The importance of MM & our Real Problem(s)

[Smokin]

So much is said by many, Essendon and general fans alike, about our achillies heel being the midfield, and more specifically the lack of pace in it.

However, if you look at our overall season last year, without or captain and key goalkicker, we were had the highest "for" in the bottom half of the eight, and only a few goals shy of a Sydney. We were nearly 300 points ahead of Carlton and the Roos. That tells me someone was doing something right somewhere, and the forwards were presented with enough ball to score competitive totals in most games.

Our problem was "against" - ranked 16, stone motherless last. We and Carlton were letting in around 200 hundred points more than the 3rd worst. Simply not good enough. We, like them, struggle with big defenders without raping our forwards going back, ie Lucas/Whitnall etc.

Why? Have a look here:
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_team_comparison?team1_id=6&team2_id=2

And scroll through our different opponents and look at the goalkickers - and real eye-opener (to me) in relation to just how much we get taken apart by big, strong forwards. Whether its Hentschell kicking 8, Fevola or Thompson from North, kicking bags, it just really re-affirms what we have all known.

The teams with more mobile forwardlines without the genuine strong FF - Freo, Collingwood, Hawthorn (till recently), Bulldogs even West Coast etc we have a relatively good record against, all things considred.

Michael is simply a godsend for us - we couldnt have asked for a more perfect injenction - proving he stays fit and mentally right. A rock at full back is clearly our biggest need, or was. He is exactly that.

Another area where we are ranked stone motherless is a position which isnt generally a result of team performance (ie disposals) - Hit Outs. We simply suck at these, and are stats which have a strangly similar look to the ladder. Teams which recently have bucked the trend are St. Kilda (whose coach didnt believe in them) and Collingwood, whose main ruck is IMO a very average Ruckman in an otherwise ok team.

The last couple seasons we were fed roughly 500 hit outs - about 350 off the pace for the top positions and worst in the league. The last team to win the flag with less than 800 hitouts was us in 2000. This makes it extremely difficult for our midfield, regardless of who is in it.

Just look back at teams who turn exceptionally good with the form of Ruckmen - Freo (sanilands), WCE (Cox), Syd (Ball/Jolly)...how much better were we with the inclusion of Barnes in the late 90's? made a good team extremely good, with other factors.

I have always been a big fan of the ruckman, and the importance on this game is hugely understated IMO. Getting first use of the pill is priceless. Not losing first use (dead balls) nearly equally as important, around the stoppages.

Hille simply isnt a great AFL level ruckman, we have to face facts. Nearly as importantly as we needed MM, we need, and it can realistically only be Laycock for this season, a real boost in this area. I know its not all Hille's fault, he hasnt had much support, but regardless, history shows that teams that win flags have great combinations in the ruck. Many of the hits Hille does get have nowhere near the control of most of the other ruckman.

Keep an eye on Hawthorn this season - they will lose a stack of hitouts with the loss of Everitt. Huge shoes for Campbell to fill. Jolly really had to stand up last season for Sydney, and he did - 606 hitouts himself (nearly double Hille), when Sydney needed it. Sydney will get even better with Everitt in this area.

anyway, my point is that while we get bagged for our midfield, and yes it can improve, IMO our real weaknesses lie elsewhere. I am extremely condifent MM can solve our defensive problems, and hopefully Laycock can standup.

Scoring isnt our problem - defending our score is.
Midfield isnt great I know, but it aint helped by having the worst ruck division in the league.

On Paper, we simply arent the team which we saw last season. The problem is, in a couple of highly important areas, we were just bad, we were REAL bad. Carlton-level bad. If we can make real inroads in this areas, we will see a huge overall imporvement.

Thank the lord for MM, thats all I'll say!

Thoughts?

 

[Longy413]

A couple of thoughts (great post btw) -

1) Hille is only 25, he's going to improve significantly. Blokes like Cox that dominate the ruck from the age of 22-23 are rare. Look at guys like Everitt, Darcy, Simmonds, they didn't really hit their straps until they were 27-28. Hille and Laycock both have enough natural talent to take us to where we need to go.

Another thing to keep in mind is that hitout statistics are dependant on how many stoppages you have in a game. Essendon for the most part play an open style game, we try and move the ball quickly and keep it alive. We don't play the type of close in game that Adelaide, Sydney etc play. I hazard a guess that Sydney led hit outs. The more stoppages, the more hitout opportunities.

