Analysis Tactics & Strategy

[cookie monster]

Without any doubt, our game style has changed across the year, and is a big contributing factor to our current (diminished) output. There's been some chat about it in various threads but I think this is worthy of a discussion on its own...

At the start of the year we were a hard running team characterised by:

• Predominance of play along the tram lines
• Plenty of support behind contests, with forward handball to gain metres. No dump kicking from contest seemed a mantra, if not a team rule
• Forward handball consistently from marks
• Which all in turn created an uncongested forward line when the ball went in there
• Encouraged deeper, and better quality forward 50 entries

Midfielders were kicking plenty of goals, and our small forwards were generally active providing their own contributions working in space. We afforded Cripps the luxury of spending time up forward and he was consistently providing multiple goals.

This was best exhibited in the Melbourne pre-season game and the Sydney H&A game. We scored quickly, we were potent. But we were still prone to opposition run ons, and getting scored against on turnover. So it changed.

From the Collingwood game onwards we have increasingly become a team that:

• Will work the ball to half back, and then bomb up the line to contest
• Rarely play on from a mark
• Rarely forward handball
• Rarely make teams defend us with the full width of the ground (ie. Fast switching), or use the corridor
• Have our small forwards moved so far up the ground to work defensively, that they are rarely a chance at offering potency at goal, and not nearly as much as they should be
• Moves the ball so slowly that we are allowing the opposition to get all their numbers back and clog up our forward line
• Exceedingly poor F50 entries
• Has returned to consistent dump kicking out of contest, instead of outlet handball

We've turned into an ultra defensive, offensive approach (if that makes sense), scared to run risky plays in case we turn it over and handing field position to the opposition. We are so predictable that oppositions know they need to block the corridor, and a kick away from the football on the wing it sits on. It's a game style that is really low on intelligence.

Why is this? Is it a reaction to lost personnel? Is it an overreaction to our defensive weaknesses exhibited early in the year? Perhaps a combination of all the above. However I had hoped that once we got our cattle back, we would be prepared to adjust our game style once more. Saturday night seemed as good an opportunity to revert this, but we failed miserably. I really wanted to see some more variation, a return to our early season method, but to my eye, we didn't even try. Are we now set in this way?

Can it go back? Can it move to a hybrid approach? It may be a bit late in the year to make another shift in game style now. I feel this will take another pre season to correct and get right.

I think as much as anything there an element of Voss realising we dont have the cattle on the wings to reliably play in this fashion. Evidence being the musical chairs being played in these positions. But this current methodology isn't giving us a chance to win games against reasonable opposition either. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

How do we remedy this going into next year? To take the next step we need an sleight of hand A-Grade wing to add to them. This is key

I don't think it's great that we've gone so far in another direction from how we clearly prepared to approach this year through all of last pre season. It must be confusing for the players right now and I think it's proving such through a lack of coherence and efficiency in ball movement. They've gone into their shells massively

I'm not sure what this means for the rest of the year. I've probably turned fairly bearish since Saturday night. But if we are to be any hope of jagging a win or two from the next 3 games, it must change once more.

 

[Wickzki]

First, great post and worthy discussion.

Secondly, I disagree on one aspect. You claim that it's from the Collingwood game onward. Having gone back and watched quite a few of our wins - including sitting through the opposition's second-half comebacks, I think you can see a lot of the telltale signs from what we've done in the post-bye part of the season in those second-half fadeouts.

The Dogs game in round two comes to mind. So many times in that second half did we try and roost the ball from inside D50 (or just beyond) to wing and half forward. Almost every time we tried it the ball came rebounding back down to opposition F50. It got so predictable in that game - and it was usually shallow kickers doing it - that McGovern finally said enough is enough and took responsibility himself for moving the ball out of the backline and was the only one who was successful at doing so.

I'm not sure why this has happened in our second halves or why it's happened consistently post-bye. I've been told that it's the telltale signs of fatigue (physical and mental) and if it is I can't help but feel that we're still a very mentally fragile team. I'm uncertain what the answer is.

