Analysis Progress is Never Linear

[Countrypie]

I've been moved to write this post by the constant sky is falling narrative from some posters compared to the Pollyanna everything is roses commentary from others.
I like to think of myself as a realist and honestly believe that where the club sits right now s a proper reflection of its performance this year over the whole season thus far and meets my preseason expectations.

I never expected last year to repeat. The club took the competition by surprise and caught several opponents off guard. We rode a wave of momentum that almost carried us to a surprise but well deserved premiership. It didn't happen and the opportunity was missed. I likened last year to 2007 when Collingwood went within a kick of upsetting Geelong and 2008 when Hawthorn won a flag before its time. All the elements weren't quite in place, but circumstances and luck combined and in our case conspired to create unlikely outcomes.

With the element of surprise gone, it was only natural that more time was put into planning for and negating the team's strengths - which were unusual and unorthodox.

There has been much complaining about the team's reverting to a game style of previous seasons. I don't buy this. The team isn't playing the way it wants to because it isn't being allowed to. A lot of work has gone into negating the run and gun style that characterised 2018 and negating the natural height advantages that Cox possesses. This was to be expected and that's why I surprised some of my non Collingwood supporting mates before the season when I said that I expected Collingwood to finish in the bottom half of the 8.

Even when we started the season well, we were struggling to cope with the attempts to stifle our game style. The wheels haven't quite fallen off but they've been wobbling since the bye and Stephenson's suspension. No one could have predicted that - but the writing was on the wall as early as the Carlton game. Some of our 2nd and 3rd tier players are struggling with the increased focus on our game style and the burden has fallen on to the usual suspects to scrap for every win. there's nothing unusual about this. It's a little like the plateau concept that guitar players deal with - they reach a certain level and all of a sudden can't seem to get any better regardless of how much work that they put in. Then after months of getting nowhere, everything clicks and they have another burst of creative energy as they progress through another level. The key is that you've just got to work through the plateaus and wait for the next burst of improvement.

It will come for Collingwood. It may not be this year, it may not be most of next but it will come. We are much closer than many people think but much further away than some expect we should be. Improvement is never linear. It comes and goes in spurts. We need to see improvement from our players ranked from 8- 26 on the list - and that improvement is not necessarily in things such as skill and effort but more in game awareness, resilience and decision making. You only get that improvement by being subjected to intense heat, failing and then rebuilding. A not so great sage once quoted a great sage by saying the earth is slow but the ox is patient.

Enjoy the ride. We are close. It may not be this year, but if the stars align it may be (they did for the Bulldogs a couple of years ago) but I sincerely believe our best years are ahead of us.

Go pies

 

[Vicky Park]

Thank you for the effort you put into the OP. Appreciate too that it’s not about our all consuming injuries. It’s more nuanced, and a thoughtful alternative view of our situation. Cheers.

 

[vicpark36]

great post

 

[60 Yards Out]

I've been moved to write this post by the constant sky is falling narrative from some posters compared to the Pollyanna everything is roses commentary from others.
I like to think of myself as a realist and honestly believe that where the club sits right now s a proper reflection of its performance this year over the whole season thus far and meets my preseason expectations.

I never expected last year to repeat. The club took the competition by surprise and caught several opponents off guard. We rode a wave of momentum that almost carried us to a surprise but well deserved premiership. It didn't happen and the opportunity was missed. I likened last year to 2007 when Collingwood went within a kick of upsetting Geelong and 2008 when Hawthorn won a flag before its time. All the elements weren't quite in place, but circumstances and luck combined and in our case conspired to create unlikely outcomes.

With the element of surprise gone, it was only natural that more time was put into planning for and negating the team's strengths - which were unusual and unorthodox.

There has been much complaining about the team's reverting to a game style of previous seasons. I don't buy this. The team isn't playing the way it wants to because it isn't being allowed to. A lot of work has gone into negating the run and gun style that characterised 2018 and negating the natural height advantages that Cox possesses. This was to be expected and that's why I surprised some of my non Collingwood supporting mates before the season when I said that I expected Collingwood to finish in the bottom half of the 8.

