Review Shattered

[Dormammu]

I don't see how this disagrees with my position - that we cannot assume that behinds would have become goals. Those clusters of scoring shots for Freo were achieved via kick-ins, not centre bouncedowns.

The AFL Data was used to illustrate that momentum exits by showing when it occurred. Your statement that points were

achieved via kick-ins

is supported by neither the replay or the data (note the many gaps of more than 2 minutes between scores, confirmation that Geelong had cleared our forward defence).

Further, it should be noted that the following is also incorrect

The fact is, there was never a run of play where Freo put more than two consecutive goals on the board, whereas Cats put together three or more consecutive goals twice.

as we scored 3 goals in the second quarter (from 14m to the 25m mark).

This reinforces the contention that straight kicking in the last quarter would have left it looking more like the latter half of the second.

Untrue, especially in the last.

We scored 10 goals. In the first, Mayne's goal was followed by Kep's and we were the first to score again after that (Balla's point).

In the second Hill kicked a point after Walter's goal, and in the third Mayne kicked a point after Hill goaled.

That's 4/8 (50%) success going into the last quarter, so Geelong at that point could hardly have considered the centre square some sort of refuge.

Furthermore, you yourself write

We won the midfield battle on the weekend

which is further borne out by Champion data - First Possession at Stoppage, 38 vs28, and Effective First Diposals (39 vs 29)

If momentum was so important, why did they so easily score a goal after we did?

Because momentum shifts over the course of a game.

... we completely ballsed up our forward 50 entries to either not find a target or hit a target that was easily covered.

We agree on this, my contention is that it was this inability to finish cleanly (pretty much Harv's words too), particularly on the part of Fyfe, that was the issue, not the forward structure. Indeed, could any forward structure have overcome this?

It's also another key reason for why converting set-shots became critical (the more important reason being psychological, as stated at post 82).

Hardly - the desperation in which we had to score a goal because of the position we were in is all part of the play. If you're in a position to win (as you and many others wish to posit here that we were, in that we snatched defeat from victory) you don't abandon your structures.

With only a few minutes on the clock a team that is narrowly behind has to try and force the turnover, necessitating a shift from zone offence to the more riskier man-on-man.

Had we not Geelong would have chipped it around and run the time out.

This is hardly "abandoning your structures" - it's a strategy born of necessity that is common to all invasion-type games that don't have an offside rule.

If anything, in the second half of the match, they finished off each quarter much better than us.

See my earlier comment on the way they set-up - ie ignoring the unmarked man and instead kicking to a contest.

To me this is nothing but a failure in game planning. Palmer is an endurance player who can be expected at near full capacity (or fuller than other players) at the end of the game. I can't see why you would excuse this as correct strategy.

Settle, I wasn't excusing, I was hypothesising. Everyone's been criticising the decision and the only reason I've seen given is that it's to give Palmer a kick in the arse. Haven't seen much argument on who should have been sub either.

In each quarter we trailed. In no quarter did we finish 'well'.

Have another look at the second quarter stats.

How many players didn't look for the better option? By your count around five. Isn't this a reflection on no faith in the options available, hence no faith in the structure the coaches set up?

Interesting if extremely pessimistic hypothesis. But no, it's not a reflection, more viable explanations are the ones I raised earlier (poor communication, too hungry, failure to come to grips with the fast break).

How rare?

Extremely, in Barlow we're fortunate enough to have one of the cleanest (first touch) mids going around and imo Mora has shown enough that we can put him into the win column.

I looked through the last 4 drafts specifically for this type of player and the only one I identified that we could have got (without sacrificing our picks for Hill and Balla) was Dangerfield (not based on his past injury-affected stats but on what I believe he's capable of).

What are we building? A side that heavily relies on Pavlich? Cool, welcome to the past five years.

Where in that particular post did I mention Pavlich? The only reference to any players was in relation to another issue, ie the fast break tactic.

 

[The Night Shift]

And I thought I saw pompous posturing and smug bloated ramblers at Uni...

I love Freo' FC.

 

[Dormammu]

And I thought I saw pompous posturing and smug bloated ramblers at Uni...

I love Freo' FC.

Settle.

It's a genuine debate and a whole lot better than the "player X is crap" or the hysteria and gnashing of teeth that follows a loss.

Plus there's the chance you might learn something - never a bad thing

 

[Tommo]

Settle.

It's a genuine debate and a whole lot better than the "player X is crap" or the hysteria and gnashing of teeth that follows a loss.

Plus there's the chance you might learn something - never a bad thing

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

We should deal with Adelaide's mids better than Geelongs - as long as we really work on teams breaking through our midfield so easily, we should cope a lot better

Besides, most would argue that Geelong's midfield on the weekend is better than the midfield we are likely to face on the weekend with Adelaide

Crowley making 0 tackles for a tagger was shocking - McPhee only made 1 tackle, yet MDB made 4 which is promising

Just attack the man - pack hunt players like we did last year

 

[The Night Shift]

Settle.