However, I keep thinking back to what I was told - and posted as did others - about our coaching staff after we hired Voss. We'd missed the boat on some of the assistants that were available at the end of last season and although we were able to secure a couple of great ones that Team Voss wouldn't be complete this year. I do wonder if that has changed and if not if we've got people in mind who can help take us through the next stage of our evolution.

 

[Accidental genius]

Without any doubt, our game style has changed across the year, and is a big contributing factor to our current (diminished) output. There's been some chat about it in various threads but I think this is worthy of a discussion on its own...

At the start of the year we were a hard running team characterised by:

• Predominance of play along the tram lines
• Plenty of support behind contests, with forward handball to gain metres. No dump kicking from contest seemed a mantra, if not a team rule
• Forward handball consistently from marks
• Which all in turn created an uncongested forward line when the ball went in there
• Encouraged deeper, and better quality forward 50 entries

Midfielders were kicking plenty of goals, and our small forwards were generally active providing their own contributions working in space. We afforded Cripps the luxury of spending time up forward and he was consistently providing multiple goals.

This was best exhibited in the Melbourne pre-season game and the Sydney H&A game. We scored quickly, we were potent. But we were still prone to opposition run ons, and getting scored against on turnover. So it changed.

From the Collingwood game onwards we have increasingly become a team that:

• Will work the ball to half back, and then bomb up the line to contest
• Rarely play on from a mark
• Rarely forward handball
• Rarely make teams defend us with the full width of the ground (ie. Fast switching), or use the corridor
• Have our small forwards moved so far up the ground to work defensively, that they are rarely a chance at offering potency at goal, and not nearly as much as they should be
• Moves the ball so slowly that we are allowing the opposition to get all their numbers back and clog up our forward line
• Exceedingly poor F50 entries
• Has returned to consistent dump kicking out of contest, instead of outlet handball

We've turned into an ultra defensive, offensive approach (if that makes sense), scared to run risky plays in case we turn it over and handing field position to the opposition. We are so predictable that oppositions know they need to block the corridor, and a kick away from the football on the wing it sits on. It's a game style that is really low on intelligence.

Why is this? Is it a reaction to lost personnel? Is it an overreaction to our defensive weaknesses exhibited early in the year? Perhaps a combination of all the above. However I had hoped that once we got our cattle back, we would be prepared to adjust our game style once more. Saturday night seemed as good an opportunity to revert this, but we failed miserably. I really wanted to see some more variation, a return to our early season method, but to my eye, we didn't even try. Are we now set in this way?

Can it go back? Can it move to a hybrid approach? It may be a bit late in the year to make another shift in game style now. I feel this will take another pre season to correct and get right.

I think as much as anything there an element of Voss realising we dont have the cattle on the wings to reliably play in this fashion. Evidence being the musical chairs being played in these positions. But this current methodology isn't giving us a chance to win games against reasonable opposition either. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

How do we remedy this going into next year? To take the next step we need an sleight of hand A-Grade wing to add to them. This is key

I don't think it's great that we've gone so far in another direction from how we clearly prepared to approach this year through all of last pre season. It must be confusing for the players right now and I think it's proving such through a lack of coherence and efficiency in ball movement. They've gone into their shells massively

I'm not sure what this means for the rest of the year. I've probably turned fairly bearish since Saturday night. But if we are to be any hope of jagging a win or two from the next 3 games, it must change once more.

This is a really good and timely post.

Your assessment of our season so far is spot on.

Just wondering why we couldn’t have maintained that initial exciting game plan...we probably would have ended up with a similar win/loss ratio since the filth loss. But we would have improved overall somewhat even if hampered by lack of good wingman.

That game style (if there was one) against crows was horrendous...almost enough to turn you off footy.

 

[cookie monster]

First, great post and worthy discussion.

