Analysis What's Actually wrong?

[Frigate]

Michael Apeness (Collarbone) Test
Ryan Nyhuis (Knee) 1 week
Hayden Ballantyne (Facial fracture) 2 weeks
Tanner Smith (Hamstring) 3-5 weeks
Nat Fyfe (Leg) Season
Harley Bennell (Calf) Season
Alex Pearce (Leg) Season
Brady Grey (Ankle) Season
Matthew Uebergang (Hamstring) Season
Michael Barlow (Shoulder) Season
Michael Johnson (Knee/hamstring) TBA
Aaron Sandilands (Ribs) TBA
Harley Balic (Wrist) TBA
Sean Hurley (Hip) TBA

If we are playing this badly when all of these guys (bold) are back on the park, then I will also get churlish towards the coaches. But until then, in my opinion, we are just seeing what happens when you lose your best ruck/mids combo and best KP backmen, and the holes are too big to fill, leading to the subsequent collapse of the whole pack of cards. I mean look at Geelong, they were average last year at best and on the way down. Add in one star mid, KPB, and a decent ruck and they rocket back into contention. Sandi is better than Zac Smith, Fyfe slightly better than Dangerfield (plus add in a Bennell), and Johnson + A Pearce > Henderson. Assuming these injuries don't affect future performance, watch what happens next year. Yes, present year will continue to suck and will not improve. Look at the positives, you have a free September to get out and play Pokemon Go uninterrupted. It's the first in a while and I predict won't happen again for a while again* (*assuming we don't maintain the present injury curse).

Yes. Look at Norf with injuries to Goldy and Wells - from 1st to nearly out of the 8. Bulldogs now from top 4 to bottom of 8. Eagles claim they are losing because of Nic Nat. Gold Coast were expected to be going for a flag by now, overtaken by GWS because of injuries.

Last week was the worst game at home I can remember. But Hill is not an inside mid. We wanted him and Mundy coming off half back with Johno helping release them. We could use Weller and Langdon on the wings for run. Then Fyfe, Bennell and Neale in the mid fed by Sandi. Fyfe would also rotate in full forward allowing Pav and Mayne to get free. Alex Pearce would be our number defender, with Dawson, leaving Ibbo as the intercept player which he can do well. Yarran has been injured all year, and he is a genuine Full Forward traditional lead up player.

So yes, if we put in our B side, we can expect to get smashed quite a few times. I think we have been competitive enough for most of the year, and I am looking forward to the draft this year. It is a great year to have pick 3!

 

[Frigate]

A lot of the reasons for our demise have been explained by the players, coach or are pretty obvious for those who haven't been paying attention, so I will list them here with some links/references. A lot of other reasons stem from this, apart from some obvious ones like injuries and father time.

New coaches, Lyon delegates, new game plan, pre-season, players struggle to adapt, loss of confidence by players, loss of confidence by coach in game plan or aspects of game plan introduced by new coaches

We clearly realised that the Hawks had our measure and sought to address it by bringing in intel from the Hawks. Enter Hale and Guerra. Lyon clearly listened to these guys and we tried to change to a new game plan over the summer, taking aspects of the Hawks game plan and trying to be more attacking.

The turnovers and poor kicking are something that is HIGHLY affected by game plans. Look at how Simpsons Eagles were turnover merchants as they learned his game plan (his Hawks inspired game plan!!), they were crap for over a year. Guys like Ibbo, Johnson etc were turnover merchants before Lyon arrived, then his game plan took the guesswork out and they always knew where they had to put the ball, no hesitation = better looking skills.

Here is what our own coach (and Fyfe) had to say about it:

Lyon on our preseason and changes in tactics:

Lyon: We thought we needed some invigoration and we did target David Hale in particular and then Brent Guerra came across to add to our ball use. We wanted to change our pre-season and, in hindsight, we lost some high-density running that we think has affected us. Learning that new ball use which has a premium on kicking – our ability to teach it hasn’t been as sharp as we wanted it to be and for the first time in my tenure as a coach, players at times have had some confusion under pressure and there’s even been some debate behind closed doors. Not in a nasty sense, but we’ve had to work our way through that. Thinking about it today, it’s really firmed my belief in what players need under pressure; they need to be on the one page, really flint-hard and really working together. If you have to second-guess or you have to think about an AFL field, it’s too late and the teams that don’t think about it get away from you. I think that’s what’s happened to us a little bit and I think our players and coaches would acknowledge that as well.