Even when we started the season well, we were struggling to cope with the attempts to stifle our game style. The wheels haven't quite fallen off but they've been wobbling since the bye and Stephenson's suspension. No one could have predicted that - but the writing was on the wall as early as the Carlton game. Some of our 2nd and 3rd tier players are struggling with the increased focus on our game style and the burden has fallen on to the usual suspects to scrap for every win. there's nothing unusual about this. It's a little like the plateau concept that guitar players deal with - they reach a certain level and all of a sudden can't seem to get any better regardless of how much work that they put in. Then after months of getting nowhere, everything clicks and they have another burst of creative energy as they progress through another level. The key is that you've just got to work through the plateaus and wait for the next burst of improvement.

It will come for Collingwood. It may not be this year, it may not be most of next but it will come. We are much closer than many people think but much further away than some expect we should be. Improvement is never linear. It comes and goes in spurts. We need to see improvement from our players ranked from 8- 26 on the list - and that improvement is not necessarily in things such as skill and effort but more in game awareness, resilience and decision making. You only get that improvement by being subjected to intense heat, failing and then rebuilding. A not so great sage once quoted a great sage by saying the earth is slow but the ox is patient.

Enjoy the ride. We are close. It may not be this year, but if the stars align it may be (they did for the Bulldogs a couple of years ago) but I sincerely believe our best years are ahead of us.

Go pies

Just want to acknowledge this thoughtful post. It’s a hard message to embrace because it means we can be close for a long time without getting the chocolates (sounds rather familiar), but it’s also true. I guess this is not a sport for the impatient.

 

[jonbe54]

Older posters are very familiar with this theory all through the 70's we were constantly in contention but various factors kept us from the chocolates - like Tuddy taking out Macca when he was tearing the blues several new ones in the 70 GF and the Harmes bullshirt - not to mention Carmen getting himself wiped out of the 77 GF with yet another brain fade.

Other things can happen like the Rocca non goal against the bears in that GF.

Not a seniors match but I remember a night reserves GF years ago where our opposition got the winning goal after the final siren because the umpire didn't hear the siren because of the crowd roaring - so far as I am aware this stupidity has NOT been addressed and could happen again.

So despite the best of intentions and a healthy list the footy gods can be - and often are - cruel.

At least to this club.

 

[Countrypie]

Older posters are very familiar with this theory all through the 70's we were constantly in contention but various factors kept us from the chocolates - like Tuddy taking out Macca when he was tearing the blues several new ones in the 70 GF and the Harmes bullshirt - not to mention Carmen getting himself wiped out of the 77 GF with yet another brain fade.

Other things can happen like the Rocca non goal against the bears in that GF.

Not a seniors match but I remember a night reserves GF years ago where our opposition got the winning goal after the final siren because the umpire didn't hear the siren because of the crowd roaring - so far as I am aware this stupidity has NOT been addressed and could happen again.

So despite the best of intentions and a healthy list the footy gods can be - and often are - cruel.

At least to this club.

Greening is another of those what if moments. One that still does my head in. I honestly don't think were good enough this year and I didn't think we were in April but I do expect the improvement to come.

 

[magpies42]

I've been moved to write this post by the constant sky is falling narrative from some posters compared to the Pollyanna everything is roses commentary from others.
I like to think of myself as a realist and honestly believe that where the club sits right now s a proper reflection of its performance this year over the whole season thus far and meets my preseason expectations.

I never expected last year to repeat. The club took the competition by surprise and caught several opponents off guard. We rode a wave of momentum that almost carried us to a surprise but well deserved premiership. It didn't happen and the opportunity was missed. I likened last year to 2007 when Collingwood went within a kick of upsetting Geelong and 2008 when Hawthorn won a flag before its time. All the elements weren't quite in place, but circumstances and luck combined and in our case conspired to create unlikely outcomes.

With the element of surprise gone, it was only natural that more time was put into planning for and negating the team's strengths - which were unusual and unorthodox.

There has been much complaining about the team's reverting to a game style of previous seasons. I don't buy this. The team isn't playing the way it wants to because it isn't being allowed to. A lot of work has gone into negating the run and gun style that characterised 2018 and negating the natural height advantages that Cox possesses. This was to be expected and that's why I surprised some of my non Collingwood supporting mates before the season when I said that I expected Collingwood to finish in the bottom half of the 8.

Even when we started the season well, we were struggling to cope with the attempts to stifle our game style. The wheels haven't quite fallen off but they've been wobbling since the bye and Stephenson's suspension. No one could have predicted that - but the writing was on the wall as early as the Carlton game. Some of our 2nd and 3rd tier players are struggling with the increased focus on our game style and the burden has fallen on to the usual suspects to scrap for every win. there's nothing unusual about this. It's a little like the plateau concept that guitar players deal with - they reach a certain level and all of a sudden can't seem to get any better regardless of how much work that they put in. Then after months of getting nowhere, everything clicks and they have another burst of creative energy as they progress through another level. The key is that you've just got to work through the plateaus and wait for the next burst of improvement.