Secondly, I disagree on one aspect. You claim that it's from the Collingwood game onward. Having gone back and watched quite a few of our wins - including sitting through the opposition's second-half comebacks, I think you can see a lot of the telltale signs from what we've done in the post-bye part of the season in those second-half fadeouts.

The Dogs game in round two comes to mind. So many times in that second half did we try and roost the ball from inside D50 (or just beyond) to wing and half forward. Almost every time we tried it the ball came rebounding back down to opposition F50. It got so predictable in that game - and it was usually shallow kickers doing it - that McGovern finally said enough is enough and took responsibility himself for moving the ball out of the backline and was the only one who was successful at doing so.

I'm not sure why this has happened in our second halves or why it's happened consistently post-bye. I've been told that it's the telltale signs of fatigue (physical and mental) and if it is I can't help but feel that we're still a very mentally fragile team. I'm uncertain what the answer is.

However, I keep thinking back to what I was told - and posted as did others - about our coaching staff after we hired Voss. We'd missed the boat on some of the assistants that were available at the end of last season and although we were able to secure a couple of great ones that Team Voss wouldn't be complete this year. I do wonder if that has changed and if not if we've got people in mind who can help take us through the next stage of our evolution.

With respect to what happened at the back end of last season, another contributing factor to our delayed progression is the time taken to move on Teague and instate his successor.

As much as it hurt our ability to bring in more coaching talent, it prevent the succeeding senior coach from contributing to his own list requirements

Everybody knew Teague was a dead duck from mid season. It took so long to get rid of them, and then mobilise the selection panel, we ruled the succeeding coach out of being a meaningful participant in exit interviews, list review, and trade period. Had this not been the case perhaps some of the list, personnel and mentality issues they are realising now could have been suitably dealt with prior to list lodgement last year.

We are going to need to be ruthless players in this year's trade period. Make statement decisions, clear cap space, bring in key targets. We don't have the cattle to play the way we want for long enough

 

[Arr0w]

It was never about this year, moreso to build a sustainable longterm gameplan, in conjunction with building continuity, cohesion as the core group matures.

The gameplan which has a strong core base of contested footy, will continue to evolve and with another preseason to bed down greater consistency in regards to our strengths and weaknesses

 

[Revenant1995]

It was never about this year, moreso to build a sustainable longterm gameplan, in conjunction with building continuity, cohesion as the core group matures.

The gameplan which has a strong core base of contested footy, will continue to evolve and with another preseason to bed down greater consistency in regards to our strengths and weaknesses

That's taking a good, long-term, logical view. And add comments about list still to change at end of season. The thing is that I (like probably many others), when we had 8 wins, had emotionally invested in finally seeing finals (especially after not seeing us win a GF in nearly 30 years). Not expecting a GF this year, but was hoping to see us causing some damage in finals. Just me... but some good comments in this thread...

 

[Arr0w]

That's taking a good, long-term, logical view. And add comments about list still to change at end of season. The thing is that I (like probably many others), when we had 8 wins, had emotionally invested in finally seeing finals (especially after not seeing us win a GF in nearly 30 years). Not expecting a GF this year, but was hoping to see us causing some damage in finals. Just me... but some good comments in this thread...

Like when the Demons were unbeaten, everyone thought they were a lock for the flag

 

[cookie monster]

It was never about this year, moreso to build a sustainable longterm gameplan, in conjunction with building continuity, cohesion as the core group matures.

The gameplan which has a strong core base of contested footy, will continue to evolve and with another preseason to bed down greater consistency in regards to our strengths and weaknesses

When you say, "it was never about this year" - is this something the club has said, or just an opinion?

It's approaching the 7 year anniversary since the much vaunted "66 game rebuild" was announced. That's the clubs words - not mine.

We should be expecting something better than just a mid-table finish by this stage. At some point the "it's about next year" narrative has to wear thin.

