Strategy 2016 Tacs Trailer

[elpirate]

54 tackles, 0 tackles inside 50, 271 pressure acts against GWS.

Here's something interesting. Against St.Kilda, a forward line of Charlie Dixon (10), Justin Westhoff (17), Jay Schulz (14), Travis Boak (31), Jake Neade (21) and Chad Wingard (22) combined for 115 pressure acts, or 30% of the total.

Against Adelaide, a forward line of Charlie Dixon (11), Justin Westhoff (12), Dougal Howard (10), Jake Neade (17), Aaron Young (10) and Chad Wingard (9) combined for 69 pressure acts, or 23% of the total. To bring it up to the percentage equivalent of the St.Kilda match, 21 extra pressure acts were needed. If the output of the St.Kilda match had been maintained, another 46 extra pressure acts were required to reach 348 pressure acts, or 33% of the total.

Against GWS, a forward line of Charlie Dixon (7), Justin Westhoff (10), Jake Neade (13), Chad Wingard (11), Aaron Young (10) and Karl Amon (8) combined for 59 pressure acts, or 22% of the total. To bring it up to the equivalent of the St.Kilda match, 22 extra pressure acts were needed. If the output of the St.Kilda match had been maintained, another 56 pressure acts were required to reach 327 pressure acts, or 35% of the total.

What does this prove? It proves that the forward line is most definitely the problem. We are basically missing the equivalent of 2 players worth of pressure acts in the Adelaide and GWS games. Wingard falling from dropping 13 pressure acts against Adelaide I can understand because of his hamstring. Westhoff dropped by 5. Howard replaced Schulz for a loss of 4. Neade lost 4. Dixon gained 1. That's a difference of 25 - 5 per player. The main offender? Aaron Young, with a whopping 21 less pressure acts than Travis Boak.

Fast forward to the GWS game. From the St. Kilda game, Dixon is down 3, Westhoff down 7, Neade is down 8, Wingard down 11 coming back from a hamstring, Young is down 4 from Schulz and Amon is down 23 from Boak.

When just one player in the forward line doesn't pull his weight, the rest of the team suffers. Neither Young nor Amon are defenders. We need a Boak equivalent in the forward line...which is why he plays forward this year. There is zero wrong with him, he's just playing a role that was meant for Monfries, because no one else can.

I'd be dropping Amon for Impey and making him a defensive forward. If he can get around 31 pressure acts, that will inspire the others to step up as well. I'd give Young an opportunity in the Schulz role.

Defense is contagious. But it works both ways. That's why we are trying to turn Colquhoun into a small forward - it's how we want to play the game.

I think only entering inside 50 41 times vs GWS contributed greatly to the stats you have quoted. Whilst the forward line is definitely part of the problem, the main issue is midfield and work rate. The players are confused from over and poor coaching leading to a total inability to implement any game style. Simple as that!

 

[Janus]

I think only entering inside 50 41 times vs GWS contributed greatly to the stats you have quoted. Whilst the forward line is definitely part of the problem, the main issue is midfield and work rate. The players are confused from over and poor coaching leading to a total inability to implement any game style. Simple as that!

Err, we entered the forward line 70 times against Adelaide and recorded nearly the exact same stats pressure wise from our forwards as the GWS game.

Both games we got flogged.

Explain that "simply".

 

[KenOath]

Our effort and pressure against the Saints was elite...in that game we just over committed to the press by pushing too high and our skills were deplorable. In that game our tactics and skills let us down, not our effort. However, since then our effort and pressure have dropped right off and our skills haven't improved, which leads to performances like Sunday.

We need a game plan that doesn't rely on bringing the sort of intensity we did against the Saints just to be competitive. If we had decent tactics and better skills we should have won that game by 10 goals plus with the effort and intensity we brought.

Also, pressure acts is the most useless stat in the AFL...it's an easy one for players to cheat imo (e.g. a player can not push hard to make a contest but then chase and get awarded a pressure act, or corral instead of tackle, etc). It can give you a general indication but shouldn't be heavily relied upon as an accurate gauge of effort.

 

[Macca19]

I think like any stats, the pressure stat has to be taken with a grain of salt. In conjunction with high tackle numbers it could mean we are relentless on our opposition. Or it could mean we couldn't win enough of the ball, like against Adelaide where we had high pressure numbers and more tackles.

 

[Janus]

Our effort and pressure against the Saints was elite...in that game we just over committed to the press by pushing too high and our skills were deplorable. In that game our tactics and skills let us down, not our effort. However, since then our effort and pressure have dropped right off and our skills haven't improved, which leads to performances like Sunday.

