Why are we not able to put teams away?

[Carringbush2010]

We are able, the potential of this list is top 4 IMO - the round 4 team would've beaten Aint Kilda by 80+

Question is not if we're able - we've shown we're more than capable.

Question should be why aren't we? Why are we in a form slump?

 

[Carringbush2010]

because we still haven't yet clicked as a team, connection between mids and fwds + mids working back and defending still no quite there yet.

And that's a result of continuity or lack of which is a result of injuries which (some) may be a result of poor conditioning.

 

[PieLebo87]

We are able, the potential of this list is top 4 IMO - the round 4 team would've beaten Aint Kilda by 80+

Question is not if we're able - we've shown we're more than capable.

Question should be why aren't we? Why are we in a form slump?

You reckon? We’re shown more mediocrity than top 4 performances thus far this season.

Not doubting we look better than last year, but that’s not meant to be our measure. Our measure is how we match up against the rest of the comp in 2018, and if we are good enough to be the 8th best club or higher.

If we don’t win all of the next 3 games, we’re not worthy of a top 8 spot IMO.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You reckon? We’re shown more mediocrity than top 4 performances thus far this season.

Not doubting we look better than last year, but that’s not meant to be our measure. Our measure is how we match up against the rest of the comp in 2018, and if we are good enough to be the 8th best club or higher.

If we don’t win all of the next 3 games, we’re not worthy of a top 8 spot IMO.

Basically you're agreeing with me, right now if Collingwood rd 8 played Collingwood rd 4 it'd be a smashing. We strung together 3 games of solid pressure and clean disposal good transition footy- even then it was not up to potential IMO.

The question is can we get back to that form? Given the lack of continuity - right now - it won't be easy but it's not impossible. Even with our form right now we're still a very good chance of winning the next 3 - if we were in that early season form it'd be highly likely we win them comfortably.

To the thread title I maintain (and have for the last couple of seasons) that this list is able, very very able. If we play to the sum of our parts we're contenders - no question IMO.

 

[Vicky Park]

We are an improved side on the last few years, but as others have noted, we are still learning to win. That includes building the winning spirit that develops in teams when they know they are good; and individual players know their mates are good and can be relied on. That also comes with a settled side. We are not there yet, but I think (hope) the chemistry and confidence is growing. With that, we will start to regularly put lesser teams to the sword.

Another poster commented on the body language of the team on Sat night at 3/4 time. It seemed to be relaxed and confident. TBH, I was worried, and thought it a bit premature. Sure, it came after a dominant and as it turns out, match winning quarter. But it was followed by very ordinary footy from both sides in the last. We missed that opportunity to put the Saints away. Maybe we didnt have the right attitude for the last quarter.

To return to the topic, we have to learn how to put teams away, rather than just be happy to win. But in the meantime, I can enjoy our wins and our 'not bad' record of 5 out of 9 to date and maybe later in the year we can smash a few teams - like Carlton for instance.

 

[MarkT2]

Putting aside injury, results are a function of ability and coaching.
We simply aren't good enough to put teams away.

It's not much use bemoaning injuries to Elliot, Fasolo, Wells, Reid and Moore. They are chronically injured. Not having most of them for any given game is the natural state of things now. The rest of the list, supplemented by the one or two of the above available and, even then, without continuity, is what we have and that is not good enough to do any better than we are doing right now. We've beaten the probable bottom 3 and lost to two sides that are better than we are. Adelaide is the one good win albeit when they were at a low ebb of form and injury.

The next 3 weeks will tell a lot about where we are actually placed. Games v Dogs, Freo at the G and Melbourne. If we don't win 2 of the 3 we haven't really come very far this year. If we win all 3 then we have most likely improved materially. If we lose the 3 of them, then we are back in the same depressing holding pattern that we've been in for 3 or 4 years. An easier draw for finishing low should improve our win loss count but I still can't see us playing finals.

This is a huge game v Dogs.

 

[left at home]

We are an improving team, with so far a make sift forward line it seems.
We have a long way to go yet.
Take the wins, get the injured players back then see what chemistry and momentum they can build.
Get the wins first, then everything will take care of its self.

 

[Mukesh]

I'd be happy with 10 point wins... if they happened every week...

 

[The Royal Sampler]

*Reads OP*

... we’re not good enough. We put teams away just fine in 2010/11, now we’re no good anymore.