With reference back to the OP; at the beginning of this year it looked like we had the framework of a game style that could really challenge, and did beat some of the best teams in the league. It needed defensive tinkering, sure, but now we've gone so far away from that style that it's hardly prevalent through our football at all. If this is a personnel and capability problem it's something worth talking about - or we'll be in the same position next year, looking to 2024 with the same comforting narrative.

 

[FitzroyBlueBagger]

Without any doubt, our game style has changed across the year, and is a big contributing factor to our current (diminished) output. There's been some chat about it in various threads but I think this is worthy of a discussion on its own...

At the start of the year we were a hard running team characterised by:

• Predominance of play along the tram lines
• Plenty of support behind contests, with forward handball to gain metres. No dump kicking from contest seemed a mantra, if not a team rule
• Forward handball consistently from marks
• Which all in turn created an uncongested forward line when the ball went in there
• Encouraged deeper, and better quality forward 50 entries

Midfielders were kicking plenty of goals, and our small forwards were generally active providing their own contributions working in space. We afforded Cripps the luxury of spending time up forward and he was consistently providing multiple goals.

This was best exhibited in the Melbourne pre-season game and the Sydney H&A game. We scored quickly, we were potent. But we were still prone to opposition run ons, and getting scored against on turnover. So it changed.

From the Collingwood game onwards we have increasingly become a team that:

• Will work the ball to half back, and then bomb up the line to contest
• Rarely play on from a mark
• Rarely forward handball
• Rarely make teams defend us with the full width of the ground (ie. Fast switching), or use the corridor
• Have our small forwards moved so far up the ground to work defensively, that they are rarely a chance at offering potency at goal, and not nearly as much as they should be
• Moves the ball so slowly that we are allowing the opposition to get all their numbers back and clog up our forward line
• Exceedingly poor F50 entries
• Has returned to consistent dump kicking out of contest, instead of outlet handball

We've turned into an ultra defensive, offensive approach (if that makes sense), scared to run risky plays in case we turn it over and handing field position to the opposition. We are so predictable that oppositions know they need to block the corridor, and a kick away from the football on the wing it sits on. It's a game style that is really low on intelligence.

Why is this? Is it a reaction to lost personnel? Is it an overreaction to our defensive weaknesses exhibited early in the year? Perhaps a combination of all the above. However I had hoped that once we got our cattle back, we would be prepared to adjust our game style once more. Saturday night seemed as good an opportunity to revert this, but we failed miserably. I really wanted to see some more variation, a return to our early season method, but to my eye, we didn't even try. Are we now set in this way?

Can it go back? Can it move to a hybrid approach? It may be a bit late in the year to make another shift in game style now. I feel this will take another pre season to correct and get right.

I think as much as anything there an element of Voss realising we dont have the cattle on the wings to reliably play in this fashion. Evidence being the musical chairs being played in these positions. But this current methodology isn't giving us a chance to win games against reasonable opposition either. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

How do we remedy this going into next year? To take the next step we need an sleight of hand A-Grade wing to add to them. This is key

I don't think it's great that we've gone so far in another direction from how we clearly prepared to approach this year through all of last pre season. It must be confusing for the players right now and I think it's proving such through a lack of coherence and efficiency in ball movement. They've gone into their shells massively

I'm not sure what this means for the rest of the year. I've probably turned fairly bearish since Saturday night. But if we are to be any hope of jagging a win or two from the next 3 games, it must change once more.

Cracking summarization

 

[Fridge42]

When you say, "it was never about this year" - is this something the club has said, or just an opinion?

It's approaching the 7 year anniversary since the much vaunted "66 game rebuild" was announced. That's the clubs words - not mine.

We should be expecting something better than just a mid-table finish by this stage. At some point the "it's about next year" narrative has to wear thin.

With reference back to the OP; at the beginning of this year it looked like we had the framework of a game style that could really challenge, and did beat some of the best teams in the league. It needed defensive tinkering, sure, but now we've gone so far away from that style that it's hardly prevalent through our football at all. If this is a personnel and capability problem it's something worth talking about - or we'll be in the same position next year, looking to 2024 with the same comforting narrative.