2) Our defense does need to improve and Michael will help that. However our midfield didn't make it easy for our backs in 2006. Yes, offensively they were better than a lot of people recognise, defensively they were poor. Our midfielders need to do two things, be more accountable and use the ball better. You turn the ball over in the modern game and you give your back line little chance of stopping a shot on goal.

 

[foj1]

Great post Smokin.
I also think we underestimate the importance of a settled back six (and side!)
Due to injuries and later experimentation we never had that.
Remember Bradley being destroyed a couple of times and Reynolds on Fevola, McPhee forced to play tall, McVeigh in different positions.
It sounds like the coaching staff are keen to have a stable back 6 and stick with them.
Longy is also on the money about our midfield. Poor disposal hurt us and we probably have a few mids who were downhill skiers at different stages. Transition football is paramount to winning games. Which means quickly finding an opponent or cover dangerous space when you dont have the ball.
Teams are training for it all the time now.

 

[Smokin]

A couple of thoughts (great post btw) -

1) Hille is only 25, he's going to improve significantly. Blokes like Cox that dominate the ruck from the age of 22-23 are rare. Look at guys like Everitt, Darcy, Simmonds, they didn't really hit their straps until they were 27-28. Hille and Laycock both have enough natural talent to take us to where we need to go.

Good Point, however Im still not sold on Hille. I think he has filled out more than many at his age, and although has had a lot on his plate at a young age, I dont think he has the freaky athletitism that the others you mention have. In an ideal world Laycock, who still needs to fill out a bit, would be our main Ruck, with Hille a dangerous extra tall in attack and backup ruck.

Another thing to keep in mind is that hitout statistics are dependant on how many stoppages you have in a game. Essendon for the most part play an open style game, we try and move the ball quickly and keep it alive. We don't play the type of close in game that Adelaide, Sydney etc play. I hazard a guess that Sydney led hit outs. The more stoppages, the more hitout opportunities.

Very true, and I do think of that, however I forgot a couple stats!

Not only are we ranked 16 for hit outs, but we are also 15th in average Opponenet hitouts per game AND then obviously 16th again for the Hit Out difference per game.

Which ever way you look at it, it's ugly.

2) Our defense does need to improve and Michael will help that. However our midfield didn't make it easy for our backs in 2006. Yes, offensively they were better than a lot of people recognise, defensively they were poor. Our midfielders need to do two things, be more accountable and use the ball better. You turn the ball over in the modern game and you give your back line little chance of stopping a shot on goal.

Yep, usage of the pill has to get better, both around the ground and for goal. Remember, 2 of our main midfielders Stanton and Watson are still extremely young and was a bit of a breakout year for them, especially Watson.

It was Jobe's first "real" season as a fit footballer.

 

[Smokin]

Great post Smokin.
I also think we underestimate the importance of a settled back six (and side!)
Due to injuries and later experimentation we never had that.
Remember Bradley being destroyed a couple of times and Reynolds on Fevola, McPhee forced to play tall, McVeigh in different positions.
It sounds like the coaching staff are keen to have a stable back 6 and stick with them.

Yep, and not being settled was also due to our major weakness, getting tore a new one too frequently by big forwards. With Bradley, McPhee to an extent and even Fletcher being played in overmatched positions, you cant really stay settled...unless of course you are thrown to the wolves ala Dawson.

What MM will do for guys like McPhee and Bradley will be priceless I reckon we'll find.

 

[Shane Hird]

A couple of thoughts (great post btw) -

1) Hille is only 25, he's going to improve significantly.
Blokes like Cox that dominate the ruck from the age of 22-23 are rare. Look at guys like Everitt, Darcy, Simmonds, they didn't really hit their straps until they were 27-28. Hille and Laycock both have enough natural talent to take us to where we need to go.

Another thing to keep in mind is that hitout statistics are dependant on how many stoppages you have in a game. Essendon for the most part play an open style game, we try and move the ball quickly and keep it alive. We don't play the type of close in game that Adelaide, Sydney etc play. I hazard a guess that Sydney led hit outs. The more stoppages, the more hitout opportunities.

2) Our defense does need to improve and Michael will help that. However our midfield didn't make it easy for our backs in 2006. Yes, offensively they were better than a lot of people recognise, defensively they were poor. Our midfielders need to do two things, be more accountable and use the ball better. You turn the ball over in the modern game and you give your back line little chance of stopping a shot on goal.

I was reading an interview last year about Cox and it highlighted the fact that some ruckman can turn into stars,even though they started out very ordinary as 18-19 year olds.