Healy: Does it refocus your demands of your recruiting staff to pinpoint guys who can kick, though, if that’s where the game has gone?

Lyon: I think we’re quite skilful in a real sense. I don’t think we’re the most skilful list in the competition but it’s about principles that allow them to know where the options are and what they need to do under pressure. If you have to think about it, it doesn’t matter how skilful you are - it’s too late.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2016-07-05/ross-lyon-q-a-on-the-couch

Speaking to Fox Footy’s On The Couch on Monday, Lyon admitted to analyst David King that he oversaw mistakes made during pre-season.
“I felt like I’ve delegated to the right people,” Lyon said. “(But) at the end of the day, you’ve got to have quality control, clearly there were a couple of issues that I probably should have addressed. “I think centre square bounces, I let a method happen that didn’t work for us. We were top four last year for both areas of attack and defence, so did that need to be changed? There were a couple of things we probably didn’t need to change that I let change because we were in the mindset for change.

“When the game was up for grabs, our centre square bounce work in the first 10 minutes was deplorable,” he said. “We’ve identified it. We’ve had some changes through there in personnel and coaches. I’ve matured and I’ve evolved, but I’ll give solutions and work with them. We clearly need to grow some coaches and our system in there.” Marc Webb and Simon Eastaugh were both appointed as the club’s midfield coaches to end 2015, having previously held different roles within the team before that.

“We’ve got plenty of work to do,” he said. “Clearly we’ve shifted the way we’re playing a bit and with that comes a premium on kicking skills. There were some terrible turnovers.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/how...e/news-story/99d6ea31ab89acd37d45edaa84fcde41

Fyfe

Fyfe told the AFL.com.au site on Sunday, "Fremantle's confidence had been shaken" by the players' inability to adapt to Lyon's new game plan.
"It's clearly not good enough," he said. "There has been some change and some shift.

"Our old structure worked quite well for a number of years and we are trying some new things to try and give us an edge, to take us to a higher level. "Clearly they're not working at this point. But it's our job to keep the faith in them and keep working hard and hopefully the results will align with the mentality."

"Players don't lose any ability overnight. But they lose their confidence in their ability and that was clearly a sign tonight and last week as well."

http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/frema...gling-with-new-game-plan-20160403-gnx7mz.html

Fyfe again:

“I think with the interchange rotations and players spending more time on the ground and players spending more time resting, the game has changed.
“A lot of teams have adapted really well to that and our attacking model is certainly trending that way, but we’re leaking heavily in our defence and that’s a full 18-man issue, but we’ll continue tightening up on that.
“I actually think that the game is definitely not easier, but the running is different to what it was in the previous years where your midfielders particularly came on and off the ground like ice hockey players.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/afl/a/31388109/freo-paying-for-new-game-plan-fyfe/#page1

Lyon said the unprecedented fall from minor premiers to cellar dwellers could in part be attributed to a change in his club’s training approach over the pre-season, which had an increased focus on disposal over running.

“We’ve identified a few things we changed over summer in the pursuit of getting better,” Lyon told 6PR. “One of them was we didn’t do any high-speed running outside of our football. We think that’s probably cost us a little bit. “We could go into the specific numbers and all that, but needless to say, we think the density of work was a bit thinner than we would have liked in hindsight.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...k=f79613722ea34c66dcfdb61a5f28548a-1470079703
​

My opinion: after our horror start, due in large part to the changed game plan and loss of confidence did Ross not stick fat and tinker significantly with the game plan mid season?

This is probably the most controversial aspect of what Ross has done. It appears he has not stuck with the game plan. Every team that has had to dramatically change their game plan, takes almost a whole season to do it. Saints in Ross' first year. Dockers in Ross' first year. Eagles in Simpsons first year etc...

