Preview Round 16 - Essendon Bombers vs Port Adelaide - Saturday, July 1st - 7:25 pm - MCG - Ridley's Revenge

[Lore]

We haven’t been playing 2 players like weid and wright with 2 rucks all season…

I didn’t say we had 4 all season. And I am counting Jones as a tall forward. Not KPF, but tall.

We played 2 tall forwards and 2 rucks in R1, R4, R13, R15 (WWWL) - which is every opportunity we had with enough healthy players to do so except R3.

We played 1 tall forward and 2 rucks in R2, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12 (WWLLLLWW) - had no alternative due to Wright/Weid/Jones alternating injuries. Only other tall forward available was Voss.

We played 2 tall forwards and 1 ruck in R3 (L) - We omitted Flip and Bryan was injured. Not sure why Flip was omitted as he had no known injuries, but it might be related to his newborn son.

We subbed out a tall forward in R1, R3, R4, R5 (WLWW), including Weid’s concussion in R4.

We subbed out a ruck in R7, R10, R11, R13, R15 (LWWWL)

We didn’t sub either a ruck or a tall forward in R2, R6, R8, R9, R12 (WLLLW) which is due to injuries to Laverde, Ridley and Shiel forcing our hand in R6, R8 and R12 respectively; while Heppell was subbed for form in R2, and D’Ambrosio subbed for no apparent reason in R9.

So basically we nearly always start with 2 tall forwards and 2 rucks when we have the players available, and we nearly always go smaller in the forward line via a sub at the end of the third quarter whenever we have the opportunity, either 4 down to 3, or 3 down to 2.

I’d rather have a look at a smaller forward line with langford being the 2nd pseudo tall/ Draper resting ruck.

That’s similar to what we had from R6-R12 while Wright and Jones were both injured and Weid was holding down the forward line. Presumably you’d have Flip or Bryan as no 1 ruck instead of Draper, but it's the same structure if not the same players.

We also had that structure in the last quarter of R1 after Jones was subbed for Walla, and in the last three quarters of R4 after Weid was concussed (with Heppell as the sub replacing Langford in defence and Langford going forward for Weid).

Heppell didn’t start the season in defense,

I mentioned this in the post you quoted

and the last 3/4 weeks when Kelly has been our backline has looked a lot more balanced.

Beating s**t opponents tend to make your defence look better anyway, like Carlton couldn't have transitioned the ball well even if our entire team had stood on the side and watched.

 

[andleanback]

I didn’t say we had 4 all season. And I am counting Jones as a tall forward. Not KPF, but tall.

We played 2 tall forwards and 2 rucks in R1, R4, R13, R15 (WWWL) - which is every opportunity we had with enough healthy players to do so except R3.

We played 1 tall forward and 2 rucks in R2, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12 (WWLLLLWW) - had no alternative due to Wright/Weid/Jones alternating injuries. Only other tall forward available was Voss.

We played 2 tall forwards and 1 ruck in R3 (L) - We omitted Flip and Bryan was injured. Not sure why Flip was omitted as he had no known injuries, but it might be related to his newborn son.

We subbed out a tall forward in R1, R3, R4, R5 (WLWW), including Weid’s concussion in R4.

We subbed out a ruck in R7, R10, R11, R13, R15 (LWWWL)

We didn’t sub either a ruck or a tall forward in R2, R6, R8, R9, R12 (WLLLW) which is due to injuries to Laverde, Ridley and Shiel forcing our hand in R6, R8 and R12 respectively; while Heppell was subbed for form in R2, and D’Ambrosio subbed for no apparent reason in R9.

So basically we nearly always start with 2 tall forwards and 2 rucks when we have the players available, and we nearly always go smaller in the forward line via a sub at the end of the third quarter whenever we have the opportunity, either 4 down to 3, or 3 down to 2.


That’s similar to what we had from R6-R12 while Wright and Jones were both injured and Weid was holding down the forward line. Presumably you’d have Flip or Bryan as no 1 ruck instead of Draper, but it's the same structure if not the same players.

We also had that structure in the last quarter of R1 after Jones was subbed for Walla, and in the last three quarters of R4 after Weid was concussed (with Heppell as the sub replacing Langford in defence and Langford going forward for Weid).


I mentioned this in the post you quoted


Beating s**t opponents tend to make your defence look better anyway, like Carlton couldn't have transitioned the ball well even if our entire team had stood on the side and watched.

I’m not counting Jones. Totally different type of player to weid.

And it’s not who we beat, it’s how the backline looked and how we transitioned the ball.

 

[Duckworth]

Out: Kelly, Weid
In: Hind Baldwin.

