Our Midfield

[PAfolwr]

Was having a quick look at "raw possession" stats for the chief midfielders for a couple of teams, and we do not fare very well.
Even though we play a possession style game we really are way behind some of the other Clubs.
If we took hard ball gets into account, we would probably fare much worse.

Quick sample of Brisbane Vs Port for 2003

Voss(25 games)_535
Lappin(22)_562
Black(26)_634
Akermanis(25)_452

Voss had injury problems, and Aker is not always in the midfield.

Nick Stevens(23)_555
Josh Carr(23)_426
Kane Cornes(22)_281
Peter Burgoyne(20)_426
Roger James(17)_327
Jarrad Schofield(23)_444
Even if we include Josh Francou, his best was 528 in 2002.

It shows where we fall behind wrt the better teams.

 

[Portia]

Yep. Agree with all of that.

Most of our possession game involves defenders passing to each other.

 

[mic59]

I would put the lower stats of Peter Burgoyne and Kane Cornes to time spent in the forward lines and on the bench respectively. For the rest, could it be our rotation policy that is keeping players stats down? If that is what it is, the policy could be a bit self-defeating. It may be keeping our players fresh throughout the H/A but if it also means they will be competing against players who have accrued nearly 200 more disposals than them when we come to the finals.

Having our best team on and fresh for 90% of the game may be the best way to play the season, but in finals you want your best team on 95% of the time, and they have to have played that way earlier.

In other words, you have to play finals as you play all games. It has been shown the possession game doesn't work in finals, so that game can't be used in the H/A.

 

[rubberman]

The Brisbane Quartet are not "run with" players, where Carr and K Cornes are such. The difference to me being that the Brisbane midfielders all know their responsibilities defensively and really do the damage on the attack with their possesions. Our negative role that we give our midfielders negating players and not being constructive really does hurt us. I would like to see our midfielders getting the ball and using it rather than waiting for their opponent to move first.

 

[The Floodbuster]

As much as Kane Cornes done a great job as a tagger this year I'd like to see him lose that role and play a less accountable misdfield role, I think our midfield is more than capable of taking it up to the rest in 2004, my only concern is it's lack of pace.

 

[Portia]

Having thought about it a bit further, I think all we can draw from that is that our players are more likely to be conditioned to only playing 3/4 of a game, not a full game like a number of their counterparts on other teams.

 

[Andre]

If we have to play a player as a tagger this season, use Josh Carr as he's been used against Voss. As an 'attacking tagger', rather then just a negator. Even then the only two players I'd tag in this fasion rather then rely on trying to get first use of the ball are Buckley and Voss.

And despite how good a player he's been in the past, with his age and a year out injured I don't think Francou is so clearly ahead of his midfield teammates as Voss, Buckley, McLeod or Cousins are of the rest of theirs. So if an opposition insists on sticking a tagger on our best midfielder, have him go then line up on the oppositions best midfielder with shadow in tow. Leaving one of ours free. I think the benefits would outweigh the risks - and clearly show that we are going to be positive this year, not try to 'not lose our way to the flag'.

 

[PAfolwr]

Since I included 6 of our midfielders for 2003, I should have done 6 for Brisbane.

Voss(25 games)_535_ (21.4 possessions per game)
Lappin(22)_562_(25.55)
Black(26)_634_(24.38)
Akermanis(25)_452_(18.08)
Shaun Hart(25)_416_(16.14)
Luke Power(26)_539_(20.73)

Nick Stevens(23)_555_(24.13)
Josh Carr(23)_426_(18.52)
Kane Cornes(22)_281_(12.77)
Peter Burgoyne(20)_426_(21.3)
Roger James(17)_327_(19.24)
Jarrad Schofield(23)_444_(19.34)

That equates to about 12 extra possessions a game for the Brisbane chief midfielders as it does to ours, and they play a more direct type of game as well.

Now this might not sound much, but you want your best players to have the ball the most often, and Brisbane are able to do so.
Again, Voss had an interrupted year and Akermanis is a part time midfielder like Burgoyne

There was a thread on the main board where the midfields were rated not long ago. Port got an average rating, but it was also a bit higher than I thought.
Mainly because IMO the way our midfield gets "selected" it is not a balanced midfield.
For some reason we do not go for the spread of players that we could.
By doing that if we dictate the play we look a million dollars, but when things go even just a bit wrong even crappy teams can flog us.
Carlton, Geelong and Sydney to name a few, are teams that beat the crap out of our midfield this year. We eventually just scraped in against Carlton.

I would really like to see a major change in our midfield strategy in 2004 and beyond.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
I would really like to see a major change in our midfield strategy in 2004 and beyond.

Hard to find one of us who doesn't Seriously though we should have two in and under midfielders on the ground at any one time (take your pick from Carr, Francou, James, Ebert for a start). Ditch the flashly crap. Get the ball and QUICKLY go long to the forward lines unless a short lead is already available. Don't wait and wait allowing our forwards to become even more contained and our forward line even more crowded whilst stuffing around. Warren and Chad give us the luxury of the only team with TWO players in the top 10 contested markers in the league. Play to that strength.