However it appears that Ross grew fed up early on at the fact that our team struggled with the changes, regretted delegating to coaches and started tinkering with the game plan early in the season, rather than sticking fat. I would think this only increases confusion within the playing group and potentially destroys any longer term benefits that the new game plan was designed to address (more attacking footy).

Father time catches up with several players on our list

Pretty obvious one.

Firstly the retirements with Mcpharlap being the big one. Then father time clearly catches up with Pav, Johnno (injured) and to an extent Mundy (output start to decline). Griffin could be here also.

Decline of the "role" players that needed a strong "system and game plan" to prosper

I am looking at you Ibbo, Clancee Pearce, Sutcliffe, Spurr, Mzungu, Dawson, De Boer and Co. Ibbo was made to be almost All Australian through finding a role in Ross' game plan (a largely unaccountable one at that as a loose man most of the time). Take that away and he returns to the bumbling, turnover merchant he was pre Ross.

Decline of players that were sidelined by the "new high skill game plan"

Barlow clearly. De Boer also. Both were demoted out of central (Barlow) or role player roles (De Boer). With Barlow only making it back once he learned a new role (tagger).

Injuries

Pretty obvious one again. Fyfe, Sandi, Bennell, Johnson, A Pearce.

Injuries, loss of form, fathertime = increased opposition focus on our remaining key players

Hill and Walters fall into this category. They have still played well, to very well at times, but have also focused from a much bigger opposition focus on stopping them due to our lack of other stars to shut them down.

Some of our next tier may not be capable of stepping up

We always thought our depth and "next tier" was pretty strong last few years, as such players plied away in the WAFL. Crozier, Sheridan etc. Viv Michie was in this group until he left.

Sheridan has been disappointing this year. Crozier though appears to have stepped up a bit, and may end up a Duffield type serviceable type.

Zac Clarke had a huge opportunity with Sandi out and should be in his prime, his fall has been astounding. Often a whipping boy for struggling as a forward, he was always a ruckman and previously had brilliant games as a sole ruckman when Sandi was out, but appears either lame or totally devoid of confidence.

Summary

So thats my wrap. Partly coaching mistakes regarding the game plan/misreading of fitness levels required under the interchange cap, partly loss of confidence by players and by the head coach in the new game plan, father-time, injuries and the knock on effects of all of that - role players out of position/no longer relevant, players out of position due to new focus on skills, players handling tags due to injuries to other stars, some players not stepping up.

Can we fix it?

Ross seems pretty confidence with a new pre-season, that he is going to fix the mistakes of last season and take control this next pre-season after delegating a lot to line coaches last year. With a stronger game plan, more confidence in the new game plan by players, that can make a huge difference. Whether the new game plan will be good enough to eventually take us the "next step" is debateable though, it may instead be that Ross returns to what he knows.

Injuries will heal. Mistakes last pre-season in the lack of high intensity running, which are thought to have contributed to our injuries won't be replicated.

With a better game plan, bit players will become very good players (e.g. Crozier, Collins, etc), players skills will look fantastic again knowing where they need to move the ball, players who struggled under tags this year will be released due to the return of Fyfe, Bennell and Co.

Players who are past it will be moved on and replaced. We may welcome Mccarthy, Hill another gun youngster at Pick 3 and a kid called Harley Balic who many thought was a first round pick if it were not for his wrist (from his draft profile: Balic is similar to Jack Macrae in the sense that he finds the ball and shows excellent vision and poise. He’s a very creative passer around the forward 50 and he’s also unselfish. Balic has shown to pick out leading forwards, both in and out of traffic).

Tabs and kids like Weller, Blakey, Langdon (if still here), A Pearce, Yarran, Tucker, Apeness will benefit from another pre-season, time in the gym and come back bigger, better and stronger.

This year sucks. But I am looking forward to next year already.

Awesome Post!