When Cox came down from the never-never up north to WC as a rookie,he could hardly run at all and he couldn't kick to save himself. The WC coaching staff were really worried at the time that he wasn't going to be anything and they had big doubts on wheather he would make it at all.

Once Gardiner went down he was forced to become WC's ruckman and he improved out of sight in one season.Now he has great kicking skills and has mastered the ruck contest for his team.

Hille is a late bloomer,but if he doesn't get the ruck right this year,I would like to see him down forward. Interesting to hear about pre-season training at WH with Ryder,McKinnon and Laycock all getting a go at the ruck.This position is still up for grabs at Essendon IMO.

McPhee is the key to our backline this year. He has to step up and become a dominating half backer...he has to come good this season,or else.

We got killed in the middle against the topline MFs from other sides in 06'.

Poor kicking options,turn overs,not enough tackling etc...hopefully Sheeds and his gang can iron out those problems this year.

 

[Longy413]

I remember it was said that Cox was the worst skilled footballer they had drafted to the club.

Hille was a late starter, played little junior footy, his life was touched by tragedy at a young age. He'll improve, a lot.

 

[Barwick17]

Complete hogwash. Lack of midfields pressure resulted in those big scores. You give any (cept carlton) midfield space and time and every team will kick mountains of goals. Its very hard for a midfield to work hard forward and back and Essendon may have ran well forward but did not have the class/pace to do it both ways.
Your problems are clear no matter how much denial (as are ours!).

 

[Smokin]

his life was touched by tragedy at a young age. He'll improve, a lot.

what happened?

 

[Longy413]

what happened?

It's been well publiced, so I'm sure I'm not crossing any lines by mentioning it.

I can't remember the exact details, but he was in a car accident when he was 17 (I think) that saw a couple of his mates die.

There was an article in the paper about it in 2006 (again, I think), but I can't be bothered looking it up.

 

[Longy413]

Complete hogwash. Lack of midfields pressure resulted in those big scores. You give any (cept carlton) midfield space and time and every team will kick mountains of goals. Its very hard for a midfield to work hard forward and back and Essendon may have ran well forward but did not have the class/pace to do it both ways.
Your problems are clear no matter how much denial (as are ours!).

Well done on reading the complete thread...

 

[Smokin]

It's been well publiced, so I'm sure I'm not crossing any lines by mentioning it.

I can't remember the exact details, but he was in a car accident when he was 17 (I think) that saw a couple of his mates die.

There was an article in the paper about it in 2006 (again, I think), but I can't be bothered looking it up.

Oh ok I knew that, I thought you were talking when we was real young, something that happened to him physically or something.

 

[Smokin]

Complete hogwash. Lack of midfields pressure resulted in those big scores. You give any (cept carlton) midfield space and time and every team will kick mountains of goals. Its very hard for a midfield to work hard forward and back and Essendon may have ran well forward but did not have the class/pace to do it both ways.
Your problems are clear no matter how much denial (as are ours!).

Welcome to the Essendon board.

Not denial, just another point of view in the light of the contstant bagging of the midfield.

What are the best midfields in the comp? West Coast, Bulldogs, St. Kilda, Adelaide, Freo? That would be about right yea?

Guess what, apart from Adelaide (traveling there has never been kind to us) we go alright against all of them (relatively). We were called so slow last season, yet had competitve games against the fastest team around (bulldogs), in a year we finished 2nd last. Judd and co didnt wipe us off the face of the earth. Richardson did, Henschell did, Bradshaw does, Fevola does, Thompson does, Tredrea & Hall always smash us...the list goes on.

St. Kilda has a great bunch of midfielders, yet the past two years we beat em once, then they rolled us by 3 points. If Gehrig doesnt dominate, we generally go orite there.

Fact is, we didnt get smashed in the midfield like we did (and alsways have for a long time now) with strong, power forwards. Thats the reality of our situation.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Don't completely agree. It's too easy to say that a certain part of the side is causing us problems eg. defence, midfield.

I think it's more due to the lack of quality across the board, not one specific area. We haven't had enough quality contributors week in week out. The young guys haven't stepped up yet ( Dyson,Winderlich, Laycock), The mid range guys have either stagnated or gone backwards and there's been injuries to the elite.

MM will make a huge difference as will the return of Lloyd but if we don't get consistent quality games out of the like of Cole, Dyson, Laycock, Winderlich, Monfries, Welsh, Bradley, Mcphee, Johnsons, etc we will still be middle of the road.