 

[jackcass]

They were saying a month back we are actually one of the more aged/experienced 22s (=3rd in the league for Ave Age and 3rd in league for games played).

But we have this perception we are of GC, Saints, Blues or Lions age/exp list profiles.

2018 AFL AGE LADDER

Average age of each club’s playing group

Adelaide — 24.6
Hawthorn — 24.6
Geelong — 24.4
Collingwood — 24.4.
GWS — 24.3
Port Adelaide — 24.2
Essendon — 24.1
Sydney — 24
Melbourne — 24
Fremantle — 23.9
Richmond — 23.9
West Coast — 23.9
Carlton — 23.8
Western Bulldogs — 23.8
St Kilda — 23.6
North Melbourne — 23.5
Brisbane — 23.5
Gold Coast — 23.1

2018 AFL EXPERIENCE LADDER

Average games played by each club’s playing group

Hawthorn — 74.1
Port Adelaide — 72.5
Collingwood — 69.9
Adelaide — 67.9
Sydney — 65.6
Geelong — 65.4
West Coast — 63.9
GWS — 63.9
Fremantle — 63.2
Richmond — 61.7
Essendon — 57.6
Melbourne — 56.5
Western Bulldogs — 56.4
Carlton — 56.4
Brisbane — 55.2
Gold Coast — 53.5
St Kilda — 52.6
North Melbourne — 51.8
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/th...s/news-story/ec1626ea2a37e51263bd10b9084fc31d

I think the issue with our list is actually with the distributions. Most sides have a very clear bell curve distribution which peaks around player numbers in the (say) 25-28 year olds and then drops away and those older players (27+) are generally the core playing group, are kept on because they play consistently and they're in or around the teams best 22, and usually in that 100-150+ games range. I haven't done or seen any analysis (John Wren over on Nicks used to do it annually) but I'd assume if you graphed it out our profile would differ markedly from that (more up and down than a whore's draws), and the older blokes on our list aren't as productive (as a general observation). So for me, it's a case of the raw stats not giving the full picture.

 

[jmac70]

Dam those raw stats

 

[caloschwaby]

Simple. We don't play 4 quarters of footy.

We might play IN all 4 quarters such as 10-minute patches here and there, but it all comes down to tacking on goal after goal once the opposition shows any sign of backing down.

Take the Saints game as example. When we kicked about 4 goals in a row in the 2nd to bring the game back in to our control.
At that point is when we should put the pump on and tack 4 more on to the total, something we were very much able to do considering the amount of inside-50's we threw away.

Despite this, I'm happy with the 4 points no matter how it is done as at this point in the season we just need to focus on staying on top of the points.
Percentage can be talked about when we play Gold Coast, Carlton or Essendon, etc later on in the year.

 

[magpie_marty]

Melbourne has just pumped Carlton by 109 points to leapfrog everyone with the same wins, to 3rd.

Makes me wonder, why are the Pies not capable of putting teams to be bed and smash them?

We haven’t won a game by more than 9 goals since 2016. In 2016, we beat GCS and the Lions by more, but other than that, it has been a real rare occurance in recent years.

Many factors being a lack of skilled players and also being 1 or 2 players down at 1/2 time.

 

[doppleganger]

They were saying a month back we are actually one of the more aged/experienced 22s (=3rd in the league for Ave Age and 3rd in league for games played).

But we have this perception we are of GC, Saints, Blues or Lions age/exp list profiles.

2018 AFL AGE LADDER

Average age of each club’s playing group

Adelaide — 24.6
Hawthorn — 24.6
Geelong — 24.4
Collingwood — 24.4.
GWS — 24.3
Port Adelaide — 24.2
Essendon — 24.1
Sydney — 24
Melbourne — 24
Fremantle — 23.9
Richmond — 23.9
West Coast — 23.9
Carlton — 23.8
Western Bulldogs — 23.8
St Kilda — 23.6
North Melbourne — 23.5
Brisbane — 23.5
Gold Coast — 23.1

2018 AFL EXPERIENCE LADDER

Average games played by each club’s playing group

Hawthorn — 74.1
Port Adelaide — 72.5
Collingwood — 69.9
Adelaide — 67.9
Sydney — 65.6
Geelong — 65.4
West Coast — 63.9
GWS — 63.9
Fremantle — 63.2
Richmond — 61.7
Essendon — 57.6
Melbourne — 56.5
Western Bulldogs — 56.4
Carlton — 56.4
Brisbane — 55.2
Gold Coast — 53.5
St Kilda — 52.6
North Melbourne — 51.8
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/th...s/news-story/ec1626ea2a37e51263bd10b9084fc31d

Those rankings are full the full senior playing list.