 

[Clems Knee]

• Terrible preseason. I remember posting my concern regarding how few players were out on the park training. This has had an effect on the whole season.
• New and broken training regime. Much less running than previous years and an emphasis on skill (how did that work out?)
• Fear of AFL's new rules and interpretations design to eliminate contested football. As a result Fremantle changed (tweaked!) their game plan, which went from simple and based on effort to complex and based on skill - which we didn't have. This fear was grounded as there had been a lot of talk about this, from Gil, Ross and others.
• The non appearance of Harley Bennell, who would have added to our skills and decision making.
• Sandiland's absence, and no viable replacement. In the first game of the season, he was suspended from a dodgy call in the preseason match against Richmond, and we got smashed in the clearances. Our best players were our worst in that game, and I was more upset about that game than any since. Of course, Sandilands got kneed in the back at the Derby, and the replacements weren't good enough.
• Injuries at terrible times affected the team when it was in winning situations. The Carlton game, first Derby and Geelong game were two that come to mind. Even the Round 1 game involved Clarke being injured in the first minute with no other rucks present.
• Playing the kids once we lost Fyfe and four in a row. Kids need experience to become better, but they are also inconsistent and need a spell back in the twos after a few weeks of bashing their bodies around.
• Loss of confidence in the players' abilities to play as they normally would. As we lost more and more, this inevitably crept in. This can be seen in the errors made by the best players - I remember being shocked at the poor kicking of Hill and Mundy in a few games.
• Loss of repeat efforts as a result of the diminishing on ground leadership and being out of contention, meaning that there is a reduction of gut running and 1 percenters.

NOT

• A rift with the coach, Fyfe or the three Amigos. That talk is on the basis of listening to the likes of Hagdorn and has no basis in fact, and does not gel with anything I have observed at the games or at training.
• Because we are an old list. Older lists normally perform much better than young lists.
• Because we kept with the same old game plan. People who say this don't watch football.
• Because we have lacked youth development. Neale, Sheridan, Sutcliffe, Crozier, A Pearce, Taberner have all been developed in recent years.

The good thing is that most of the causes of our disastrous season are fixable or not likely to be repeated. We have a good coach who will not stuff up the preseason again.

 

[Talking Dockers]

• Terrible preseason. I remember posting my concern regarding how few players were out on the park training. This has had an effect on the whole season.
• New and broken training regime. Much less running than previous years and an emphasis on skill (how did that work out?)
• Fear of AFL's new rules and interpretations design to eliminate contested football. As a result Fremantle changed (tweaked!) their game plan, which went from simple and based on effort to complex and based on skill - which we didn't have. This fear was grounded as there had been a lot of talk about this, from Gil, Ross and others.
• The non appearance of Harley Bennell, who would have added to our skills and decision making.
• Sandiland's absence, and no viable replacement. In the first game of the season, he was suspended from a dodgy call in the preseason match against Richmond, and we got smashed in the clearances. Our best players were our worst in that game, and I was more upset about that game than any since. Of course, Sandilands got kneed in the back at the Derby, and the replacements weren't good enough.
• Injuries at terrible times affected the team when it was in winning situations. The Carlton game, first Derby and Geelong game were two that come to mind. Even the Round 1 game involved Clarke being injured in the first minute with no other rucks present.
• Playing the kids once we lost Fyfe and four in a row. Kids need experience to become better, but they are also inconsistent and need a spell back in the twos after a few weeks of bashing their bodies around.
• Loss of confidence in the players' abilities to play as they normally would. As we lost more and more, this inevitably crept in. This can be seen in the errors made by the best players - I remember being shocked at the poor kicking of Hill and Mundy in a few games.
• Loss of repeat efforts as a result of the diminishing on ground leadership and being out of contention, meaning that there is a reduction of gut running and 1 percenters.

NOT

• A rift with the coach, Fyfe or the three Amigos. That talk is on the basis of listening to the likes of Hagdorn and has no basis in fact, and does not gel with anything I have observed at the games or at training.
• Because we are an old list. Older lists normally perform much better than young lists.
• Because we kept with the same old game plan. People who say this don't watch football.
• Because we have lacked youth development. Neale, Sheridan, Sutcliffe, Crozier, A Pearce, Taberner have all been developed in recent years.

The good thing is that most of the causes of our disastrous season are fixable or not likely to be repeated. We have a good coach who will not stuff up the preseason again.

