News Charlie Dixon signs for West Broken Hill

[edgie]

The inconsistent delivery, poor forward entry and the fact that he's play a significant chunk of the season in the ruck have all contributed to him struggling to get into his groove.

Prime Tredrea would struggle to dominate with this setup.

Prime Tredrea banged through 50+ in a year we didn't make finals. No comparison.

The forward play is pure shit, but Dixon has still fluffed too many opportunities.

Sent from mTalk

 

[edgie]

I won't entirely disagree that our impotence in attack is concerning, but as I posted in another thread:


There is certainly a case to be argued for strong defensive shape and pressure.

What were the efficiency stats of those sides?

Sent from mTalk

 

[Enviable Tradition]

On the Figuring Footy website is the analysis of goal kicking by the analyst who joined us this year.
I hope employing him hasn’t backfired. It sure feels like we have gone backwards in that area.

It seems like his solution to us having stacks of i50s and few goals was to kick for goal less i50!

It might help improve our goal kicking percentage but if it decreases our goals kicked what is the point?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[El_Scorcho]

Prime Tredrea banged through 50+ in a year we didn't make finals. No comparison.

The forward play is pure shit, but Dixon has still fluffed too many opportunities.

What? We played a totally different style of football where we went long and direct to leading forwards and actually placed some value on scoring. Football was a totally different game, tactically. Every team in the league was more attacking.

Jack Riewoldt won the Coleman in 2010 when his team finished 2nd bottom.

 

[mynameissilver]

What? We played a totally different style of football where we went long and direct to leading forwards and actually placed some value on scoring. Football was a totally different game, tactically. Every team in the league was more attacking.

Jack Riewoldt won the Coleman in 2010 when his team finished 2nd bottom.

Tredrea would still be kicking arse. He was a true gun.

 

[Andre]

The only major change between this year and previous years in goalkicking that I can see is the players are trying too hard to generate a high percentage scoring option when they've got a perfectly good medium percentage scoring option on their hands.

What this means is that instead of either scoring a goal, scoring a behind and having time to set up, or kicking it out on the full and having time to set up, we're a 50/50 chance of turning it over in the middle of the forward 50, which is prime intercept mark score launch territory for every single team in the AFL

Yeah, you get the impression that Lade heard it will increase our score per inside 50, but missed the follow on, that such a strategy increases the oppositions score per our inside 50.

I'd like to know for a given inside 50 in 2017 and 2018, what our average score was, plus what the average opposition score was, if directly attributable to that inside 50. I'd say an oppositions score is directly attributable where they score from a rebound 50, where Port didn't obtain possession.

A couple of examples - 1) we kick a point (or OOF), the opposition gets a string (contested or not) possessions from the kick in, into a score for them. 2) we turn it over (directly or lose a contested situation inside our 50) and the opposition gets a string (contested or not) possessions from the kick in, into a score for them. I'd say the second (2018 forward plan) is more likely to lead to an opposition score then the first (2017), at enough of a difference to negate the marginal direct benefits (which given our scoring this year hasn't appeared anyway).

 

[Chrizzt]

What were the efficiency stats of those sides?

Sent from mTalk

2017 Tigers were 18th for DE%, 2016 Bulldogs were 9th.

 

[edgie]

2017 Tigers were 18th for DE%, 2016 Bulldogs were 9th.

Forward efficiency I was meaning. Goals per inside 50, disposals per goal, accuracy, etc.

Sent from mTalk

 

[edgie]

There's numerous KPF in the modern era kicking more goals than Dixon in teams that haven't played finals.

His form is as equally to blame and this seems like the place to do it, as the horrid coaching is, which I do in the more appropriate threads.

