Review Shattered

[Sman-21]

Totally agree with u TheGav56
As i said elsewhere I think the coaching staff saying things like we faded out late last year.
We have done things different to make sure it doesnt happen this year etc etc.
Plus the changes they made to preseason training.
Has alot to do with the players lack of effort.
Then flicking the switch when it feels like game is slipping an putting in the required effort.
A player hears coaches saying stuff like that, they made finals last year there going to expect to be there again.
So they ease of a fraction their thinking long way to go i wanna be in top shape for finals and dont put their bodies on the line like they would if they were taking it 1 game at a time.

Also I think we should of been doing more basic skill type work during preseason.
Where was the focus on tackling? From reports it sounded like they didnt start tackling until a week before Nab cup.
No wonder we struggled to tackle and looked unprepared for the physicallity of football, an still seem to be tackling poorly.

Teams need to focus more on basic skills
Kicking, Handballing, Tackling , goal kicking etc etc.
Can have the greatest gameplan in the world but if you dont practice the skills until they become 2nd nature it will all fall apart.


Yes I know we had a crap load of injuries in preseason but alot of the talk an changes imo has effected the players an their effort.

It kills me to say essendon, geelong, fricken egirls etc are all putting in the full game efforts we were doing last year but i have only seen it from us when the games were on the line.

If we can get our mental approach right there is no reason we cant be top4.
If we dont fix it and asap we will be fightin for 5th an worse.

 

[Ricketts]

Geelong with less opportunities had the polish to finish well and consequently won.

Exactly right.

 

[Dormammu]

Blaming lack of effort points the finger directly at players, but I think that sort of thing is more a coaching responsibility. Harvey had the greatest impact on the side with creating a full commitment playing attitude in the last 2 seasons. At the moment that has slipped. After a strange pre-season playing giants through the midfield, getting injuries through reported "over-training" and never really looking like we were replicating our 2010 gamestyle, that pretty much follows.

Agree with a lot of this. Clearly there have been changes to how we are approaching the full and 3/4 presses, with an increased emphasis on transferring the ball along the boundary and fewer players congregating at CHB to launch attacks (which I thought Geelong did well).

Why the change? Well, perhaps after the final against Geelong last year the coaching panel felt we had become too predictable with the corridor. Also, a finals contender needs to be able to slickly execute a number of strategies during a game; so no surprise to see more diversity, e.g., defence zones being set around the centre/backward of centre (a 1/2 press if you will).

No team can rely exclusively on forward pressure.

Also, the sub rule has led to long kicks out of defence to the quickest and most skilled players (in basketball, the fast break), where finishing is everything (to which Harvs alluded to on 6PR) and something we struggled with last year and where we are still weak. As evidence, look at who Champion Data has as committing the most critical errors - Balla, Fyfe and Duffield with 5 apiece.

Almost no point discussing with someone so demonstrably wrong in the first sentence.

Why not? Aside from that one small error the rest seemed quite valid. If they're wrong, explain why each point is flawed, we can then weigh up what you say and if you're reasons are sound we can all learn from it and move on.

 

[Clay Davis]

Why not? Aside from that one small error the rest seemed quite valid. If they're wrong, explain why each point is flawed, we can then weigh up what you say and if you're reasons are sound we can all learn from it and move on.

A run of consecutive behinds does not indicate that each of these would have become goals or should have become goals. People counting scoring shots are missing how the game unfolded.

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. At no point were the Cats not able to stem our run. Had we converted these behinds, who is to say the Cats would not have hit back? It is not like they wilted to our onslaught in the last and we simply fell short - they kicked the last goal. Every time we seemed to get close, they pulled away. We didn't even put through any consecutive goals in the second half.

The closest we got was in the third - when we dominated the play through the middle in the first 10 minutes and had plenty of ball up forward but failed to even put behinds through. This was a result of scrambled forward play and lack of system. At the end of that quarter, we were further behind than at any previous quarter.

