Been thinking about this for some time now and would like to see other peoples opinions on it, but I believe that we structure up pretty poorly in particular the forward half of the ground.
Last season and so far in the 2 pre season games that we have had, opposition defenders continuously outnumber our marking forwards and are able to take easy intercept marks. Another noticeable thing is that when the ball does get kicked into the forward line, it seems to come out pretty damn quickly and the opposition almost always end up having a shot at goal or sling shoting it out with great effect.
I know we have a young team and they are all pretty inexperienced but this does not excuse some of the structures that we have in place. I believe over the last 5 or so years we have always struggled to have a decent set up going forward of centre. There were numerous times in yesterdays game were we won the ball in a stoppage or clearance and one of our mids would launch it forward only for the opposition to take a uncontested mark. This was also evident when we did try and do a quick break away, that our players needed to stop and prop and look for other options as there was nothing up forward to kick it too.
I believe this a one major area that could be resolved without much talent needed (look at west coast losing half their back line and managing to structure up amazingly).
I think our forward line coach really needs to get to the bottom of this as i believe its one area that is really holding us holding us back. Our kicks into the forward 50 seem to be just long bombs to packs as for the life of me cant see any players leading out properly offering a good option to the kick taker, but rather staying deep hoping they can take a massive pack mark with 5 or so players going up for it.
What do other people think about this as i think sometimes our midfield is getting blamed for not great delivery but when they look up all they see is a group of players looking for a pack situation.
GAME PLAN
IMO we do have a game plan and while it starts at stoppages in the midfield with having more numbers around the ball, it has is an ethos that is used all over the field; the idea is gaining possession, short disposal to maintain possession, backwards and sideways to take advantage of extra numbers. It's a plan that requires only intensity and commitment. The long kick forward isn't designed to keep possession but to create another contest where we can get numbers at the contest and repeat. The variation is that by having extra numbers we can run from behind, and the forwards can get out the back and get easy goals.
When the plan works and it does work a lot of the time we get enough midfield possession and enough entries into the forward line to give us a chance to win the game but we get let down by disposal skills particularly our shooting for goal and finding a forward target. It becomes a game of measurable numbers, tackle count, contested possession, possession, pressure acts. These are all things a coach can say the players can control, can be coached for and can be used as a metric for performance evaluation.
BUT
The plan once worked out is easily taken apart by the opposition allowing us our extra man at the contest and simply beating us to first possession and moving the ball forward longer and quickly, getting past our extra man by simply ignoring him. Having at extra man at the contest means we can't man up away from the contest up we're creating a loose player for the opposition somewhere else, generally in our forward line, this is made worse when we choose to have a loose man in defence as well, so an extra man at the contest and a loose man in defence means a deficit of two in our forward line.
THEN
We have list issues, small and medium forwards to make the plan work we need specialists like Cyril, Betts, Puopolo, Greene, Stringer, Breust, LeCras, Milne or Stevie J that will either make something out of nothing or create enough defensive pressure that it creates and opportunity of for the others. The only player we have on the list that is a specialist small/medium forward is Membrey, his problem is that he is too good over head and instead of playing as a third tall we play him as a second or occasionally as a first. Wright is a converted defender, Long is a converted defender, Gresh is a mid that can do it, Billings is a mid that can play half forward, Steven is a mid that can do it when resting, I actually have no idea what Mav is meant to be and I'm pretty sure he doesn't either and Lonie is a mid that is just happy to get a game. Acres is a mid, Newnes is a HBF and we just try other blokes there because it seems like a good idea at the time.
We have injury issues, experience issues and quality issues in our tall forwards. Bruce has been injured all year, Paddy has ongoing injury, fitness and quality questions, Marshall has questions on his quality and his experience, Battle has injury issues and experience issues. Given that the game plan is too kick long to a contest with the intent of creating a stoppage and another contested situation, to allow our midfield to get to the ball with extra numbers. The simplicity of the game plan should mean everyone knows what we are trying to do, the reality is that none of our forwards are suited to the plan. Paddy alone is a power forward but has obvious question marks against him, Bruce, Membrey and Battle are tall runners that can mark and Marshall is at best a tall young utility.
IMO the game plan is designed to make ordinary footballers effective, to give them a plan they can understand and execute, but limits the ability of the talented ones to make an impact and change the direction of a game.
Our tall forwards are runners that are all better on the lead but the game plan requires them to be static targets, made worse by having to be one against two or three.
We have a lot of midfielders; but of the few that have genuine talent, Gresham, Bruce, Billings can perform a role forward therefore their midfield time is limited; Ross is needed every where, midfield, loose in defence and can be effective forward too; Steven is our most dynamic mid but is being blanketed by the opposition, Sinclair is a wingman only, Coffield, Clarke, Paton and Phillips are all too young to be genuine contributors.
And then there is Longer/Hicker /Pierce, Steele, Armitage and Dunstan for whom the game plan seems to revolve around. The contested ball at stoppages, our ruckmen regardless of hit out numbers can't give us first use or provide genuine physical presence, Pierce is given a pass because he's only played one game. Steele is allowed leeway because he's playing as a stopper, but the other two simply do not hurt the opposition in any way, poor disposal skills, poor leg speed and poor choice of disposal, but the big question remains as to whether they are poor because they are doing what they are told, they are actually following the game plan or are they killing what effectiveness the game plan has. Contested possession is what they are there for, but even when they get it, even when they win the contest the possession is so poor as to be better for the opposition than for us, Clint Jones would weep watching them.
ON TOP OF THAT LOT.
We have played injured players all year, Bruce, Acres, Weller, Newnes, Armitage, Longer, Dunstan, Carlisle, are known to be injured and I suspect that Ross and Steven are playing injured too.
Players have been selected according to the need for "leadership qualities" Armitage, Newnes, Dunstan, Gilbert, Brown. Nick Maxwell is the only player I've seen whose leadership was so strong as to overcome his limitation as a player and justify his inclusion in a team, none of our "leadership players" come within a bulls roar of that quality of leadership.
SUMMARY
A poor one dimensional game plan that isn't designed to get the best out of the talent we actually have, that has been worked out by the opposition and has been irrelevant since round 16 last year, less than poor skills, poor leg speed, poor list management, poor selection, poor injury management, poor match day coaching (there's been enough commentary on that for me to have no need to add to it),