Review Monday's Expert - Adelaide vs Geelong

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Still amazed that we can seemingly be dominated in so many areas yet find ourselves close on the scoreboard. We've never been like this - have always been the opposite and relied on almost complete possession domination to scratch out a slim lead. And always been exasperated when a more efficient team plays "worse" and beats us.

Now we're the efficient team who can (sort of) absorb opposition possession. It's a good habit to be in I reckon even though it's not completely clicking at the moment.

Anyhow, for this Monday's Expert I went back to re-watch the game and focused on three areas:
1. Centre square set ups
2. Kick ins
3. Field kicking

1. Centre square set ups
I've felt for a while that our clearance numbers were misleading. That we got a decent amount in terms of raw numbers but not many that were constructive. Thought I'd have a closer look at Friday night.

There were 28 centre bounces. My breakdown is that Geelong got 14 clearances, we got 12 and 2 were won by no one. Within those figures, Geelong had 7 centre clearances that I would regard as "fluent" clearances where they controlled the football and were constructive. We had 6 fluent clearances. The other clearances were rushed and haphazard.

28 centre bounces
22 - Jacobs (we won 9/22 clearances when Jacobs was rucking)
6 - Jenkins (we won 3/6 clearances when Jenkins was rucking)

21 - Sloane
18 - Thompson
18 - B Crouch
17 - M Crouch
9- Douglas
1- Betts

Statistically our most effective combination was Sloane - M Crouch - B Crouch. What was notable was how effective Sloane was in the centre square, and how ineffective Thompson was when he was in there.

Geelong swept the ball away fluently 7 times - Sloane was only in the centre square for 2 of these 7 occasions. Thompson was in the centre square for all 7. In fact, for all 14 of Geelong's centre clearances Thompson was in the centre square.

Sloane was in the centre square for all of our 12 centre clearances. Thompson was only there for 4 out of our 12.

Conclusion
Just a poor night for Thommo maybe...? Or are we putting too much faith in him? He has been our #1 for a long time and has just lost our "other" #1 so it's not surprising that he's still a major part of our planning. However Geelong put a lot of work into him. One player to engage Thompson, two players to hunt the football. Purely to box him out and keep him away from the footy.

He's been a beast but can't do it forever. It reeks a little of us still trying to lean on Goodwin, Burton, McLeod and Edwards in 2010. Overall our centre clearances work was reasonable against a good midfield - a 14 to 12 deficit. However for the 18 centre bounces attended by Thompson we were 14 to 4 down.

Interestingly one centre clearance he did get was when he was late coming off the interchange bench and had to run in off the back of the square. Hopefully food for thought for the coaching staff.

2. Our kick ins
We had twenty opportunities to see our kick in strategy under pressure and it didn't fare very well.

Of the 20 kick ins:
- 8 resulted in repeat Inside 50's to Geelong including 5 shots at goal... yuck.
- Only 4 made it into our F50
- The rest didn't amount to anything but didn't hurt us

I don't know what the league-wide benchmarks are but I'd imagine giving up another shot at goal 25% of the time is on the south side of diabolical. Any option we take is done very slowly. We never chip and play on and generate a handball receive. We are very timid. Worryingly, our most fluent kick ins tended to come when Geelong had scored on a fast break and we kicked the ball out immediately - before Geelong was able to set up its zone.

The long kick to Jacobs on the left or right flank only worked once from 10 attempts - where it spilled over the back and McGovern kicked the ball to half forward. One other time we got a free kick. It failed every other occasion. We need to stop using Jacobs as a long target.

Up the middle to Walker needs to be an option more often, rather than just the last 5 minutes. Just to break it open a little earlier and give the defence something else to think about. At the moment they know we're either going long to Jacobs or chipping it into one of the pockets

8 - Henderson
4 - Brown
2 - Smith, Hartigan
1 - Seesdman, Talia, Cheney, (one unknown)

We were struggling to get Smith and Seedsman into the game. Surely they could be taking more kick outs? Both of Hartigans kick outs ended up in a Repeat I50 entry. Thanks but no thanks, Kyle.

Henderson was best value for us. Of the 4 times we made it into our F50, he'd done the kick out on 3 occasions. However, each time that he bombed to Jacobs on the flank it resulted in a repeat I50 entry conceded. We absolutely must scrap this plan from our playbook. It is a guaranteed fail.

