needs to play. He was never a clearance king in the TAC and did actually play a lot of wing.
Melksham will play his role, he will get his chance although he will always be more of an outside player who wins the ball reading off the hands.
One issue i have is you have chosen to look at Lonergan and Hocking but not thrown up any players who actually play their role to replace them. None of the blokes mention can tag and none of them are big enough or seasoned enough to crash in like Lonergan.
Maybe one issue we have is trying to tag with Hocking. When he is allowed to play his natural game he can find i 25 plus times himself win 5 plus clearances and give you 6 or 7 tackles as well.
And then there is the blocking work done which no one ever looks at if our ruck does not win the ball or hits it to the wrong places.
Like a lot of people i watch the games live through my binoculars keeping a close eye on the center set ups. I can see the dumb stuff that happens but s**t we are 7-1 been beaten by 1 point in our loss and well on the way to exceeding almost everyone's expectations.
If we fall over a few hurdles from here to the end of the year and finish outside the top 4 then we will have landed where most people thought we would be and the time table will be on track.
Personally i do not mind the spot we are in. I do not mind that lamaros will be able to give me s**t for ever and a day if we finish in the top 4. Who cares if we in my word over achieve this year. We will win the flag in a year we are good enough to win it and if it is this year it will be with a mid range midfield. So be it.
What i do know is there are no short term answers to the issues unless we want to start pushing blokes into spots before they are reading and stop winning games.
Lonergan and Hocking will be pushed aside if and when we have the players ready to do the job and currently we have built our game plan around having that serious inside grunt with outside run on the wing and half back flanks and having the side to have enough defensive mind set to match the days we have opposition players rack up some serious possessions against us.
On Hocking i agree with what people are saying in that he does not look in good form and his possession rate has dropped away a bit but he has also been coping a fair bit of punishment off the ball that would stop a lot of players. No fun in getting belted in the kidneys 3 or 4 time a quarter or hit in the nuts and stood on at the bottom of packs. At this stage i do not think young Jake or Kav would last too much time in there with the same treatment.
I am sure the third quarter debacle in the middle did not go without notice. As i have learnt with the skill issues, some problems may look big but often you can read too much into things and lets face it Carlton's all star midfield is not getting them any further than the one we have at the moment.
I've been pretty happy with our midfield overall this year. There's no doubt a number of our players have stepped up, notably Stanton and Howlett. Hocking is struggling a little bit but really we don't have anyone else that's potentially a better option. Generally our midfield has been fairly consistent, even when individuals have had off days. Watson and Stanton have been phenomenal this year, probably only lowering their colours in the Collingwood game and when Zaharakis plays well as well (which is most of the time) we are at least going to be competitive. The best part is its still a young midfield with plenty of improvement to come, even just in terms of physical development.
Great post Ant, especially this bit. This is what people tend to overlook. The coaches have quite obviously identified that our core group of mids are blue collar types and have built our whole game plan around this. It worked well early last year when we had them all playing together and it has stepped up a notch this year. The added emphasis on strength has no doubt played a part.
I could be watching the games with one eye closed but I think that we have more then matched it with most midfields this year.
I don't feel that knee-jerk reactions are needed simply because we lose our way for a quarter and a bit.
Mercurial89
Brownlow Medallist
It could also be a bit of both complacency and personnel like some here are saying. My initial thoughts were complacency. If you look at the games mentioned in the original post. Gold coast we smashed them for 20 mins then started running forward got ahead of ourselves. Carlton last quarter I'm pretty sure the boys would have one eye on the game in 4 days after being up by like 50 points again mental issues. Tigers game we smashed them first half our spread was great. Second half we looked slow tired, as people have already said the setups changed we went off our game mentally again.
I don't think this is an 'issue' per se yet though. We are still developing. We have gone from being on one week to completely off another to what we are doing now which is destroying a team then letting our foot off. I'm someone who subscribes to the idea that even in this modern game with tactics, game plans and recovery mental attitude is still king. We will get better in that regard as I said we are still developing.
However reading through the thread alot of the more experienced guys here are pointing out personnel problems that I don't really feel confident in commenting on. So I'll stick to the theory that we lack the mental focus to stick to our plans aswell as some slight personnel problems are the reason for some of the issues we are noticing. Pretty happy being 7-1 though ;p
I don't think this is an 'issue' per se yet though. We are still developing. We have gone from being on one week to completely off another to what we are doing now which is destroying a team then letting our foot off. I'm someone who subscribes to the idea that even in this modern game with tactics, game plans and recovery mental attitude is still king. We will get better in that regard as I said we are still developing.
