Preview Robert Shaw 2018 Season Preview

[owen87]

Hopefully he does one per-game the way he did last year; always very good reading.

https://shawryanalyst.wordpress.com/2018/03/19/afl-season-2018-essendonfc-preview/

Introduction

Whilst membership grows and executives extol the initiatives, growth of new markets and look to India and China, Essendon enters its 15th year without a finals win. Why, we also have an eSports team! We are the worst performed Victorian team in that period. We were relegated to that position by Richmond! Essendon people have every right to demand a winning team. There are messages about positivity, strength and stability. Fine virtues, I am sure. I’m all for expanding the business and strengthening the club. Essendon people want their footy meal served tough. With clean air, a couple of years under the belt and a gift of talent in terms of Saad, Smith and Stringer, Essendon must return to the true heart of the matter: the Core Business of Football.

Talent guarantees nothing.

Did Richmond or the Bulldogs win premierships on pure talent? Hardly! Great use of personnel, the sophistication of their coaching and game day dynamics, good and timely decisions from the coaches’ box (Graham onto Sloane in GF) and above all, Richmond had a pressure rating of 196. Their season average was 183. In the final they generated 31 forward intercepts and scored 53 points from the turnovers. That’s half their score from forward pressure. Essendon are in the bottom six in this critical gauge of effectiveness.

Strengths.

• Talent wise there is no discussion. Adrian Dodoro knocks on John Worsfold’s door and introduces Devon Smith, Ahmed Saad and Jake Stringer. He has Joe Daniher, Zac Merrett, Dyson Heppell and Michael Hurley, Fantasia, McDonald-Tippunwuti, McGrath, Parish and Zaharakis.
• Their scoring power when effective is multi-talented in both talls and super effective smalls.
• Ball movement can be breathtaking and rebound scintillating off half back. Saad and McKenna are daring.
• If their team has the correct balance they are extremely quick. They will embarrass teams with their pace at times.
• This is a big one and puts great onus on the coaches to promote and develop this talent: Essendon has the No.1 ranked under 25 group in the country. Above thatof GWS who had the luxury of drafted talent.
• No excuses with experience. The youth excuse is out the window. Essendon have 20 players who have played 50-199 games- the third most of any club.
• They have the greatest returns from the Inside 50’s than any other club. But they average in the 40’s. They are indirect and need to get the ball inside 50 more. Mid 50 inside 50 coupled with efficiency will provide great scoreboard pressure.

Areas of improvement.

• Essendon do not have an intercept mark in the backline. The likes of Gibson, Lever, Rance, Wood, Johnson ( Freo) Taylor (Geelong), Tarrant ( North) show the effectiveness of this. They are critical given the way the game is played. Because Hooker has gone forward it means Hurley is ‘forced ‘ to man up tighter. IF he and Hooker shared this role Essendon would have the best intercept marks in the comp. With Stringer, Daniher and Stewart up forward will Hooker go back? The debate continues, but Essendon need a class interceptor.
• 2nd worst team in the comp (behind Brisbane) with turnovers coming off half back.
• 17th in clearances
• Bottom 6 for tackles
• Bottom 6 contested ball
• And…Critically bottom 4 for % time ball stays in forward line. (Meaning they never allow midfield the luxury to set up and defend the opposition transition.)

NB. Last year Essendon made the 8 despite these poor numbers in critical areas. They got thrashed in the Sydney final because of them. If they fix these areas, say 30-50% improvement, they make the top 4. That’s what preseason’s and coaching is all about; Teach-Learn-Improve.