Well said. RTB is going back to the future and emphasizing "effort and commitment". I think RTB was spooked too much by the Hawks(I think he listened too much to hale and Guerra) in moving away from what made us a feared side to play against in 2012-2015. Has the Swans changed their style too much even though they have brought in a lot of youngsters? I don't think so.

 

[PapaJ]

Well said. RTB is going back to the future and emphasizing "effort and commitment". I think RTB was spooked too much by the Hawks(I think he listened too much to hale and Guerra) in moving away from what made us a feared side to play against in 2012-2015. Has the Swans changed their style too much even though they have brought in a lot of youngsters? I don't think so.

Yeah, I think Swans are a good example because their style comes from the same pedigree as what RTB has. They have 'tweaked' a bit though, but they've kept their fundamentals. They also have had their cattle all on the park for much of the year which helps (Tippett the only big exception of course). But I looked at them on the weekend and thought, they have done what we should have - keep their basic style and built around it.

 

[electricfeel]

• Terrible preseason. I remember posting my concern regarding how few players were out on the park training. This has had an effect on the whole season.
• New and broken training regime. Much less running than previous years and an emphasis on skill (how did that work out?)
• Fear of AFL's new rules and interpretations design to eliminate contested football. As a result Fremantle changed (tweaked!) their game plan, which went from simple and based on effort to complex and based on skill - which we didn't have. This fear was grounded as there had been a lot of talk about this, from Gil, Ross and others.
• The non appearance of Harley Bennell, who would have added to our skills and decision making.
• Sandiland's absence, and no viable replacement. In the first game of the season, he was suspended from a dodgy call in the preseason match against Richmond, and we got smashed in the clearances. Our best players were our worst in that game, and I was more upset about that game than any since. Of course, Sandilands got kneed in the back at the Derby, and the replacements weren't good enough.
• Injuries at terrible times affected the team when it was in winning situations. The Carlton game, first Derby and Geelong game were two that come to mind. Even the Round 1 game involved Clarke being injured in the first minute with no other rucks present.
• Playing the kids once we lost Fyfe and four in a row. Kids need experience to become better, but they are also inconsistent and need a spell back in the twos after a few weeks of bashing their bodies around.
• Loss of confidence in the players' abilities to play as they normally would. As we lost more and more, this inevitably crept in. This can be seen in the errors made by the best players - I remember being shocked at the poor kicking of Hill and Mundy in a few games.
• Loss of repeat efforts as a result of the diminishing on ground leadership and being out of contention, meaning that there is a reduction of gut running and 1 percenters.

NOT

• A rift with the coach, Fyfe or the three Amigos. That talk is on the basis of listening to the likes of Hagdorn and has no basis in fact, and does not gel with anything I have observed at the games or at training.
• Because we are an old list. Older lists normally perform much better than young lists.
• Because we kept with the same old game plan. People who say this don't watch football.
• Because we have lacked youth development. Neale, Sheridan, Sutcliffe, Crozier, A Pearce, Taberner have all been developed in recent years.

The good thing is that most of the causes of our disastrous season are fixable or not likely to be repeated. We have a good coach who will not stuff up the preseason again.

Didn't even know there was a "rift" between the three amigos?? I didn't think that was possible!

 

[Clems Knee]

Didn't even know there was a "rift" between the three amigos?? I didn't think that was possible!

Yeh, probably didn't word that correctly. There was talk on here or the radio that there are different groups among the youngsters and older players and they don't communicate properly. ie The three amigos v the other youngsters. All bulltish, of course.

 

[Bicco]

Yeah, I think Swans are a good example because their style comes from the same pedigree as what RTB has. They have 'tweaked' a bit though, but they've kept their fundamentals. They also have had their cattle all on the park for much of the year which helps (Tippett the only big exception of course). But I looked at them on the weekend and thought, they have done what we should have - keep their basic style and built around it.

Swans have brought in 7 new players this year. Big difference between us last year and them.

 

[Taylor]

They have three extra top ten players they got to take with picks in the twenties

 

[rodney hoo]

They have three extra top ten players they got to take with picks in the twenties

I'm certain that's right who are the players. Mills and Heeney the had to trade points for I think.

 

[Taylor]

I'm certain that's right who are the players. Mills and Heeney the had to trade points for I think.

