Opinion Structures

[Moral Decay]

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),

 

[Sainttony]

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),

Great post.

Interesting to watch Rich, Coll, Haw who basically grid for ward and back of the contest, not really playing on anyone but with a close speedy grid inviting the ball winner to get through. Hard even to go backwards because the grid is there as well. Richmond can be really clever leaving holes in the grid inviting you to kick to that space. You do and they swarm all over you.

Our extra at the ball and often loose open defensive grid does not work any more. Plus we do not have the powerful extractors of the ball with good skills to move through a grid of players. Too young, too inexperienced, probably not fit enough, certainly not quick enough and lacking skill and composure to play how Richo would like. A clever coach may have thought of a more suitable way to maximise the skill set of our players.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Moral Decay]

Great post.

Interesting to watch Rich, Coll, Haw who basically grid for ward and back of the contest, not really playing on anyone but with a close speedy grid inviting the ball winner to get through. Hard even to go backwards because the grid is there as well. Richmond can be really clever leaving holes in the grid inviting you to kick to that space. You do and they swarm all over you.

Our extra at the ball and often loose open defensive grid does not work any more. Plus we do not have the powerful extractors of the ball with good skills to move through a grid of players. Too young, too inexperienced, probably not fit enough, certainly not quick enough and lacking skill and composure to play how Richo would like. A clever coach may have thought of a more suitable way to maximise the skill set of our players.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Spot on, those grids and lines allow them to set up particularly quickly for the change of play between defence and attack, and this is where the leadership dividend should really pay off, but if we have either no plan or a plan that is inept then the leadership devolves into a follow me mantra and I don't know where we're going but I'm going with you response.

It's hard for me to know just how clever our coaches are and exactly what roles they play, other than to observe that Richo must have almost zero input on match day tactics, his role on the bench is to give immediate feedback to players not to ring the changes, I don't like to compare us to Richmond because of the talent differential but the comparison between tactical ineptitude and the role of the head coach are too close to ignore. Hardwick had no idea but the club backed him in, and maybe that gives Richo hope.

The reality is what you say about a clever coach, we don't have one; and the role of the whole coaching group is to get the best out of the talent at hand, which isn't happening; Richo may get a reprieve but we simply cannot go into next season with the same game plan.

I know a lot of current chat is about the lack of on field leadership and the softness of our players, which I don't agree with too much, I think the plyers have tried to buy into a game plan that doesn't work, and selection that is based on that game plan, they wouldn't be human if they weren't demoralised and lacking in confidence when in their hearts they know that every time they run out they are probably going to be beaten and there's nothing they can do about it, they're out gunned physically and are relying on a Stephen Bradbury moment for us to be competitive. I'm amazed every time I watch that they try at all, because they do try.

 

[Diehard Saint]

I reckon it's the lack of a dominant big forward.

What do you want for Ben Brown?

 

[Diehard Saint]

I know a lot of current chat is about the lack of on field leadership and the softness of our players, which I don't agree with too much, I think the plyers have tried to buy into a game plan that doesn't work, and selection that is based on that game plan, they wouldn't be human if they weren't demoralised and lacking in confidence when in their hearts they know that every time they run out they are probably going to be beaten and there's nothing they can do about it, they're out gunned physically and are relying on a Stephen Bradbury moment for us to be competitive. I'm amazed every time I watch that they try at all, because they do try.

This.

 

[Saint Watto]

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),

An absolutely excellent post there Moral Decay......a really great read.

We need you to sit in on our strategy meetings asap.

Do you see any light at the end of the tunnel given the content of your post?

 

[Keg on legs]

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),

Very good read there MD. Well explained

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

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),

Great post mate!!

 

[Moral Decay]

An absolutely excellent post there Moral Decay......a really great read.

We need you to sit in on our strategy meetings asap.

Do you see any light at the end of the tunnel given the content of your post?

Thanks for the vote of confidence but there's plenty of people that are a lot more clued in than me on this board let alone at the club.

For sure I see light at the end of the tunnel, the problem is that change is a bit like the seasons, mid winter is end of July but the shortest day of the year is June 21, the changes have already started but the effect of them won't be felt for a while.

I've not seen a business or sporting club that wasn't hierarchal in it's structures and it takes a collapse before the hierarchy can acknowledge that something is wrong, there has been a lot wrong at the club but until this season the effects were down played, now they've been brutally laid bare.

There is already change in the coaching department and the draft and trade department, whether those changes are for the better time alone will tell.

One thing though that other people haven't commented on is the list, which while it has issues all well canvased, the thing it does have going for it is age demographic, I think we've got 24 players on the main list between 21 and 25 and another 6 under 21, plus Lewey Pierce so there's an enormous portion of the list that is yet to reach their peak though should be coming into there own 2020 through to 2025, a lot of if's but if we can get a decent/modern game plan, if we can manage the talent we have, if we can improve drafting and trading, we've got an 8 to 10 year period of finals in front of us.

