Analysis Same Structures vs Radical Change?

[LittleCrowBoy]

I don't think Atkins issue is a lack of killer instinct, just a complete inability to win the ball himself. He's 100% outside, when we don't win the midfield battle a guy like that is going to look largely invisible.

Surely that's the same thing though ?

Someone with that hard killer instinct will get the ball themselves when required.
This is where Gibson will help....he gives us a midfield option that is super fit...and hunts the ball when required.
I don't understand people's thinking that we even need outside runners....if that means someone who just won't go in when required? Just get fast, fit players with GUTS !!! ....inside,outside,skinny,fat,short,tall....who cares.

Was the Richmond team perfectly balanced ? ....if yes our team structure needs changing....if no ...then "team structure" is massively overstated and we just need better personnel that can make it happen and don't reply on their teammates to do all the heavy lifting for them. Jenkins is the worst in this regard.

 

[MRB37]

Surely that's the same thing though ?

Someone with that hard killer instinct will get the ball themselves when required.
This is where Gibson will help....he gives us a midfield option that is super fit...and hunts the ball when required.
I don't understand people's thinking that we even need outside runners....if that means someone who just won't go in when required? Just get fast, fit players with GUTS !!! ....inside,outside,skinny,fat,short,tall....who cares.

Was the Richmond team perfectly balanced ? ....if yes our team structure needs changing....if no ...then "team structure" is massively overstated and we just need better personnel that can make it happen and don't reply on their teammates to do all the heavy lifting for them. Jenkins is the worst in this regard.

It's easy to say that, harder in reality and there's more to football than contested ball winning that can make a player have or lack a killer instinct. Mackay tries to win the ball, but it never really does him any good because he's always going to have the body that he does.

 

[LittleCrowBoy]

It's easy to say that, harder in reality and there's more to football than contested ball winning that can make a player have or lack a killer instinct. Mackay tries to win the ball, but it never really does him any good because he's always going to have the body that he does.

I'm trying to make a point that players need to be able to have some impact on the game when things aren't going our way...not just jog in space and watch the GF slip away....and when you think about it....if 22 players beat their opponent.....then yeah...you don't need much else do you ? ....beating your opponent usually requires some form of contesting the ball.

 

[Bill50]

I'm trying to make a point that players need to be able to have some impact on the game when things aren't going our way...not just jog in space and watch the GF slip away....and when you think about it....if 22 players beat their opponent.....then yeah...you don't need much else do you ? ....beating your opponent usually requires some form of contesting the ball.

Sorry for butting into your conversation.

Firstly I agree with your overall point that all players need to be able to impact the game no matter the situation. However, two points on what you said:

You’re ignoring the fact that In modern football players don’t tend to have direct opponents, so it won’t work to just focus on beating an opponent.

Secondly Brenton Sanderson had a simplistic focus on winning contested footy at the expense of outside run and structures. How did that go for us? The truth is outside players are extremely important and can absolutely destroy oppositions (as we did all the time in 2017) , but if they all go missing on the same day - then you get the crows in the GF.

IMO it is about striking the right balance.

 

[LittleCrowBoy]

Sorry for butting into your conversation.

Firstly I agree with your overall point that all players need to be able to impact the game no matter the situation. However, two points on what you said:

You’re ignoring the fact that In modern football players don’t tend to have direct opponents, so it won’t work to just focus on beating an opponent.

Secondly Brenton Sanderson had a simplistic focus on winning contested footy at the expense of outside run and structures. How did that go for us? The truth is outside players are extremely important and can absolutely destroy oppositions (as we did all the time in 2017) , but if they all go missing on the same day - then you get the crows in the GF.

IMO it is about striking the right balance.

My point was never that we don't need outside runners....mearly that 1 dimentional ....I want it my way or I'm useless players are of no value to as at all... this includes over the back, handball it to me in the square Jenkins. ...and he's not an outside runner. Sanderson was a muppet....plain and simple.
My original post was players needing to have a hard nosed, killer instinct (like what sloan, Crouch, Laird, Talia and Smith amongst others have) ....soft players are soft players...they hang on the outside and ask everyone else to do the dirty work even when it is their turn!!!
It's got nothing to do with outside,inside, defender, forward, short or tall.