It will come for Collingwood. It may not be this year, it may not be most of next but it will come. We are much closer than many people think but much further away than some expect we should be. Improvement is never linear. It comes and goes in spurts. We need to see improvement from our players ranked from 8- 26 on the list - and that improvement is not necessarily in things such as skill and effort but more in game awareness, resilience and decision making. You only get that improvement by being subjected to intense heat, failing and then rebuilding. A not so great sage once quoted a great sage by saying the earth is slow but the ox is patient.

Enjoy the ride. We are close. It may not be this year, but if the stars align it may be (they did for the Bulldogs a couple of years ago) but I sincerely believe our best years are ahead of us.

Go pies

The sky would presumably fall in a linear fashion according to Newton...aside from that, good post.

 

[Deleted member 133504]

The sky would presumably fall in a linear fashion according to Newton...aside from that, good post.

The earth falls toward the sky. Gravity doesn't exist. Flat earth for the win!!

 

[sr36]

There has been much complaining about the team's reverting to a game style of previous seasons. I don't buy this. The team isn't playing the way it wants to because it isn't being allowed to. A lot of work has gone into negating the run and gun style that characterised 2018 and negating the natural height advantages that Cox possesses. This was to be expected and that's why I surprised some of my non Collingwood supporting mates before the season when I said that I expected Collingwood to finish in the bottom half of the 8.

For the last 3 years, the tigers have been playing a similar run and gun style to what characterised us in 2018 - and it's still working for them. It's not working for us because we did actually shift away from it and moved to more controlled lower risk running patterns.

 

[Countrypie]

For the last 3 years, the tigers have been playing a similar run and gun style to what characterised us in 2018 - and it's still working for them. It's not working for us because we did actually shift away from it and moved to more controlled lower risk running patterns.

Maybe..maybe Richmond's list was ready to get through the test. Maybe ours wasn't - as I said, I likened last year to 2007, and Hawthorn in 2008. If we'd won last year that would have been a bonus. We would have taken the comp by surprise. Now we have to work through the inevitable extra focus that has come upon us. It seems likely to me that many of our 2nd tier players have not coped. That's just my opinion. You could be right, it may be a conscious decision, but I don;t think it is - when we've been allowed to play run and gun we have.

 

[sr36]

Maybe..maybe Richmond's list was ready to get through the test. Maybe ours wasn't - as I said, I likened last year to 2007, and Hawthorn in 2008. If we'd won last year that would have been a bonus. We would have taken the comp by surprise. Now we have to work through the inevitable extra focus that has come upon us. It seems likely to me that many of our 2nd tier players have not coped. That's just my opinion. You could be right, it may be a conscious decision, but I don;t think it is - when we've been allowed to play run and gun we have.

I think there is probably a bit of truth in both. I do think extra focus has curtailed us a bit. In the back half when we won the ball last year, we were really effective at forming a triangle and handballing to get one of the 3 clear - teams have learnt to cover off the points of the triangle.

Overall though I think we stuffed up our transition by looking to add an extra option to it. I don't think we intended to lose the run and gun style of rebound, but we looked to add the option of chipping the ball around when a zone press was well set. The problem is that this has resulted in us losing the run and gun style because it's stuffed up the running patterns of the receivers. Whichever style your going with involves decisions from the bloke with the ball, but even more importantly it also involves potential receivers running to the right spots to execute the plan. The running patterns for chipping the ball are different than the running patterns that Richmond use and we used last year. I think the plan was to switch between the two styles depending upon the situation, but we haven't been able to pull it off, because it's too complex, as the receivers have to be totally in sync with each other and with the decision making of the bloke with the ball, they need to be particularly in sync for the run and gun style that best suits our list.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There has been much complaining about the team's reverting to a game style of previous seasons. I don't buy this. The team isn't playing the way it wants to because it isn't being allowed to. A lot of work has gone into negating the run and gun style that characterised 2018 and negating the natural height advantages that Cox possesses.

For the last 3 years, the tigers have been playing a similar run and gun style to what characterised us in 2018 - and it's still working for them. It's not working for us because we did actually shift away from it and moved to more controlled lower risk running patterns.

