Roast Poorly skilled backline

[swoop42]

For the first time I'm having doubts over Langdon.

Looks to have stagnated as a player over the last 12 months and not providing the same level of intercept marking and rebound he was excellent at in his debut season.

Got run down to many times last year also and going by the hairstyle he appears to be one of the new breed of party boys at the club.

Get your finger out Tommy.

 

[swoop42]

As for the OP I agree.

Our defence looked the weakest area of the ground heading into the season and we just don't have many quality users of the ball outside of Reid who can't stay out on the park, perhaps Ramsay though he's still an unknown quality and Varcoe who was drafted to play centre forward.

When it's comes to running rebound we also aren't well served with Langdon looking slow of mind and body all to often of late while Sinclair and Williams who is our best in this area are still to inconsistent and neither are in the same class of Heath Shaw.

Last night wasn't a fair reflection on there abilities due to the whole side being horrible and potentially many can be dour defenders but don't expect much creativity.

 

[Spatfers]

For the first time I'm having doubts over Langdon.

Looks to have stagnated as a player over the last 12 months and not providing the same level of intercept marking and rebound he was excellent at in his debut season.

Got run down to many times last year also and going by the hairstyle he appears to be one of the new breed of party boys at the club.

Get your finger out Tommy.

Langdon isn't even a defender, he's an intercept marker with poor foot skills and a weak body

 

[Cyclops]

Defence is being to,doctors play a loose zone, it's a coaching decision and n reflection on the players. Generally we are selecting players for rebounding and not negating, that'd be an understandable decision if we were dominating the midfield I guess.

Sadly Brown and Reid are injury prone, and an't be considered part. Of our long term plans IMHO. The club clearly disagrees as we have recruited a handful of low pick flankers to back them up. Williams is decent one-on-one asks Langdon, and both can deliver but with the extremely spread zone we play they get caught between two opponents constantly. Frost and Maynard are show promise, but have less idea than the more experienced guys ( yes Langdon is one of the more experienced ones lol) and get caught out even more.

It's a B grade defence not D grade as some are suggesting, but the failure of the game plan in defence and midfield (where we do have A grade players ) exposes the defence savagely. We have been haemmoraghing goals for four years. Heath Shaw has not been replaced, the KPDs are increasingly fragile, and the flankers are inexperienced decent kids who are getting thrown to the wolves. We are actually missing Keefe which is a bit of an indictment of the leaderships attitude to defence.

 

[SpongePie]

Though looking at it a slightly different way, how many of our regular back 6 would get a game in one of last years top 4 teams? Brown probably. Maybe Williams, maybe. Frost/Sinclair/Langdon/Maynard probably not.

 

[mike123]

Langdon will get delisted in two years. He is a fraud.

Jason Cloke 2.0

 

[mike123]

Defence is being to,doctors play a loose zone, it's a coaching decision and n reflection on the players. Generally we are selecting players for rebounding and not negating, that'd be an understandable decision if we were dominating the midfield I guess

The problem is our rebounders are poor kicks.

 

[Axl the great]

One thing's for sure, this backline that Hine and Buckley have built is completely not suited for the modern game.

They've gone the complete wrong way, targeted negating "battlers" instead of guys who can actually kick the footy.

Very true! its like having 4 or 5 Steven Morris back there!

 

[Lockyer24]

Hawthorn and Geelong have really set the modern blueprint for what a back six should look like.

Key position: Scarlett, Taylor, Gibson, Lake etc etc - all strong aerially but with the ball in hand they are skilled and composed too.

Then you look at their smaller defenders, who are quite often almost winger types - Enright, Birchall etc. They have the football ability of any midfielder. Or just look at the Dogs smalls.

I think we still seem stuck in the 80's playing guys who are high effort scrappers. Football is too far evolved now to play too many of these types, you need to be able to play the ball out from the back in soccer terms.

Last night was not the defenders fault, but under the strain it was clear to see we have major issues back there.

 

[Lockyer24]

FWIW I think we can carry a scrapper like Presti / N Brown.

I also think Maynard has a future once he adjusts to the tempo, as he has a nice kick on him. But he needs a month in the VFL to show he is above that level. Ramsay is in a similar boat. Langdon has possibly been gifted games too. We just assume he is good enough but I don't hear many other people who support other clubs telling me how good he is.