 

[John Who]

Sorry for butting into your conversation.

Firstly I agree with your overall point that all players need to be able to impact the game no matter the situation. However, two points on what you said:

You’re ignoring the fact that In modern football players don’t tend to have direct opponents, so it won’t work to just focus on beating an opponent.

Secondly Brenton Sanderson had a simplistic focus on winning contested footy at the expense of outside run and structures. How did that go for us? The truth is outside players are extremely important and can absolutely destroy oppositions (as we did all the time in 2017) , but if they all go missing on the same day - then you get the crows in the GF.

IMO it is about striking the right balance.

No need to apologise for butting in on conversations. That's what this forum is for! I think you and littlecrowboy are arguing over the same thing. Players to know their roles, but when it's time to hunt the footy, you need to go full blast at it!
I'm really keen on seeing who can step it up and improve to the next level. The Crouch bros were the major improvers last year. Who will be our next 2 or 3 next big improvers in 2018?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

No need to apologise for butting in on conversations. That's what this forum is for! I think you and littlecrowboy are arguing over the same thing. Players to know their roles, but when it's time to hunt the footy, you need to go full blast at it!
I'm really keen on seeing who can step it up and improve to the next level. The Crouch bros were the major improvers last year. Who will be our next 2 or 3 next big improvers in 2018?

Milera ...McGovern ....Doedee

 

[John Who]

Milera ...McGovern ....Doedee

My mouth is watering... hopefully it turn into a puddle when season starts...

 

[WaynesWorld19]

My mouth is watering... hopefully it turn into a puddle when season starts...

they've all done their apprenticeship ....all entering their 3rd season of AFL training & development

 

[LittleCrowBoy]

they've all done their apprenticeship ....all entering their 3rd season of AFL training & development

CEY has been in the system a while now too....same with Hampton. You never know...either 1 could have a breakout year and make all the difference...pushing out a Mackay or even a Douglas if out of form.

The Crows don't often omit players after a bad loss....we would rather keep our structure. This mentality leads to playing injured and out of form players who can then disappear when we need them most.

It's a bit frustrating because it becomes a chicken and egg scenario....hard for fringe playes to "take the next step" if you never give them the chance. Hard to make your senior team accountable if you never drop them.

The Crows have plenty of potentials lining up - so at least that's something...and you'd expect the likes of Kelly, Atkins, Crouches, Harto, Greenwood etc...to all improve with last year under their belt and other preseason completed.

In theory the Crows should be primed to go all the way in 2018....most teams would swap lists in a heartbeat if they could.

 

[CrowBloke]

CEY has been in the system a while now too....

CEY was showing good form before he did his knee. 2018 could be his breakout year. I hope so. Gonna be nteresting to see if the others you mentioned improve. If Crouch Bros, Kelly, Knight and Greenwood get better, watch out, Crows will be formidable.

From memory, only Jenkins and Mackay were 'dropped' for poor form in 2017 --- and Mackay was recalled after one game without playing SANFL, very odd --- were there any others?
Pyke backs in his system/gameplan and backs in his players but I think the latter attitude taken too far creates some complacency because an off-game or two has no consequences, or appears not to when an underperforming player keeps getting selected on what he m-g-h-t do (eg Cameron, who finally put in a blinder in the PF and probably helped us to get strong reward for his trade).
It'd be interesting to see stats about team stability ie least players used, and Flags won.
Personally, I favour dropping a player for poor form regardless of potential or reputation as a wake-up call to make him earn his place to get back in the side, especially in the first 2/3rds of the year.

 

[John Who]

CEY was showing good form before he did his knee. 2018 could be his breakout year. I hope so. Gonna be nteresting to see if the others you mentioned improve. If Crouch Bros, Kelly, Knight and Greenwood get better, watch out, Crows will be formidable.
From memory, only Jenkins and Mackay were 'dropped' for poor form in 2017 --- and Mackay was recalled after one game without playing SANFL, very odd --- were there any others?
Pyke backs in his system/gameplan and backs in his players but I think the latter attitude taken too far creates some complacency because an off-game or two has no consequences, or appears not to when an underperforming player keeps getting selected on what he m-g-h-t do (eg Cameron, who finally put in a blinder in the PF and probably helped us to get strong reward for his trade).
It'd be interesting to see stats about team stability ie least players used, and Flags won.
Personally, I favour dropping a player for poor form regardless of potential or reputation as a wake-up call to make him earn his place to get back in the side, especially in the first 2/3rds of the year.