 

[Portia]

Its worth noting that if we have two players currently in the top ten contested markers in the league, we probably are playing to that strength Getting the ball forward quickly in situations like you describe would probably lead to less contested marks.

Contested marks are good if they're for the right reasons, but I'd like a greater emphasis on things like handballing forwards like Collingwood and Brisbane do, players taking their own kicks more, more packbusting around the ruck (from `wannabe ruckrovers') if necessary) and so forth.

Essentially its our contested possession and offensive possession rate that we really need to raise, not the marking so much. Our two key forwards have that under control.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Do we overanalyse the game plan though - has it all become a bit mythologised? Is it really that much more an uncontested possession game plan than other sides? Yes our defenders kick it among themselves a bit, but then so do Brisbane. They probably tend to sweep it up the ground more directly than us once they've set up a loose man, but not dramatically so - their midfielders get a heap more ball than ours - what does that actually tell us? Over a season we won more often than they did and our midfielders touched the ball less - what does that say about our high possession game? Yes Brisbane win when it counts but we're comparing season stats here not finals. Yes the coach does some bizarre things at finals time - Nick Stevens at FF v Sydney was a classic case of outcoaching yourself - but did it really cost us the game? Was that move responsible for the debacle of the second quarter? Even the final against Collingwood and the inexplicable forward set up and Cornesy running around loose in defence - does that explain Pickett, Schofield and Stevens missing set up goals - or the capitulation that followed in the second half? (not to mention li'l Nicky getting himself reported early in the game).

Like everyone else, I really don't know and I'm not trying to discredit others' opinions here. But I wonder if at the end of the day what it actually is that undermines us come finals. Some might say mental toughness but we can beat Brisbane in Brisbane but lose to a half strength Sydney in Adelaide in a final. Is it attitude? Maybe that's where Brisbane have us (and everyone else) when it counts. They refuse to accept defeat as an option in finals, they believe they can win from any position, and most importantly they have the talent and toughness to back that up.

The thing I've always thought we've lacked are a couple of strong bodied hard as nails genuine clearance midfielders, especially at centre bounces - we try to create than with pinch hitting by Hardwick, Pickett and Wilson but at the moment that's all they are in that role - pinch hitters.

Anyway enough rambling ... next I'll try something easier ... like how women think!

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
Do we overanalyse the game plan though

Nah.

Most of what we're complaining about is football that we've seen us play, not the stats themselves. The stats are just supporting what we're seeing - slow, hesitant football that comes unstuck under decent pressure and a good opposition midfield.

Here are some points I reckon we all agree on.

1. We need a couple of tough in-and-under midfielders to break packs. We are fine for receivers.
2. We need fast thinking & deciding players.
3. We need more drive out of defence, and less ****ing about gaining a few metres with short kicks along the wing.
4. We need to leave some room for our players with exceptional talents/skills to be exceptional.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
Do we overanalyse the game plan though ...

I'm with Porthos.
Agree on all his points, and also what mic59 said in another thread.
No good tinkering with the game come finals time. We should play finals exactly the same way as we play all year, and it is fairly clear that the way we play all year doesn't stand up come finals time.

 

[PJ Power]

There are some very good points made throughout this thread.

We have never boasted a "complete" midfielder. Not many teams do, but we seem to have had a number of good midfielders each having different strengths but not one having nearly the complete package.
Regular pressure goal-kicking has especially been a problem. Take Peter Burgoyne: as well as he played through the middle and latter stages of the minor round, did anyone else note how his goal-kicking virtually became non-existent when thrust into the midfield? He just got so many of his touches backward of centre. Josh Francou and Nick Stevens also were never regular contributors on the score-board. Josh Carr has had a couple of memorable 3-4 goal matches but not many.

As much as sides need the so-called team effort, I think there is a definite advantage in finals to being able to have one-to-three players who can lift the side single-handedly, and turn matches individually.
Tredders can do it and has done so in one final.
Wangas by virtue of his position down back is usually more of a match saver than winner.
It would be terrific to see an individual visibly lift in the centre at a critical stage of a match and single-handedly win a few clearances just as Voss and Buckley seem to do not infrequently for their sides.
Ebert and Salopek as untried as they are, are the only two midfielders on our list who seem to have the potential to be that sort of player.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I have the same issues with the game plan as everyone else, but ... if the "slow, hesitant" football we play is so easily dismantled under "decent pressure and a good opposition midfield" how is it we are 52-14 over the last 3 minor rounds and not the other way around? The only stats I've seen here show Brisbane's midfield over the last minor round handled the ball more and won less than us.

And if "the way we play all year doesn't stand up come finals time" why not? They've played much the same way over the last 3 seasons so it can't be unfamiliarity with the game plan. Sure finals have more intensity but that should cut both ways ...

In the end I agree with what both Porthos and PAfolwr are saying. Those are changes in both personnel and style that I would like to see. But what bugs me is why our style of play works so well over the minor round - including some significant wins over very good sides - and then we go belly up in finals.