I think there is probably a bit of truth in both. I do think extra focus has curtailed us a bit. In the back half when we won the ball last year, we were really effective at forming a triangle and handballing to get one of the 3 clear - teams have learnt to cover off the points of the triangle.

Overall though I think we stuffed up our transition by looking to add an extra option to it. I don't think we intended to lose the run and gun style of rebound, but we looked to add the option of chipping the ball around when a zone press was well set. The problem is that this has resulted in us losing the run and gun style because it's stuffed up the running patterns of the receivers.

This is merit in sr36 replies here. Even the skipper said himself after the dogs game that there had been an over correction in an attempt to counteract turnovers as a result of that ballistic ball speed we used in 2018 - it has obviously gone too far Countrypie

In your op you have not mentioned how we won the ball in that 2018 style. We suffocated the opposition and it disallowed their own transition or at least it was it was pressured that generally gave us turnover wins. More often than not we'd outnumber in a contest and have receivers on the ball win. Yes I know that relies heavily on two way running and structure set up with and without possession - but we did it well in the structure set up sense and that dissipated the need for gut running. It is tactically brilliant because...........

This is not personnel or talent reliant, it is effort and complete understanding of the game plan that makes it work.

If I could use examples of your theory of how it has been "found out" and how finding it out has almost zero impact against it.

The Richmond games last year was an example of "somethings gotta give" both teams used a swarm method and against each other it's an each way bet who wins the contested ball. In an effort style when you go down rotations you're up against it to win - especially against a similar brand.

Against more transition style teams like say a Hawthorn it's a clear advantage over the course of a game. Sure we're now more predictable if we continued in the exact same fashion, however effort to outnumber at the contest nullifies that predictability. In other words who cares if the opp knows we're gonna suffocate them. They've tried to counteract the spread on the ball win - and we've helped em by not structuring up like we did last year. Why? Because we've tried to control the ball in possession (different game style) and that invites pressure.

I get that progression is not necessarily linear but it does not mean it's impossible either - certainly considering our game style that got us so close to a flag that was so difficult to defeat.

 

[Scodog10]

Great thread CP! I agree wholeheartedly and the only contrary point I can make is that you only need to look at the performance of our high performance team to determine regression can be linear

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

I think clubs never change their DNA.

There's a reason why Melbourne haven't done anything since the 60s, Freos never had it compared to West Coast and Hawthorn statistically win every 8 years, Geelong never bottom out below 13th. Etc.. etc...you can go on and on.

Collingwood has always been a blue collar team that punched above its weight and despite many self inflicted setbacks or bad luck etc..they get there in the end but always fall short. What is it 27 times now? 2018 was not an exception to the narrative, the Pies were not the best team last year but had beautiful timing and a hard working system that fell in place despite all the injuries.

There are obviously exceptions to premierships, as the aforementioned Bulldogs, but it's rare. Just think as long as Collingwood exists, there will be scandals, negative headlines, self inflicted suspensions and most of all, the tendency for the club to get ahead of themselves. Still, I so love watching this club punch above its weight despite all the negativity and hatred over the years.

Might not be a popular opinion I know, but it's just all an observation on history.

 

[Scodog10]

Two years ago when we were 0-3 on the road against Sydney and were playing abysmal footy during the pre-match David Parkin made a simple yet profound statement in regards to possession of the ball “movement creates movement” sr36 your posts bring that simple statement full circle.

Footy’s a game played on instinct and players react to what the ball carrier does. If they’re stagnant both teams setup for one of three options

1.long down the line,
2. the 45 into the corridor and
3. the switch.

If the ball carrier runs everything becomes chaos and if it’s controlled chaos you win games of footy. When we go slow we never take that inbound kick on the 45 and if we refuse to lift the tempo by moving it’s the only option we have left to open things up because it naturally generates run from behind.

 

[sr36]

Footy’s a game played on instinct and players react to what the ball carrier does. If they’re stagnant both teams setup for one of three options

1.long down the line,
2. the 45 into the corridor and
3. the switch.

If the ball carrier runs everything becomes chaos and if it’s controlled chaos you win games of footy. When we go slow we never take that inbound kick on the 45 and if we refuse to lift the tempo by moving it’s the only option we have left to open things up because it naturally generates run from behind.