Exactly, how have Collingwood managed to learn how to defend and attack in one summer but we haven’t been able to.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

Exactly, how have Collingwood managed to learn how to defend and attack in one summer but we haven’t been able to.

Win the ball, don't dither (fluff around), use the ball well (smartly) and have an attacking mindset (especially when you have Chuck and Harry up front)

They're the basics right?

We fail on all four presently.

(albeit when we play well we succeed on all fronts)

When we have played badly, our decision making has been at an U9 level.

And some of our better players are often front and centre on that score - Cripps, Walsh....

 

[swuzzlebubble]

I think you can see a lot of the telltale signs from what we've done in the post-bye part of the season in those second-half fadeouts

Was it possibly decided that our fast starts and scoring was unsustainable within games let alone for the season? So we reverted to a less taxing approach?

 

[Arr0w]

When you say, "it was never about this year" - is this something the club has said, or just an opinion?

It's approaching the 7 year anniversary since the much vaunted "66 game rebuild" was announced. That's the clubs words - not mine.

We should be expecting something better than just a mid-table finish by this stage. At some point the "it's about next year" narrative has to wear thin.

With reference back to the OP; at the beginning of this year it looked like we had the framework of a game style that could really challenge, and did beat some of the best teams in the league. It needed defensive tinkering, sure, but now we've gone so far away from that style that it's hardly prevalent through our football at all. If this is a personnel and capability problem it's something worth talking about - or we'll be in the same position next year, looking to 2024 with the same comforting narrative.

It amazes me how you cling to certain words, phrases coming from the club, like it is a matter of fact that it will mirror outcome. I mean, pretty much most clubs will state "we are looking at making finals this year"

And as for the "66 game rebuild", please don't tell me you thought that meant finals the following year. I mean NO club has made finals after a full scale purge.

The framework of the game style was to get the side back to performing at the level that mirrored the talent and a maturity level that still has not enter peak as a core. The wins early in the season, were against sides predominantly out and or still fighting for a top 8 position

Our core style, contested footy, hasn't changed much from the start of the year and you are giving little credit to the opposition in terms of tactics and setups to combat a gameplan in it's infancy. We just lost, our only loss to a bottom 6 side, as most sides have this year

Each year i see a similar sentiment, "we are closer to a spoon than finals, the rebuild is a failure, player X won't make it and this year, we won't make finals and we will start to decline, we should sack/replace the coach" This is born from an unrealistic expectation, focusing on the now rather than bigger picture outcomes

We have work to do, we may or may not make finals (I believe we will), but none of this will impact what this group will achieve in coming years

 

[Arr0w]

Exactly, how have Collingwood managed to learn how to defend and attack in one summer but we haven’t been able to.

Have you taken any notice as to the lack of injuries that have had during the course of the year. Their core players are at a level of maturity/experience above our developing group. I mean, I saw similar last year, that GC, * were ahead of us as a rebuilding side

 

[goreds]

Without any doubt, our game style has changed across the year, and is a big contributing factor to our current (diminished) output. There's been some chat about it in various threads but I think this is worthy of a discussion on its own...

At the start of the year we were a hard running team characterised by:

• Predominance of play along the tram lines
• Plenty of support behind contests, with forward handball to gain metres. No dump kicking from contest seemed a mantra, if not a team rule
• Forward handball consistently from marks
• Which all in turn created an uncongested forward line when the ball went in there
• Encouraged deeper, and better quality forward 50 entries

Midfielders were kicking plenty of goals, and our small forwards were generally active providing their own contributions working in space. We afforded Cripps the luxury of spending time up forward and he was consistently providing multiple goals.

This was best exhibited in the Melbourne pre-season game and the Sydney H&A game. We scored quickly, we were potent. But we were still prone to opposition run ons, and getting scored against on turnover. So it changed.