- Henderson, Smith and Seedsman should be doing all of our kick ins.
- Don't kick long to Jacobs
- Occasionally kick long up the middle to Tex
- Using short kicks to generate a play on situation where possible

The issues we have with our kick ins are just as prevalent in other stop ball situations in the D50 - marks, free kicks, out on fulls. It's not just the defensive action of our midfield that is causing the problem with the huge number of I50's we're conceding.

3. Our field kicking
Watching through the game I didn't feel quite as depressed as I did on Friday night. A lot of the trouble we found ourselves in was largely our own doing. Credit Geelong's pressure and the defensive structure they were able to set up to a degree but a lot of the errors were under zero pressure.

No one means to make mistakes and there are always going to be errors in a game of footy. What you need to get rid of though are the Gargantuan Zero Pressure Errors - the Smith pass to Seedsman vs Hawthorn for instance. These absolutely cripple your momentum and change the course of the game. We had a bunch of them on Friday night. Eight in just the 2nd and 3rd quarters that were just as bad as Smith's shocker:

1. Sloane marks just outside 50, kicks inside 50 for Lang to take an uncontested mark
2. M Crouch at half back looks for Tex on the lead in the centre square. At his ankles, turnover, goal to Motlop
3. Hartigan marks at half back, kicks in-board to Milera. Misses by a mile, shot at goal for Geelong.
4. Cameron marks on wing, kicks in-board, intercepted by Bartel
5. Cameron great mark vs Danger, kicks across ground to Henderson, spoiled, goal to Motlop
6. Atkins has the ball on the wing, looks for McGovern, overcooks it, I50 for Geelong
7. Seedsman has the ball in the back pocket, tries a chip pass to Lever, turnover. Geelong goal from ensuing bounce.
8. Hartigan has the ball in the back pocket, Lynch is free. Terrible kick, turnover, I50 for Geelong

These were all under no pressure. We were in complete control of the ball. The other common thread though is that on almost all of these occasions we were taking attacking options into the corridor, trying to open up the game. Which is good. These killed us on Friday night but I don't think are a pattern - just a team slightly down on confidence after a couple of average weeks.

However, there are a couple of issues with our ball movement:
1. The long kick up the line for us is largely ineffective. We don't have many players who can take a contested mark and are woeful when the ball hits the ground from a marking contest anywhere between the arcs.

2. The switch doesn't work for us. We have some slow players and average kicks in the back half - Talia, Lever, Hartigan, Cheney, Brown - none of whom are dynamic, long-kicking rebounders. It takes us half an hour to switch from one side of the ground to the other.

These two factors mean that if we get the ball anywhere between the arcs in a stop ball situation (mark, free kick, out on full) we are basically stuffed. Can't go long, can't go sideways and their zone is set up so we can't go short.

Solving this with our current personnel is difficult however the switch can be improved. At the moment when we find ourselves blocked in on a wing and choose to go backwards, all that happens is that we string 3-4 slow kicks across to the other side of the ground and find ourselves blocked in there.

Going back to the centre is fine - it opens up the field. Once it's back in the corridor though then there needs to be some change of direction. Something unexpected. Some unpredictability.

*If* we are going to continue with the switch all the way to the other wing then for Christ's sake dummy a kick the other way or something. Feign a long kick down the middle. Pretend you're going to give off a handball then don't. Take on the man on the mark. Occasionally kick the ball straight back from where it's come. And do it quickly. Do something so that all 18 opposition players don't know to the centimetre where the ball is going to end up.

 

[TexFactor]

only 1 game but pretty damning for Thompson.

 

[BunjiMac]

When rebuilding a side, every coach says the same thing, you start with defence first then build from there.

Until we get our team defence right, the rest is irrelevant.

 

[feenix67]

Solid write up Carl. On the switch issue, I've noticed that oppositions have worked out they need to cut off our diagonal passing options into the corridor. This has led to the long slow loopy switches.

We've also stopped running through defensive zones with aggressive handball, and have fallen back into a kicking mode. As you rightly point out, this is doomed to fail due to lack of appropriate personnel. I hope this is a break down of game plan, rather than a change in approach. A break down can be fixed with drills, a shit system is still shit if carried out to the letter.

Great analysis on Thommo... I think we've all sensed something wrong, but you've quantitied it beautifully.

 

[douglyzia]

Somehow managed to stay in the 8 at the end of the round.

