Review The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Round 11 edition

[Cronin]

I think you are definitely missing something. It looked fairly clear in the first half against the Dons that we were testing our ability to handball out of congestion, which to me makes sense, as that is where Sydney beat us last year. I can't imagine the coaches were happy with the result, but there is no doubt they took a lot away from it.

It's not the handballing in congestion that worries me(that's part of the game and needs to be), it's the pointless handballing to someone who's either under pressure or in a worse position then the player with the ball.

It's unnecessary, poor decision making and allows the opposition time either setup their defence or worse, create a turn over and goal, which has happened throughout all three games....

....Just cut the s**t out please!

 

[catempire]

With the excessive handball - it was clearly a problem either in the direction to players or in the execution by players.

It was clear from the prelim (and I thought had been recognised in comments from players and coaches over summer) that we needed to make our clearances cleaner and more damaging. The commentators were also referring to it on Sunday. But 5-6 handballs to stationary targets is not the answer there. It has to be one or at most two clean handballs from congestion to a moving player. We haven't seen much of that at all (or at least only in patches of quarters) which is slightly concerning for me. Either the coaches aren't directing it or the players aren't executing it.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Actually, it was NOT the same old Scott game plan. We had 155 more handballs than opposing teams in the 3 games. This is a new element to the 2017 game plan.

And what do you mean by your comment that Scott "rewarded players who shouldn't be getting a game"? Who are you referring to? When you could have up to 8 interchange players, and when the whole idea of the pre-season comp was to get real game time into players, I am not sure what are you on about

It's seriously not worth smashing your face against that brick wall.

 

[BlightysCats]

Actually, it was NOT the same old Scott game plan. We had 155 more handballs than opposing teams in the 3 games. This is a new element to the 2017 game plan.

And what do you mean by your comment that Scott "rewarded players who shouldn't be getting a game"? Who are you referring to? When you could have up to 8 interchange players, and when the whole idea of the pre-season comp was to get real game time into players, I am not sure what are you on about

I didn't say it was the same game-plan, as usual misrepresenting me completely. I said we had the same 'game-plan problems' then actually even named the specific problems. so while we're handballing more and at least attempting to create run at times we're still far too slow with our transition, we're still pressing up hard on opposition teams attempting to score off forcing turnovers which leaves us exposed to speedy teams out the back and when we win the ball too often we're still bombing it long aimlessly on Hawks head. The only part of our game-plan that has changed are our attempts to run and handball more off half back instead of the measured kicking of last year but even with that we managed to be slow and turn it over easily throughout the JLT only finally moving it quickly with any precision in the second half against an exhausted Essendon which is nothing to write home about.

Credit to Scott for at least attempting to change some elements of our game-plan, though 12 months later than I was advocating for it, but still it's somewhat encouraging as is our use of smaller forwards deep rather than just Hawkins, again something I've been advocating for 12 months now.

 

[sauron256]

With the excessive handball - it was clearly a problem either in the direction to players or in the execution by players.

It was clear from the prelim (and I thought had been recognised in comments from players and coaches over summer) that we needed to make our clearances cleaner and more damaging. The commentators were also referring to it on Sunday. But 5-6 handballs to stationary targets is not the answer there. It has to be one or at most two clean handballs from congestion to a moving player. We haven't seen much of that at all (or at least only in patches of quarters) which is slightly concerning for me. Either the coaches aren't directing it or the players aren't executing it.

Chris Scott says pretty much the same in the post match interview on the Cats website.

 

[Sttew]

Credit to Scott .

You're mellowing BC!

 

[BlightysCats]

You're mellowing BC!

Well when Scott's attempting to implement the two main additions to our game-plan I've been banging on about for ages it would be rather hypocritical of me to bag him for it, just took him too long to do it that's all.

 

[dazbroncos]

It's not the handballing in congestion that worries me(that's part of the game and needs to be), it's the pointless handballing to someone who's either under pressure or in a worse position then the player with the ball.