Those three options really are the crux of AFL and the amount of times teams do each one plays a big part in their transition style. However I see the equation differently. To me players don't react to what the ball carrier has done, they react to what they think he's going to do. They run to position based on expectations. The ball carrier then reacts to what the players have done. Which is why recently all good teams who've maintained success have been systems based and played a really predictable style. Its made them really cohesive, because blokes become predictable to each other, they're all on the same page and run to complementary positions. Richmond get the run and gun because four blokes run together, handballing ti avoid tacklers.
Good ball movement is as much about what the blokes without the ball do

Teams that try to switch styles depending on the situation or for different teams end up unpredictable to each other and blokes without the ball run for positions for different ball movement and thus their positioning isnt complmentary and their ball movement is stagnant. Which is where i think we are at.

 

[loki04]

For the last 3 years, the tigers have been playing a similar run and gun style to what characterised us in 2018 - and it's still working for them. It's not working for us because we did actually shift away from it and moved to more controlled lower risk running patterns.

Spot on.

It has been a very obvious shift in tactics employed, teams cant stop players actually you know... running... especially done off fast breaks. We have deliberately held up play looking for a kick and shift game style.

 

[Countrypie]

Those three options really are the crux of AFL and the amount of times teams do each one plays a big part in their transition style. However I see the equation differently. To me players don't react to what the ball carrier has done, they react to what they think he's going to do. They run to position based on expectations. The ball carrier then reacts to what the players have done. Which is why recently all good teams who've maintained success have been systems based and played a really predictable style. Its made them really cohesive, because blokes become predictable to each other, they're all on the same page and run to complementary positions. Richmond get the run and gun because four blokes run together, handballing ti avoid tacklers.
Good ball movement is as much about what the blokes without the ball do

Teams that try to switch styles depending on the situation or for different teams end up unpredictable to each other and blokes without the ball run for positions for different ball movement and thus their positioning isnt complmentary and their ball movement is stagnant. Which is where i think we are at.

I get what you're saying and agree to a certain extent, however-:
After watching Richmond live two weeks ago, I couldn't help thinking that they could be terribly exposed as front runners by a team that beat them on the inside - a team like West Coast for example. If we go back to that game, I thought our boys were on top early, but simply lacked the polish forward of the ball to make them pay (Crocker dropping a chest mark in the square was a prime example - but not the only one). When Richmond got on top later in that first quarter there were several players running ahead of the ball. It's a high risk and reward strategy largely based upon Martin and Prestia's ability to win the ball inside. They are predictable. They are very confident. They are also very susceptible to getting blown away again by a team that exposes that preparedness to run ahead of the ball anticipating wins on the inside. The Melbourne media are in love with them. I suspect West Coast will destroy them. Why? Because they're harder inside,have speed on the outside, are supremely talented have a forward line that presents multiple dangers and a defence that is rock solid. Players like Bolton, Broad & Caddy will struggle to get a kick when the heat is on.

 

[loki04]

I get what you're saying and agree to a certain extent, however-:
After watching Richmond live two weeks ago, I couldn't help thinking that they could be terribly exposed as front runners by a team that beat them on the inside - a team like West Coast for example. If we go back to that game, I thought our boys were on top early, but simply lacked the polish forward of the ball to make them pay (Crocker dropping a chest mark in the square was a prime example - but not the only one). When Richmond got on top later in that first quarter there were several players running ahead of the ball. It's a high risk and reward strategy largely based upon Martin and Prestia's ability to win the ball inside. They are predictable. They are very confident. They are also very susceptible to getting blown away again by a team that exposes that preparedness to run ahead of the ball anticipating wins on the inside. The Melbourne media are in love with them. I suspect West Coast will destroy them. Why? Because they're harder inside,have speed on the outside, are supremely talented have a forward line that presents multiple dangers and a defence that is rock solid. Players like Bolton, Broad & Caddy will struggle to get a kick when the heat is on.

Pendles even stated that there was an over correction in game plan tactics not long ago, so not sure how you can possibly disagree that WE HAVE changed our game style.

 

[DaVe86]

I agree in part with the OP, but not fully.

I entered this season with an expectation that we would be top 4. But I admit that there was an underlying concern that we blew our opportunity last year to cause a surprise and steal a flag.

But I always thought we could improve this year because we were adding Beams and Roughead to the side, and were getting back Moore and Elliott. Unfortunately, none of those guys except for Roughead have been real factors in the 2nd half of the year.