 

[Vindicater]

Kelly generally defends better than Hind or Mass.

True. But then he also allows the other team to play team defense better against us.

Two edged sword.

 

[ant555]

True. But then he also allows the other team to play team defense better against us.

Two edged sword.

Personally I do think Kelly is that much of an issue.

 

[cAsEy_18]

Yeah Kelly does defend better than Hind.

The question is whether Kelly being a complete 0 offensively balances that out..

When we’re already rolling out Heppell, Laverde and Zerk in terms of lack of creative ball use…I’m not sure I’d have brought back Kelly.

It’s an area/spot that needs addressing for sure.

 

[Keystone agony]

Yeah Kelly does defend better than Hind.

The question is whether Kelly being a complete 0 offensively balances that out..

When we’re already rolling out Heppell, Laverde and Zerk in terms of lack of creative ball use…I’m not sure I’d have brought back Kelly.

It’s an area/spot that needs addressing for sure.

We were made to look slow aswell

Its starting to get a bit stale and stagnant with Kelly over Hind

 

[ant555]

Yeah Kelly does defend better than Hind.

The question is whether Kelly being a complete 0 offensively balances that out..

When we’re already rolling out Heppell, Laverde and Zerk in terms of lack of creative ball use…I’m not sure I’d have brought back Kelly.

It’s an area/spot that needs addressing for sure.

How many offensive defenders do you want ? You need one that defends. Kelly stays in his lane . The issue from the back half was Redman could not get going. Kelly provides the better defense and is a hard nut back there. It does actually balance out what McGrath and Redman do. We do not need all of the defenders as attacking.

 

[ant555]

We were made to look slow aswell

Its starting to get a bit stale and stagnant with Kelly over Hind

Think it was more the fact Redman did not get going.

 

[Lore]

How many offensive defenders do you want ? You need one that defends. Kelly stays in his lane . The issue from the back half was Redman could not get going. Kelly provides the better defense and is a hard nut back there. It does actually balance out what McGrath and Redman do. We do not need all of the defenders as attacking.

Freo were actively targeting Redman and blocking his lanes. They did their homework

 

[Keystone agony]

How many offensive defenders do you want ? You need one that defends. Kelly stays in his lane . The issue from the back half was Redman could not get going. Kelly provides the better defense and is a hard nut back there. It does actually balance out what McGrath and Redman do. We do not need all of the defenders as attacking.

Think the rest are all pretty good defenders

Heppell gives his all and mentality is to defend, hes just oast his best

But Mcgrath, Redman, Rids, Zerk, Lav, Heppell are all capable defensivily

Zerk, Lav, Heppell and Kelly are pretty slow the other way and dont have the skillset by foot to offer much. They usually move it slowly, sideways, backwards or kick 50 down the line

As much as Redman didnt get the footy, as Lore said if they were putting time into him which i didnt specifically notice at the game, Hinds another avenue and theres only so much stopping you can do to, too many rebounding half backs

 

[Bombers36]

If Scott isn't going to risk players then you'd think Draper & Shiel are very unlikely, and Zerk has to be in some doubt also. If thats the case Id like to see;-

Out: Kelly, BZT, Weideman, Snelling (SUB)
In: Hind, Baldwin, Voss (debut), Menzie

Laverde Baldwin McGrath
Redman Ridley Hind
Martin Stringer Durham
Guelfi Voss Menzie
Langford Wright Hobbs

Phillips Parish Merrett

Bench: Perkins Caldwell Heppell Bryan
SUB: Snelling

Stringer and Hobbs to rotate centre clearances should provide lots of grunt

 

[ant555]

Think the rest are all pretty good defenders

Heppell gives his all and mentality is to defend, hes just oast his best

But Mcgrath, Redman, Rids, Zerk, Lav, Heppell are all capable defensivily

Zerk, Lav, Heppell and Kelly are pretty slow the other way and dont have the skillset by foot to offer much. They usually move it slowly, sideways, backwards or kick 50 down the line

As much as Redman didnt get the footy, as Lore said if they were putting time into him which i didnt specifically notice at the game, Hinds another avenue and theres only so much stopping you can do to, too many rebounding half backs

Kelly kicks it well. His kicking efficiency is over 80%. He can not drill the improbable but he is reliable with his 30 to 40 meter kicks. He is also the back pocket. My view is you do not need all your small defenders to be super attacking. It is not like Hind has provided a massive amount of run from the back half when he has played this year anyway and on top of that when he has he has often had to stop and change direction as the set up in front of the footy has not been right.