 

[Portia]

Because in the minor round....

a) we also play bottom eight sides
b) most opponents are playing for the eight, not for the match
c) less pressure as a result
d) we actually have a good enough list to make it mostly work

Most of our late challenges come from cruddy sides outside the eight who really are playing for the game because they know they've missed the eight. They don't need to keep anything in the tank.

 

[PAfolwr]

Sides that are capable of stopping our "midfield run" by either flooding the midfield or just brute "strength" are the ones that give us big trouble.
When sides cannot do that we dictate the style of play, and run over the top of them.
The teams we have met in the finals during the last couple of years fall in the first category, and will fall in that category this year as well.
Yes we did miss a number of chances during those games but because we do not win the midfield, or even come close to being on par with the other team, we put ourselves in a situation where if we do not take all of our chances we are in deep sh*t.
That is not a good situation to be in.

Very few of our wins are like the ones Vs Brisbane in round 22 2002, or Essendon in the final last year.
When Rodney Eade started the midfield flood against us in 2001 our so called game plan stopped being effective and became "hit and miss".

Just like Porthos said, it's not as if we are using stats to try and work out what is happening but the other way around.
A number of different stats all point to what we all have been saying on here for a while, these crude possession ones do so as well.
I know Brisbane are the best, but that is what everyone should aim for. A tough balanced midfield that is capable of bouncing back at you no matter what the circumstances.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by PJ Power
Ebert and Salopek as untried as they are, are the only two midfielders on our list who seem to have the potential to be that sort of player.

I'd actually like to see Shaun Burgoyne given some time in the midfield during the pre-season and just tell him to go for it.

I think we need to be more positive with our mid field line up and really hope we see a fit Roger James out on the park by the middle of the year.

Roger and Josh were critical losses we couldn't cover at the business end of the season when things get tough in close - we really missed their ability to read and dictate the play.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
I'd actually like to see Shaun Burgoyne given some time in the midfield during the pre-season and just tell him to go for it.

I think we need to be more positive with our mid field line up and really hope we see a fit Roger James out on the park by the middle of the year.

Roger and Josh were critical losses we couldn't cover at the business end of the season when things get tough in close - we really missed their ability to read and dictate the play.

I'd agree with all of that. It's why (especially in finals) I want in and under players in the midfield instead of flashy receivers. If injuries dictate our options are dwindling put Wilson or even Hardwick in the midfield, the former is a good option anyway and at least the latter will put his body on the line rather then look for the hand-off.

Regarding SB, I agree, but I'd go even further, tell him unless there's a good reason he's not just to play midfield, but be there at the bounce of the ball - not out wide waiting for the hand-off. Have him face (what at times toward the end of last year - finals especially) looked like a fear of putting his body on the line, head on.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Apologies for splitting this topic along two divergent paths ... I'll try and wrap up now ...

Given that we needn't expect much change to the game plan (Matty has been talking about subtle variations mostly around stop plays) and the midfield ... are we prepared to concede this year as a write off already?

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
are we prepared to concede this year as a write off already?

Never or at least not until results say it is or has been............

 

[Portia]

I'm not expecting much from this year. Ideally this year would see the revitalising of the Port side with a fierce gameplan back by form talent, culminating in a premiership, but that might have to wait a year.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
Apologies for splitting this topic along two divergent paths ... I'll try and wrap up now ...

Given that we needn't expect much change to the game plan (Matty has been talking about subtle variations mostly around stop plays) and the midfield ... are we prepared to concede this year as a write off already?

I'm not sure what to expect from this year.

We still have a good squad and a deep one at that.
We probably have the best forward line around that is one FF short of being one of the best ever.
We have a solid backline with brilliant "shorts" and ok talls.
We also have a good bunch of midfielders, both young and old, and a really good ruck division.

We have a good coach that if he recognized and worked on his few flaws could become a great coach.

If we can put that together and are able to play to our strengths, ie Dew to have shots at goal from everywhere, Tredrea and Cornes getting good fast long delivery into the forward line before it becomes congested etc etc, who knows how far we can go. Even all the way.

But
if we go into the finals with a not wanting to lose rather than a wanting to win attitude again....

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
if we go into the finals with a not wanting to lose rather than a wanting to win attitude again....

I'd also like to see us finish 3rd or 4th at the end of the home and away series instead of 1st as I believe it would be better for us overall in our preparation for the real stuff.

 

[mic59]

In a few premiership years Port Adelaide(SANFL) have gone through July as easybeats and then taken all before them in the finals. Maybe it mighn't be a bad idea to get into the finals as less than 1st or 2nd. Although I feel sometimes that minor round success to ensure a home final is being given a high priority to ensure all our supporters get a chance to see our club in finals. This is not such a problem for Vic clubs, wherever they finish they are likely to get at least one home final and their supporters will be able to see them without travelling. An interstate team finishes 3rd or 4th and they can probably kiss any home final goodbye.