We do have a core of talented players that if played in their right position and given a game plan that makes the most of their talent plus a few extras can go deep.
Forwards: Bruce, Battle, Membrey, Long.
Mids: Acres, Billings, Sinclair, Ross, Steven, Gresham, Steele.
Backs: Carlisle, Webster, McKenzie, Austen, White.

Players coming through, Clark, Coffield, Paton, Phillips, Pierce.

the big caveats for me are
1) that whatever the game plan is it must be based on getting the best out of the talent we have on the list, not forcing the list to fit the game plan.
2) when drafting/trading, we have a philosophy that starts with smart footballers, explosive speed and skilled disposal by hand or foot.
3) no getting someone just because we can and balance the list, no more 5 ruckmen, no more 20 hbf, we simply have to double up every position on the ground 4 key forwards, 4 key defenders etcetera.

 

[Saint Watto]

the big caveats for me are
1) that whatever the game plan is it must be based on getting the best out of the talent we have on the list, not forcing the list to fit the game plan.
2) when drafting/trading, we have a philosophy that starts with smart footballers, explosive speed and skilled disposal by hand or foot.
3) no getting someone just because we can and balance the list, no more 5 ruckmen, no more 20 hbf, we simply have to double up every position on the ground 4 key forwards, 4 key defenders etcetera.

Another great read there Moral.

I have to say that at this point of time......the only thing that I have to "hang my hat on" is the age demographic of the list......as you say...….time will tell along with the recent changes.

With yr points above......absolutely with Point1...….that's a glaring one for me.

With points 2 & 3.....you can look back now and wonder what on earth we have been doing.

 

[MrFoster]

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),

That one dimensional game plan was installed because Richo thinks we have list issues(poor, slow midfield); skills issues(Ross, Webster are the only good and consistent user of the ball). That game plan worked until this year, because of injuries, losing veterans/leadership, harder games, other teams improving; and no plan B.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Some good posts here, really interesting reading

 

[Moral Decay]

That one dimensional game plan was installed because Richo thinks we have list issues(poor, slow midfield); skills issues(Ross, Webster are the only good and consistent user of the ball). That game plan worked until this year, because of injuries, losing veterans/leadership, harder games, other teams improving; and no plan B.

How long is it now? Five years and no improvement in skills and no plan B!
I don't care how it started, five years and this is the best we can do?
We've got 10 players at and under 188cm who's best role is playing off the HBF: Savage, Geary, Newnes, Long, Webster, White, Wright, McKenzie, Rice and Paton.
plus
Roberton at 194, Coffield at 191, Austin at 196, Carlisle at 201, Brown, at 196, Goddard at 196, Clavarino at 195, Gilbert at 194
plus Clark, plus Joyce, plus Marshall and Phillips.
And some how we can find a way to justify playing Ross and Armitage down back as well; that's 24 back men and 17 of them drafted or traded for in the last 5 years.

Some ones asleep at the wheel.
How many on the list do we actually need? Four key defenders, 8 small/medium backs and 2 tall utilities, 14 all up, is it any wonder we lack talent in the middle and small/medium forwards.

 

[MrFoster]

I agree.. list management was a big problem. It’s frustrating to watch Melbourne, Geelong and Haworth stockpile mids and is keeping picking HB or flankers.. the notion of picking best available is stupid when you are desperately short in certain positions.. Hope the new list manager gets it, because trout didn’t.. he tried to make it up by drafting Clark and Coffield, it’s way too late..

 

[Enclosed_Animal]

I have one question that I haven't heard an adequate answer for this year re structures.

From almost every single kick in this year Carlisle is placed as the short kick option in the pocket. The kick 50-60m down the line on the same side is usually a small, occasionally a ruckman. Why on Earth would you do that?

The only explanation I have heard so far that remotely makes sense is "so when the ball comes back in we have a tall defender to intercept." This of course works off the assumption that we will continue to pick terrible kicks in our back half that will turn it over (and follow a game plan emphasising our weaknesses not our strengths). Surely we should be structuring up to win games, not in a way that simply minimises how badly we lose!

There are a million other questions I have re structures, but this one baffles the sh1t out of me every week.

Does anyone have a decent answer as to why we would do this?

 

[PaddyMcClunkin]

I know a lot of current chat is about the lack of on field leadership and the softness of our players, which I don't agree with too much, I think the plyers have tried to buy into a game plan that doesn't work, and selection that is based on that game plan, they wouldn't be human if they weren't demoralised and lacking in confidence when in their hearts they know that every time they run out they are probably going to be beaten and there's nothing they can do about it, they're out gunned physically and are relying on a Stephen Bradbury moment for us to be competitive. I'm amazed every time I watch that they try at all, because they do try.

Tragic because even when a Stephen Bradbury moment does happen (Essendon being multiple rotations down throughout the match) we still fail to be competitive.

 

[PaddyMcClunkin]

I have one question that I haven't heard an adequate answer for this year re structures.

From almost every single kick in this year Carlisle is placed as the short kick option in the pocket. The kick 50-60m down the line on the same side is usually a small, occasionally a ruckman. Why on Earth would you do that?