They bought Mitchell for pick #21.
They bought top five players in Mills and Heeney with a scattering of picks.

It would be like us being able to turn two second round picks into SPS.

A whole different playing field.

 

[rodney hoo]

They bought Mitchell for pick #21.
They bought top five players in Mills and Heeney with a scattering of picks.

It would be like us being able to turn two second round picks into SPS.

A whole different playing field.

Mitchell spent two years in the seconds before they played him, the other two trading of picks hurts there depth at later selections. They seem to be able to develop there players whether they are first round or rookie.
Ross brought in we are a no excuse footy club, we have to get back to this.

 

[Taylor]

Mitchell spent two years in the seconds before they played him, the other two trading of picks hurts there depth at later selections. They seem to be able to develop there players whether they are first round or rookie.
Ross brought in we are a no excuse footy club, we have to get back to this.

The excuse would be that we don't get access to top five/ten talent no matter where we finish and don't get to turn our later picks into those players at a discount.

 

[Banker]

All sounds wonderful, and Ross will go back to doing what he knows best, problem is our besr wasnt good enough, and it wont get any easier with sides,
coaches emulating hawks gameplan.
Then there is GWS, a soulless juggernaut created for continued success whatever the cost, and endless amount of talent, and the AFL ensuring they change
the rules to play attacking football.
The game is always evolving, it all depends where you are on the curve, Swans are the perfect example of where we need to be.

If we are going back to the old game plan, we may as well give up.

The transition has not evolved fast enough because Ross is fighting his instincts playing an attacking brand of football.

 

[Proud SJW]

I'm still not convinced of that. Watching the dogs today (and a few other games in the last few weeks), this whole "game plan" thing is a bit over commented on. There isn't a huge amount of difference in the way teams go about things, most of the difference is how well they execute it.

If you don't run well enough, if you don't spread well enough, if you have too many players sitting on the ball instead of letting a couple go in and waiting for it to come out, if your forwards don't get back fast enough coming out of defence and if you don't hit targets, then what results is ugliness and congestion.
Which is pretty much where we're at. You can tell player X to be here when we're running out of defence, but if he's not there, then it all unravels.

I mean if someone can outlay what the actual differences are between these supposed "attacking game plans" other than top 8 teams executing it better, then go ahead. I'm quite wiling to look for it. I've been watching these 'attacking teams" trying to figure it out, and I can't see it. Little things, but not much.
The only thing I might comment on is what I said last week, which is our forwards are too far up the ground, and what I said earlier today about us having three players lying on the ball, or three going up for the mark with no one waiting below. But that's skill and awareness, not game plan.

 

[yakamoto]

The old game plan was fine, especially by comparison with the non existent one we have at the moment. Just needed a couple more skilled players to maximise the reward for effort.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

The old game plan was fine, especially by comparison with the non existent one we have at the moment. Just needed a couple more skilled players to maximise the reward for effort.

If the old gameplan was fine, then why are we looking for skillful players ?; we could persist with the role players we have like deBoer , Clancee, Mzungu and Suban.
I have been curious as to how Ross intended to utilize Harley Bennell.
Take Shane Yarran for example who has a high skillset but spent half his time against Sydney up in the defensive fifty.
Running up and down the ground all game isn't the best way to keep skillfull players operating at their best.
It sure as hell doesn't maximize their impact on a game.
The old game plan needed to change but now we have an absolute mess.
Ross must feel cursed this season. The new style was intended to be built around , Bennell, Fyfe and Yarran with the young kids complementing them.

 

[FreoMonocle]

Wildcard, an extra Man in defence, going up the wings and not the corridor (risky on turnovers) - aren't natural and an example of coaching directive over the players instincts. Both would be considered as defensive and not attacking.

 

[Gekko71]

I'm still not convinced of that. Watching the dogs today (and a few other games in the last few weeks), this whole "game plan" thing is a bit over commented on. There isn't a huge amount of difference in the way teams go about things, most of the difference is how well they execute it.

If you don't run well enough, if you don't spread well enough, if you have too many players sitting on the ball instead of letting a couple go in and waiting for it to come out, if your forwards don't get back fast enough coming out of defence and if you don't hit targets, then what results is ugliness and congestion.
Which is pretty much where we're at. You can tell player X to be here when we're running out of defence, but if he's not there, then it all unravels.