I would sooner have Kelly as the defensive small and back Redman and McGrath to provide the run more often than not.
The issue we have at half back is Heppell who is playing good footy but is also playing in one of the spots that sides generally run their attacking players in.

The other thing that fell down was the fact that the team defensive plan fell down which meant there was not the midfield numbers inside the back 50 as often. One part of our team defense which had worked was the midfielders defending the middle and then pushing back inside 50 to provide numbers. The other advantage of that is you then have the numbers to run it back the other way. The fact we did not defend well though the middle left our back 6 exposed and put more pressure on us being able to move the footy. I think there was also an element of the forward pressure not being as good and allowing their half backs to get involved too easily as well.

My view is having Hind over Kelly does not change a lot if the issues are mainly coming from further up the ground.

 

[eth-dog]

We're too tall and slow forward if we're playing Langford, Stringer, Wright with 2 rucks and another tall.

 

[TheGrizz]

I'd be dropping Weideman for a small.

Wright, Langford, Stringer and a resting ruck can do us for tall options. We had zero speed at ground level and zero defensive pressure against Freo and it killed us.

 

[eth-dog]

Out: Weideman, Bryan (would prefer him in but he'll go before Phillips)
In: Draper, Shiel

McGrath - Zerk-Thatcher - Kelly
Ridley - Laverde - Redman
Martin - Parish - Durham
Langford - Stringer - Guelfi
Menzie - Wright - Perkins
Draper - Shiel - Merrett
Caldwell - Hobbs - Phillips - Heppell
Snelling

 

[TheGrizz]

Out: Weideman, Bryan (would prefer him in but he'll go before Phillips)
In: Draper, Shiel

McGrath - Zerk-Thatcher - Kelly
Ridley - Laverde - Redman
Martin - Parish - Durham
Langford - Stringer - Guelfi
Menzie - Wright - Perkins
Draper - Shiel - Merrett
Caldwell - Hobbs - Phillips - Heppell
Snelling

Spot on for structure.

But Shiel was listed as 1-2 weeks last injury update. I'd be surprised if he got up. I would bring Davey in as the sub and promote Snelling.

I'd even consider Baldwin in for Zerk-Thatcher after his performance at VFL level.

 

[faible]

Yeah Kelly does defend better than Hind.

The question is whether Kelly being a complete 0 offensively balances that out..

When we’re already rolling out Heppell, Laverde and Zerk in terms of lack of creative ball use…I’m not sure I’d have brought back Kelly.

It’s an area/spot that needs addressing for sure.

Kelly is better offensively than people are giving him credit for, he doesn't break lines but he works extremely hard to get ahead of the ball to provide a marking option which we often sorely lack when trying to make that defensive - offensive transition.

 

[faible]

Also where is this meme that Laverde is a bad kick coming from?

Draft Profile - Jayden Laverde

Thought I may as well get this going with my write-up for Jayden Laverde from the BF phantom draft thread as well as a few other bits and pieces. He's a really intriguing prospect who, realistically, could go anywhere from pick 5 to pick 20ish, depending on how high a club sees his ceiling...

www.bigfooty.com

Literally in his draft profile;

Laverde is a brilliant kick off both sides of the body, pulling off excellent passes and setting up his teammates more often than not. He has good defensive awareness without it necessarily being the best part of his game, which enables him to play in the back half and put his kicking skills to good use. He reads the play very well and peels off his man when necessary, taking intercept possessions and really hurting the opposition the other way.

He's not as good offensively as Ridley, but he's not actively bad or limited in any way.

 

[eth-dog]

Spot on for structure.

But Shiel was listed as 1-2 weeks last injury update. I'd be surprised if he got up. I would bring Davey in as the sub and promote Snelling.

I'd even consider Baldwin in for Zerk-Thatcher after his performance at VFL level.

If Shiel doesn't get up I'd rather give Tex a run.

Baldwin I'm happy to play but it should be in tandem with Zerk.

Also where is this meme that Laverde is a bad kick coming from?

Draft Profile - Jayden Laverde

Thought I may as well get this going with my write-up for Jayden Laverde from the BF phantom draft thread as well as a few other bits and pieces. He's a really intriguing prospect who, realistically, could go anywhere from pick 5 to pick 20ish, depending on how high a club sees his ceiling...

www.bigfooty.com

Literally in his draft profile;



He's not as good offensively as Ridley, but he's not actively bad or limited in any way.

He's not a great kick. Doesn't make too many mistakes but much like Kelly in a way.

 

[TheGrizz]

If Shiel doesn't get up I'd rather give Tex a run.

Actually, yeah. I like this instead.

 

[faible]

He's not a great kick. Doesn't make too many mistakes but much like Kelly in a way.