However reading through the thread alot of the more experienced guys here are pointing out personnel problems that I don't really feel confident in commenting on. So I'll stick to the theory that we lack the mental focus to stick to our plans aswell as some slight personnel problems are the reason for some of the issues we are noticing. Pretty happy being 7-1 though ;p
- Thread starter
- #38
I don't have time to respond in detail.
The onlything I will say in my defence is that the tone on the OP was very much supposed to be that there isn't really a solution at this stage and that therefore EFC fans need to stop the mini-witch hunt after a performance that isn't as pleasing as, for example the one against West Coast was, because they are almost always misdirecting their anger at the wrong players. I thought the title of the thread would do most of the work...pehaps I should have put "actual" in capitals.
An example of the problem is what Ant himself said: the judgment of Hardingham's game has been clouded because of a few turn overs despite that fact that (in my words) he saved about 10 almost certain socring opportunities and covered for Fletcher when he went down. There is also the minor detail of Watson's turnovers that cost us about 24 to 30 points in 12 point turn arounds which has been routinely ignored (which isn't really relevant here).
The other major one is that somehow Fletcher going off the field has exposed an "inadequate" backline which almost cost us the game. Seriously, have a read of the complacency thread.
The onlything I will say in my defence is that the tone on the OP was very much supposed to be that there isn't really a solution at this stage and that therefore EFC fans need to stop the mini-witch hunt after a performance that isn't as pleasing as, for example the one against West Coast was, because they are almost always misdirecting their anger at the wrong players. I thought the title of the thread would do most of the work...pehaps I should have put "actual" in capitals.
An example of the problem is what Ant himself said: the judgment of Hardingham's game has been clouded because of a few turn overs despite that fact that (in my words) he saved about 10 almost certain socring opportunities and covered for Fletcher when he went down. There is also the minor detail of Watson's turnovers that cost us about 24 to 30 points in 12 point turn arounds which has been routinely ignored (which isn't really relevant here).
The other major one is that somehow Fletcher going off the field has exposed an "inadequate" backline which almost cost us the game. Seriously, have a read of the complacency thread.
Concentration. Pure and simple. They lapsed, they left holes and sides exploited them.
Fixable.
btw I thought we conceded less goals after Fletcher went off, than in the quarter before he went off? Backline stood up in the last, it was not going well in the 3rd.
Hardingham was mighty in the last. Mighty. Terrible woeful poopie-poop in the 1st & 2nd, but stepped it up.
Fixable.
btw I thought we conceded less goals after Fletcher went off, than in the quarter before he went off? Backline stood up in the last, it was not going well in the 3rd.
Hardingham was mighty in the last. Mighty. Terrible woeful poopie-poop in the 1st & 2nd, but stepped it up.
Ben the Gooner
Stand by Hird
ant, what are your thoughts on freeing Hocking up a bit? I think he's being dragged down a bit by his role and bringing in a Crowley type shut down tagger might free him up to be as damaging as he was in that last quarter on ANZAC Day.
Obviously there's no guarantees that Davis, Slattery or possibly even Browne will be able to tag effectively but if Buddha can stand a Hayes type clearance player at stoppages and then win his own ball and use his long left foot kick more we could be a much more dynamic team around the stoppages IMO.
It's hard to drop someone for the tagger at this stage but looking at the bigger picture I think 20 Hocking touches and a tight tag is more damaging than the Hocking-Lonergan combo as it stands.
Of course if Buddha can find the ball a bit while still tagging, we'd be onto a winner but it's very hard to be an effective inside tagger and win plenty of the footy as well.
Obviously there's no guarantees that Davis, Slattery or possibly even Browne will be able to tag effectively but if Buddha can stand a Hayes type clearance player at stoppages and then win his own ball and use his long left foot kick more we could be a much more dynamic team around the stoppages IMO.
It's hard to drop someone for the tagger at this stage but looking at the bigger picture I think 20 Hocking touches and a tight tag is more damaging than the Hocking-Lonergan combo as it stands.
Of course if Buddha can find the ball a bit while still tagging, we'd be onto a winner but it's very hard to be an effective inside tagger and win plenty of the footy as well.
ant555
The Oracle
- May 4, 2004
- 32,850
- 49,200
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Penrith Panthers
Been flat out so a late reply but yes i think freeing him up would be good as he always was a ball winning machine as a junior and in the VFL and in various AFL games when not tagging. trouble is we have no other run with players sadly.
Moving back to skills one trend coming out seems to be that sides can hit a high percentage efficiency wise nowdays but still not be playing great footy. I am not backing away from how stupid i was over that NAB game but in watching the Hawks yesterday it showed how a side with good skills can use it well but still be brought undone by constant pressure.
The fact that you can kick to a contest and get a neutral result and it not show up in the efficiency stats and then lose the clearance is worth looking at.