I mean if someone can outlay what the actual differences are between these supposed "attacking game plans" other than top 8 teams executing it better, then go ahead. I'm quite wiling to look for it. I've been watching these 'attacking teams" trying to figure it out, and I can't see it. Little things, but not much.
The only thing I might comment on is what I said last week, which is our forwards are too far up the ground, and what I said earlier today about us having three players lying on the ball, or three going up for the mark with no one waiting below. But that's skill and awareness, not game plan.

There's a lot of truth in what you're saying... but our game style still neede to change becuse it utterly failed to stand up against Hawthorn.

Since Ross came on board (barring this year's abberation) we basically had the wood over everyoe in the comp except the Hawks. IIRC, Ross's problems with combating their playing style stretches back before he came on board at Freo.

I got so frustrated last year and the year before watching Hawthorn pick our zones to pieces by both hand and foot - it became such a sore point that I was really glad when Ross picked up hale and guerra, as it meant we'd get more insight into the Hawks methods. What happened though, is that we over-reacted and made changes that took us backwards, as you intimated earlier.

You're right in saying there's not huge differences at play here... but the little differences between sides still add up to a massive difference. The hawks are still leading the comp (though tonight showed they are still fallible). and as good as were were in the previous two years, we were still only second best during that time. While we've gone massively backwards this year, I still believe this season is just an abberation and not the new normal.

 

[Proud SJW]

Wildcard, an extra Man in defence, going up the wings and not the corridor (risky on turnovers) - aren't natural and an example of coaching directive over the players instincts. Both would be considered as defensive and not attacking.

I'll give you both of those, but the thought I have is that if we're an unskillful team, we're going to get smashed trying anything else. We know we're going to turn it over, so we go into damage limitation mode which ends up just confusing everyone. It's bloody frustrating.

 

[Proud SJW]

There's a lot of truth in what you're saying... but our game style still neede to change becuse it utterly failed to stand up against Hawthorn.

Yeah, reckon Chingiss77 pretty much covered it. That was a good post and probably should have been end thread right there.
Sometimes I just like hearing myself talk

 

[dockerfemme]

The thing I really notice is Hawthorn and others often have more players forward of the ball so getting out of defence is easier. Sometimes everyone is back when they are under pressure but by no means all the time.

 

[aussieviking]

The old game plan was fine, especially by comparison with the non existent one we have at the moment. Just needed a couple more skilled players to maximise the reward for effort.

I think you have nailed the main problem. If we had had a few more skilled players in 2013 we would have won. There is nothing basically wrong with the game plan.....just need more goals when we have opportunities.Skilled players like Bennell , Crozier and Hill will make it possible.

 

[ydraw]

I think you have nailed the main problem. If we had had a few more skilled players in 2013 we would have won. There is nothing basically wrong with the game plan.....just need more goals when we have opportunities.Skilled players like Bennell , Crozier and Hill will make it possible.

There's a lot wrong with the full ground press game plan if you ask me.

1. We have nobody to kick to when we do get the ball.
2. Making players run up and down the ground non-stop leads to fatigue, which has been evident for a long time with our poor skills and goalkicking.

 

[E Shed]

Bulldogs seem to have nailed the defence side of the game, consistently keeping sides to extremely low scores yet when they have the ball they run and spread like lightening.
I think a lot of it comes down to confidence (and skill). When you see the Bullies or GWS running in waves down the ground there always seems to be another player ready to take the next link in the chain. The players look like they want the ball, they want to take responsibility.
With our team at the moment you look upfield when we have possession in our back half and its like players are all running away or hiding, the last thing they want is to take responsibility for moving the ball on.
Fyfe was the guy that drove most of what was great about us early last year. Without him we don't have a champion/leader in the middle of the ground. Mundy is and should have been a 2IC to Fyfe.
Very jelly watching Melbourne at the moment, having a ruckman that takes marks all around the ground and lifts for the big moments. Thats another part of the puzzle of why we are shite. We have no decent ruck.