We played much better up forward in the last, when Pav was finally put down there. But by then, the pressure was too great, we had not been in a commanding position all day, and we collectively choked. The solution isn't better shots at goal in the last when the game is on the line, it's not being behind for the entire day and playing catch up at the death. Completely shithouse forwardline system for the first three quarters killed us.

In my view, they had our measure all night. Meaningless stats like inside 50s were just that, when their players were well able to zone off and hurt us on the rebound when a gap in our zone opened up. We were rubbish.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

if we can't hold it together in our first home game for the year in front of our own supporters, how the hell are we going to hold up on grand final day?

 

[Clay Davis]

if we can't hold it together in our first home game for the year in front of our own supporters, how the hell are we going to hold up on grand final day?

Only three teams have won a grand final after trailing at three quarter time in the past thirty years - Geelong 2009, Essendon 84 and Carlton 81.

Being behind at 3 quarter time is not a position to be in, especially with the new sub rule. I can't imagine it makes taking set shots any easier.

 

[Dormammu]

A run of consecutive behinds does not indicate that each of these would have become goals or should have become goals.

This echoes random walk theory and is too narrow a perspective as it ignores the psychological impact.

In the post match presser (2:44 to 3:02) Harvey highlights 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."

I agree. If you create some momentum early on via good goal-kicking, the stress transfers to the opposition. More doubt leads to more mistakes leads to a greater likelihood of multiple goals.

People counting scoring shots are missing how the game unfolded

.
It's more the number of set shots missed that is critical here.

Had we converted these behinds, who is to say the Cats would not have hit back?

Is it greater than the possibility that they would have stalled? Based on the above I'd say no.

It is not like they wilted to our onslaught in the last and we simply fell short - they kicked the last goal.

In the last 10 minutes they were slumped on the ropes. The clear evidence of this is from their kick-ins, where they regularly ignored the unmarked team-mate in the Rockeby Road forward pocket and continually kicked to the northern flank where Hill and others were continually slaughtering them.

Why?

Because they needed to be close to the interchange bench so that they could desperately rotate their (extremely exhausted) midfielders.

As for that last goal, well even a punch drunk slugger will occasionally connect late in the 12th.

This was a result of scrambled forward play and lack of system.

Lack of execution/finishing skills, in most instances they just slammed the ball onto the foot (Crowls, Balla (twice), Hill, McPhee, Sonson iirc, Mundy) yet they were in the clear, often without actual or even implied pressure.

If they were in the clear then at best our system was working; at worst their defence was not.

We played much better up forward in the last, when Pav was finally put down there.

Like the proverbial chicken and egg argument - would we have been as close if Pav hadn't played midfield?

Impossible to answer. It is worth noting that since Hase retired and Barlow went down, he is the best player at clean, first possessions. No one else is close, which means that a lot of Sandi's taps are squandered when he's not there.

Meaningless stats like inside 50s were just that

Meaningless if they're not scutinised properly. Last year we had fewer but converted more because we finished better. Against Geelong we had more, but also many unforced errors.

By our own hand we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Clay Davis]

This echoes random walk theory and is too narrow a perspective as it ignores the psychological impact.

I'm not sure how it does. Each scoring shot is created from a run of play that arises from a set play - a kick in, boundary throw-in or centre bouncedown. The initial conditions are always different.

Our ability to create multiple scoring shots from kick-ins was a credit to how we set up around Geelong, but this all changes once we kick a goal. The centre square set up becomes fundamentally different.

Indeed, this is reflected in the last, where each time we eventually forced a goal, the next score was a Geelong goal.

At no point in the last was there an occasion where we were taking a shot to take the lead. Each missed shot did create opportunities from Geelong's kick-ins to create more scoring opportunities, but each goal we got put the ball back where they felt comfortable.

In fact, there was only a 15 minute period in the third where we were lining up to score and a goal would have given us the lead. No other period in the match after they took the lead were we in that position. We bottled it in the third, when we had all the play up field and completely lacked system and structure up forward.

