I've played in a lot of (F grade) defences, I'm wondering if I can retrospectively blame the poorer games on "structural imbalance". Once our players tightened up and fought for the footy in contested situations we looked okay. The defending (lack there of) on the wings and through the centre square is actually what had our defenders looking like lost lambs.The inside 50 conceded and consequently Marks inside 50 conceded were directly caused by the structural imbalance, in affect we were playing 17 on 18 when we were trying to attack from D50. Having the extra tall defender robbed us of an avenue moving the ball from D50, we kept turning over the ball one kick from D50. Without Cameron and with Duncan and Smith being weak in the air, their keys had a lot less ground to cover, historically we used Blicavs, Menegola and a fit Dangerfield to be provide those extra outlets from a long D50 kick, In theory Sav should have been available to receive these bailout kicks but he underperform we when his on the offensive side of a marking contest relative to his size and athleticism and is useless when it gets brought to ground, in the cases we he would make it, he is offensively limited, which makes his kick or the next kick in the chain easier to be intercepted. All night they found space in that half distant kick hitting up a target 40 metres out, meaning we were getting burnt on the lead after a turnover.
Ultimately to win games teams can either win it back at the contest or win it back on the intercept, good teams do both. Teams that rely on interception (especially defensive marking interception) need to move the ball better than those that win it at the contest.
With the team as selected we were always going to struggle to win it at the contest, we have a too many missing/underdone. Our intercept game was non-functional for the first half on the match, in theory Sav should supercharge our intercepting being a tall athletic key defender who plays as a +1 positionally, in practice they played around him and he killed our ball movement efficiency. He was a non factor for all but a couple of desperate moments just before he was subbed off.
Beyond blaming Sav for all of our problems, we do need more from our midfield group. I want to pull Holmes out of the inside midfield rotations, he doesn't get clean use of the ball around the stoppage. He does his best work running into space and kicking long. I want us to treat him as an Issac Smith style winger. Last year his fat side running was such a difference making, he'd go from being a plus 1 in defensive to providing an outlet for a switch in a blink of an eye. They shouldn't have selected Danger, he is clearly still hampered by injury, we would have been better without him in his current condition. With O'Connor out, they may have felt that they were light on options to pull in there. We also need to get another marking option in transition, not sure if Menegola can still be that player, if he can't then give Knevitt a shot, he was starting to build form before we dumped him to the VFL, he is also getting more inside mid time at VFL level than he was previously.
Structurally, I don't like having O.Henry, Rohan and Stengle in the same team, too many high impact low possession type forwards. I'm worried that Stengle is carrying an injury, there are times early in games were he seems gassed after a quick play and O'Henry has to get move involved in general, too much tunnel vision over his finishing, our players are generally more well rounded. One of those three has to get on their bike and play a lot higher up the ground especially in the absence of Cameron.
You were correct to identify a myriad of factors and nuances though. Scotty also had a poor day in the box and our attacking thrusts (which could have put Sydney on the back foot) were not clinical enough, often enough.