 

[chigwidden]

The kick-to-Jacobs had been working, but Jacobs isn't playing as well as he was when it was working. Definitely time for a rethink, or, now Tex is a bit more mobile, kick-toTex as preferred. Kicking to the ruck is the standard option for many teams when kicking out has become dicey, but we need to mix it up a bit.

 

[rezagun]

The long kick ins to jacobs are a recipe for disaster. His inability to take pack marks and lack of tackling pressure or any pressure once the ball hits the deck is troublesome. I hate the short kick to the pocket aswell unless we get an overlap runner who provides a second target on the defensive hbf. So many times on friday night you would see an open area at the between the defensive 50 and centre square in the middle of the ground. Why didnt we go straight up the ground and swarm forward. Walker, lynch and Mcgovern even jj need to provide marking targets for us to kick to from the kick out. Atleast they have some sort of ability to recover if the ball is spoilt or not precisely to them. All can jump and take a grab. This is a big issue and along with the midfield woes are imo the first things that need fixing.
That thompson stat is damning. Its clearly not working. Needs a spell. Cey has to play.

 

[Geoffa32]

What also hurts with our centre bounce work is our lack of defensive pressure. Things may rack up raw tackle numbers but he is poor at stopping an attacking player.

We need a guy like Cameron in there who can win his own ball, but is also good at defensive pressure. Even if he is the guy who comes from HB into the centre at the bounce.

I would suggest that the stats favour Sloane's presence in the midfield set up not just because he wins the ball. But he can also stop an attacking play.

 

[VSTone]

the hang time on our 40+metre kicks is something to behold...

without wanting to watch the replay - was Sauces tap to his defensive hip still? or did they change it up?
my local coverage would come back after the bounce most times... which is quite frustrating.

 

[VSTone]

the barrel down the guts is as unpredictable as anything... why don't we use it as the bail out play if the first option is not there...

maybe recent times have all been a ruse, a show them nothing, then spring out of the box blighty style! dreams...

 

[earlsta]

The players look tired last game, very tired.
Thommo has no second efforts and it's costing us big time when opposition midfielders run the ball with ease through the middle. We need more dual sided players through the middle, I still reckon it'll click next year.
Please don't offer Thommo another contract.

 

[Crow_Magnon]

Really good analysis. We've lost that quick, unpredictable ball movement from early in the season - the stuff even Clarko had trouble picking apart. The absence of both Laird and, dare I say it, McKay, is one possible explanation for this. We need to blood some of the youngsters with a bit of toe, like Wigg, and get Knight back into the line-up. We do lack marking options....neither Tex or JJ are great overhead, and the former is not quick enough on the lead - definitely labouring at the moment, often opting for the push and shove, hence having a lot of spilt marks.

A lot of the teams are playing two genuine rucks now, and maybe the time has come for us to add some back-up for Sauce. I thought we looked better with Jenkins in the square on Friday, but then we have Sauce off the ground, so lack a marking forward.

Main issue though is the centre square - can't have all plodders like Crouch x 2, Thommo and Dougie in the side. (Knight - if he's fit - for Dougie this week). I'd also play Smith further up the ground (does he ever get a run in the centre square?), even at half forward. Lyons for BCrouch too as he's been terrible, and shouldn't come into the team until after the break.

 

[GreyCrow]

Firstly , just wanted to say what a great , comprehensive analysis
Hopefully the AFC are given a copy. This is as important as anything Janus does and without heat maps

Sloane was in the centre square for all of our 12 centre clearances. Thompson was only there for 4 out of our 12.

There was a moment in the 3rd? when we made a charge back into the game. Sloane was in the middle and was in everything. Just dominated a patch of time and I thought great. Only to then see him jog off for a ''rest'' . I think like Vickery last week my brain just went into a fog. The Cats then jumped us again and went on the burst. There was a sense of relief to see Sloane on the boundary waiting to get back in.

THOMPSON: Interestingly one centre clearance he did get was when he was late coming off the interchange bench and had to run in off the back of the square. Hopefully food for thought for the coaching staff.

Betts does this a lot and is mildly effective. Why not start Thommo there and Betts in. It would certainly change the dynamics of the opposition as well. Well spotted.

2. Our kick ins
The long kick to Jacobs on the left or right flank only worked once from 10 attempts - where it spilled over the back and McGovern kicked the ball to half forward. One other time we got a free kick. It failed every other occasion. We need to stop using Jacobs as a long target.