It's a genuine debate and a whole lot better than the "player X is crap" or the hysteria and gnashing of teeth that follows a loss.

Plus there's the chance you might learn something - never a bad thing

Comment not directed at you and yes, there are interesting points made here and there in this thread. Open debate and critical evaluation of our team should be embraced, but you also have long winded boring posts that destroy the flow or any enjoyment reading the thread. That's just my two cents anyway. I never start or buy into the player 'x' is crap threads here myself.
We lost one game.... far from season over.

 

[theGav56]

We should deal with Adelaide's mids better than Geelongs - as long as we really work on teams breaking through our midfield so easily, we should cope a lot better

Besides, most would argue that Geelong's midfield on the weekend is better than the midfield we are likely to face on the weekend with Adelaide

Crowley making 0 tackles for a tagger was shocking - McPhee only made 1 tackle, yet MDB made 4 which is promising

Just attack the man - pack hunt players like we did last year

I would disagree. Adelaide's mids will be a good challenge for us.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I didn't mean that they are leaps and bounds ahead of Adelaide but Geelong's mids are quality - regardless of whether there is no Ablett or Selwood they are a strong midfield unit

Yes, they'll be a great challenge for us, and I don't want us by any means to take them lightly but they will be a different kettle of fish

 

[Selggad]

Strange that we have another Roundhouse on these boards. I'm more accurate than the Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf's who pop up every year excusing Freo's poor play.



As explained at length above, a run of behinds does not mean these will have all become goals. How difficult is this to understand?

I recall getting into a debate with you about Jack Darling. How's that lad going now? Would be handy, no?

Your argument was easy to follow. That doesn't make it right. How difficult is it to understand that bad kicking cost us the game. Occam's razor, Clay.

 

[SHill Shall]

His argument's basically poppycock. We would never have beaten them in 2010 based on the premise he outlines. Of course then we hit the mark with our scoring shots in the last, put the score board pressure back on them and they ended up on the losing end. Last week that did not happen and consequently they had an easy time of it mentally. When the Freo chant went up after Balla's goal we were getting close to creating momentum though.

In hindsight we had to convert at least two of our four glaring misses in the last(McPhee's on the run from 40, Mayne's two at narrow angles and Pav's "soda").

 

[Clay Davis]

The AFL Data was used to illustrate that momentum exits by showing when it occurred. Your statement that points were

is supported by neither the replay or the data (note the many gaps of more than 2 minutes between scores, confirmation that Geelong had cleared our forward defence).

They didn't score, which means they weren't able to set up from our forward 50 to get into a scoring position. They barely entered their forward 50.

Further, it should be noted that the following is also incorrect

as we scored 3 goals in the second quarter (from 14m to the 25m mark).

Yes, this was a mistake in trusting AFL tables, who had rearranged Varcoe and Walter's goals in the second. I noticed this when watching Game Analyser. The site has since rectified the error.

This reinforces the contention that straight kicking in the last quarter would have left it looking more like the latter half of the second.

No, it doesn't, but also, we were still behind in the latter half of the second, and trailed at half time. Again, people are saying we should have won. In what part of the game were we in a winning position?

We scored 10 goals. In the first, Mayne's goal was followed by Kep's and we were the first to score again after that (Balla's point).

In the second Hill kicked a point after Walter's goal, and in the third Mayne kicked a point after Hill goaled.

That's 4/8 (50%) success going into the last quarter, so Geelong at that point could hardly have considered the centre square some sort of refuge.

Doesn't this reinforce what I have been saying all along? The midfield dominance did not translate to scoring opportunities. A 50% success rate in scoring from a centre clearance for the first three quarters, when we were clearly winning the ball through the middle, suggests that our forward entries were poor.

Then in the last quarter, when they were apparently struggling, they had it all over us in being the first to score after a centre clearance, after we 'had the momentum'.

Furthermore, you yourself write

which is further borne out by Champion data - First Possession at Stoppage, 38 vs28, and Effective First Diposals (39 vs 29)

Winning these stats through the middle comprehensively, yet not generating scores out of them as stated above. Are you beginning to see my point?

We had 57% of the first possessions, 57% of the effective first disposals, but only 53% of the scoring shots.

Because momentum shifts over the course of a game.

Well then doesn't this entirely negate your contention that had we scored a goal we would have had momentum and run away with it? Because as soon as we did, they took the momentum back. If momentum shifts, then whose to say after Hill's first miss in the last, the Cats wouldn't have similarly hit back like they did after Kep's goal, and then slammed on a few more (like they did each quarter) while their legs still felt fresh?

With only a few minutes on the clock a team that is narrowly behind has to try and force the turnover, necessitating a shift from zone offence to the more riskier man-on-man.

