Analysis How did we go to GF to this garbage in less than 3 years

[Samcro24]

View attachment 899538

Imagine being dropped for playing shit. His head would be spinning.

 

[Scorpus]

6-6-6 has an impact on the way we setup at centre bounces. No argument there. Laird has to be accountable if the opposition get a fast break out of the centre, before our midfielders can flood back and fill the holes.

However, if there's no fast break, then our midfielders can & do flood back into defence (given that the opposition invariably win the clearance and go into attack). We're currently spending 80% of the game in our defensive half, with 60% of that time in our D50, with 10+ players inside the D50. 6-6-6 has **** all impact 30 seconds after the centre bounce.

The issue is we used to play 7 actual defenders in defence at all times. Now we're forced to rotate a midfielder back on most occasions, making Laird more accountable.

We can't just hide a defender on the ground during centre bounce only to have them pop out after 30 seconds and be in the D50

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Imagine being dropped for playing sh*t. His head would be spinning.

We could have been stuck with a similar predicament ....Betts, Gibbs, Jacobs all in the same season

 

[jackster83]

Imagine being dropped for playing sh*t. His head would be spinning.

Wonder if he'll refuse to play in the scratch match.

 

[Vader]

The issue is we used to play 7 actual defenders in defence at all times. Now we're forced to rotate a midfielder back on most occasions, making Laird more accountable.

We can't just hide a defender on the ground during centre bounce only to have them pop out after 30 seconds and be in the D50

We did, and we still do - they're just not standing there at the time of the centre bounce. Actually, most of the time we now have 10+ players in our D50.

You underestimate how much distance players can & do cover in the course of a game.

How long after the centre bounce do you think 6-6-6 has an actual impact on player positioning? Any answer longer than 30 seconds is a fail. Any answer longer than 20 seconds is dubious.

 

[Interloperer]

And.... no. 6-6-6 meant that we weren't able to have someone like Cameron come screaming in off the back of the centre square, as we did in 2017. However, that was never Laird's role.

It also means Laird has to mark an attacking player at each centre bounce, instead of finding an ideal position to do his work.

We're currently spending 80% of the game with 10+ players in our D50, because our midfielders are incompetent (to put it kindly) and incapable of winning a contest, resulting in the opposition banging in repeat I50s end-on-end until they finally score a goal. If you've got 10+ players in your D50 for 80% of the game, then 6-6-6 is a complete non-factor - which it is.

No argument from me here on this year. I'd even argue that the back line is the most competent part of the side at the moment and incompetent interlopers from other positions should be ideally kept away.

 

[Vader]

It also means Laird has to mark an attacking player at each centre bounce, instead of finding an ideal position to do his work.

But that only lasts for 20-30 seconds after the centre bounce. For the overwhelming majority of the game there are no positional restrictions.

 

[Scorpus]

We did, and we still do - they're just not standing there at the time of the centre bounce. Actually, most of the time we now have 10+ players in our D50.

You underestimate how much distance players can & do cover in the course of a game.

How long after the centre bounce do you think 6-6-6 has an actual impact on player positioning? Any answer longer than 30 seconds is a fail. Any answer longer than 20 seconds is dubious.

My point is the 7th defender can't be on the field at all at the time of the centre bounce unless they are also a midfielder. If the defender was on the field, we'd have a weakness at that stoppage somewhere, either in the centre or in the forward line.

So they'd have to interchange for a player at some point to get the setup we used to have

 

[feenix67]

We did, and we still do - they're just not standing there at the time of the centre bounce. Actually, most of the time we now have 10+ players in our D50.

You underestimate how much distance players can & do cover in the course of a game.

How long after the centre bounce do you think 6-6-6 has an actual impact on player positioning? Any answer longer than 30 seconds is a fail. Any answer longer than 20 seconds is dubious.

I disagree with you. There was plenty of occasions we rebounded out of half back after losing in the centre square. Lairdy was pivotal in that phase. Go back and watch 2016-17

 

[Scorpus]

I disagree with you. There was plenty of occasions we rebounded out of half back after losing in the centre square. Lairdy was pivotal in that phase. Go back and watch 2016-17

We regularly went out the back at centre stoppages and used defenders pushing high to start the rebound.

 

[jackster83]

I disagree with you. There was plenty of occasions we rebounded out of half back after losing in the centre square. Lairdy was pivotal in that phase. Go back and watch 2016-17

What was different back then though was that the opposition's clearances were more likely to be pressured, and were often dump kicks straight into the waiting arms of Laird, Lever, etc.

These days the oppo mids just grab the ball and stream forward while we jog along behind them.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Wonder if he'll refuse to play in the scratch match.

Wonder if he’s made a call to Caro

 

[Vader]

I disagree with you. There was plenty of occasions we rebounded out of half back after losing in the centre square. Lairdy was pivotal in that phase. Go back and watch 2016-17

I'm not debating that he was pivotal to our rebound. The point is that 6-6-6 has very little impact on his ability to provide that rebound. 6-6-6 is only relevant to his rebound for the initial rebound if the opposition get a fast break out of the centre. For every other opposition I50 (i.e. 90% or more), there is nothing stopping him from rebounding.

 

[Vader]

My point is the 7th defender can't be on the field at all at the time of the centre bounce unless they are also a midfielder. If the defender was on the field, we'd have a weakness at that stoppage somewhere, either in the centre or in the forward line.