It's more the number of set shots missed that is critical here.

These were mostly missed in the last. Like I said earlier, coming from behind with the sub rule in effect is difficult, taking set shots would be a major struggle. To attempt do so two games in a row after travelling from Queensland shows poor preparation. We buggered it up early.

Is it greater than the possibility that they would have stalled? Based on the above I'd say no.

Aside from the fact that the two times we kicked a goal they responded with a goal immediately?

In the last 10 minutes they were slumped on the ropes. The clear evidence of this is from their kick-ins, where they regularly ignored the unmarked team-mate in the Rockeby Road forward pocket and continually kicked to the northern flank where Hill and others were continually slaughtering them.

Why?

Because they needed to be close to the interchange bench so that they could desperately rotate their (extremely exhausted) midfielders.

This means very little in the context of what I said above. They were struggling to beat our forward press in the last. This resulted in multiple behinds for us. However, once we kicked a goal, we relieved pressure for them, and they hit back with a goal themselves

As for that last goal, well even a punch drunk slugger will occasionally connect late in the 12th.

They got the first goal of the last and each time we got a goal they immediately responded. I think you're underselling how well they played.

Lack of execution/finishing skills, in most instances they just slammed the ball onto the foot (Crowls, Balla (twice), Hill, McPhee, Sonson iirc, Mundy) yet they were in the clear, often without actual or even implied pressure.

If they were in the clear then at best our system was working; at worst their defence was not.

The variability of having shots at goal from in play will always happen. My point is that with all our forward entries, with no target, there became no system. There may have been no implied or actual pressure, but there also seemed no faith in how we were structured, and players scrambled their kicks as a result.

I think the only goal we managed to get in the third from all our good play upfield was when Pav was in the goal square as the target, the ball spilled and Hill managed a goal right on the line. Again, Pav's presence created a goal.

Like the proverbial chicken and egg argument - would we have been as close if Pav hadn't played midfield?

Impossible to answer. It is worth noting that since Hase retired and Barlow went down, he is the best player at clean, first possessions. No one else is close, which means that a lot of Sandi's taps are squandered when he's not there.

I think this is a sad reflection on our recruiting. Is our midfield depth so poor that without a retired bloke and a second year player, we have to sacrifice structure? Who have we been recruiting the past couple of years if they can't step in and share this role? Why is it so hard to read Sandilands' taps?

This seems to suggest we're aiming for an improved version of 2008/09, rather than an improved version of 2010. A step backwards.

Meaningless if they're not scutinised properly. Last year we had fewer but converted more because we finished better. Against Geelong we had more, but also many unforced errors.

By our own hand we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

We were never in the position to take the lead. Victory was never ours.

 

[Alfonz]

Watching the last quarter again, there is some merit to Clay's points. Heck, even one of our goals was a 7-point play, where a kick in from one of our bad misses went straight back and Kepler kicked that goal off the back of the pack. So that is one miss which actually helped us.

Initially I was fuming at all the missed shots (still am), but there is no guarantee we would have gone on with it if one went through. Maybe we would have gained some momentum, maybe the crowd could have lifted if we got a bit closer with more time left, but that is all speculation.

I still think we should have won, but in the end Geelong kicked more goals than us, end of story. Just as we "should have won" this week, we should have lost last week, so maybe in the end 1-1 is a reflection of where we are at this point in time ... a mid-table side.

 

[Selggad]

Why not? Aside from that one small error the rest seemed quite valid. If they're wrong, explain why each point is flawed, we can then weigh up what you say and if you're reasons are sound we can all learn from it and move on.

Thank You, Dorm. One small brain fart was all it took for Clay 's hyperbole to kick in. At least he/she has outlined their position now instead of ignoring a valid argument.

 

[Clay Davis]

Thank You, Dorm. One small brain fart was all it took for Clay 's hyperbole to kick in. At least he/she has outlined their position now instead of ignoring a valid argument.

If you can't get the basics right, why bother?