From the Collingwood game onwards we have increasingly become a team that:

• Will work the ball to half back, and then bomb up the line to contest
• Rarely play on from a mark
• Rarely forward handball
• Rarely make teams defend us with the full width of the ground (ie. Fast switching), or use the corridor
• Have our small forwards moved so far up the ground to work defensively, that they are rarely a chance at offering potency at goal, and not nearly as much as they should be
• Moves the ball so slowly that we are allowing the opposition to get all their numbers back and clog up our forward line
• Exceedingly poor F50 entries
• Has returned to consistent dump kicking out of contest, instead of outlet handball

We've turned into an ultra defensive, offensive approach (if that makes sense), scared to run risky plays in case we turn it over and handing field position to the opposition. We are so predictable that oppositions know they need to block the corridor, and a kick away from the football on the wing it sits on. It's a game style that is really low on intelligence.

Why is this? Is it a reaction to lost personnel? Is it an overreaction to our defensive weaknesses exhibited early in the year? Perhaps a combination of all the above. However I had hoped that once we got our cattle back, we would be prepared to adjust our game style once more. Saturday night seemed as good an opportunity to revert this, but we failed miserably. I really wanted to see some more variation, a return to our early season method, but to my eye, we didn't even try. Are we now set in this way?

Can it go back? Can it move to a hybrid approach? It may be a bit late in the year to make another shift in game style now. I feel this will take another pre season to correct and get right.

I think as much as anything there an element of Voss realising we dont have the cattle on the wings to reliably play in this fashion. Evidence being the musical chairs being played in these positions. But this current methodology isn't giving us a chance to win games against reasonable opposition either. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

How do we remedy this going into next year? To take the next step we need an sleight of hand A-Grade wing to add to them. This is key

I don't think it's great that we've gone so far in another direction from how we clearly prepared to approach this year through all of last pre season. It must be confusing for the players right now and I think it's proving such through a lack of coherence and efficiency in ball movement. They've gone into their shells massively

I'm not sure what this means for the rest of the year. I've probably turned fairly bearish since Saturday night. But if we are to be any hope of jagging a win or two from the next 3 games, it must change once more.

Quality stuff Cookie!

100% need a QUALITY wingman, full stop.

Our forward handball was the winning formula early in the season, for sure. I believe we were worked out by mid year plus a few injuries thrown in.

Even last weeks game, Adelaide had a +1 at the contest and we just filled space or dropped to a defensive position. That Crow +1 stops the forward handball from congestion or stoppage, coaching 101. Williams fixed this early in the year as he is a HB that can play around the stoppage, it was a risk for opposition teams to draw him to the contest as he is damaging and explosive from that position. People can dislike him all they like but his presence causes game style decisions from the opposition coaches box.

Bite the bullet and play +1 at the contest, forward handball at stoppages and after marking contests from HB to HF. Play the tram tracks so we have options inside and out of the marking option.

Doc playing poorly is really hurting us at the moment. Not sure if the opposition have changed tactics on him (will have to focus a bit on him this week) or is he just stuffed.

A gun wingman fixes so many of these issues…

 

[Beer n Skittles]

I don't think it's an intentional change in game style. IMO it's a mix of personnel issues and fatigue.

Cripps was powering out of stoppages with ball in hand earlier in the year, he's not doing that now. Hewett was playing the distributor holding his position at the back of the stoppage, no-one else is playing that role nearly as well as he did.

Moving the ball from the backline has been an issue all year, it just spent less time down there when we were winning in the centre. It still needs fixing but we are missing Williams - to use that forward handball from marks from earlier in the year you need players willing to run forward which Williams does.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

A gun wingman fixes so many of these issues

Appreciate you're looking ahead but should we currently be looking at Walsh, Cerra as wing options? Is backfilling their roles in the guts less disruptive to the game plan?