Isn’t a reflection of the actual teams we have played.

We have 10 guys born 1990 or earlier

Wells
Goldsack
Greenwood
Blair
Mayne
Reid
Varcoe
Dunn
Pendles
Howe

It is only the last four who have played consistently for us, our early teams against the Giants and Crows were young and inexperienced.

Our team against the Aints was obviously more experienced as we had Wells and Mayne playing instead of C.Brown and Aish.

It is a pretty good list position to be in, as of the 10 we already are used to playing without basically all of them except Pendles and Howe.

 

[loki04]

I think the issue with our list is actually with the distributions. Most sides have a very clear bell curve distribution which peaks around player numbers in the (say) 25-28 year olds and then drops away and those older players (27+) are generally the core playing group, are kept on because they play consistently and they're in or around the teams best 22, and usually in that 100-150+ games range. I haven't done or seen any analysis (John Wren over on Nicks used to do it annually) but I'd assume if you graphed it out our profile would differ markedly from that (more up and down than a whore's draws), and the older blokes on our list aren't as productive (as a general observation). So for me, it's a case of the raw stats not giving the full picture.

Here is a rough breakdown of best 22 plus depth.

27+
Wells 33
Pendles 30
Goldsack 31 (injured)
Dunn 31
Reid 29
Greenwood 29
Mayne 29
Blair 28
Sideass 27
Howe 27
Cox 27

22 - 26
Thomas 26
Mihocek 25 (Back up/depth)
Treloar 25
Elliott 25 (injured)
Fasolo 25 (injured)
Broomhead 24 (injured)
WHE 24 (25 in sept)
Adams 24 (25 in sept)
Crisp 24
Grundy 24
Langdon 23 (24 in june)
Scharenberg 22
Aish 22 (injured)
Phillips 22
Moore 22 (injured)
Degoey22

20/21 yo
Maynard 21 inj
Murray 20
C.Brown 20
McClarty 20

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Percentage back up to 109 after two comfortable five goal wins. We might not be blowing teams away but I’ll take a 30 point win and fourth quarter cruise every day of the week.

It’s the four premiership points that matters most.

 

[nahnah]

Had no issues burying the doggies last night

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Had no issues burying the doggies last night

Except the headstart we gave them.

 

[partypie]

Had no issues burying the doggies last night

Therein lies the problem - we didn't really bury them. A team that doesn't kick a goal in the second half after a relatively tight first half should go down by 8-10 goals minimum, not 5 goals.

It was a solid effort for sure but in no way shape or form did we "bury" them and the game was still in the balance with 10 minutes left, despite them only having scored 3 points in the second half to that point in time.

In the end we ground out a workman-like 5 goal win, which was still a good reault considering how we started.

The answer to the original question is once again simple - we're a middle of the road outfit and we're simply not good enough to be "burying" teams at this point in time.

p.s. I'm ignoring the Daicos goal after the final siren here.

 

[jackcass]

Here is a rough breakdown of best 22 plus depth.

27+
Wells 33
Pendles 30
Goldsack 31 (injured)
Dunn 31
Reid 29
Greenwood 29
Mayne 29
Blair 28
Sideass 27
Howe 27
Cox 27

22 - 26
Thomas 26
Mihocek 25 (Back up/depth)
Treloar 25
Elliott 25 (injured)
Fasolo 25 (injured)
Broomhead 24 (injured)
WHE 24 (25 in sept)
Adams 24 (25 in sept)
Crisp 24
Grundy 24
Langdon 23 (24 in june)
Scharenberg 22
Aish 22 (injured)
Phillips 22
Moore 22 (injured)
Degoey22

20/21 yo
Maynard 21 inj
Murray 20
C.Brown 20
McClarty 20

Cheers. Supports what I was saying, particularly if you overlay experience. I think we'll get back to a more normal profile over the next few seasons with the youth coming through.