You can't always rely on the star performers and need others to have an influence on the game. Look at the difference Swan and Shaw made to Collingwood last year.

Sydney and the Bulldogs have done alright with a pretty thin defence.

MM will help, the return of Lloyd will help but our REAL PROBLEM is with the group the Dyson and Winderlich belong to.

Also pace in midield is a little overrated. It's pace across the whole ground which is important.

 

[DaSawx]

The fact that we had the highest amount of points outside the 8 can be very surprising because to me last season the forward structure last year seemed quite frustrating. Games against North, Saints, draw to Carlton we had a lot of the ball but couldn't capitalize.

The North and Saints games just stick out in my mind for some reason, we kept getting so close to North but missed shots dropped marks or easy rebounding by their defence kept us away and we eventually lost, we could of easily won that game.

We couldn't put the Saints away either despite seemingly having a lot of the ball, if the forward line finished off one more goal or Solly doesn't let Gherig turn him inside out we win that too.

A lot has to do with delivery but a lot had to do with match-ups, injuries, Reynolds' ect, ect.

I'm certain Lloydy will straighten us out and we can kick a few more winning scores

 

[windyhill]

Getting Mal is almost akin to getting M.Lloyd. Providing he stays fit we will be laughing our **** off for a few more seasons yet, the great man is only 29.

 

[Smokin]

Don't completely agree. It's too easy to say that a certain part of the side is causing us problems eg. defence, midfield.

I think it's more due to the lack of quality across the board, not one specific area. We haven't had enough quality contributors week in week out. The young guys haven't stepped up yet ( Dyson,Winderlich, Laycock), The mid range guys have either stagnated or gone backwards and there's been injuries to the elite.

MM will make a huge difference as will the return of Lloyd but if we don't get consistent quality games out of the like of Cole, Dyson, Laycock, Winderlich, Monfries, Welsh, Bradley, Mcphee, Johnsons, etc we will still be middle of the road.

You can't always rely on the star performers and need others to have an influence on the game. Look at the difference Swan and Shaw made to Collingwood last year.

Sydney and the Bulldogs have done alright with a pretty thin defence.

MM will help, the return of Lloyd will help but our REAL PROBLEM is with the group the Dyson and Winderlich belong to.

Also pace in midield is a little overrated. It's pace across the whole ground which is important.

I agree with a lot of that, and really, any team which finishes second last can find improvement across all lines and the whole squad really.

It doesnt however, help us understand why we play better against certain teams and players, and why we struggle with others.

Sure, Sydney may not have what looks like the greatest back 6 on paper, but they play a slower, stop-stand brand and will get alot more players back to help the 6 than we would, who rely more on 1 on 1 matchups with defenders who like to run off and create.

 

[Smokin]

Getting Mal is almost akin to getting M.Lloyd.

Not far off at all, perhaps on par you know.

Only difference is Lloyd is a little younger and I feel his body will hold up longer.

 

[Not a Wellman]

Kicking straight would help easy set shots and goals on the run we just missed. Games like Melbourne we should have been close to 6 goals up half way through the second quarter, think it was Stanton kicking 1 goal 5. Maybe that's a confidence issue set shots are really not that hard walk in straight kick straight shouldn't miss at the dome at that level.

But yer as a few of u blokes have mentioned it's more a combination of issues, Fletcher been injured a fair bit didn't help our causes down back.

 

[Shane Hird]

Kicking straight would help easy set shots and goals on the run we just missed. Games like Melbourne we should have been close to 6 goals up half way through the second quarter, think it was Stanton kicking 1 goal 5. Maybe that's a confidence issue set shots are really not that hard walk in straight kick straight shouldn't miss at the dome at that level.

But yer as a few of u blokes have mentioned
it's more a combination of issues, Fletcher been injured a fair bit didn't help our causes down back.

Dead right there...our problems last year can't be discribed in 10 sentences,more like 500.

We just had one of those shocking,unbelievable,nightmare seasons that heaps of teams have had in the last 15-16 years.......it was our turn.
But,as some have suggested,we were a bee's di-k away from nailing a lot of those losses.

Losing Lloyd so early really f-cked us up,in many ways. Look at the collapse of the swan's forward line in last season's GF.Hall might as well wandered over to the Cricketers Arms for 4 qts and let em try and win without him.