It's unnecessary, poor decision making and allows the opposition time either setup their defence or worse, create a turn over and goal, which has happened throughout all three games....

....Just cut the s**t out please!

Yes - I get the congested handball - and the quick flick under pressure. Accepted.

The bolded however is the bat s**t crazy element that needs to be euthanised.

When the ball carrier stops, props and can not see an option, he turns and goes backwards as seems to be the instruction. The issue I have is that turn backwards is not always a clear option - and handballing to a player under duress makes no sense. It reeks of "its your problem now."

Whatever the cause, it needs to go. The quick kick, even the hack kick forward under duress can clear the issue. The backwards handball needs to go the way of the dodo when its to a player standing still under just as much pressure as the ball carrier.

Go Catters

 

[Partridge]

McCarthy is just an average player. Not goal hungry, lacks speed for a forward pocket and doesn't find enough of the pill. Two sensational tackles a game don't make up for it.

I couldn't believe it when King described him as a special talent. Had to be sure he was talking about the same player.

 

[Partridge]

The Good - Dangerfield, Selwood, Henderson and Hawkins all look absolutely ready for Round 1. Stanley showed his best is pretty good (but boy is he inconsistent). Horlin-Smith got given two games in his rightful position and delivered. Murdoch when played up forward showed how much more comfortable he is there.

Outside of that, Zac Guthrie looks very composed, just needs a bigger frame. Parfitt looks very comfortable too and you'd hope will only get better.

The Bad - Zac Smith against Essendon. Had the chance to step up and dominate and just didn't. The moderate (being generous) to lacklustre pre-season form of a number of players in senior calculations - Blicavs, Menegola, Lang, and Cowan. Scott Selwood still being spoken of as a certainty when he hasn't kicked a ball.

The Ugly - The static periods of play where they seem unable to score. Plus where they mentally switch off for long periods. Hard to tell if that will be replicated once Round 1 starts.

 

[Catman]

Yes - I get the congested handball - and the quick flick under pressure. Accepted.

The bolded however is the bat s**t crazy element that needs to be euthanised.

When the ball carrier stops, props and can not see an option, he turns and goes backwards as seems to be the instruction. The issue I have is that turn backwards is not always a clear option - and handballing to a player under duress makes no sense. It reeks of "its your problem now."

Whatever the cause, it needs to go. The quick kick, even the hack kick forward under duress can clear the issue. The backwards handball needs to go the way of the dodo when its to a player standing still under just as much pressure as the ball carrier.

Go Catters

It's finding that balance. You can clearly see we are attempting to handball out of congestion, but it's going to take time to ensure it's done efficiently with less handballs than it currently is. It's a work in progress obviously as currently the excessive handball is just inviting pressure, especially to the aforementioned stationary teammate.

 

[BlightysCats]

It's finding that balance. You can clearly see we are attempting to handball out of congestion, but it's going to take time to ensure it's done efficiently with less handballs than it currently is. It's a work in progress obviously as currently the excessive handball is just inviting pressure, especially to the aforementioned stationary teammate.

Movement and momentum is the key, the reason the Bulldogs handball was so effective last year was that they were almost constantly handballing to moving targets, often even handballing to space in front of teammates which forced them to move on to it.

 

[2006_Eagles]

One of these jumpers can f***off for good please
View attachment 345147

G-zus that looks rough

 

[Live in hope]

It's hard to say as a casual observer, as the coaches obviously want to look at certain things which we aren't privy to. But on the face of it:

Good: Dangerfield and Selwood. Some good signs from Z.Guthrie and Parfitt, though Z.Guthrie is obviously too slight for the AFL at this point. Tuohy looks great, and fills a big need running out of defence. I liked Blitz and Stanley as a ruck combo, and let's face it, Blitz has played all his good football in that position. Duncan looks more together than last year, hopefully he can carry form. Menzel still looks sharp despite injury niggles, and GHS is creating competition in that second tier of mids. I liked Hawkins in the second half of the ESS game. We put some nice passages together and looked a little faster (at least in sections of games). The smaller forward set up later in the ESS game worked well. We also put some big scoring quarters together. On the other hand...
Bad: We had passages where we conceded goals too easily. Menagola had an ordinary series. I had him down as Caddy's replacement, but it's hard to see him picking up 20 meaningful possessions and a couple of goals a game on that form. Hopefully he picks up. I want to believe in Cowan but still haven't seen enough evidence. Motlop seems fit but hasn't regained touch. Can't fault Ruggles endeavour, but decision making and execution are still iffy. Also thought we could have been more direct and 'longer' in clearing from defence at times, but I reckon the excessive hand balling in defence (esp. first half of the ESS game) may have been an experiment of some sort. Who knows.
Ugly: Harry Taylor as a forward. I see why the experiment is happening, I get it on paper. But the reality over these practice games didn't bear the idea out. He looks adrift, and we lose so much in not having him back. Stewart shows some promise, but he's not a multiple AA defender, where Taylor is. The t-shirt that replaced our jumper.

Agree with this but add -
Good - excellent fitness - reason why Cats have had good 2nd halves in JLT (don't take that lightly- remember the horror fitness days/ massive 2nd half fades of 2012-2015?)
- when at least three quick, good tackling forwards are on song (mainly Cocky, Menzel, Linc , but even good efforts by Murdoch) and they get the ball in deep and quickly we look very dangerous. Would like to see them go with four quick forwards on a more regular basis.
Bad - with some notable (but few) exceptions, our foot skills are VFL standard or worse. (This is why we have to rely on the handball to keep possession game style). Can't see us as a genuine contender on this basis alone. Might scrape by one final like we did against the Hawks last year, but really doubt we could win a GF with such average passing skills. And ... You can't teach elite foot skills, you either have them or you don't (I.e. Need to draft - somehow - at least 3 players with these skills and then wait the 4 years plus for them to develop by which time Dangerwood and premiership window is closed. The Hawks by contrast make good to great foot skills a "not negotiable " in their ND recruiting.

 

[BORIS332]

Good
- Tuohy, Zuthrie, Parfitt, GHS, Thurlow.
- Duncan's dominance in 50% TOG.
- I actually really liked Aaron Black.
- Menzel, Hawkins and GHS all look faster.

Bad
- Lang, Stewart, Ruggles, Blicavs, Motlop.
- First half against Essendon.
- Scott Selwood's no show.
- Gregson's moon boot.
- Cuthrie's injury.

Ugly
- Harry's goal kicking in JLT3.
- Tom Stewart's kicking and decision making.
- Handballing to blokes in bad spots.
- Losing to Hawthorn after the siren.

 

[David the Cat]

I couldn't believe it when King described him as a special talent. Had to be sure he was talking about the same player.

I recall Dangerfield said something similar

 

[Ray Donovan]

I don't really buy in to the media hype around Geelong's massive Dangerwood 'problem'. Having the best 1-2 in the comp isn't a problem, it's a blessing.

The problem, if there is one, is that it makes it harder for the second tier mids to get into the game. Duncan, Guthrie, Menagola, et al, simply aren't going to win the clearances with Dangerwood in there, and aren't going to get hit up with the same frequency by other players. Had Scott taken Selwood and Dangerfield off at half time, we would have seen the second tier get a great deal more football. We probably wouldn't have won, but this idea that we are a complete s**t sandwich without the pair is over-cooked.

EDIT: also, any AFL team minus its best two mids will struggle to win matches.

It's a good problem to have dangerwood dominating games. And having the ability to win us matches the problem is when your in premiership mode and your fighting against elite teams like Sydney, GWS, Bulldogs, Adelaide you need good contributions across the board to compete because we know the 19th -22nd man are what creates premiership teams.