 

[malpaso]

Geez, talk about over-analyzing a Round 2 loss or what??

Can't get to Round 3 quick enough for mine..

 

[Clay Davis]

It might be overanalysed, but if we don't fix our structures up, you can expect a lot more losses like that one.

 

[Nickos66]

Geez, talk about over-analyzing a Round 2 loss or what??

Can't get to Round 3 quick enough for mine..

.. You starve a pack of dogs for a season and then throw them 1 biscuit a week, they're gonna lick that floor for a week.

Pretty bloody tedious debating light grey from dark grey if you ask me..

 

[Bateman]

A run of consecutive behinds does not indicate that each of these would have become goals or should have become goals. People counting scoring shots are missing how the game unfolded.

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. At no point were the Cats not able to stem our run. Had we converted these behinds, who is to say the Cats would not have hit back? It is not like they wilted to our onslaught in the last and we simply fell short - they kicked the last goal. Every time we seemed to get close, they pulled away. We didn't even put through any consecutive goals in the second half.

The closest we got was in the third - when we dominated the play through the middle in the first 10 minutes and had plenty of ball up forward but failed to even put behinds through. This was a result of scrambled forward play and lack of system. At the end of that quarter, we were further behind than at any previous quarter.

We played much better up forward in the last, when Pav was finally put down there. But by then, the pressure was too great, we had not been in a commanding position all day, and we collectively choked. The solution isn't better shots at goal in the last when the game is on the line, it's not being behind for the entire day and playing catch up at the death. Completely shithouse forwardline system for the first three quarters killed us.

In my view, they had our measure all night. Meaningless stats like inside 50s were just that, when their players were well able to zone off and hurt us on the rebound when a gap in our zone opened up. We were rubbish.

I'm not making excuses fro not taking our chances last Saturday because we should have won.
Did anyone else know that a gastro bug went through the team during the week and that one of our players spent Saturday night in hospital on a drip because he was so sick and dehydarted after the game. That may explain why a few of our guys seemed sluggish during the game.

 

[peppy la pew]

I still think we should have won, but in the end Geelong kicked more goals than us, end of story. Just as we "should have won" this week, we should have lost last week, so maybe in the end 1-1 is a reflection of where we are at this point in time ... a mid-table side.[/quote]


Does anyone believe any different, with all the ' outs ' we currently have ?

As an aside, how many points down were we when Pav missed that set shot in the last ? I remember thinking " nail this and we are nearly home "

 

[Clay Davis]

11 points behind.

 

[peppy la pew]

11 points behind.

Well there you go, I thought there was only a kick in it,

Then Stokes broke our back

 

[Dormammu]

Firstly, thanks for the link to AFL Stats. I've been to the site before but didn't know about the Scoring Progression section, very useful when watching the replay and comparing the Champion Data stats.

The centre square set up becomes fundamentally different.

Momentum exists, even if it is elusive. There's too much discussion and analysis in the media and from players and coaches to be anything but critical.

This is borne out by AFL Stats. 43 out of 52 scoring shots came in clusters, only 9 orphans.

Note the centre square after a goal wasn't that much of a sanctuary for Geelong as we often took it straight back into our forward 50 (nearly 50% of the time).

As a side note, I think Geelong's last goal should be stripped from analysis because with only a few minutes on the clock we had to throw caution to the wind and push everyone up, leaving us dangerously vulnerable.

To attempt do so two games in a row after travelling from Queensland shows poor preparation.

Initially I thought so, but look at the link - 9 of our goals came in the last half of each quarter, with their older legs Geelong weren't running out the quarters as well as we were.

Makes me think that maybe the coaching staff anticipated this and which is why Palmer was the sub.

Aside from the fact that the two times we kicked a goal they responded with a goal immediately?

This means very little in the context of what I said above. They were struggling to beat our forward press in the last. This resulted in multiple behinds for us. However, once we kicked a goal, we relieved pressure for them, and they hit back with a goal themselves

I see what you're trying to say, but if we'd kicked straight, the last quarter would have looked more like the final 20 minutes of the second quarter (also, earlier comment re Stokes goal) when their hands were well on their hips.