The only explanation I have heard so far that remotely makes sense is "so when the ball comes back in we have a tall defender to intercept." This of course works off the assumption that we will continue to pick terrible kicks in our back half that will turn it over (and follow a game plan emphasising our weaknesses not our strengths). Surely we should be structuring up to win games, not in a way that simply minimises how badly we lose!

There are a million other questions I have re structures, but this one baffles the sh1t out of me every week.

Does anyone have a decent answer as to why we would do this?

Our kick ins are a seriously horrendous part of our game. Players are always static and there is almost never an attempt to look inboard and build up more quickly and aggressively. Only a select few should take them (Webster, Billings, Savage, White) and they should be encouraged to prioritise finding free players, using the long down the line as a last resort. I don't know why we bother with the 15 metre sideways kick as it takes far too long and teams set up for it so easily. Players need to learn how to shift the zone with unrewarded leading to create holes for others to exploit. At the moment the team doesn't even seem to bother trying anything like this because they know where it's going before the point is even scored.

 

[Saint Watto]

he tried to make it up by drafting Clark and Coffield, it’s way too late..

Agree there...…..mind boggling isn't it.


At least with Coff and Clark....that's 2 of them.....better than one of them.

At least it's a start and let's pray the new list manager as you say" get's it"

 

[lewdogs]

A couple of things I think we need to sort out:

Sandringham:
Sandy have been terrible the last few years. Some absolutely abominable losses. We need to improve our alignment and get Sandringham playing better football, or look again at going stand-alone. It just seems to be a mess at the moment and players aren't developing as they should in the seconds.

Leadership:
We went down a similar path to Melbourne where we lost two important leaders last year. On top of that we lost Roberton who was pretty much the leader of the backline, and Bruce who is an important on-field influence. The result is that we have no leadership on-field and completely capitulate in games (eg Essendon just before half-time). The players that we thought would become good leaders (Newnes, Weller, Dunstan) have stagnated. Jack Steven is a player we are trying desperately to be a leader but he has admitted he isn't one.
We need to sign a couple of mature players. Hannebery would be a good start, but I would also look at a McVeigh or even Goddard to improve our on-field leadership.

There's probably a million other things really but those are two I'd start with.

 

[JiggsteR45]

A couple of things I think we need to sort out:

Sandringham:
Sandy have been terrible the last few years. Some absolutely abominable losses. We need to improve our alignment and get Sandringham playing better football, or look again at going stand-alone. It just seems to be a mess at the moment and players aren't developing as they should in the seconds.

Leadership:
We went down a similar path to Melbourne where we lost two important leaders last year. On top of that we lost Roberton who was pretty much the leader of the backline, and Bruce who is an important on-field influence. The result is that we have no leadership on-field and completely capitulate in games (eg Essendon just before half-time). The players that we thought would become good leaders (Newnes, Weller, Dunstan) have stagnated. Jack Steven is a player we are trying desperately to be a leader but he has admitted he isn't one.
We need to sign a couple of mature players. Hannebery would be a good start, but I would also look at a McVeigh or even Goddard to improve our on-field leadership.

There's probably a million other things really but those are two I'd start with.

A month ago I would never have had a bar of recruiting a McVeigh, Hannebery or Goddard (??!!) and was prepared to continue the tactic of going with youth. However, looking at the results (and the manner in which they occurred) of the past five- six weeks shows a screaming need for some hardened, experienced heads out there when the going gets tough. Personally I see NO chance of it happening, BUT if Goddard were to return for a couple of seasons, it could change the whole dynamic of the joint.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Moral Decay]

I have one question that I haven't heard an adequate answer for this year re structures.

From almost every single kick in this year Carlisle is placed as the short kick option in the pocket. The kick 50-60m down the line on the same side is usually a small, occasionally a ruckman. Why on Earth would you do that?

The only explanation I have heard so far that remotely makes sense is "so when the ball comes back in we have a tall defender to intercept." This of course works off the assumption that we will continue to pick terrible kicks in our back half that will turn it over (and follow a game plan emphasising our weaknesses not our strengths). Surely we should be structuring up to win games, not in a way that simply minimises how badly we lose!

There are a million other questions I have re structures, but this one baffles the sh1t out of me every week.

Does anyone have a decent answer as to why we would do this?

Our coaches are idiots?
I forget which but there was one game where we were down to two talls, a ruck man and Carlisle, the ruck man was resting and Carlisle was kicking in after a behind, I was livid and gobsmacked at the same time, how could the players be so stupid and the coaches? I can remembering it happen but where ……?

We could probably start a thread on how stupid our coaches are because it's a weekly event, Ross at FF, Armo as a defensive forward, Armo as a HBF, Geary in the centre, Carlisle getting a punctured lung from the injection for his broken ribs, Acres playing in the ruck with stuffed groins, Weller playing on bung ankles, Bruce playing with cracked vertebrae, Billings playing inside at the contest with Dunstan playing outside, a bomb it to the forwards game pan when the tallest forward we have is Membrey at 188...…….., how often have we watched the opposition mids, jog past Armo and Dunstan and I mean jog no need to put the after burners on, FMD

Ah well back to yelling at clouds.