We know danger and selwood will win a majority of clearances they attend so does the opposition. So you can set up game plans around minimizing the impact of those two knowing if our 2nd tier players don't get involved it will go along way to beating us. Sydney showed us what a disciplined on ball unit can do through weight of numbers danger and Selwood had huge numbers that night.

This is a funny thing to say but if we truly want to be the best version of Geelong we can be Danger or more likely selwood will need to take a back seat instead of racking up 30 plus you might focus your energy on getting other guys involved as much as possible. Give Duncan and Guthrie the more attacking positions at stoppages selwood will draw a man and attention. He's still going to get his like always.

Dangerfield is the same selfless football these guys have brownlows BF, AA nothing to prove they want to win you need to get your team mates involved. It might cost them 5 touches but all of a sudden at the next big stoppage you have multiple options you don't know for sure where the ball is going. Team game it could fail because guys can't elevate to the next level but its our best shot.

We tried the other way last season exactly why our critics said we lacked multiple contributor's.

So we need to find a system to get the Duncan's and GHS, S.S, Blicavs, Motlop,Menegola, Guthrie's all involved in a role and if one guy goes out another steps into it. Its a team spread of even contributions at present. With two big guys like selwood and danger it should be even easier for 2nd tier players to get involved less attention but Geelong need to work out how to get them involved on a regular basis.

Not just when one is having a poor game or is needed forward now you have a role player trying to play an offensive all out attacking Dangerfield selwood slot just not going to work no others can do it or should be asked too. But if you make it a team system with predictable roles and positions it will allow more to flourish and two blokes shoulders will have less weight on them for sure!

 

[Spazz Cat]

It's a good problem to have dangerwood dominating games. And having the ability to win us matches the problem is when your in premiership mode and your fighting against elite teams like Sydney, GWS, Bulldogs, Adelaide you need good contributions across the board to compete because we know the 19th -22nd man are what creates premiership teams.

We know danger and selwood will win a majority of clearances they attend so does the opposition. So you can set up game plans around minimizing the impact of those two knowing if our 2nd tier players don't get involved it will go along way to beating us. Sydney showed us what a disciplined on ball unit can do through weight of numbers danger and Selwood had huge numbers that night.

This is a funny thing to say but if we truly want to be the best version of Geelong we can be Danger or more likely selwood will need to take a back seat instead of racking up 30 plus you might focus your energy on getting other guys involved as much as possible. Give Duncan and Guthrie the more attacking positions at stoppages selwood will draw a man and attention. He's still going to get his like always.

Dangerfield is the same selfless football these guys have brownlows BF, AA nothing to prove they want to win you need to get your team mates involved. It might cost them 5 touches but all of a sudden at the next big stoppage you have multiple options you don't know for sure where the ball is going. Team game it could fail because guys can't elevate to the next level but its our best shot.

We tried the other way last season exactly why our critics said we lacked multiple contributor's.

So we need to find a system to get the Duncan's and GHS, S.S, Blicavs, Motlop,Menegola, Guthrie's all involved in a role and if one guy goes out another steps into it. Its a team spread of even contributions at present. With two big guys like selwood and danger it should be even easier for 2nd tier players to get involved less attention but Geelong need to work out how to get them involved on a regular basis.

Not just when one is having a poor game or is needed forward now you have a role player trying to play an offensive all out attacking Dangerfield selwood slot just not going to work no others can do it or should be asked too. But if you make it a team system with predictable roles and positions it will allow more to flourish and two blokes shoulders will have less weight on them for sure!

Great post. That's exactly what we need to do.
More teams will set up their plan around Dangerwood winning the ball and they'll win if we don't do something serious about it.

 

[Partridge]

I recall Dangerfield said something similar

He actually said "where have you been hiding this bloke" and that he really rates him. It's not quite the same.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Great post. That's exactly what we need to do.
More teams will set up their plan around Dangerwood winning the ball and they'll win if we don't do something serious about it.