Question marks

• Can they handle pressure? Can they sustain pressure on the opposition?
• Is this what you want said about your team? In a recent article in the Herald Sun Footy Preview it was noted that: “Essendon will play a bit of AFLX in the season proper”.
• Can their defensive actions improve to meet the requirements of a top 4 teams? The last 3 premiers Hawthorn, West Bulldogs and Richmond made this a primary focus and selected sides accordingly.
• There is a case to suggest that Essendon ‘break and spread’ too early from contests so as to get the ball on the outside and use the width of the ground. This ‘make the ground bigger’ philosophy is too easily cut off as exit points for ball distribution, particularly off HBF, can be cut off. Can Essendon minimise turnovers off HBF?
• Will Essendon tag at critical stages of the year? “Cut the head off the snake’. First year player Jack Graham goes to a rampant Rory Sloane in the Grand Final. For example, Essendon allow Kelly (38), Hill (37) and Zorko (30) to flourish resulting in lost games from winnable positions. Together with the Carlton and earlier Sydney game it equates to an additional 5 games the Dons could’ve won. That puts a significant new slant on ladder position and premiership opportunity. I’ll expand; in Round 14 GWS held Dane Zorko to 5 disposals. Essendon chose not to follow up and pressure him the next week at Etihad. He had 30, 8 tackles, 7 clearances and 2 goals. Brisbane beat Essendon.
• Hypothetical. If Essendon had a quality big bodied midfielder such as Carlton’s Patrick Cripps, would they win the premiership? More likely than not. Extra big bodies in the centre square would certainly help.
• Can Stringer go through the midfield? Anyone can ‘go through the midfield’ but it’s such a specialist area that handy pinch hitters are rarely a success. He’s far from a natural and needs more than a pre-season or a few games. You just don’t ‘become a midfielder’ in this complex area. 3rd tall inside 50 with occasional runs on ball to break up Essendon’s tactical balance.
• Defence or being defensive? People get it confused. In the finals these are the scores kicked against the Tigers. 5.10.40 (Geelong) , 9.13.67 (GWS) and 8.12.60 (Adelaide). The Tigers kicked over 100 points twice and 91 points in the other game. That’s not defensive; that’s great defence and lessons need to be learned. It can’t be exhilarating one way (attack) and inexcusable the other (defence).
• John Worsfold- John has righted the ship through troubled waters. A superb job of balance and stability. He has now been presented with outstandingtalent. However, there is no rush to sign- in my opinion. John’s not going anywhere, nor do we want him to. Just assess the season after 12 rounds and sign according to three criteria:

1.Improvement/ladder position of the team

2.Sustainability of game plan; and

3.Development of individual players. Maximise talent at disposal. Then everyone’s a winner!

Ladder position

• Bottom of the 8 if reliant on talent factor alone because they will win enough games
• Top 4-6 if Essendon coaches are able to improve areas of weakness from last year by 50%.

Key Theme

• Defensive Integrity

Robert Shaw 19/3/2018

 

[BrunoV]

A few things jumped out at me from the numbers.

I would like to see what portion half back possession is turned over and how that compares to other sides. It doesn't surprise me that we have a high number of turns overs because we spend a lot of time at half back where most of our attacks start (because of poor contested ball in the midfield). If it was a problem I would not expect that it would be the prime driver of our scoring. I'd put this stat down to time at half back and the weighing up of risk and reward and erring on the side of risk. I don't think that there is a problem with anyone's disposal especially when I compare it to the disposal of defenders playing for Richmond and the Dogs.

Bottom 4% for time in forward half more than likely reflects our forwards being the best at converting entries into scores. If this stat was going to concern me, I'd want to see it expressed as the time in forward half for every entry that does not result in a score (i.e. does the ground level ball bounce back out of our forward 50 quicker?). Even then, the more that a side doesn't score the longer the ball tends to be camped in forward half.

If this is going to be addressed, I don't think it will have anything to do with the forward 6, it will probably require us to change our tactics completely. If anything it will be up to the midfield to do a better job of closing down opposition counter attacks.

 

[owen87]

A few things jumped out at me from the numbers.

I would like to see what portion half back possession is turned over and how that compares to other sides. It doesn't surprise me that we have a high number of turns overs because we spend a lot of time at half back where most of our attacks start (because of poor contested ball in the midfield). If it was a problem I would not expect that it would be the prime driver of our scoring. I'd put this stat down to time at half back and the weighing up of risk and reward and erring on the side of risk. I don't think that there is a problem with anyone's disposal especially when I compare it to the disposal of defenders playing for Richmond and the Dogs.

Bottom 4% for time in forward half more than likely reflects our forwards being the best at converting entries into scores. If this stat was going to concern me, I'd want to see it expressed as the time in forward half for every entry that does not result in a score (i.e. does the ground level ball bounce back out of our forward 50 quicker?). Even then, the more that a side doesn't score the longer the ball tends to be camped in forward half.

If this is going to be addressed, I don't think it will have anything to do with the forward 6, it will probably require us to change our tactics completely. If anything it will be up to the midfield to do a better job of closing down opposition counter attacks.