Its a fallback position that opposition teams know and invest a little energy in. 2 options for me would be to change it up . A lot. ie Jenkins out there or Walker as noted. Or send Jacobs deeper and the 2nd kick is aimed deeper to him.

3. Our field kicking
Watching through the game I didn't feel quite as depressed as I did on Friday night. A lot of the trouble we found ourselves in was largely our own doing. Credit Geelong's pressure and the defensive structure they were able to set up to a degree but a lot of the errors were under zero pressure.

No one means to make mistakes and there are always going to be errors in a game of footy. What you need to get rid of though are the Gargantuan Zero Pressure Errors - the Smith pass to Seedsman vs Hawthorn for instance. These absolutely cripple your momentum and change the course of the game. We had a bunch of them on Friday night. Eight in just the 2nd and 3rd quarters that were just as bad as Smith's shocker:

1. Sloane marks just outside 50, kicks inside 50 for Lang to take an uncontested mark
2. M Crouch at half back looks for Tex on the lead in the centre square. At his ankles, turnover, goal to Motlop
3. Hartigan marks at half back, kicks in-board to Milera. Misses by a mile, shot at goal for Geelong.
4. Cameron marks on wing, kicks in-board, intercepted by Bartel
5. Cameron great mark vs Danger, kicks across ground to Henderson, spoiled, goal to Motlop
6. Atkins has the ball on the wing, looks for McGovern, overcooks it, I50 for Geelong
7. Seedsman has the ball in the back pocket, tries a chip pass to Lever, turnover. Geelong goal from ensuing bounce.
8. Hartigan has the ball in the back pocket, Lynch is free. Terrible kick, turnover, I50 for Geelong

High Risk High Reward is the mantra but this was , as noted , poor kicking , not trying to split the opposition. Don Pyke talks about understanding the limitations of each player and how far they can or cant kick. That should also apply to the individual themselves. Yes its nice to spot the loose man 40m out but when he is running that pushes it out to a 55-60m kick and falls short.

I think this section of the analysis was for me at the game the worst part of the night.

 

[Scorpus]

We've also stopped running through defensive zones with aggressive handball, and have fallen back into a kicking mode. As you rightly point out, this is doomed to fail due to lack of appropriate personnel. I hope this is a break down of game plan, rather than a change in approach. A break down can be fixed with drills, a shit system is still shit if carried out to the letter.

I noticed this too. In the first four to five rounds, we used a combination of short kicks, handballs, running, and long kicks through the defensive half of the ground. This kept our ball movement unpredictable and fast, and it allowed us to pierce through the zone by executing a long kick a lot further up the ground.

Recently, though, we've been kicking long directly out of our defensive 50 rather than taking these shorter or more adventurous options. This fails nearly every time as the opposition just sets up 40-50m out of their defensive 50 to cut off these forward thrusts. It happened against Fremantle, Western Bulldogs and Geelong: they created two on ones in the center of the ground by placing extra players exactly where the long kicks would go

 

[skoobydoo]

Still amazed that we can seemingly be dominated in so many areas yet find ourselves close on the scoreboard. We've never been like this - have always been the opposite and relied on almost complete possession domination to scratch out a slim lead. And always been exasperated when a more efficient team plays "worse" and beats us.

Now we're the efficient team who can (sort of) absorb opposition possession. It's a good habit to be in I reckon even though it's not completely clicking at the moment.

Anyhow, for this Monday's Expert I went back to re-watch the game and focused on three areas:
1. Centre square set ups
2. Kick ins
3. Field kicking

1. Centre square set ups
I've felt for a while that our clearance numbers were misleading. That we got a decent amount in terms of raw numbers but not many that were constructive. Thought I'd have a closer look at Friday night.

There were 28 centre bounces. My breakdown is that Geelong got 14 clearances, we got 12 and 2 were won by no one. Within those figures, Geelong had 7 centre clearances that I would regard as "fluent" clearances where they controlled the football and were constructive. We had 6 fluent clearances. The other clearances were rushed and haphazard.

28 centre bounces
22 - Jacobs (we won 9/22 clearances when Jacobs was rucking)
6 - Jenkins (we won 3/6 clearances when Jenkins was rucking)

21 - Sloane
18 - Thompson
18 - B Crouch
17 - M Crouch
9- Douglas
1- Betts

Statistically our most effective combination was Sloane - M Crouch - B Crouch. What was notable was how effective Sloane was in the centre square, and how ineffective Thompson was when he was in there.