Certainly I agree we need to be a bit more ruthless in our selections of players out of form. It is a fine line you're treading when demoting players, regarding maintaining form and maintaining team balance/structures. It was made more difficult to drop players because we'd usually win and win by big margins. Another argument can be made that because we kept the same structures/players, this stability helped us get into the GF.

 

[LittleCrowBoy]

Certainly I agree we need to be a bit more ruthless in our selections of players out of form. It is a fine line you're treading when demoting players, regarding maintaining form and maintaining team balance/structures. It was made more difficult to drop players because we'd usually win and win by big margins. Another argument can be made that because we kept the same structures/players, this stability helped us get into the GF.

I actually think it's the players on our list that got us to the GF and our insistence to maintain a structure that ultimately cost as the flag.
Would Sloan be any worse as a half back general? ....Would Greenwood be a terrible forward? ...could Laird not start in the centre square? The Crouch brothers look good on any part of the ground. Tex when up and running is impossible to contain....same for Betts. It's a very talented and well balanced list ATM ....unfortunately we still have a couple passengers at times...and this causes a domino effect around the ground.
It's a shame we gained Gibbs but lost Lever (and Smith through injury) ...making our list slightly weaker in the short term. Having said that...if a Millera, Hampton, Keith, CEY step up and play consistently good ( a la Greenwood 2017) then we REALLY become hard to beat.
Defence is clearly our biggest concern ATM.

 

[LittleCrowBoy]

I actually think it's the players on our list that got us to the GF and our insistence to maintain a structure that ultimately cost as the flag.
Would Sloan be any worse as a half back general? ....Would Greenwood be a terrible forward? ...could Laird not start in the centre square? The Crouch brothers look good on any part of the ground. Tex when up and running is impossible to contain....same for Betts. It's a very talented and well balanced list ATM ....unfortunately we still have a couple passengers at times...and this causes a domino effect around the ground.
It's a shame we gained Gibbs but lost Lever (and Smith through injury) ...making our list slightly weaker in the short term. Having said that...if a Millera, Hampton, Keith, CEY step up and play consistently good ( a la Greenwood 2017) then we REALLY become hard to beat.
Defence is clearly our biggest concern ATM.

Actually I forgot Gibson !!! ....making the list no weaker than 2017 in my opinion.
I actually think the recruitment of Gibson could go down as one of the greatest short term pick ups in the clubs history - he could well have a medal hanging around his neck next year.
He represents a SOLID contributor...that is unlikely to go missing under pressure....allowing us to cut 1 weak link or out of form player from the side.

 

[CrowBloke]

Good post, disagree only with this:

It's a shame we gained Gibbs but lost Lever (and Smith through injury) ...making our list slightly weaker in the short term.

Smith is out, but not lost.
We lost Cameron who played the second half of the year (except the PF) like his mind and heart were elsewhere,
and
Lever, whose mind and heart were long gone as well.
We gained Gibbs who's a gun in his prime and Gibson who'll produce more consistently than CC, wherever he plays. Our list is stronger for the changes. Add Fogarty and we're clearly better off.

 

[John Who]

Actually I forgot Gibson !!! ....making the list no weaker than 2017 in my opinion.
I actually think the recruitment of Gibson could go down as one of the greatest short term pick ups in the clubs history - he could well have a medal hanging around his neck next year.
He represents a SOLID contributor...that is unlikely to go missing under pressure....allowing us to cut 1 weak link or out of form player from the side.

Gibson is a very handy acquisition. If he isn't chosen in the AFL team, then he will at least make the fringe players sweat it harder in the playing field in AFL matches this year.

 

[Bill50]

My point was never that we don't need outside runners....mearly that 1 dimentional ....I want it my way or I'm useless players are of no value to as at all... this includes over the back, handball it to me in the square Jenkins. ...and he's not an outside runner. Sanderson was a muppet....plain and simple.
My original post was players needing to have a hard nosed, killer instinct (like what sloan, Crouch, Laird, Talia and Smith amongst others have) ....soft players are soft players...they hang on the outside and ask everyone else to do the dirty work even when it is their turn!!!
It's got nothing to do with outside,inside, defender, forward, short or tall.