 

[JustaBattler]

Any game plan is only a good as your available players ability to execute. Voss has had to dumb down the game style because of the players he has had available and their limited abilities - simple as that. People bagging Voss and co in this forum for introducing a ''predictable game plan' - are ignoring the effect of injury and lack of continuity and very very ordinary replacement players he has had to play between the arcs all year. People who bag Voss because there is no Plan be conveniently fail to show other teams who have a plan B or C - there is no such thing and never has been.

Carlton doesn't bat too deep in the midfield stakes yet - and the team is carrying some pretty weak players week in week out as far as ability to win one on ones goes and the ball winners don't have a lot of options on the outside to go to - it was the case before the season even started and continues to the case- so all kinds of compromises have come into play as far as game plan goes - mainly due to long term absences from key structural players- which has added to the pressure on the weaker links and better players in the team.

Carlton lacks the dynamic run and smarts of genuine outside ( wingmen) blokes that can kick as well as run and carry - this limits the angles that are available to between the arcs play and stifles attacking options - it makes defending against Carlton between teh arcs much easier - as people have pointed out- just stack the contests.

I would have thought that by now all of Marchbank, Cuningham, Williams, Pittonet, McGovern, Martin would be back for a few weeks now- and I couldn't have counted on both Hewett and Kennedy to be out from starting lineup at this end of the season. The team is playing inconsistent football because it has never had the number of better players available consistently - all year.

If people think that blokes like Setterfield/Lob/Dow/Cottrell are an answer to any long-term question - they are kidding themselves.

I think that the coaches and the Club are very well aware of the list deficiencies and developmental requirements - the Club has positioned itself all year by saying that the list is far from complete and that the game plan will evolve in line with the capability of the players it has at its disposal.

This year has been on the whole a positive - but unfortunately deprived of any real continuity in the playing group on top of its structural weaknesses as far as playing personnel go.

 

[Arr0w]

Any game plan is only a good as your available players ability to execute. Voss has had to dumb down the game style because of the players he has had available and their limited abilities - simple as that. People bagging Voss and co in this forum for introducing a ''predictable game plan' - are ignoring the effect of injury and lack of continuity and very very ordinary replacement players he has had to play between the arcs all year. People who bag Voss because there is no Plan be conveniently fail to show other teams who have a plan B or C - there is no such thing and never has been.

Carlton doesn't bat too deep in the midfield stakes yet - and the team is carrying some pretty weak players week in week out as far as ability to win one on ones goes and the ball winners don't have a lot of options on the outside to go to - it was the case before the season even started and continues to the case- so all kinds of compromises have come into play as far as game plan goes - mainly due to long term absences from key structural players- which has added to the pressure on the weaker links and better players in the team.

Carlton lacks the dynamic run and smarts of genuine outside ( wingmen) blokes that can kick as well as run and carry - this limits the angles that are available to between the arcs play and stifles attacking options - it makes defending against Carlton between teh arcs much easier - as people have pointed out- just stack the contests.

I would have thought that by now all of Marchbank, Cuningham, Williams, Pittonet, McGovern, Martin would be back for a few weeks now- and I couldn't have counted on both Hewett and Kennedy to be out from starting lineup at this end of the season. The team is playing inconsistent football because it has never had the number of better players available consistently - all year.

If people think that blokes like Setterfield/Lob/Dow/Cottrell are an answer to any long-term question - they are kidding themselves.

I think that the coaches and the Club are very well aware of the list deficiencies and developmental requirements - the Club has positioned itself all year by saying that the list is far from complete and that the game plan will evolve in line with the capability of the players it has at its disposal.

This year has been on the whole a positive - but unfortunately deprived of any real continuity in the playing group on top of its structural weaknesses as far as playing personnel go.

 

[goreds]

Appreciate you're looking ahead but should we currently be looking at Walsh, Cerra as wing options? Is backfilling their roles in the guts less disruptive to the game plan?

Doc or Williams.

Cerra and Walsh are our forward runners at the contest..

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Doc or Williams.

Cerra and Walsh are our forward runners at the contest..