Geelong swept the ball away fluently 7 times - Sloane was only in the centre square for 2 of these 7 occasions. Thompson was in the centre square for all 7. In fact, for all 14 of Geelong's centre clearances Thompson was in the centre square.

Sloane was in the centre square for all of our 12 centre clearances. Thompson was only there for 4 out of our 12.

Conclusion
Just a poor night for Thommo maybe...? Or are we putting too much faith in him? He has been our #1 for a long time and has just lost our "other" #1 so it's not surprising that he's still a major part of our planning. However Geelong put a lot of work into him. One player to engage Thompson, two players to hunt the football. Purely to box him out and keep him away from the footy.

He's been a beast but can't do it forever. It reeks a little of us still trying to lean on Goodwin, Burton, McLeod and Edwards in 2010. Overall our centre clearances work was reasonable against a good midfield - a 14 to 12 deficit. However for the 18 centre bounces attended by Thompson we were 14 to 4 down.

Interestingly one centre clearance he did get was when he was late coming off the interchange bench and had to run in off the back of the square. Hopefully food for thought for the coaching staff.

2. Our kick ins
We had twenty opportunities to see our kick in strategy under pressure and it didn't fare very well.

Of the 20 kick ins:
- 8 resulted in repeat Inside 50's to Geelong including 5 shots at goal... yuck.
- Only 4 made it into our F50
- The rest didn't amount to anything but didn't hurt us

I don't know what the league-wide benchmarks are but I'd imagine giving up another shot at goal 25% of the time is on the south side of diabolical. Any option we take is done very slowly. We never chip and play on and generate a handball receive. We are very timid. Worryingly, our most fluent kick ins tended to come when Geelong had scored on a fast break and we kicked the ball out immediately - before Geelong was able to set up its zone.

The long kick to Jacobs on the left or right flank only worked once from 10 attempts - where it spilled over the back and McGovern kicked the ball to half forward. One other time we got a free kick. It failed every other occasion. We need to stop using Jacobs as a long target.

Up the middle to Walker needs to be an option more often, rather than just the last 5 minutes. Just to break it open a little earlier and give the defence something else to think about. At the moment they know we're either going long to Jacobs or chipping it into one of the pockets

8 - Henderson
4 - Brown
2 - Smith, Hartigan
1 - Seesdman, Talia, Cheney, (one unknown)

We were struggling to get Smith and Seedsman into the game. Surely they could be taking more kick outs? Both of Hartigans kick outs ended up in a Repeat I50 entry. Thanks but no thanks, Kyle.

Henderson was best value for us. Of the 4 times we made it into our F50, he'd done the kick out on 3 occasions. However, each time that he bombed to Jacobs on the flank it resulted in a repeat I50 entry conceded. We absolutely must scrap this plan from our playbook. It is a guaranteed fail.

- Henderson, Smith and Seedsman should be doing all of our kick ins.
- Don't kick long to Jacobs
- Occasionally kick long up the middle to Tex
- Using short kicks to generate a play on situation where possible

The issues we have with our kick ins are just as prevalent in other stop ball situations in the D50 - marks, free kicks, out on fulls. It's not just the defensive action of our midfield that is causing the problem with the huge number of I50's we're conceding.

3. Our field kicking
Watching through the game I didn't feel quite as depressed as I did on Friday night. A lot of the trouble we found ourselves in was largely our own doing. Credit Geelong's pressure and the defensive structure they were able to set up to a degree but a lot of the errors were under zero pressure.

No one means to make mistakes and there are always going to be errors in a game of footy. What you need to get rid of though are the Gargantuan Zero Pressure Errors - the Smith pass to Seedsman vs Hawthorn for instance. These absolutely cripple your momentum and change the course of the game. We had a bunch of them on Friday night. Eight in just the 2nd and 3rd quarters that were just as bad as Smith's shocker:

1. Sloane marks just outside 50, kicks inside 50 for Lang to take an uncontested mark
2. M Crouch at half back looks for Tex on the lead in the centre square. At his ankles, turnover, goal to Motlop
3. Hartigan marks at half back, kicks in-board to Milera. Misses by a mile, shot at goal for Geelong.
4. Cameron marks on wing, kicks in-board, intercepted by Bartel
5. Cameron great mark vs Danger, kicks across ground to Henderson, spoiled, goal to Motlop
6. Atkins has the ball on the wing, looks for McGovern, overcooks it, I50 for Geelong
7. Seedsman has the ball in the back pocket, tries a chip pass to Lever, turnover. Geelong goal from ensuing bounce.
8. Hartigan has the ball in the back pocket, Lynch is free. Terrible kick, turnover, I50 for Geelong

These were all under no pressure. We were in complete control of the ball. The other common thread though is that on almost all of these occasions we were taking attacking options into the corridor, trying to open up the game. Which is good. These killed us on Friday night but I don't think are a pattern - just a team slightly down on confidence after a couple of average weeks.