We need a game plan that doesn't rely on bringing the sort of intensity we did against the Saints just to be competitive. If we had decent tactics and better skills we should have won that game by 10 goals plus with the effort and intensity we brought.

Also, pressure acts is the most useless stat in the AFL...it's an easy one for players to cheat imo (e.g. a player can not push hard to make a contest but then chase and get awarded a pressure act, or corral instead of tackle, etc). It can give you a general indication but shouldn't be heavily relied upon as an accurate gauge of effort.

So you think a player would rather record a pressure act stat by letting an opposition player get a contested ball stat? As if the coaches rate pressure acts greater than ground ball?

Okaaaay...

 

[OneGreatClub]

The thing is, if we get the mix right, tweak a few things, get a good start, get some confidence and get a win, things will look brighter going forward. I think we are trying to be too clever. Crows are playing clean basic footy, there's not a lot of congestion and they are hitting targets, hence confidence at an all time high and they are getting those wins and of course just about best 18 on the park week in week out helps. Surely they will be 'found out' soon enough. However, I just can't and won't believe we are as bad as we appear. One thing that perplexed me a bit in the NAB challenge was Burgo saying it could take 6 weeks to see if we are getting things right..Why waste all these early gettable games trying to get things somehow 'right'? We should have hit the ground running. In the end we need at least 12 or 13 wins to make the 8, we have wasted 2 potentials already. And damn you WADA

 

[PhoenixPower]

Hitting targets? I remember what that was like

 

[Us against the rest]

Imo it comes down to firstly having the right attitude and hunger for the footy and secondly, my bug bear, effective disposal efficiency. (Skill level).
If you cannot win your share of clearances, especially in the mid field, you will struggle to even look competitive.

 

[elpirate]

The "simple" is that our players do not want to work hard as a result of being off side with the coaches, likely due to being confused by the instructions and inconsistent messages and standards. Forward line is not the main issue, it's system and effort. I'm not sure we have the players to play a game style that is not based on instinct and running.

 

[Us against the rest]

The "simple" is that our players do not want to work hard as a result of being off side with the coaches, likely due to being confused by the instructions and inconsistent messages and standards. Forward line is not the main issue, it's system and effort. I'm not sure we have the players to play a game style that is not based on instinct and running.

I noticed this too. The players look like they are not sure if they should be playing on instinct or game plan. You see it in the work place all the time, eg: that's not my job.

 

[Janus]

I think like any stats, the pressure stat has to be taken with a grain of salt. In conjunction with high tackle numbers it could mean we are relentless on our opposition. Or it could mean we couldn't win enough of the ball, like against Adelaide where we had high pressure numbers and more tackles.

FYI:

Contested possession - St Kilda 177, Adelaide 161, Essendon 149, GWS 116.

Tackles - St Kilda 106, Adelaide 64, Essendon 64, GWS 54.

Pressure Acts - St Kilda 376, Adelaide 302, Essendon 269, GWS 271.

Or it could mean that we've progressively gotten worse as we've replaced players who actually defend with those that only run one way. Against Adelaide, we were -4 for contested possession, +6 for tackles, and a whopping -89 for pressure acts. Against GWS it was even worse: -15 for contested possession, -3 for tackles and -112 for pressure acts.

We were smashed in the pressure acts stat in both games, and smashed on the scoreboard. No grain of salt is needed. That's why I keep saying its effort and not gameplan.

 

[Andre]

So you think a player would rather record a pressure act stat by letting an opposition player get a contested ball stat? As if the coaches rate pressure acts greater than ground ball?

Okaaaay...

Bingo. Recording a pressure act is like winning $10 for second prize in a beauty contest. It's nice, but on its own it's not going to change who wins or loses the game.

 

[KenOath]

So you think a player would rather record a pressure act stat by letting an opposition player get a contested ball stat? As if the coaches rate pressure acts greater than ground ball?

Okaaaay...

I didn't say that at all...all I'm saying is a player can be awarded a "pressure act" even when they haven't fully committed to a contest. Our clearance work so far this year is indicative of players applying reactive faux pressure, after being beaten to the ball, which can still get them a "pressure act" but does SFA to prevent the opposition from getting clear possession and easy scores!

As I said it's a general indicator but shouldn't be relied upon to determine effort. That has to be a combination of CP, clearances, tackles and pressure acts.

 

[Janus]

The "simple" is that our players do not want to work hard as a result of being off side with the coaches, likely due to being confused by the instructions and inconsistent messages and standards. Forward line is not the main issue, it's system and effort. I'm not sure we have the players to play a game style that is not based on instinct and running.

You realize the effort you saw against St Kilda was replicated by both Adelaide and GWS when they played us? That they both recorded near enough to 100 more pressure acts than us because our players didn't put in the same effort as they did against the Saints?