He's a better kick than Kelly, but usually takes safe options in defence. He can definitely execute more risky passes when he tries to, which is something Kelly can't do (nor does he try to).

In no way is he a bad kick though, which has been a meme people keep repeating lately.

 

[Lore]

Kelly kicks it well. His kicking efficiency is over 80%.

Need to be careful with that stat, the defenders often have inflated kicking stats due to chipping it around uncontested in the backline after a kick in or switching sides etc. On that basis it's better to use rankings or benchmarking comparing to similar players.

That said, Ridley and Redman have the most effective at the club, in fact they are equal fifth in the league for average number of effective kicks (Redman is also 3rd for total EK). Ridley is also just about the best kick efficiency (KE%) in the comp (including non-defenders), after a handful of players who've barely had a disposal this year and have skewed stats from the small sample size.



Kelly stacks up well for kick efficiency: he's ahead of Hind, Heppell and McGrath on that score with a greater proportion of the kicks he makes going to a teammate. He doesn't use it as much as the other defenders so his EK is below average according to the competition benchmarks for non-key defenders; so he only kicks it 8 times each game on average but a six and a half of those kicks go to a teammate.

He can not drill the improbable but he is reliable with his 30 to 40 meter kicks. He is also the back pocket. My view is you do not need all your small defenders to be super attacking. It is not like Hind has provided a massive amount of run from the back half when he has played this year anyway and on top of that when he has he has often had to stop and change direction as the set up in front of the footy has not been right.

I would sooner have Kelly as the defensive small and back Redman and McGrath to provide the run more often than not.
The issue we have at half back is Heppell who is playing good footy but is also playing in one of the spots that sides generally run their attacking players in.

The other thing that fell down was the fact that the team defensive plan fell down which meant there was not the midfield numbers inside the back 50 as often. One part of our team defense which had worked was the midfielders defending the middle and then pushing back inside 50 to provide numbers. The other advantage of that is you then have the numbers to run it back the other way. The fact we did not defend well though the middle left our back 6 exposed and put more pressure on us being able to move the footy. I think there was also an element of the forward pressure not being as good and allowing their half backs to get involved too easily as well.

My view is having Hind over Kelly does not change a lot if the issues are mainly coming from further up the ground.

Agree. He is not the problem. Fix the structure and get them defending properly and the backline should be a lot more functional.

I don't think you can talk about the defenders without talking about the mids, without talking about the forward pressure and lack thereof.

We dropped Menzie to bring Parish back in, seemingly without pushing another small into that forward pressure role. So we had Guelfi and Snelling as our "smalls", but we all know Snelling isn't chained to the pocket and doesn't spend much time in F50. In order to have an extra mid running around between the arcs, you either lose a forward altogether or someone else has to start in the forward line, but instead of a mid rotation we seemed to have the taller players playing deeper.

We struggled to trap the ball in the forward line, our ball movement is slower with the clamps on Redman, and McGrath the only linebreaker with no Hind, no Shiel, no Davey, no Walla... We had Merrett and Martin but we didn't get the ball in their hands a lot either. "The best defence is a good offence". Without the offensive capability, the team defence is being tested. When the team defence fails the backline is under the pump, having to work back to defend instead of attacking (because that's what you do when your team don't have the ball!)

I think either Scott, Parish or Caldwell mentioned after the game that Fremantle's strategy focused on using the width of the ground after QT. I think what they're talking about is the tendency for our guys to get sucked into the contest, they don't hold width, or spread hard enough to get into those positions, which created a weak point for Freo to exploit. I think once they started playing body on body at the contest it made it harder for our mids to actually win the ball, and thus more determined to do so which perhaps exacerbates the getting sucked in problem.

What needed to happen was for one of Hobbs or Caldwell to take Snelling's role between the arcs and Snelling gets Menzie's spot in the forward line, or Hobbs/Caldwell alternate in Menzie's role. Alternatively, you push Merrett to half-back to provide some rebound in lieu of Hind, which takes him out of the midfield rotation and potentially frees up Redman as well since they can't stop all of the rebound all of the time.

Another option is to align more closely with the structure we used in R1, which was pretty similar except for the small forwards: R1 was Menzie/Davey+Walla (sub), and currently we have Guelfi/Snelling+Menzie (sub). If we dropped Snelling to the VFL, Hobbs or Caldwell play the Snelling role between the arcs, and Menzie, Davey or Walla come into the forward line (don't think Walla is fit enough yet).

 

[faible]

Need to be careful with that stat, the defenders often have inflated kicking stats due to chipping it around uncontested in the backline after a kick in or switching sides etc. On that basis it's better to use rankings or benchmarking comparing to similar players.