Yeah I just think last years template came up short and too much impact was required by too few we get away with it in regular season but finals are a different game. So we need to develop these guys on the run the only way to do that is trust them with greater responsibility. And the guys that have the ball the most have to lead the way

 

[CatFan79]

It has to be one or at most two clean handballs from congestion to a moving player. We haven't seen much of that at all (or at least only in patches of quarters) which is slightly concerning for me. Either the coaches aren't directing it or the players aren't executing it.

We have 2 elite midfielders, the rest rotating through are pretenders...

 

[Nankervis brothers]

I think that is a poor argument. With danger and Selwood getting all the attention our other mids should actually find it much easier to get the ball. Particularly with danger and Selwood winning the ball so that it's in our possession to pass it around.

Well, we will need to agree to disagree, because I think the above is a poor argument. There are only so many contested situations and clearances in a game of football, and your best mids will win those. Hence Selwood and Dangerfield getting so much more of the ball. And it isn't really a simple matter of 'sharing it around', as that might not be the best option play by play, and/or it may well lead to over-possessing.

But that's not my main point. If you take Selwood and Dangerfield out of our side we aren't as good. No argument there. But this isn't a 'problem' specific to Geelong. Take the best two mids out of any premiership side and you probably don't have a premiership side. Do you think WCE would have won in 06 without Cousin and Judd? How would Hawthorn have gone in 13-15 without Hodge and Mitchell? Take Voss and Black out of Brisbane's 2001 side?

 

[Larry Donohue]

Good: Parfitt is a fine ball user with composure, Zach Guthrie is also composed but may take a little more time before entering team. Late 17 or early 18. Stewart (who I believe some are a little harsh on given he has only been there for a very short period of time. He did some very fine things and back work takes time to perfect. Thuoy is going to be there pushing our attack from HB. Fine player with our team.
Stanley will be a fine ruckman with this team and should be considered with one or the other of Blitz and Smith. Smith in my view.
Bad: Only winning 4 quarters of 12 and yet being competitive against two fine teams and overrunning the other in the second half. The rest of the 8 quarters were pitiful for the standard we should be at. Laziness
GHS and Murdoch may sign more 2 or 3 year deals if they show any more. GHS was very good in game three. Murdoch also acceptable. I believe they should already be playing with another team for their potential futures.
Ugly: Board view on our Dangerwood woes when three of our best mids were not available for these games. Selwood, Motlop and Guthrie will make a substantial change to the mid fortunes. We used our youngsters very well for what it is worth.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Well, we will need to agree to disagree, because I think the above is a poor argument. There are only so many contested situations and clearances in a game of football, and your best mids will win those. Hence Selwood and Dangerfield getting so much more of the ball. And it isn't really a simple matter of 'sharing it around', as that might not be the best option play by play, and/or it may well lead to over-possessing.

But that's not my main point. If you take Selwood and Dangerfield out of our side we aren't as good. No argument there. But this isn't a 'problem' specific to Geelong. Take the best two mids out of any premiership side and you probably don't have a premiership side. Do you think WCE would have won in 06 without Cousin and Judd? How would Hawthorn have gone in 13-15 without Hodge and Mitchell? Take Voss and Black out of Brisbane's 2001 side?

Why do you keep talking about them being out? They are playing ! Same with all the above guys you mentioned they played. Our problem is the other guys in the team on game day struggle to impact the game when those two are either resting forward or on bench so we rely on them to carry a huge workload which over 22 rounds is not sustainble and then when finals hits its too hard for them to carry the load of a whole midfield. What they racking up nearly 40 in a prelim and its over at qtr time. Dangerfield statistically had the best season of nearly any mid numbers wise.