I think you're underselling how well they played.

Agree. After watching the first half again it's clear their key players were more composed and were consciously trying to pace themselves (unlike last week don't recall seeing any of their players cramp up).

But their disposal in general play was often as shocking as their goal-kicking from tight angles was impressive.

My point is that with all our forward entries, with no target, there became no system. There may have been no implied or actual pressure, but there also seemed no faith in how we were structured ...

I still maintain that a mass of forward entries, many un-pressured, means that systems and structures are working. The issue is skills, lack of talking between those in the forward 50, and what you saw in some cases as

... players scrambled their kicks as a result.

I reckon was some players not looking for the better option and putting themselves before the team.

I think this is a sad reflection on our recruiting. ........ Why is it so hard to read Sandilands' taps?

Players who can shark the ball first time, cleanly, in congestion, are rare. One of the bigger shocks for me was seeing Barlow do this repeatedly last year - yet at pre-season training and in the scratchie I often heard him swear (loudly) when he regularly lost the handle on the ball.

This seems to suggest we're aiming for an improved version of 2008/09, rather than an improved version of 2010. A step backwards.

See my earlier post about trying to develop more strategies and consolidating what we've built.

 

[Selggad]

If you can't get the basics right, why bother?

A peculiar comment given that your posts are frequently over-wrought hyperbole.

A final point on us not kicking consecutive goals - it is difficult to kick consecutive goals when you are scoring at a rate of almost 2 points for every goal. Even allowing for rushed behinds we scored 1 and 1/2 points for every goal. If a few of those points had been goals, then we would have scored consecutive goals on several occasions.

 

[Clay Davis]

A peculiar comment given that your posts are frequently over-wrought hyperbole.

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.

A final point on us not kicking consecutive goals - it is difficult to kick consecutive goals when you are scoring at a rate of almost 2 points for every goal. Even allowing for rushed behinds we scored 1 and 1/2 points for every goal. If a few of those points had been goals, then we would have scored consecutive goals on several occasions.

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?

 

[Clay Davis]

Firstly, thanks for the link to AFL Stats. I've been to the site before but didn't know about the Scoring Progression section, very useful when watching the replay and comparing the Champion Data stats.

Momentum exists, even if it is elusive. There's too much discussion and analysis in the media and from players and coaches to be anything but critical.

This is borne out by AFL Stats. 43 out of 52 scoring shots came in clusters, only 9 orphans.

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.

Note the centre square after a goal wasn't that much of a sanctuary for Geelong as we often took it straight back into our forward 50 (nearly 50% of the time).

Untrue, especially in the last.

First goal: Bradley kicks from scrambled play. Next play from centre square is a Fremantle clearance into our forward 50 which they easily clear up forward to their forward 50, which eventually results in a goal, after poor play in defence from Freo.

Second goal: Brilliant from Ballantyne. Next play from centre square is a clearance to Geelong, with a work along the boundary that eventually results in a goal to Geelong

If momentum was so important, why did they so easily score a goal after we did? We still had half a quarter remaining to close the gap.

Both occasions were either bad clearance work or bad forward entries by Freo. And bad forward entries seemed the theme of our night.

My point is that without the defensive structure we set up around their kick ins, our forward play was useless to non existent. This means that when we went forward from one of our kick-ins, from transition deep in the backline, or from a centre clearance, we completely ballsed up our forward 50 entries to either not find a target or hit a target that was easily covered.

The stats for marks inside 50 had them lead us with one more mark inside 50. They also, from my view of the replay, had one-two more marks within 20m of the goal mouth.

This reflects the end score, and would normally be fair enough, but given our general dominance through the middle and in contested possession, this is a terrible reflection on how we entered our forward line. To say it was 'missed shots' excuses the full story. We had a terrible forward structure.