However, there are a couple of issues with our ball movement:
1. The long kick up the line for us is largely ineffective. We don't have many players who can take a contested mark and are woeful when the ball hits the ground from a marking contest anywhere between the arcs.

2. The switch doesn't work for us. We have some slow players and average kicks in the back half - Talia, Lever, Hartigan, Cheney, Brown - none of whom are dynamic, long-kicking rebounders. It takes us half an hour to switch from one side of the ground to the other.

These two factors mean that if we get the ball anywhere between the arcs in a stop ball situation (mark, free kick, out on full) we are basically stuffed. Can't go long, can't go sideways and their zone is set up so we can't go short.

Solving this with our current personnel is difficult however the switch can be improved. At the moment when we find ourselves blocked in on a wing and choose to go backwards, all that happens is that we string 3-4 slow kicks across to the other side of the ground and find ourselves blocked in there.

Going back to the centre is fine - it opens up the field. Once it's back in the corridor though then there needs to be some change of direction. Something unexpected. Some unpredictability.

*If* we are going to continue with the switch all the way to the other wing then for Christ's sake dummy a kick the other way or something. Feign a long kick down the middle. Pretend you're going to give off a handball then don't. Take on the man on the mark. Occasionally kick the ball straight back from where it's come. And do it quickly. Do something so that all 18 opposition players don't know to the centimetre where the ball is going to end up.

Top post. Totally agree. Continual kicking-in long to Jacobs does not and has never really worked. And more to the point we don't seem interested in supporting the play with any worthwhile ground player structure. Try something different......maybe we could rise above our defence of tentativeness.

So right with how slow our switch movement is across ground. Drives me nuts how often there is no effort to break and set up a clear receiving option on the wing ahead of the switch. So many times players are just ambling back across ground. Running effort to receive the ball not just expect it to be delivered.

 

[SugarShane]

He's been a beast but can't do it forever. It reeks a little of us still trying to lean on Goodwin, Burton, McLeod and Edwards in 2010.

Ex-Crows coaches are a goldmine for this sort of stuff.
"Do you know what our team would look like at the moment without Thompson?"
"You try telling Thompson he's not playing."

 

[1970crow]

Thommo's doing his best on his age weary legs. The coaching group need the strength to tell him he's taking a week off for his and the teams benefit. Thommo has always had a couple of entries in the negative column which is why he sits at the 2nd level when we discuss our best ever players. He needs to be winning his share of the ball because his defensive spread is non-existent and he continues to give away unnecessary free kicks. Handball was his primary weapon inside the contest but he's struggling to get the ball into the hands of a player outside the pressure area. When he came in last year in round 3 he executed that marvellous chase and tackle from behind. He rightly got plaudits and this was used as evidence of his defensive skillset and intent. How far away from a chase like that does he look now? Needs a week off to freshen up and bounce back.

 

[weekend at bernies]

in the last couple weeks we have looked a very different side, are we playing differently or have teams worked us out a bit?? i know we have also played against some quality opposition.

 

[BunjiMac]

in the last couple weeks we have looked a very different side, are we playing differently or have teams worked us out a bit?? i know we have also played against some quality opposition.

When the pressure is on, and the season starts to wear on, you will find old dogs start to lose energy and start to drift into old habits.

This sets a dangerous precedent for young and eager dogs looking to learn the game.

These old dogs need a rest.

 

[Elite Crow]

Still amazed that we can seemingly be dominated in so many areas yet find ourselves close on the scoreboard. We've never been like this - have always been the opposite and relied on almost complete possession domination to scratch out a slim lead. And always been exasperated when a more efficient team plays "worse" and beats us.

Now we're the efficient team who can (sort of) absorb opposition possession. It's a good habit to be in I reckon even though it's not completely clicking at the moment.