I don’t disagree with you and if all you’re saying is players need to be tough - that is hard to argue with. I also agree certain players are too 1 dimensional.

I’m going to refrain from commenting on Jenkins - if I get started I don’t think I could stop.

I suppose what I’m trying to say (and sorry if I’m twisting you point to serve my own purposes) is that some players have roles that mean they need to hang back at times and prioritise trying to receive the ball and not get caught in contests. It can be really easy to criticise these players when it doesn’t pay off and lacks nuance to just say be tougher. The crouches and Sloane funnily enough have an easier job - just crack in always (not to say they aren’t extremely good).

If I can Address the original premise of the thread. I don’t believe we should throw out our structures in search of a harder edge (which I know is not what you’re saying LittleCrowBoy) as a reaction to our failure in the GF. I believe there are some changes needed but that shouldn’t ignore the fact we got extremely close for a reason.

 

[LittleCrowBoy]

I don’t disagree with you and if all you’re saying is players need to be tough - that is hard to argue with. I also agree certain players are too 1 dimensional.

I’m going to refrain from commenting on Jenkins - if I get started I don’t think I could stop.

I suppose what I’m trying to say (and sorry if I’m twisting you point to serve my own purposes) is that some players have roles that mean they need to hang back at times and prioritise trying to receive the ball and not get caught in contests. It can be really easy to criticise these players when it doesn’t pay off and lacks nuance to just say be tougher. The crouches and Sloane funnily enough have an easier job - just crack in always (not to say they aren’t extremely good).

If I can Address the original premise of the thread. I don’t believe we should throw out our structures in search of a harder edge (which I know is not what you’re saying LittleCrowBoy) as a reaction to our failure in the GF. I believe there are some changes needed but that shouldn’t ignore the fact we got extremely close for a reason.

I agree with all that...the way we play is fine...I have a problem with a few players who go missing when the going gets tough...yes that's always going to happen to a few lighter framed runners....but I believe if you cut some weak links...even at the expense of structure (without throwing structure out the window altogether) then you lessen the chance of being blown out of the water.

On that note...perhaps we are better off losing a little structure and lowering the margin of our wins and loses???
Is it really helpful to either win by 60 points or lose by 60 points???
I kind of see that as the "structure" either holding or falling apart.

 

[LittleCrowBoy]

Good post, disagree only with this:

Smith is out, but not lost.
We lost Cameron who played the second half of the year (except the PF) like his mind and heart were elsewhere,
and
Lever, whose mind and heart were long gone as well.
We gained Gibbs who's a gun in his prime and Gibson who'll produce more consistently than CC, wherever he plays. Our list is stronger for the changes. Add Fogarty and we're clearly better off.

Yeah...I never mentioned Cameron because I see his replacement with Millera as having more upside than down.
Cameron was good for pressure acts and shutting down space....not much else.
I was only talking about short term with the loss of Smith....I don't think he will play at all in 2018...although I hope I'm wrong on that one. I guess he gives us a "break glass in emergency" option if a key player drops out on the eve of the finals....but otherwise it's a big ask to bring someone back from a knee and a year out during September.
I'd be surprised if the Crows selected Fogarty for more than 1-2 games...early days for him.
Lever is a huge loss anyway you look at it....dispite the fact has was a complete tool in the back half of the year.
Our defence will determine our year in 2018...no doubt about that. At times we were opened up back there like a cheap whore in Thailand...loosing Lever ain't going to help that situation.

 

[Bill50]

I agree with all that...the way we play is fine...I have a problem with a few players who go missing when the going gets tough...yes that's always going to happen to a few lighter framed runners....but I believe if you cut some weak links...even at the expense of structure (without throwing structure out the window altogether) then you lessen the chance of being blown out of the water.

On that note...perhaps we are better off losing a little structure and lowering the margin of our wins and loses???
Is it really helpful to either win by 60 points or lose by 60 points???
I kind of see that as the "structure" either holding or falling apart.

You make a really interesting last point. I’m honestly not sure, I’ve always been a fan of well defined structures. However thinking back to the 2017 season, some of those wet games we simplified the game plan and absolutely smashed some teams (I cant remember the exact games but definitely did that to freo).