Sinclair/Toovs - no from me. Marley - no from me as a defender. I think he should be in the midfield - his ball winning is actually very impressive, but he needs room to move.

 

[Axl the great]

The art of rebounding when kicking or run and handball (which we tend to use a lot more) means the onus is more on the players who do not have the footy.
It is not about whether player A B or C is an elite kick or not, our players have no spacial awareness, they struggle to run to the right spots to create further space up the ground.

Rebound is about getting your next link in time and space so the next possession is more easily executed, and that is how you create turnover free movement of the ball.

Last night the work rate was non existent and when it was there it was the same old story of players flocking to the contest, we created all that congestion and brought Sydney's players in with them.

This has been an issue ever since Bucks took over and must come down to frailties in the coaching strategy.

Positioning is everything in modern footy and all the elite kicks in the world will not fix our issue unless we play a smarter and more logical transitional game.

 

[mike123]

Last night was not the defenders fault, but under the strain it was clear to see we have major issues back there.

This

 

[Chameleon75]

Back in our grandfinal yrs we used to have a team defence with our back six, 3 would play lock down roles and 3 had licence to peal off their man to help out, when ever the ball would come in we'd out number at the contest. The last few years though we've gone 1 on 1 in defence, our defenders get easily spread leaving them one out with their man, that gives the forward the advantage.

 

[Cyclops]

The problem is our rebounders are poor kicks.

Specifically Sinkers is a poor disposer by hand and foot. Fitting this square peg into a round hole is a mistake, he should have a wing or tag role where his pace and endurance matter. Instead he's practically selected by the opposition as our outlet as he's the least damaging option. He finds the ball well and caries it well: he's a Malthouse special, the sort of guy whose work rate can inspire his team mates and if put into the right role can play B grade football despite being a C or D.

Frost and Brown are adequate (typically they hoof it), Williams actually makes decent choices under pressure, at least when he has options and Langdon is a long accurate kick... when he has options. Out gameplan is maximising weaknesses in our defence, its the worst coached part of our side.

 

[Cyclops]

Back in our grandfinal yrs we used to have a team defence with our back six, 3 would play lock down roles and 3 had licence to peal off their man to help out, when ever the ball would come in we'd out number at the contest. The last few years though we've gone 1 on 1 in defence, our defenders get easily spread leaving them one out with their man, that gives the forward the advantage.

I agree, except the defender have to zone into the midfield to pick up runners which often leaves us one-on-two in defence or at least a man down (as happened all night) so the defence is being affected by our loose zone up the ground.

Malthouse played a safer defensive game, this gameplan tries to be aggressive but is easily understood. It took until June for us to be worked out in 2014 and 2015, we've gone early this year.

To be fair though the small ground showed up our weaknesses in glaring detail. We will win games on the quality of our midfield this year: I can' see us beating sides that are well coached though.

 

[doodles98]

The big issue wasn't their skill errors. Nor was it defenders getting done in a contest. The big issue was that the swans always had a clear target to kick it to, whereas we never did. The issue was general organization, structure and poor or inappropriate zoning off.

I think last night the skill errors and lack of composure and lack of contested ball winning ability of our back 6 was the major concern. These are the fundamentals and we just don't have it in our backline players. You are completely correct that they all got the structure and positional play horribly wrong as well but for me this is not the major concern back there.

 

[MarkT2]

Footskills has been an obvious problem for a long time. That's why I keep saying this list can't win a flag.

 

[sr36]

Last night was not the defenders fault, but under the strain it was clear to see we have major issues back there.

I agree with you to a degree, but think that our issues in this regard are exaggerated by our structure and the fact that we never have an easy option, we're trying to use a chain of tight handballs from congestion in order to get a runner clear. It's like watching the cats fall apart against us in the 2010 prelim. It wasn't about personnel it's game plan.

 

[Kilmo]

One thing's for sure, this backline that Hine and Buckley have built is completely not suited for the modern game.

They've gone the complete wrong way, targeted negating "battlers" instead of guys who can actually kick the footy.

They picked Scharenberg

 

[slugger01]

Swans has 76 inside 50s, so it's almost impossible to lay the blame on the backs tonight. Swans forward pressure was also very good and our constant attempts to handball our way out of defense got us into trouble tonight, mainly because each handball was given to a runner who was 1-2m away.