Had we not Geelong would have chipped it around and run the time out.

This is hardly "abandoning your structures" - it's a strategy born of necessity that is common to all invasion-type games that don't have an offside rule.

My point is that this situation would not have been necessary - in the last minute and a half of the game - if we'd set up better earlier.

See my earlier comment on the way they set-up - ie ignoring the unmarked man and instead kicking to a contest.

Which unmarked men? You are trying to contend that the Cats were tiring, when they closed the third quarter very strongly, and scored the last goal (which you don't think counts) in the last.

Settle, I wasn't excusing, I was hypothesising. Everyone's been criticising the decision and the only reason I've seen given is that it's to give Palmer a kick in the arse. Haven't seen much argument on who should have been sub either.

Pretty spurious reason. Poor coaching, in my view.

Have another look at the second quarter stats.

Did we lead? At what stage of the game did we lead after they took the lead?

Interesting if extremely pessimistic hypothesis. But no, it's not a reflection, more viable explanations are the ones I raised earlier (poor communication, too hungry, failure to come to grips with the fast break).

This failure to come to grips with the fast break is caused by the lack of structure.

First example: Break from clearance, run forward from McPhee and Hill, no options deep because both Mayne and Pavlich are leading to the same area, McPhee tries to channel the ball to Mayne, doesn't come off.

Second example: Break through the centre, Hill runs to 50 - only option is Ballantyne on Corey, kicks over them for Balla to run on, Corey has the better of him. Would it not be better to have a key forward down there - or are we doing Pagan's paddock with a midget?

That's not even counting the number of times we went forward for no result on the score board.

I note you've ignored my point about more inside 50s with fewer marks inside 50 than the opposition. Do you think this doesn't matter? We had seven to two inside 50s in the first half of the third quarter, for two behinds. We dominated play, didn't even translate that into many scoring shots.

Extremely, in Barlow we're fortunate enough to have one of the cleanest (first touch) mids going around and imo Mora has shown enough that we can put him into the win column.

I looked through the last 4 drafts specifically for this type of player and the only one I identified that we could have got (without sacrificing our picks for Hill and Balla) was Dangerfield (not based on his past injury-affected stats but on what I believe he's capable of).

I am not talking about drafting differently. I am saying that our focus has been heavily biased towards midfielders, yet seemingly, none of the players we have recruited are backed in to play full time midfield this year. Palmer, Hill, Suban, Ballantyne, etc are not given much time on the ball, in preference to continually using Pavlich, whose best position for the team is up forward. They are all in their third year.

Frankly, I thought Palmer played well in the packs in the last part of the game - two times he set us up for fast break opportunties. He might not be as good as Pav, but we lose a little quality through the middle for a massive gain of quality up forward.

If our recruitment strategy is based around building a midfield, then why aren't we beginning to see the creation of a deep and strong midfield that will play together for the next 10 years?

Where in that particular post did I mention Pavlich? The only reference to any players was in relation to another issue, ie the fast break tactic.

You have said that we need Pavlich in the middle because he is the only player we have available who can play that way. He's also our only decent key forward. What happens when he goes?

 

[E Shed]

I watched the first half again last night. I reckon we lost the thing in that awful period in the first quarter when our backline went to sleep for 10 minutes and we conceded easy goals to Duncan (or Menzel) Johnson, and Ling. The Johnson one was particularly poor as he was completely unmarked in the corridor. I believe Crowley was looking after him at that point. There was never another run of goals like that either way for the whole game and we never got closer than a goal after letting them get 3 in front.
Other than that we were better than I remembered.

This week will be interesting. I think we'll be well beaten but concede I'm pessimistic.

 

[Dormammu]

Comment not directed at you and yes, there are interesting points made here and there in this thread.

Apologies for the dig. But no regrets on the analysis, it's frustrating that there's so little curiosity in trying to understand the tactics and strategies that have proliferated and enriched our great game over the last decade.

I confess, I'm a tragic when it comes to this stuff, but where can you find it (other than at expensive coaching clinics - trust me, no value for money there)? On BF it's pretty much limited to NFL and Premier League boards

But your're right, this discussion is becoming stale, so this'll be my last post (sounds of slow handclaps, some sobs of relief) - Clay, feel free to have the last word.

They didn't score, which means they weren't able to set up from our forward 50 to get into a scoring position. They barely entered their forward 50.

Can we take it then that you've revised your position on points coming from kick-ins?

Yes, this was a mistake in trusting AFL tables, who had rearranged Varcoe and Walter's goals in the second.

Unfortunate, but it bolsters my argument and undermines yours.

No, it doesn't, but also, we were still behind in the latter half of the second, and trailed at half time. In what part of the game were we in a winning position?

Did we lead? At what stage of the game did we lead after they took the lead?