Sent from mTalk

 

[Ant Bear]

For mine, Dixon tries to take too much advantage of his height. He seems to want to take every mark at the highest point above his head possible. Watch other key forwards, most of their overhead contested marks are taken more in front of their faces, allowing their hands to "give" with the ball. Charlie wants to reach high up over his head, which causes him to drop more marks because:
A) His eyes are not in line with the ball
B) His hands haven't got as much "give" in them, and
C) If he slightly mistimes his jump, or is impeded, he gets caught under the ball

 

[El_Scorcho]

There's numerous KPF in the modern era kicking more goals than Dixon in teams that haven't played finals.

His form is as equally to blame and this seems like the place to do it, as the horrid coaching is, which I do in the more appropriate threads.

But those teams don't play defence first like Ross Lyon in his prime. It's not just about are we good or not (we're actually pretty good), it's the fact that our strategy doesn't do a lot to help us kick goals.

The horrid coaching, or more specifically, the coaching which does not place any value on scoring, is directly responsible for the form of the likes of Dixon and Wingard (when he was playing forward). These guys didn't just forget how to play football. It doesn't matter how good a salesman you are if you only get a few customers a day and they really aren't interesting in buying anything.

 

[edgie]

But those teams don't play defence first like Ross Lyon in his prime. It's not just about are we good or not (we're actually pretty good), it's the fact that our strategy doesn't do a lot to help us kick goals.

...

So... is it unreasonable to expect Dix to put up numbers in the range of Riewoldt/Pavlich in those prime Ross Lyon sides? Or is Kozi more apt?

Sent from mTalk

 

[El_Scorcho]

So... is it unreasonable to expect Dix to put up numbers in the range of Riewoldt/Pavlich in those prime Ross Lyon sides? Or is Kozi more apt?

Sent from mTalk

It's probably unreasonable to expect him to hit the stat lines of 2 all time greats of the game at a time where their teams were finishing top of the ladder, yeah.

He's played several games in the ruck for a side that considers scoring to be something that will just sort of happen if you defend hard enough. I can't understand why someone who has watched all year and seen the style of footy we play would blame the players playing up forward for not being in form.

2xAA forward Chad Wingard was having no impact and in discussion to be dropped until he was moved out of the disfunctional forward line to the midfield and has averaged 27 touches and 5.5 clearances since.

 

[TeeKray]

Dixon doesn't need to be judged against Riewoldt or Pavlich, he can be judged against himself.

His drop from being a 14d/6m/2g a game player last year to a 13d/4m/1g a game player this year is stark. Some of it is game plan but some of it is observable in the way that he plays. He is dropping more marks, missing more shots, failing to impact on more contests.

Remember that he isn't just another forward in a dysfunctional setup ala Wingard. He is THE forward that the whole forward line revolves around and he gets plenty of ball directed his way and plenty of great chances to impact the game. He hasn't been good enough this year.

 

[Janus]

I reckon this is the real problem.

We have a young inexperienced backline so we send numbers back for support. Imagine if we had a backline like Geelong during their glory day of Scarlet, Harley, Milburn Enright Hunt, Wojcinski and Mackie. Those 7 players on grand final 2007 had racked up 184+159+213+125+99+118+61 games = 841 games of experience. And that doesn't include 2007 All Oz CHB Matthew Egan who got a crippling foot injury in Rd 22 of 2007 and never played AFL again.

Then all of them were there for the next 4 years at least, Harry Taylor was drafted in November 2007 as a 21 year old already about 96kgs and played 3 years in the WAFL. And some stayed at Geelong for another 9 or 10 years after the 2007 GF.

Look at our backline and the 100+ gamers - Hartlett out for the season after Rd 5, Broadbent since second half of last season out injured all the time, Pittard poor form and injuries in and out of the team and Jonas was suspended in last years finals and this year has started to rack up injuries since the bye. Hombsch is a few games short of 100 but he was the most experienced on Sunday and he has had his issues after multiple hip operations. So our backline is full of inexperienced kids all 60 odd games or less - DBJ, Clurey, Howard, Bonner and Houston.