This.

For those looking at our backline, pound for pound, our backline is very close to the level of the backline the Swans had yesterday. Both backlines are at the lower level of skills. So, those that are blaming the backline for the loss are simply looking at the effect, rather than the reason. How come we couldn't score against a poor backline of the Swans? How come they only let through one goal in a half of football? Have they got the best backline in the league?
NO. The game was lost in the midfield. Our midfield got slaughtered. The much vaunted class and depth simply was thrashed and found wanting. This is where the angst should be directed to.

That is the reason we lost, and the effect was that Swans kept getting the ball in the middle, and launched it into attack again, and again, and again. If you do that 76 times in a game, the backline will get beaten purely because of the constant bombardment.

The lack of reaction by our coaches to this is the problem. When our midfilel is getting hammered, change something. Perhaps flood the backline, and play the "backline press" (formerly known as the flood??). Just do something. Change something.
The backline got inundated with loose Swans players running everywhere. Midfielders runnng riot, with our midfielders not manning up, or being accountable for their man.

No, the backline getting beaten was not the reason for the thrashing, but it was the result of our midfield getting reamed!!!!

 

[The Royal Sampler]

NO. The game was lost in the midfield. Our midfield got slaughtered. The much vaunted class and depth simply was thrashed and found wanting. This is where the angst should be directed to.

Absolutely. They applied no pressure whatsoever, our tackles didn't stick, and when we did win the ball there wasn't any spread so we kicked it 5m (15m in the air) to the next stoppage or handballed it to someone's thigh and started again.

Treloar is ready now and Adams is a bull, but JDG isn't ready to be more than a complementary piece, Swan is out, Pendles looked lame last night, Sidebottom is likely out for a few and Greenwood took too long to warm up... we're in strife for a while unfortunately. Aish should get some decent minutes this Friday night.

 

[mike123]

This.

For those looking at our backline, pound for pound, our backline is very close to the level of the backline the Swans had yesterday. Both backlines are at the lower level of skills. So, those that are blaming the backline for the loss are simply looking at the effect, rather than the reason. How come we couldn't score against a poor backline of the Swans? How come they only let through one goal in a half of football? Have they got the best backline in the league?
NO. The game was lost in the midfield. Our midfield got slaughtered. The much vaunted class and depth simply was thrashed and found wanting. This is where the angst should be directed to.

That is the reason we lost, and the effect was that Swans kept getting the ball in the middle, and launched it into attack again, and again, and again. If you do that 76 times in a game, the backline will get beaten purely because of the constant bombardment.

The lack of reaction by our coaches to this is the problem. When our midfilel is getting hammered, change something. Perhaps flood the backline, and play the "backline press" (formerly known as the flood??). Just do something. Change something.
The backline got inundated with loose Swans players running everywhere. Midfielders runnng riot, with our midfielders not manning up, or being accountable for their man.

No, the backline getting beaten was not the reason for the thrashing, but it was the result of our midfield getting reamed!!!!

FFS no one is saying we lost because of the backline.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Most of our backline were selected with late or rookie picks. Players picked late are picked late for a reason, mostly because they have an issue/limitation or 2 in their games. To bring elite backmen in we need to use a few early picks.

Brown was a quite early pick.
Reid and Scharenberg were as well (unfortunately both have been smashed by the injury gods).
Maynard was a top 30 pick IIRC.

I do see your point and on Saturday night we Brown was our only early pick out there in defence, but looking at our list in terms of first choice back six, you could think "well three of the six were top 10 picks". Just having no luck getting them on the field.

 

[sirlothie]

For the first time I'm having doubts over Langdon.

Looks to have stagnated as a player over the last 12 months and not providing the same level of intercept marking and rebound he was excellent at in his debut season.

Got run down to many times last year also and going by the hairstyle he appears to be one of the new breed of party boys at the club.

Get your finger out Tommy.

Last night proved to me he will be an 80 game player. People think every young player will play 200 but he will get delisted eventually.

 

[texan]

Guess we can go back to

Toovey, brown, Goldsack
Ramsey, Reid, williams

Puts a fair bit of experience back in wouldn't you say, at least these blokes defend. Cheers to less leakage