Anyhow, for this Monday's Expert I went back to re-watch the game and focused on three areas:
1. Centre square set ups
2. Kick ins
3. Field kicking

1. Centre square set ups
I've felt for a while that our clearance numbers were misleading. That we got a decent amount in terms of raw numbers but not many that were constructive. Thought I'd have a closer look at Friday night.

There were 28 centre bounces. My breakdown is that Geelong got 14 clearances, we got 12 and 2 were won by no one. Within those figures, Geelong had 7 centre clearances that I would regard as "fluent" clearances where they controlled the football and were constructive. We had 6 fluent clearances. The other clearances were rushed and haphazard.

28 centre bounces
22 - Jacobs (we won 9/22 clearances when Jacobs was rucking)
6 - Jenkins (we won 3/6 clearances when Jenkins was rucking)

21 - Sloane
18 - Thompson
18 - B Crouch
17 - M Crouch
9- Douglas
1- Betts

Statistically our most effective combination was Sloane - M Crouch - B Crouch. What was notable was how effective Sloane was in the centre square, and how ineffective Thompson was when he was in there.

Geelong swept the ball away fluently 7 times - Sloane was only in the centre square for 2 of these 7 occasions. Thompson was in the centre square for all 7. In fact, for all 14 of Geelong's centre clearances Thompson was in the centre square.

Sloane was in the centre square for all of our 12 centre clearances. Thompson was only there for 4 out of our 12.

Conclusion
Just a poor night for Thommo maybe...? Or are we putting too much faith in him? He has been our #1 for a long time and has just lost our "other" #1 so it's not surprising that he's still a major part of our planning. However Geelong put a lot of work into him. One player to engage Thompson, two players to hunt the football. Purely to box him out and keep him away from the footy.

He's been a beast but can't do it forever. It reeks a little of us still trying to lean on Goodwin, Burton, McLeod and Edwards in 2010. Overall our centre clearances work was reasonable against a good midfield - a 14 to 12 deficit. However for the 18 centre bounces attended by Thompson we were 14 to 4 down.

Interestingly one centre clearance he did get was when he was late coming off the interchange bench and had to run in off the back of the square. Hopefully food for thought for the coaching staff.

2. Our kick ins
We had twenty opportunities to see our kick in strategy under pressure and it didn't fare very well.

Of the 20 kick ins:
- 8 resulted in repeat Inside 50's to Geelong including 5 shots at goal... yuck.
- Only 4 made it into our F50
- The rest didn't amount to anything but didn't hurt us

I don't know what the league-wide benchmarks are but I'd imagine giving up another shot at goal 25% of the time is on the south side of diabolical. Any option we take is done very slowly. We never chip and play on and generate a handball receive. We are very timid. Worryingly, our most fluent kick ins tended to come when Geelong had scored on a fast break and we kicked the ball out immediately - before Geelong was able to set up its zone.

The long kick to Jacobs on the left or right flank only worked once from 10 attempts - where it spilled over the back and McGovern kicked the ball to half forward. One other time we got a free kick. It failed every other occasion. We need to stop using Jacobs as a long target.

Up the middle to Walker needs to be an option more often, rather than just the last 5 minutes. Just to break it open a little earlier and give the defence something else to think about. At the moment they know we're either going long to Jacobs or chipping it into one of the pockets

8 - Henderson
4 - Brown
2 - Smith, Hartigan
1 - Seesdman, Talia, Cheney, (one unknown)

We were struggling to get Smith and Seedsman into the game. Surely they could be taking more kick outs? Both of Hartigans kick outs ended up in a Repeat I50 entry. Thanks but no thanks, Kyle.

Henderson was best value for us. Of the 4 times we made it into our F50, he'd done the kick out on 3 occasions. However, each time that he bombed to Jacobs on the flank it resulted in a repeat I50 entry conceded. We absolutely must scrap this plan from our playbook. It is a guaranteed fail.

- Henderson, Smith and Seedsman should be doing all of our kick ins.
- Don't kick long to Jacobs
- Occasionally kick long up the middle to Tex
- Using short kicks to generate a play on situation where possible

The issues we have with our kick ins are just as prevalent in other stop ball situations in the D50 - marks, free kicks, out on fulls. It's not just the defensive action of our midfield that is causing the problem with the huge number of I50's we're conceding.

3. Our field kicking
Watching through the game I didn't feel quite as depressed as I did on Friday night. A lot of the trouble we found ourselves in was largely our own doing. Credit Geelong's pressure and the defensive structure they were able to set up to a degree but a lot of the errors were under zero pressure.