People under-estimate the power of having an in-form superstar full forward or a star CHF.Players lift and have confidence when running towards goal when they know a super star is waiting in the goal square..Lockett,Dunstall,Hall,Brown,Lloyd etc....


Excellent posts btw..this is still the best team board on bf and the quality posts reflect that. And if you're reading this from another team......we don't give a sh-t what you think (if its negative and pointless) ok?

 

[Captain Pump]

How do you guys see Fletchers role evolving with big Mal in the side? Can he be a playmaker type backman or will he be staying put near Mal and taking the second tall?

 

[Smyth94]

Good Point, however Im still not sold on Hille. I think he has filled out more than many at his age, and although has had a lot on his plate at a young age, I dont think he has the freaky athletitism that the others you mention have. In an ideal world Laycock, who still needs to fill out a bit, would be our main Ruck, with Hille a dangerous extra tall in attack and backup ruck.




Very true, and I do think of that, however I forgot a couple stats!

Not only are we ranked 16 for hit outs, but we are also 15th in average Opponenet hitouts per game AND then obviously 16th again for the Hit Out difference per game.

Which ever way you look at it, it's ugly.



Yep, usage of the pill has to get better, both around the ground and for goal. Remember, 2 of our main midfielders Stanton and Watson are still extremely young and was a bit of a breakout year for them, especially Watson.

It was Jobe's first "real" season as a fit footballer.

Despite all the doom-and-gloom about our midfield there were a few positives - Clearances, with the rise of Jobe Watson as a gun midfielder our clearances were ranked top 6 in the AFL IIRC. This is why I don't think hit-outs are THAT important.

It's been mentioned before, our defensive pressure from the middle was woeful, that comes to discipline and fitness.

 

[Pantsless]

Hit out stats are mostly useless. Yes, you might get more hit outs than the other ruckman, but it's only a good hit out if it benefits your team.

Mal will be great, but Lloyd back on deck is the real key.

No longer will I have to watch Stanton and Watson stand 70m out from goal and look at them thinking "What the fk do I do now?"

 

[Squeaky]

No longer will I have to watch Stanton and Watson stand 70m out from goal and look at them thinking "What the fk do I do now?"

Torp up!!
A good thread.
I don't think you can discount the effect of a good ruckman. If you get first hands on it & know where the ball is going it will give you some impetus/drive.
I think Hille will come good, Laycock has to get fit & get more games under his belt & I'm not discounting Ryder.
I think MM is the key because no longer do the coaches have to play Fletch on the 2nd string forward/giving the other backs a chop out - which is where he plays best - while the key back (Solly/Reynolds?/Bradley - often out-sized) were getting carved up by a power forward.
Finally, Lloyd will hopefully slot straight back in leading hard, straighten the side & if he doesn't mark it give the crumbers (Lovett and possibly one of the young quick draftees) something to do. It hopefully puts the Bombers in the drivers seat for a change.

 

[Smokin]

Despite all the doom-and-gloom about our midfield there were a few positives - Clearances, with the rise of Jobe Watson as a gun midfielder our clearances were ranked top 6 in the AFL IIRC. This is why I don't think hit-outs are THAT important.

It's been mentioned before, our defensive pressure from the middle was woeful, that comes to discipline and fitness.

Yes, however I treat clearances like disposals - you have to look further. It is the quality of disposal or clearance which is key, not necessarily quantity. It's why nobody cares as much about kicks and handball numbers anymore, compared to other stats such as clearances, inside 50's, hard ball gets etc which have become the fad in the past decade.

Yes, we get clearances. But it is the quality of that clearance which is where we come undone. A tap to a running teamate who can balance and hit a target is a totally different clearance to the typical Watson/JJ/Pev clearance of the quick snap around the corner & rushed disposal which often simply moves the ball to another 50/50 contested scenario.

What a Ruckman can also do is control the position of the play. For example, keeping the ball on the defensive, boundary side in the backline, or opposite in the forward line. Losing a ball up against the boundary in the back pocket gives the opponent a tough kick up against the line, where has losing that same "clearance" 15-20 metres in from the boundary is a totally different kettle of fish. Both show the same stat, but they aint the same.

Anyway, like everything there schools of thought as to the relevance of the Ruckman. I think good ones are Gold, and if you look at the ladder for the past seasons, generally teams with dominate ruckmen are at the top, and vice versa.

It's gonna be interesting to see how St. Kilda go with a lot emphasis put on ruck than cornflakes did, but Im not sure they have the cattle there in this area anyway.