Once again this highlights why dropping Trengove was such a stupid move and we were forced to send Ebert to play HBF.

So you get Sam Gray and Boak in particular, but others as well, doing what I have started the last few weeks, calling useless running, to go and support our backline, they dont get much of the ball for all that running and when they do get the ball in the forward lines they are usually so ****** from doing all that running, that they struggle to kick for goal properly.

Our game plan produces so many unintended consequences that our coaching group cant, or wont see them, and are too stubborn, or too dumb to address them.

I'm getting sick of defence first bullshit.

Maybe I have read and watched too much about WWI the last 18 months and in particular about Monash and his troops at Le Hamel, Amiens and St Quienten Canal.

Monash got sick of the quagmire of defence first on the western front and decided to form strategies to use all the different weaponry on hand and integrate them all, and smash thru the German defence on the Hindenburg line with an attack first strategy. It succeed, it helped win the war and it changed warfare forever. I'd like for us to find a Monash type strategist.

We don’t send numbers back for support. We send them back because those defenders are supposed to run and provide options when the ball is turned over and those midfielders that drop back are meant to give them cover to do so.

But instead of that, you’ve got guys like Houston and Bonner not wanting to take the game on and push the ball forward, instead giving the ball to someone else to dispose of.

Trengove was dropped because Ken was mistaken in the belief that Houston was the better option. He wasn’t, because he never runs and provides an outlet for others the way a Rory Laird does. He might be a better player than Trengove, but at this stage of his career and for how we want to play he isn’t the right player.

Same goes with Bonner. Love the idea of him, but he’s way too timid for the role at this stage.

 

[Powerage]

Sunday was a little bit different because apart from the GC game in Shanghai that's the only other game we have played with a lot of rain and the ball was like a piece of soap for probably more than half a game. We tried cute dry weather footy for too long and that contributed to our stuff ups.

I think for most other games - not Essendon and WCE games - we have won the territory battle for the majority of the game so the game has been played in our half and we don't bloody score from so many opportunities. I think we get numbers back irrespective of turnovers and are drilled to get back and support automatically.

Growing up and watching or listening to a Port game and we were behind I was always happy when it started to rain. I knew we would win, or lose by less i.e. we would play better.

It seemed to bring out our essential Port-ness over the 20 odd years I was growing up anyway (1975-95). We were unsociable. Lived the creed. Left it all out on the ground. And when the weather got scrappy, so did we.

It's not that we didn't have skilled players that probably preferred it dry. It's just that the wet weather emphasized our traits, winning the ball, being loath to give it up and dragging it forward by any means possible. Watch out whoever got in our way.

Fast forward and I cringe when I feel a drop of rain. I've come to terms with the fact that we are not a good wet-weather team. I'm not sure Aussie Rules is a wet weather sport for that matter. Heaven help these guys if they had to play in the mudbath Norwood oval of my youth

 

[OneGreatClub]

Growing up and watching or listening to a Port game and we were behind I was always happy when it started to rain. I knew we would win, or lose by less i.e. we would play better.

It seemed to bring out our essential Port-ness over the 20 odd years I was growing up anyway (1975-95). We were unsociable. Lived the creed. Left it all out on the ground. And when the weather got scrappy, so did we.

It's not that we didn't have skilled players that probably preferred it dry. It's just that the wet weather emphasized our traits, winning the ball, being loath to give it up and dragging it forward by any means possible. Watch out whoever got in our way.

Fast forward and I cringe when I feel a drop of rain. I've come to terms with the fact that we are not a good wet-weather team. I'm not sure Aussie Rules is a wet weather sport for that matter. Heaven help these guys if they had to play in the mudbath Norwood oval of my youth

Be prepared to cringe on Sinday then

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Growing up and watching or listening to a Port game and we were behind I was always happy when it started to rain. I knew we would win, or lose by less i.e. we would play better.