That said, Ridley and Redman have the most effective at the club, in fact they are equal fifth in the league for average number of effective kicks (Redman is also 3rd for total EK). Ridley is also just about the best kick efficiency (KE%) in the comp (including non-defenders), after a handful of players who've barely had a disposal this year and have skewed stats from the small sample size.

View attachment 1722557View attachment 1722558View attachment 1722559View attachment 1722560

Kelly stacks up well for kick efficiency: he's ahead of Hind, Heppell and McGrath on that score with a greater proportion of the kicks he makes going to a teammate. He doesn't use it as much as the other defenders so his EK is below average according to the competition benchmarks for non-key defenders; so he only kicks it 8 times each game on average but a six and a half of those kicks go to a teammate.


Agree. He is not the problem. Fix the structure and get them defending properly and the backline should be a lot more functional.

I don't think you can talk about the defenders without talking about the mids, without talking about the forward pressure and lack thereof.

We dropped Menzie to bring Parish back in, seemingly without pushing another small into that forward pressure role. So we had Guelfi and Snelling as our "smalls", but we all know Snelling isn't chained to the pocket and doesn't spend much time in F50. In order to have an extra mid running around between the arcs, you either lose a forward altogether or someone else has to start in the forward line, but instead of a mid rotation we seemed to have the taller players playing deeper.

We struggled to trap the ball in the forward line, our ball movement is slower with the clamps on Redman, and McGrath the only linebreaker with no Hind, no Shiel, no Davey, no Walla... We had Merrett and Martin but we didn't get the ball in their hands a lot either. "The best defence is a good offence". Without the offensive capability, the team defence is being tested. When the team defence fails the backline is under the pump, having to work back to defend instead of attacking (because that's what you do when your team don't have the ball!)

I think either Scott, Parish or Caldwell mentioned after the game that Fremantle's strategy focused on using the width of the ground after QT. I think what they're talking about is the tendency for our guys to get sucked into the contest, they don't hold width, or spread hard enough to get into those positions, which created a weak point for Freo to exploit. I think once they started playing body on body at the contest it made it harder for our mids to actually win the ball, and thus more determined to do so which perhaps exacerbates the getting sucked in problem.

What needed to happen was for one of Hobbs or Caldwell to take Snelling's role between the arcs and Snelling gets Menzie's spot in the forward line, or Hobbs/Caldwell alternate in Menzie's role. Alternatively, you push Merrett to half-back to provide some rebound in lieu of Hind, which takes him out of the midfield rotation and potentially frees up Redman as well since they can't stop all of the rebound all of the time.

Another option is to align more closely with the structure we used in R1, which was pretty similar except for the small forwards: R1 was Menzie/Davey+Walla (sub), and currently we have Guelfi/Snelling+Menzie (sub). If we dropped Snelling to the VFL, Hobbs or Caldwell play the Snelling role between the arcs, and Menzie, Davey or Walla come into the forward line (don't think Walla is fit enough yet).

Wasn't there some kind of stat floating around that calculated the expected difficulty of a given kick and ranked players based on effectiveness vs expected difficulty?

Someone like Kelly tends to take easier, safe kicks to team-mates, which is exactly what you'd want him to do, whereas players like Ridley or Merrett are taking the more difficult kicks and (generally) executing them pretty well.

 

[sameolds33]

Kelly kicks it well. His kicking efficiency is over 80%. He can not drill the improbable but he is reliable with his 30 to 40 meter kicks. He is also the back pocket. My view is you do not need all your small defenders to be super attacking. It is not like Hind has provided a massive amount of run from the back half when he has played this year anyway and on top of that when he has he has often had to stop and change direction as the set up in front of the footy has not been right.

I would sooner have Kelly as the defensive small and back Redman and McGrath to provide the run more often than not.
The issue we have at half back is Heppell who is playing good footy but is also playing in one of the spots that sides generally run their attacking players in.

The other thing that fell down was the fact that the team defensive plan fell down which meant there was not the midfield numbers inside the back 50 as often. One part of our team defense which had worked was the midfielders defending the middle and then pushing back inside 50 to provide numbers. The other advantage of that is you then have the numbers to run it back the other way. The fact we did not defend well though the middle left our back 6 exposed and put more pressure on us being able to move the footy. I think there was also an element of the forward pressure not being as good and allowing their half backs to get involved too easily as well.

My view is having Hind over Kelly does not change a lot if the issues are mainly coming from further up the ground.

This is true but it is also true that Kelly didn't play well and looked rusty, as you'd expect after 3 (?) weeks out. For whatever reasons, the back line didn't gel well.