You are emphatic in defining "winning position" as requiring that at some stage a team has to be in front. This is way too extreme.

Consider Bailey's opening comments at last week's post-match presser:

... purely through (Hawk's) inaccurate kicking that we were in the game (at halftime).

This despite being up 19 points: he, like everyone else, was under no illusion that Hawthorn were in the box seat.

Similarly, at Scott's presser he mentions "luck" several times and that:

"Not sure if it was a win we deserved"

Hardly the comments of someone who thought the opposition were never in a winning position.

Doesn't this reinforce what I have been saying all along?

The 50% was examined (and proved correct) as you said it was too high.

The midfield dominance did not translate to scoring opportunities .... suggests that our forward entries were poor.

We had 57% of the first possessions .... 53% of the scoring shots.

Winning these stats through the middle comprehensively, yet not generating scores out of them as stated above. Are you beginning to see my point?

From the get-go I have never disputed our inefficiency; it's in my first post (#78), before we even started this discourse, and raised consistently thereafter.

The points of contention are that (a) whether we were ever in a winning position and (b) whether missed shots on goal were critical.

If momentum shifts, then whose to say after Hill's first miss in the last, the Cats wouldn't have similarly hit back like they did after Kep's goal, and then slammed on a few more (like they did each quarter) while their legs still felt fresh?

This.

"... need to put some self-doubt into the (opposition) team and ... make sure there is an intimidation factor ..."

"But if you're consistently not kicking straight then they're feeling like they're on top of you .... they play with a lot more freedom mentally."

It's the elephant in the room that you've ignored, but need to address.

My point is that this situation would not have been necessary - in the last minute and a half of the game - if we'd set up better earlier.

We agree about the result, but not the cause, and as it's common to both arguments it should be excluded lest it confuse matters.

Which unmarked men?

From the replay it looks like Stokes, but from my seat at the ground I could have sworn it was Mackie.

You are trying to contend that the Cats were tiring, when they closed the third quarter very strongly, and scored the last goal (which you don't think counts) in the last.

A key metric is Handpasses Received as it is an acceptable proxy for how hard a team is able to run to get into position (I'm told it declines over the course of a game and errors increase due to fatigue).

In the last quarter I counted 33 handpasses for Geelong, of which 14 (42%) were to a running player. Furthermore, 12 (36%) were inefficient.

We had 36, 22 (61%, or a staggering 50% more) to a running player and only 8 (22%) were poor.

This failure to come to grips with the fast break is caused by the lack of structure.

These clips are an excellent tool for analysis and discussion, more use should be made of them.

On the first clip, have another look - the leads are on two different lines, at least 5m apart, with little convergence; a classic herringbone structure, giving the ball-carrier several options. The only (minor) criticism I have is that their starting positions should have been a bit deeper.

The second hurts my eyes - the player on the right was already ahead of Hill when Mayne passed it off and so should have immediately spread to the right to either draw one defender away or take the next handpass in the chain. He could then take a take a much closer shot on goal or flipped it over to Balla.

Instead he runs in, and eliminates both options, reinforcing, yet again, how finishing was abysmal on the night.

The culprit? #47, JVB. I really admire the guy's commitment, defensive pressure and record when it comes to closing down a player, but he's limited when we're pushing forward. It's the reason imo he's why he's perpetually on the verge of being dropped.

Would it not be better to have a key forward down there - or are we doing Pagan's paddock with a midget?

A pretty quick midget though.

But a structure premised on trying to get mismatch in speed is a tactic, and but one of many structures that will be used over the course of a game; as forwards are rested or swung through the middle, structures have to change to reflect different personnel (height, speed, left or right footed etc).

Pagan's Paddock was a gameplan, not a tactic, and hence rarely altered over the course of a game.

I note you've ignored my point about more inside 50s with fewer marks inside 50 than the opposition. Do you think this doesn't matter?

No, I don't think it does - our forwards are under-sized and hence our gameplan is biased towards carrying the ball into the forward line and hence more running shots on goal, fast breaks etc.

Geelong came with a typical full forward (Pods) and a CHF (Hawkins) who has spent a lot of his AFL and U18 career playing this spot. Accordingly, their gameplan is biased towards trying to spot these players up, or using them as decoys to hit other forwards.

The significance difference in gameplans will therefore be reflected in stats such as I50 marks. In NFL terms we're more of a running side, Cats are more of a passing team.

I am not talking about drafting differently.

We should really set this topic to one side - it's the type of stuff I love to discuss, but it's not relevant to what transpired last week.

That's all from me!

 

[Clay Davis]

I'm also not going to continue this discussion, because I believe taking Johnson out of the forward line and making McPhee the key target vindicates my position. He was involved in three of the five first quarter goals and had another shot on goal. The forward structure that was poor last week was remedied this week, and it was great coaching by Harvey in doing so.