It seemed to bring out our essential Port-ness over the 20 odd years I was growing up anyway (1975-95). We were unsociable. Lived the creed. Left it all out on the ground. And when the weather got scrappy, so did we.

It's not that we didn't have skilled players that probably preferred it dry. It's just that the wet weather emphasized our traits, winning the ball, being loath to give it up and dragging it forward by any means possible. Watch out whoever got in our way.

Fast forward and I cringe when I feel a drop of rain. I've come to terms with the fact that we are not a good wet-weather team. I'm not sure Aussie Rules is a wet weather sport for that matter. Heaven help these guys if they had to play in the mudbath Norwood oval of my youth

Its still a winter sport but the elements have been mitigated.

45 games out of 198 games are played at Docklands so any hint of rain they close the roof. No hint of mud there as it's now a roof, 200 mm of grass and soil and then concrete.

Most grounds have eliminated mud. Better drainage, different grass and you can't train on there attitude or you will wreck the field attitude by curators. Rarely is a curtain raiser played especially in winter time unlike suburban grounds.

You no longer have 2 footys - 1 for the first half and 1 for the second half which both became a piece of soap or bloody heavy because a combo of rain and mud waterlogging the ball. Now you have a bag of about 10 balls in each bag behind the goals and nothing stopping the players going to get a ball from the bag rather than waiting fro the slippery and heavy one coming back from the crowd.

A bit less rain thanks to climate change is another factor.

AFL sides should set up their game plan for dry conditions as they are the majority conditions. But they should also train for alternative conditions so they can flick the switch when they aren't perfect, and they don't look stupid when the rain comes and we try and play dry weather footy.

 

[Forzaport]

Dixon doesn't need to be judged against Riewoldt or Pavlich, he can be judged against himself.

His drop from being a 14d/6m/2g a game player last year to a 13d/4m/1g a game player this year is stark. Some of it is game plan but some of it is observable in the way that he plays. He is dropping more marks, missing more shots, failing to impact on more contests.

Remember that he isn't just another forward in a dysfunctional setup ala Wingard. He is THE forward that the whole forward line revolves around and he gets plenty of ball directed his way and plenty of great chances to impact the game. He hasn't been good enough this year.

I wouldn't mind seeing a deeper dive into what's going on with Charlie.

Is he being run ragged? If we're kicking to him the most is it a 2/3-1 more often than not? Why are we not making better use of Watts/Marshall and our smalls?

Where is Charlie getting his touches and how does this compare to last year?

 

[RossFC]

I wouldn't mind seeing a deeper dive into what's going on with Charlie.

Is he being run ragged? If we're kicking to him the most is it a 2/3-1 more often than not? Why are we not making better use of Watts/Marshall and our smalls?

Where is Charlie getting his touches and how does this compare to last year?

I wonder if his poor eyesight has anything to do with him constantly overrunning his leads.

 

[Tibbs]

I wonder if his poor eyesight has anything to do with him constantly overrunning his leads.

It's got everything to do with it! Even though he now has contacts, it doesn't solve all vision issues straight away. It took me years to be fully comfortable with mine.

 

[portly]

I reckon this is the real problem.

We have a young inexperienced backline so we send numbers back for support. Imagine if we had a backline like Geelong during their glory day of Scarlet, Harley, Milburn Enright Hunt, Wojcinski and Mackie. Those 7 players on grand final 2007 had racked up 184+159+213+125+99+118+61 games = 841 games of experience. And that doesn't include 2007 All Oz CHB Matthew Egan who got a crippling foot injury in Rd 22 of 2007 and never played AFL again.

Then all of them were there for the next 4 years at least, Harry Taylor was drafted in November 2007 as a 21 year old already about 96kgs and played 3 years in the WAFL. And some stayed at Geelong for another 9 or 10 years after the 2007 GF.