Unfortunately that's one out of form and one still to return from LTI.

 

[Gethelred]

Instead of rewriting what others have said, I'd like to return to something else we've done at times this year to great effect that has also deserted us: where's our short kicking game gone?

In round 1, Richmond were playing their old style, clogging the area around a stoppage and forcing the clearances long and high on exit, perfect for an intercept defense to block and mark. Sure, we got on top late in the game from centre clearance dominance and exiting from the front of a stoppage, but we got ourselves back into the game kick-marking our way forward, with 45 kicks taken and switches to the open side executed quickly.

Now, some of that'd be due to missing Gov and Williams; Gov was frequently the player who'd take those kicks, and Williams would start overlap; even if he looked awful doing it he'd draw a player, which gets the sequence started. But Saad, Docherty, Walsh, Cerra, Boyd, O'Brien, Newman, Weitering can all pull off those kicks; I want to know why we've abandoned that inward scything kick that opens the ground up, why we always seem to look 50m down the line instead of 25-30m around, and why the players in that vicinity are not making themselves an option???

The players I'm talking about there are roughly the same players - as in, they aren't the ones missing from injury - so there isn't really an excuse for them not doing it.

 

[cookie monster]

It amazes me how you cling to certain words, phrases coming from the club, like it is a matter of fact that it will mirror outcome. I mean, pretty much most clubs will state "we are looking at making finals this year"

It amazes me how many posts you open with some denigrating statement.
The words were the clubs - not mine. Certainly they were reflective of an internal KPI, otherwise they wouldn't have said them

And as for the "66 game rebuild", please don't tell me you thought that meant finals the following year. I mean NO club has made finals after a full scale purge.

No, I didnt
But 66 games was 4 years ago now
I certainly expected we'd be playing finals at 154 games. Every supporter ought to have expected this. Don't try to to tell me you didn't

Our core style, contested footy, hasn't changed much from the start of the year and you are giving little credit to the opposition in terms of tactics and setups to combat a gameplan in it's infancy. We just lost, our only loss to a bottom 6 side, as most sides have this year

As far as CBB setup goes, it almost certainly has - without much change to personnel outside of ruckman. Early season we were getting consistent breakaway from centre bounce. That has dried up to a trickle now. We needed to adjust setup to the ruckman, we had 13 games to do so, and we didn't. Frustratingly we continue to play arguably our best mid (Walsh) off a HFF and hardly ever see him introduced to CB. In fact; we hardly ever see much interchange of personnel through the centre bounce outside of the four mainstays.

Each year i see a similar sentiment, "we are closer to a spoon than finals, the rebuild is a failure, player X won't make it and this year, we won't make finals and we will start to decline, we should sack/replace the coach" This is born from an unrealistic expectation, focusing on the now rather than bigger picture outcomes

Who in this thread has said this? This is just being dramatic to attempt to discredit an opposing argument to your own, and you're making yourself look a bit silly

We have work to do, we may or may not make finals (I believe we will), but none of this will impact what this group will achieve in coming years

If we don't quickly and proficiently address the personnel issues that have been laid bare this year, it will certainly impact what this group is able to achieve in coming years.

 

[Brackets]

TDK has been admirable but we've been smashed in the ruck.

Our mids haven't had first use for most of the year. Our ruck strategy had been to halve the contest and win the loose ball, which our mids have had to do with opposition hanging off them half the time.

Earlier in the year Pittonet was tapping it to advantage enough that we could spread, link up and have space to hit targets going forward.

Our mids have been hammered all year and supporters are wondering why they look spent going into games off a 6 day break.

Maybe this is simplistic but imo this is the crux of the issue.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Appreciate you're looking ahead but should we currently be looking at Walsh, Cerra as wing options? Is backfilling their roles in the guts less disruptive to the game plan?

Should be looked at IMO. Perhaps next year.

Cerra to a wing, Fisher or Dow (depending on development) more time in the centre so we're not so one-paced.