The above sides you name the thing about them is no Judd, cousins
D.Kerr, A.Embley, D.Cox, C.Fletcher,

Hawthorn Mitchell hodge out
Lewis, Burgoyne, Sewell

Brisbane Voss black out
Akermanis, lappin, power, hart

And I'm not writing those teams off in the grand final sure they are underdogs. But they had depth and that's what makes champion teams no over reliance on 1-2 guys. Hawthorn was the worst reference because that's clarksons mantra. We saw what he did in Buddy's last year when he thought they were too predictable going forward through him so he spread the load. The Hawks are unselfish as they come just play a role for the team.

But Geelong's problem is if dangerwood is out its basically over. Because we don't have the depth to cover it.

So me suggesting we try and get a game plan together that's not centered around dangerfield and selwood having to dominate really not very radical. And there is more than enough clearances in a game to go round mate you do realise guys need to rest. I'm not saying don't play them I'm saying they are leaders of the club its on them to get the other guys involved. Nothing wrong with handing extra responsibility to players and expecting more out of the group. But if you do that you also need to give them opportunities not just say danger selwood carry us

Playing a team brand of football is a poor argument ? Sharing the load around to try to create depth within our side? Giving players expanded roles ? Trying to create a bigger group of midfielders is a poor argument.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...g/news-story/c57719f687be6966896f95d71bf4eaf8

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...ts-hope-to-get-the-cream-20170301-guorhu.html


https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/cou...n/news-story/ac97d5e29e8991b7314c4bc070e1763e

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Why do you keep talking about them being out? They are playing ! Same with all the above guys you mentioned they played. Our problem is the other guys in the team on game day struggle to impact the game when those two are either resting forward or on bench so we rely on them to carry a huge workload which over 22 rounds is not sustainble and then when finals hits its too hard for them to carry the load of a whole midfield. What they racking up nearly 40 in a prelim and its over at qtr time. Dangerfield statistically had the best season of nearly any mid numbers wise.

The above sides you name the thing about them is no Judd, cousins
D.Kerr, A.Embley, D.Cox, C.Fletcher,

Hawthorn Mitchell hodge out
Lewis, Burgoyne, Sewell

And I'm not writing those teams off in the grand final sure they are underdogs. But they had depth and that's what makes champion teams no over reliance on 1-2 guys. Hawthorn was the worst reference because that's clarksons mantra. We saw what he did in Buddy's last year when he thought they were too predictable going forward through in so he spread the load. The Hawks are unselfish as they come just play a role for the team.

But Geelong's problem is if dangerwood is out its basically over. Because we don't have the depth to cover it.

So me suggesting we try and get a game plan together that's no centered around dangerfield and selwood having to dominate really not very radical. And there is more than enough clearances in a game to go round mate you do realise guys need to rest. I'm not saying don't play them I'm saying they are leaders of the club its on them to get the other guys involved.

Playing a team brand of football is a poor argument ? Sharing the load around to try to create depth within our side? Giving players expanded roles ? Trying to create a bigger group of midfielders is a poor argument.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...g/news-story/c57719f687be6966896f95d71bf4eaf8

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...ts-hope-to-get-the-cream-20170301-guorhu.html


https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/cou...n/news-story/ac97d5e29e8991b7314c4bc070e1763e

You seem to be missing my point. I am saying that it's not a 'problem' having the best 1-2 mid combo, yet strangely if you listen to many media pundits and some on this board it apparently is. I am saying that having the best 1-2 mid combo does, however, make it harder for the second tier to get into the game. I am also saying that the idea Geelong is 'over-reliant' on its best mids is a furphy, because if you take any teams best mids out they will be significantly weakened. Indeed, I list various Premiers who probably wouldn't be premiers had they been without their best mids.

I have given detailed reasoning for each of these points, including why it isn't as simple as 'sharing it around'.

I don't feel like repeating what I have already clearly stated. It is there for you to read. If you don't agree, that's fine. We obviously have a different opinion. Cheers.