As a side note, I think Geelong's last goal should be stripped from analysis because with only a few minutes on the clock we had to throw caution to the wind and push everyone up, leaving us dangerously vulnerable.

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.

Like everything all game for Freo, it was a mad scramble.

Initially I thought so, but look at the link - 9 of our goals came in the last half of each quarter, with their older legs Geelong weren't running out the quarters as well as we were.

They closed the third quarter much better than we did. If anything, in the second half of the match, they finished off each quarter much better than us. We looked tired and struggling, and lost both quarters in the second half.

Makes me think that maybe the coaching staff anticipated this and which is why Palmer was the sub.

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.

I see what you're trying to say, but if we'd kicked straight, the last quarter would have looked more like the final 20 minutes of the second quarter (also, earlier comment re Stokes goal) when their hands were well on their hips.

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

I still maintain that a mass of forward entries, many un-pressured, means that systems and structures are working. The issue is skills, lack of talking between those in the forward 50, and what you saw in some cases as

I reckon was some players not looking for the better option and putting themselves before the team.

A mass of forward entries is expected when you have your best players in the midfield and they are heavily depleted. The way in which we entered the forwardline was poor - something I've said from the beginning.

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?

Players who can shark the ball first time, cleanly, in congestion, are rare. One of the bigger shocks for me was seeing Barlow do this repeatedly last year - yet at pre-season training and in the scratchie I often heard him swear (loudly) when he regularly lost the handle on the ball.

How rare? We've recruited heavily for the midfield through the national draft over the past four drafts. We have neglected the spine to boost what the club has thought the most important area of the ground. Yet, we persist with using a key forward we recruited in 1999 through the midfield to solve problems we had in 2007. How does this make sense in light of our rebuild?

See my earlier post about trying to develop more strategies and consolidating what we've built.

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

 

[Lach72]

This is why we can't have nice things.
Leave the abuse out.

All of you...ALL OF YOU!!!!
Cards will further ensue

 

[Avid_Avenger]

I don't think anyone can argue that a forward line consisting of two makeshift KPF in Kep and Johnson, two defensive forwards (Crowley and JVB or Crowley and De Boer), one forward with dodgey kicking (Mayne) and two small forwards swapping between mid and fwd 50 (Ballas and Walters) is ideal. It's a recipe for poor goal kicking.

Clay is right in saying our forward entries were a dog's breakfast. This is a direct result of having a shocking forward structure. Which is a direct result of having non-KPF forwards providing KPF targets.

We might get away with it some weeks (vs Brisbane) but it will cost us games other weeks even if we are dominating the midfield (vs Geelong).

We've relied more on scrambled goals this year than ever before. Fluency also reduces fatigue people and we don't have any in the forward half prior to kicking a behind.

And there's a simple solution: put our best KPF (Pav) in the forward line, and leave the responsibility of clearances to our mids. Really this is the only way they are going to improve.

Even if it drops back to breaking even or just losing clearances, having a more efficient forward line will more than make up for this as last year showed.

 

[Clay Davis]

We won the midfield battle on the weekend because we played our best possible centre square line up against one that is depleted. The only way a line up of Sandilands, Pavlich and Mundy could improve is if we throw Barlow in there - but as everyone acknowledges, that would put Pav up forward.

Meanwhile, Geelong were missing Selwood, and have lost quality with the departure of Ablett. They are not what they once were, and it is questionable whether they have a top four midfield anymore, especially without Selwood.

So we should have won the midfield. We did. Somehow, though, that translated into less marks inside forward 50, and less marks within close range of goal, than our opposition. So what if we had more inside 50s if we were taking fewer marks? Hardly decisive play.

How you could argue that our entries were 'good' in light of this puzzles me. They were also depleted for key defensive talls - their best defender in Scarlett was out, as Lonergan. So it wasn't like we were playing their super strong backline either.

It was a terrible game from Freo, whitewashed by the fact that we were getting things right through the middle, where 90% of the game is decided, but should have always happened given who we were playing.