I think most of his points come down to defensive intent; our midfield don't win clearances and aren't applying sufficient pressure to stop the easy entries. We don't have a star intercept defender (though Gleeson was improving) that can drop in and cut off those the way McGovern can. When the ball is lost inside our F50 we don't apply enough pressure to stop it rebounding straight out.

When we get the game on our terms, we're lethal, the big issue is can our players have that mindset to hunt the opposition and make them earn every possesion?

We've got plenty of speed and class on the outside, once the ball is in our hands we're as dangerous as anyone (once we make it past Half Back anyway) - but we're not yet able to force turnovers and get the ball back once we lose it.

 

[Howard Moon]

he also said we are often too quick to spread and go from half back causing turnovers but that's not always the case, if I recall correctly against STK we nearly bored them to death at HB going from side to side, pulling their zone to and fro until a gap appeared then we pounced. It was very effective and strangled Stk

 

[BrunoV]

I think most of his points come down to defensive intent; our midfield don't win clearances and aren't applying sufficient pressure to stop the easy entries. We don't have a star intercept defender (though Gleeson was improving) that can drop in and cut off those the way McGovern can. When the ball is lost inside our F50 we don't apply enough pressure to stop it rebounding straight out.

When we get the game on our terms, we're lethal, the big issue is can our players have that mindset to hunt the opposition and make them earn every possesion?

We've got plenty of speed and class on the outside, once the ball is in our hands we're as dangerous as anyone (once we make it past Half Back anyway) - but we're not yet able to force turnovers and get the ball back once we lose it.

That's just the thing, I'm not sure the bolded comment is an accurate criticism and it's not supported by the time in forward half stat. Time in forward half is either corrected in the middle or there is a change to the system that results in the ball being locked up in our forward 50 (and less efficient scoring).

 

[owen87]

That's just the thing, I'm not sure the bolded comment is an accurate criticism and it's not supported by the time in forward half stat. Time in forward half is either corrected in the middle or there is a change to the system that results in the ball being locked up in our forward 50 (and less efficient scoring).

The stat is a bit misleading I agree; it doesn't distinguish between time inside F50 as a function of locking in repeat entries, versus entries that result in a quick score.

You might have 10 entries for 10 marks and 10 goals, or 10 entries that ping around for a while and end up with 0 scores. One is a lesser "time in forward 50" stat but is far better on the scoreboard.

I guess it's that there is a general correlation between the two; more time spent inside 50 suggests both a midfield that's winning the ball and more opportunities to generate scores.

 

[Ati Tude]

Of all those areas of improvement, time the ball is in forward 50 seems the least concerning. When was the last season we won clearances, contested ball etc. Maybe time in forward 50 is low because the umpires bring the ball out after a goal as we were good in attacking efficiency. Focus on the D.

 

[bjisgod9]

I'd still be a touch concerned considering those teams that won time in first half stat, won 70% of games last year.
It does come down to our midfield and overall team defence which is what we know to be our main weakness as a team.

 

[BrunoV]

I'd still be a touch concerned considering those teams that won time in first half stat, won 70% of games last year.
It does come down to our midfield and overall team defence which is what we know to be our main weakness as a team.

I agree.

There is a point between the horrid inefficiency of Collingwood, for example, and then the precision of Adelaide and us where the real advantage of time in forward half is not related to scoring but to controlling the tempo of the game. There is no better place to defend from than in your forward 50. The flow on effect of keeping the ball forward is that you get the opportunity to shut down an opponent's ball moment and if you're a good side you're putting the opponent under pressure to convert limited opportunities.

I think of the Grand Final, for example, as a match that Adelaide could not win. It stayed quite close for a while but the dam wall is almost always breached in a match like that one, resulting in Richmond running away with it.

The catch 22 we face is that kicking a goal then exposes our biggest weakness - winning midfield clearances. By the numbers, we're basically already at our own defensive 50 each time we kick a goal. That's not to say that we should avoid kicking goals but I'm not sure that trying to play a game from half back against sides like Richmond will ever work.

It's a different discussion to what Shaw was getting at, that the side doesn't work hard enough to keep the ball forward. It's a tactical and structural issue. It's very difficult to see how we can change anything for the better without improvement from the midfield.