I think when you go into the bye in 2nd place, you should expect a top 4 finish from there. To have dropped off so dramatically has been disappointing. A lot of that relates to factors outside our control such as injuries, suspensions etc. But a lot of it relates to the fact that we have never played consistently good footy this year...and when you add injuries, we just didn't have the depth to keep winning.

I think we had players like Thomas, Cox, Mihocek and Sier playing well above their ability last year. We could sustain injuries because our 2nd tier players were performing so well. We aren't getting that sort of performance from our depth this year, and it is leaving too much on the shoulders of too few.

But there are structural issues that can't be ignored. Even without Beams, we still have a midfield capable of dominance, and a ruckman who should be giving our onballers first use. The fact that we continually get smashed in clearances strikes me as a coaching issue. There has also been some questionable selection decisions (ie not picking a 3rd key tall against GWS).

And then there is the recruitment and list management concern that we just have no depth in our key forward stocks. We seemingly put too much faith in Mason Cox, who despite his good prelim and decent grand final, is still statistically only a goal a game player who gets little of the ball.

Nonetheless, I look at our list and I think it is top 4 material, and at full strength is top 2 material. I've been saying for years that the biggest area we need to get right is injury management. If we can get somewhere close to our best side on the park more often, then we have a dangerous list. However, we'll again head into finals with at least 4-5 best 22 players out, and a whole heap more coming back from injury/suspension.

I'd like to see us clean up the injury prone players over the off-season. I can see at least 8 list changes. We'll need to bring is some experience to fill the void, but it would be good to see 4-5 new kids on the list. We have only played 2 debutants this year, so I'd like to see a bit more youth on the list. But I also wouldn't be against recruiting a Josh Jenkins to add some forward line depth. With 8 list changes, we have room for a couple of mature recruits who are durable injury wise and fill a hole.

I'm optimistic because I think we have a good list. But last year was a year where things just fell into place at the right time. We had a good draw, and the list just clicked. You can't rely on that, and to stay competitive we are going to have to improve on a number of areas.

 

[Scodog10]

Those three options really are the crux of AFL and the amount of times teams do each one plays a big part in their transition style. However I see the equation differently. To me players don't react to what the ball carrier has done, they react to what they think he's going to do. They run to position based on expectations. The ball carrier then reacts to what the players have done. Which is why recently all good teams who've maintained success have been systems based and played a really predictable style. Its made them really cohesive, because blokes become predictable to each other, they're all on the same page and run to complementary positions. Richmond get the run and gun because four blokes run together, handballing ti avoid tacklers.
Good ball movement is as much about what the blokes without the ball do

Teams that try to switch styles depending on the situation or for different teams end up unpredictable to each other and blokes without the ball run for positions for different ball movement and thus their positioning isnt complmentary and their ball movement is stagnant. Which is where i think we are at.

From my perspective that’s a chicken and egg discussion. I hope we can all agree that the stagnant approach of 19 is all too familiar to 14-17.

 

[sr36]

I get what you're saying and agree to a certain extent, however-:
After watching Richmond live two weeks ago, I couldn't help thinking that they could be terribly exposed as front runners by a team that beat them on the inside - a team like West Coast for example. If we go back to that game, I thought our boys were on top early, but simply lacked the polish forward of the ball to make them pay (Crocker dropping a chest mark in the square was a prime example - but not the only one). When Richmond got on top later in that first quarter there were several players running ahead of the ball. It's a high risk and reward strategy largely based upon Martin and Prestia's ability to win the ball inside. They are predictable. They are very confident. They are also very susceptible to getting blown away again by a team that exposes that preparedness to run ahead of the ball anticipating wins on the inside. The Melbourne media are in love with them. I suspect West Coast will destroy them. Why? Because they're harder inside,have speed on the outside, are supremely talented have a forward line that presents multiple dangers and a defence that is rock solid. Players like Bolton, Broad & Caddy will struggle to get a kick when the heat is on.

Agree that Richmond's style is susceptible. Melbourne's start to the season shows the risk involved in aggressive forward running. All style's have strengths and weaknesses. I'm not suggesting that Richmond's style will equate to a flag. I'm more just suggesting that a cohesive style will win the flag and at the moment our tinkering has resulted in us not having a cohesive style. Any cohesive style could get you Having said that, I would like our style to be more similar to Richmond's as I think aggressive running suits our list.