So they'd have to interchange for a player at some point to get the setup we used to have

The 7th defender can't be there at the centre bounce. They can be, and are, there 30 seconds later.

 

[Sack Chapman]

Roo just said it badly by saying "He's 28 this year and not going to play in our next premiership side, so we're trying to get draft picks in to rebuild."

If he'd said something like "We wont be in a position to challenge for the premiership for several years it's best for Hugh to move to a club with more immediate promise and AFC to get draft picks in to rebuild." - which could be what Roo had it mind - it would have sounded much better and not cause all this kerfuffle.

Roo said it badly because he's an idiot who is completely out of his depth in the role he currently finds himself in. The last two public comments he has made to defend the club have been embarrassing, stupid and unprofessional. He has shown that he has zero media nous and leadership skills. On both occasions its like he thought he was talking to a group of mates over a few beers rather than representing a million dollar organisation in a professional environment. Zero awareness.

He has to go by the end of the year.

 

[1970crow]

Jesus have you guys learnt nothing from the Gibbs sh*t show?

I'm very bearish on players post 30. The fact that Hugh was never an A grader also works against him. 4 years was excessive, I would've given him 3 max even then it depends on the money.

Gibbs is a lifetime cruiser. The poster child for short contracts. Some players have competive spirit and longer term deals don't impact their output negatively. Gibbs is not one, Greenwood is. 4 straight too much, 3 with trigger no worries. But $ may have been a factor also, presume they've got $150k more to pay him than us. Out cash tied up with ex-players and overpaid stalwarts giving us less than nothing.

 

[King Elvis]

That pretty much confirms a theory that most of us had for a while now that the 6-6-6 rules has nullified Laird as a player.

The moment that Laird had to become more responsible defensively and not be able to run loose in the back line he's never been the same player.

Also I wouldn't read too much in Lever's stats, he would have only played about 15 games for Melbourne out of about 50 possible games since he's been there so you can't really gauge too much from that.

Why don’t we play Laird in the middle?

Our midfield is literally one rotation deep.

 

[King Elvis]

The trading of Hugh Greenwood was exactly the right call .....the trading of Keath was entirely the wrong call, able to play back and forward, whilst McAsey developed

I'd suggest we could have contracted Keath too, if we weren't paying the wages of Betts and Jenkins

I wonder if we draft Fisher if Keath hadn’t left.

 

[Sanders]

The biggest issue that this raises is that, whilst Roo is more than comfortable with having let Hugh go, he was also more than comfortable picking fellow midfielder Richard Douglas, repeatedly, despite Douglas consistently returning the same disposalcount and far less pressure and contested stats, for his entire ******* career.

Once again, the favouritism and "in crowd" mentality is highlighted by Roo's own stupid comments.

I think you’re missing the bigger picture

we suck, and had to let players go because we’ve got a full salary cap and couldn’t afford to keep them anyway

imagine how bad it would be without salary cap sanctions, and Kurt/Danger/Charlie/Jake/McGov ?

I think we need to thank the visionary that was Stephen Trigg!

where would our cap management be otherwise?

 

[Sanders]

He didn't want 3 years, he wanted 4 - and it was a non-negotiable for him (financial security reasons). Adelaide's List Manager would have been read the riot act if he agreed to that contract, on top of all the other long-term contracts he'd already stuck us with.

HG would be great to have in our team right now. The risk of being forced to keep him on the list in 2022 & 2023 though was just too high.

if you have to make up bullshit to make your point, then it wasn’t worth making in the first place.

 

[SugarShane]

View attachment 899538

Well, who'd have thunk it...

 

[Sack Chapman]

Gibbs is a lifetime cruiser. The poster child for short contracts. Some players have competive spirit and longer term deals don't impact their output negatively. Gibbs is not one, Greenwood is. 4 straight too much, 3 with trigger no worries. But $ may have been a factor also, presume they've got $150k more to pay him than us. Out cash tied up with ex-players and overpaid stalwarts giving us less than nothing.

I’ll admit at the time I supported the trade as I thought we just needed to get genuine talent while the premiership window was still open. But what a failure this trade has been. Probably in the top 3 for the most disappointing trades in our history.

 

[cleanhands]

Why don’t we play Laird in the middle?

Our midfield is literally one rotation deep.
[/
Depends on our forward structure, leading forwards plays against him delivering into our forward line

 

[Canuck_Crow]

I’ll admit at the time I supported the trade as I thought we just needed to get genuine talent while the premiership window was still open. But what a failure this trade has been. Probably in the top 3 for the most disappointing trades in our history.

i agree but it was interesting to look at the draft and see what players we could have drafted, and it appears to me that there were lots of duds around the picks that we would have had. So if we play history revisionist and say we didnt use the picks for Gibbs, they we would have had picks 10-12-16, odds are we would have taken Fog at 10, then we would have missed out on O'Brien, then we may have picked up Bonar, Will Powell, type players and while they would be better than the doorstop we currently have i dont think those players create a massive change to our current team.

 

[Tex200]

I’ll admit at the time I supported the trade as I thought we just needed to get genuine talent while the premiership window was still open. But what a failure this trade has been. Probably in the top 3 for the most disappointing trades in our history.

Hate the trade.

Ed Richards tracking nicely and would have been handy.

O’Brien and Bailey are around the place and Bonar seems to be hanging on.

Too early to conclude yet, but even just Ed Richards is a bad miss.