I agree we tend to either win big or lose big. It might be worth trying in a game or two, maybe it can be a fall back plan. If the structures are failing loosen things up and concentrate on contested footy (might be able to save us from a big loss).

 

[LittleCrowBoy]

You make a really interesting last point. I’m honestly not sure, I’ve always been a fan of well defined structures. However thinking back to the 2017 season, some of those wet games we simplified the game plan and absolutely smashed some teams (I cant remember the exact games but definitely did that to freo).

I agree we tend to either win big or lose big. It might be worth trying in a game or two, maybe it can be a fall back plan. If the structures are failing loosen things up and concentrate on contested footy (might be able to save us from a big loss).

Yeah...perhaps forget about zoning off at times and play "man on man" to create a "terrirory" , move it forward at any cost, scrappy, no space slog. Then when our free flowing, in space , razzle dazzle game is shut down we don't piss our pants and start to sook because it's all to hard ....and to quote Jenkins "it wasn't meant to be like this"
OMG ...man up you silver spoon, overpaid downhill skier !!!!

 

[Coopers]

I think the "losing big" thing is more of a failure of our coaching staff to change tack when things are going wrong. A big loss means we're getting smashed and are unable to fix the problem. It's not as bad as the Niel Craig and Sando "no plan B" situations, but we do keep trying to push s**t uphill for far too long.

Winning big - well that's the plan.

 

[ShadeyP]

Good teams put a ton of work into Lynch because we struggle because he struggles. That doesn't make him a downhill skier, but we need to be able to find another avenue like McGovern perhaps moving a bit further up the ground to counter when Lynch gets blanketed.

Anyway, it seems pretty simple to me. You take all the things that worked and look to keep doing them well, you take the areas you failed and look to improve them. Either by doing them better than you did previously (like how we spent last summer working on our contested ball skills), or finding a new way to do them. That doesn't need an entire overhaul of the gameplan, because it does work more often than not, you just need to find some new ways to do some parts of it.

Completely agree with this .

 

[John Who]

I had a look at the personnel on our Grand Final team and the current round 3 personnel, to see what has been the difference.

There are 6 changes in Round 3's team from the one that played on GF 2017:
1. Knight (injured) - CEY
2. Otten (demoted) - McGovern
3. Lever (left club) - Doedee
4. Cameron (left club) - Murphy
5. BCrouch (injured) - Milera
6. MCrouch (injured) - Gibbs

Seems overall we're keeping essentially the same structures, and only making changes due to injuries or players leaving the club over the preseason. The Crouch Bros coming back to the side would definitely strengthen the team further.
Will be interesting to see when we have players coming back from injuries, to see who will consolidate the midfield spot currently held by CEY. A stack of players are there or thereabouts - Polhoke, Gooch, Hampton, Milera, Knight, Gibson.
Murphy seems to be doing a decent Cameron impersonation. His defensive pressure appears quite sound, and although not as quick as CC, his play appears more calm and making better overall game decisions. He deserves the forward spot for now IMO.

 

[Coopers]

I had a look at the personnel on our Grand Final team and the current round 3 personnel, to see what has been the difference.

There are 6 changes in Round 3's team from the one that played on GF 2017:
1. Knight (injured) - CEY
2. Otten (demoted) - McGovern
3. Lever (left club) - Doedee
4. Cameron (left club) - Murphy
5. BCrouch (injured) - Milera
6. MCrouch (injured) - Gibbs

Seems overall we're keeping essentially the same structures, and only making changes due to injuries or players leaving the club over the preseason. The Crouch Bros coming back to the side would definitely strengthen the team further.
Will be interesting to see when we have players coming back from injuries, to see who will consolidate the midfield spot currently held by CEY. A stack of players are there or thereabouts - Polhoke, Gooch, Hampton, Milera, Knight, Gibson.
Murphy seems to be doing a decent Cameron impersonation. His defensive pressure appears quite sound, and although not as quick as CC, his play appears more calm and making better overall game decisions. He deserves the forward spot for now IMO.

We are definitely doing something different though. Not nearly as much run and gun this year so far.
Also as a result there is much less kicking it to opposition defenders. More possession and chip footy at half back.