What changed from St Kilda to Adelaide? They believed in it in R1. I'll tell you what happened: we brought in a front runner like Young who doesn't defend, and everyone dropped their intensity because of it. No one is going to put in the effort for their teammate to win the ball if they don't see their teammate doing the same for them.

Get the cancer out of the side until he's willing to put in defensive effort instead of looking to be on the end of everyone else's hard work.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

The steady decline in contested possession is alarming


*Did Young steal ya missus Janus

 

[elpirate]

You realize the effort you saw against St Kilda was replicated by both Adelaide and GWS when they played us? That they both recorded near enough to 100 more pressure acts than us because our players didn't put in the same effort as they did against the Saints?

What changed from St Kilda to Adelaide? They believed in it in R1. I'll tell you what happened: we brought in a front runner like Young who doesn't defend, and everyone dropped their intensity because of it. No one is going to put in the effort for their teammate to win the ball if they don't see their teammate doing the same for them.

Get the cancer out of the side until he's willing to put in defensive effort instead of looking to be on the end of everyone else's hard work.

I'm not sure you can pin it all on to young and I'm not a fan of his either. Let's face it hard work and smart tactical football does not come naturally to this playing group or they are not coached to allow it to occur regularly. We need to simplify things like Ken did in the early days.

 

[KenOath]

From a psychological point of view you could argue that our players saw the effort they put in against the Saints and thought...f*** we try this hard and yet concede so many easy goals and have to push deep into the last quarter to secure a win...I hate this game plan, what's the point?! Hence the subsequent drop in effort.

That doesn't excuse the playing group but it could explain their extreme drop in effort.

 

[Janus]

One more interesting stat - Adelaide dropped to 276 PA against Sydney, who recorded 372. The week before against Richmond they recorded 234...the Tigers recorded 410. This is where the pressure of Richmond was fine but the ability to execute was a failure.

GWS recorded 385 PA the week before they played us to Sydney's 361.

Our effort against St Kilda is what is required to make it in the AFL. 350+ PA is what we should be aiming for every match.

 

[Janus]

The steady decline in contested possession is alarming


*Did Young steal ya missus Janus

I just want him to defend. I know he can, I've seen him do it. Am I asking too much? He frustrates the **** out if me because he'd be a lock for the 18 if he did.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

I just want him to defend. I know he can, I've seen him do it. Am I asking too much? He frustrates the **** out if me because he'd be a lock for the 18 if he did.

I do agree he has to lift in that regard but I'm seeing his more decorated experienced teammates loping to defensive positions & not chasing hard as well.. surely that's not his influence, pretty weak-kneed if they are taking defensive intensity cues from a fringe player.

 

[Janus]

I do agree he has to lift in that regard but I'm seeing his more decorated experienced teammates loping to defensive positions & not chasing hard as well.. surely that's not his influence, pretty weak-kneed if they are taking defensive intensity cues from a fringe player.

 

[BIG BILLY F]

Err, we entered the forward line 70 times against Adelaide and recorded nearly the exact same stats pressure wise from our forwards as the GWS game.

Both games we got flogged.

Explain that "simply".

You are correct....once we get in 50 it comes straight out

 

[JUSTWORK]

You are correct....once we get in 50 it comes straight out

1
Lack defensive pressure from our fowards

2
With Westhoff having to do so much it's just getting bombed in on top of Dixon (who is mostly our only big target inside 50) who is normally getting double, sometimes triple teamed by defenders.

 

[TeeKray]

Imo it comes down to firstly having the right attitude and hunger for the footy and secondly, my bug bear, effective disposal efficiency. (Skill level).
If you cannot win your share of clearances, especially in the mid field, you will struggle to even look competitive.

Spot on. You almost can't include the GWS game in any tactical analysis of how we are playing. We simply didn't win enough of the ball at the stoppages and when we did win the ball we slaughtered it with poor ball use.

 

[R_Gray_Jnr_Jnr]

You realize the effort you saw against St Kilda was replicated by both Adelaide and GWS when they played us? That they both recorded near enough to 100 more pressure acts than us because our players didn't put in the same effort as they did against the Saints?

What changed from St Kilda to Adelaide? They believed in it in R1. I'll tell you what happened: we brought in a front runner like Young who doesn't defend, and everyone dropped their intensity because of it. No one is going to put in the effort for their teammate to win the ball if they don't see their teammate doing the same for them.

Get the cancer out of the side until he's willing to put in defensive effort instead of looking to be on the end of everyone else's hard work.

I agree with most of what you say, if not all of it, but by this comment you would be amenable to dropping Robbie Gray as we all know defensively he doesn't really get involved in games.