 

[sr36]

From my perspective that’s a chicken and egg discussion. I hope we can all agree that the stagnant approach of 19 is all too familiar to 14-17.

Yeah it is a chicken and egg discussion, but I still think it's really important if you want to fast break, because it shifts the focus from the decision of the ball carrier to the running pattern of the receiver and if you want to consistently fast break in any sport, you drill running patterns.

 

[DaVe86]

From my perspective that’s a chicken and egg discussion. I hope we can all agree that the stagnant approach of 19 is all too familiar to 14-17.

This year has a lot of hallmarks of 14-17, particularly because in 2 of those years we were 8-3 at the mid year bye and dropped off altogether to not even make finals. I also agree that our ball movement is very similar to that year.

I think the big difference in 2018 was the functionality of our forward line. I think when you have a functioning forward line, it makes ball movement a lot sharper because you have confidence to move the ball quickly knowing there are targets up field.

I thought the 6, 6, 6 rule would stretch the field a bit, yet I feel this year that our forwards are getting sucked up into the play far too much. Maybe it's because our midfield is unable to win any clearances, so we are spending far too much time trying to clear the ball out of the backline. The forwards get frustrated and try to move up the field to get involved. Last year, we were stronger from stoppage so our forwards could hold position more, and then the smalls could focus on locking the ball in.

The way I see it, our main talent is in the midfield. So if our midfield is struggling, then the rest of the team will as well, because it's not like we have that many A grade key forwards or backs. Our better forwards and backs are the smaller types as well. So for this side to flourish, we need to be winning clearances, getting field position, and then defending territory. Otherwise, we need to be throwing everything at someone like a Brad Hill to move the ball off half back because that's where most of our attacking thrusts will start.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Two years ago when we were 0-3 on the road against Sydney and were playing abysmal footy during the pre-match David Parkin made a simple yet profound statement in regards to possession of the ball “movement creates movement” sr36 your posts bring that simple statement full circle.

Footy’s a game played on instinct and players react to what the ball carrier does. If they’re stagnant both teams setup for one of three options

1.long down the line,
2. the 45 into the corridor and
3. the switch.

If the ball carrier runs everything becomes chaos and if it’s controlled chaos you win games of footy. When we go slow we never take that inbound kick on the 45 and if we refuse to lift the tempo by moving it’s the only option we have left to open things up because it naturally generates run from behind.

Teams that try to switch styles depending on the situation or for different teams end up unpredictable to each other and blokes without the ball run for positions for different ball movement and thus their positioning isnt complmentary and their ball movement is stagnant. Which is where i think we are at.

Aha, I think this is where we may have broken down and is what I've tried to allude to - not so easy to put into words.

Scodog10 what sr36 has rightly pointed out (or at least I think) is that we've become unpredictable to each other, certainly before last weeks game in any case.

There have been some on here who have id'd an issue of being predictable to the opposition. We have become unpredictable to the opp and ourselves and that is largely the issue.

If you look at successful teams they have a brand that IS predictable more so to themselves than any opp. So being unpredictable to the opp will reap zero advantage if you're not on the same page within your own team, if anything it is a disadvantage.

As I've stated earlier there has been a deliberate attempt to control the ball by the club. Pendles admitted as such after the dogs game, being not the most talented list in the ways of transition efficiency this works against us. The way we played last year was difficult to defeat not because of list talent but because we grunt win the ball and structured up on the premise we win the contest - how the opp has "found us out" is not in the contest so much but they've identified the need to nullify the transition.

Now because we've gone down the path of trying to control possession it's made it even easier for the opp pressure us to turnover. Partly due to the "over correction" that Pendles stated. If you look at the North game, on the ball win our receivers or outside links were spread too far and wide and that invited pressure.

So on face value the question is "why were we able to cover injuries last year and not this year"? Because last year the style was not talent reliant i:e it required effort, two running and set up (and everyone on the park to understand it). This year controlling transition requires better DE and because we've had to replace the injured the soldiers coming in aren't so adept to controlling the transition. I:e we're not a silky wc ball movement team particularly when we spread the links too far and wide and pressure ensues then turnover results.

I'm more than certain this is not the intent of the coaching panel, as stated earlier it's likely an over correction of an intended tweak i:e still win the ball which we're doing it's the set after the fact that seems to be the problem. Seems we've tried to slow down the transition to avoid turnover the other way while still trying to suffocate the opp in the contest. Hazard a guess this is what Bucks meant by "we're not far off"