Look at our backline and the 100+ gamers - Hartlett out for the season after Rd 5, Broadbent since second half of last season out injured all the time, Pittard poor form and injuries in and out of the team and Jonas was suspended in last years finals and this year has started to rack up injuries since the bye. Hombsch is a few games short of 100 but he was the most experienced on Sunday and he has had his issues after multiple hip operations. So our backline is full of inexperienced kids all 60 odd games or less - DBJ, Clurey, Howard, Bonner and Houston.

Once again this highlights why dropping Trengove was such a stupid move and we were forced to send Ebert to play HBF.

So you get Sam Gray and Boak in particular, but others as well, doing what I have started the last few weeks, calling useless running, to go and support our backline, they dont get much of the ball for all that running and when they do get the ball in the forward lines they are usually so ****** from doing all that running, that they struggle to kick for goal properly.

Our game plan produces so many unintended consequences that our coaching group cant, or wont see them, and are too stubborn, or too dumb to address them.

I'm getting sick of defence first bullshit.

Maybe I have read and watched too much about WWI the last 18 months and in particular about Monash and his troops at Le Hamel, Amiens and St Quienten Canal.

Monash got sick of the quagmire of defence first on the western front and decided to form strategies to use all the different weaponry on hand and integrate them all, and smash thru the German defence on the Hindenburg line with an attack first strategy. It succeed, it helped win the war and it changed warfare forever. I'd like for us to find a Monash type strategist.

Very much in agreement with this.

The coaches' mantra of take care of defence and attack will take care of itself, words uttered twice by them this year, is just plain silly.

I get hints that Schofield might be with us next year, perhaps with his son. Hopefully he will bring a more attacking mindset with him.

 

[Playthekids76]

We don’t send numbers back for support. We send them back because those defenders are supposed to run and provide options when the ball is turned over and those midfielders that drop back are meant to give them cover to do so.

But instead of that, you’ve got guys like Houston and Bonner not wanting to take the game on and push the ball forward, instead giving the ball to someone else to dispose of.

Trengove was dropped because Ken was mistaken in the belief that Houston was the better option. He wasn’t, because he never runs and provides an outlet for others the way a Rory Laird does. He might be a better player than Trengove, but at this stage of his career and for how we want to play he isn’t the right player.

Same goes with Bonner. Love the idea of him, but he’s way too timid for the role at this stage.

So why has he become timid? Earlier in the year Bonner was running from the HB line and being used, now from what I see he isn't given the ball. This whole defend first BS is ruining a player with an attacking mindset. You can see Bonner & Houston look to go then question weather they should.

 

[Magus]

So why has he become timid? Earlier in the year Bonner was running from the HB line and being used, now from what I see he isn't given the ball. This whole defend first BS is ruining a player with an attacking mindset. You can see Bonner & Houston look to go then question weather they should.

Bonner is probably just feeling the physical effects of a full season of AFL football. There doesnt have to be some great conspiracy.

 

[PowerForGood]

Great post.

There is no pressure like scoreboard pressure. By scoring you make the other team panic and try to force things that aren't there, and that's how you force turnovers and open them up.

We just don't make teams panic at all because there is zero fear that we're going to run away with it. It's part of why shit teams seem to step up against us, and it's because they know we're considered a big scalp but we're also ripe for the plucking if they can have a few things go their way. I have no doubt that we'd have found a way to win with a dominant ruckman and Robbie Gray on the ground, but a couple of things went wrong and it was very quickly advantage Fremantle.

An attacking gameplan would have seen the absolute stoppage dominance we had in Q1 lead to an 8 goal lead, and then it wouldn't have mattered when Ryder and Gray went down. Instead we kept them in the game and they ran over us.

So true.

Against lower teams, back your advantage and look to kick 6 a quarter (good conditions) and accept that you might get caught on the reverse a couple of times. But the higher the score, the less important one or two the other way matter. Scoreboard pressure is the best there is. You need to make the other team know that they are out of the game as soon as possible. Let them know if they make mistakes theyll be punished. Low scoring just keeps the opponent interested for longer.