No one means to make mistakes and there are always going to be errors in a game of footy. What you need to get rid of though are the Gargantuan Zero Pressure Errors - the Smith pass to Seedsman vs Hawthorn for instance. These absolutely cripple your momentum and change the course of the game. We had a bunch of them on Friday night. Eight in just the 2nd and 3rd quarters that were just as bad as Smith's shocker:

1. Sloane marks just outside 50, kicks inside 50 for Lang to take an uncontested mark
2. M Crouch at half back looks for Tex on the lead in the centre square. At his ankles, turnover, goal to Motlop
3. Hartigan marks at half back, kicks in-board to Milera. Misses by a mile, shot at goal for Geelong.
4. Cameron marks on wing, kicks in-board, intercepted by Bartel
5. Cameron great mark vs Danger, kicks across ground to Henderson, spoiled, goal to Motlop
6. Atkins has the ball on the wing, looks for McGovern, overcooks it, I50 for Geelong
7. Seedsman has the ball in the back pocket, tries a chip pass to Lever, turnover. Geelong goal from ensuing bounce.
8. Hartigan has the ball in the back pocket, Lynch is free. Terrible kick, turnover, I50 for Geelong

These were all under no pressure. We were in complete control of the ball. The other common thread though is that on almost all of these occasions we were taking attacking options into the corridor, trying to open up the game. Which is good. These killed us on Friday night but I don't think are a pattern - just a team slightly down on confidence after a couple of average weeks.

However, there are a couple of issues with our ball movement:
1. The long kick up the line for us is largely ineffective. We don't have many players who can take a contested mark and are woeful when the ball hits the ground from a marking contest anywhere between the arcs.

2. The switch doesn't work for us. We have some slow players and average kicks in the back half - Talia, Lever, Hartigan, Cheney, Brown - none of whom are dynamic, long-kicking rebounders. It takes us half an hour to switch from one side of the ground to the other.

These two factors mean that if we get the ball anywhere between the arcs in a stop ball situation (mark, free kick, out on full) we are basically stuffed. Can't go long, can't go sideways and their zone is set up so we can't go short.

Solving this with our current personnel is difficult however the switch can be improved. At the moment when we find ourselves blocked in on a wing and choose to go backwards, all that happens is that we string 3-4 slow kicks across to the other side of the ground and find ourselves blocked in there.

Going back to the centre is fine - it opens up the field. Once it's back in the corridor though then there needs to be some change of direction. Something unexpected. Some unpredictability.

*If* we are going to continue with the switch all the way to the other wing then for Christ's sake dummy a kick the other way or something. Feign a long kick down the middle. Pretend you're going to give off a handball then don't. Take on the man on the mark. Occasionally kick the ball straight back from where it's come. And do it quickly. Do something so that all 18 opposition players don't know to the centimetre where the ball is going to end up.

Great work, this is the type of stuff that we should be able to send to the club as part of our "relationship". Sure they would analyise the game to buggery anyway, but you never know.

Allefgib thoughts?

 

[Red mist]

Still amazed that we can seemingly be dominated in so many areas yet find ourselves close on the scoreboard. We've never been like this - have always been the opposite and relied on almost complete possession domination to scratch out a slim lead. And always been exasperated when a more efficient team plays "worse" and beats us.

Now we're the efficient team who can (sort of) absorb opposition possession. It's a good habit to be in I reckon even though it's not completely clicking at the moment.

Anyhow, for this Monday's Expert I went back to re-watch the game and focused on three areas:
1. Centre square set ups
2. Kick ins
3. Field kicking

1. Centre square set ups
I've felt for a while that our clearance numbers were misleading. That we got a decent amount in terms of raw numbers but not many that were constructive. Thought I'd have a closer look at Friday night.

There were 28 centre bounces. My breakdown is that Geelong got 14 clearances, we got 12 and 2 were won by no one. Within those figures, Geelong had 7 centre clearances that I would regard as "fluent" clearances where they controlled the football and were constructive. We had 6 fluent clearances. The other clearances were rushed and haphazard.

28 centre bounces
22 - Jacobs (we won 9/22 clearances when Jacobs was rucking)
6 - Jenkins (we won 3/6 clearances when Jenkins was rucking)

21 - Sloane
18 - Thompson
18 - B Crouch
17 - M Crouch
9- Douglas
1- Betts

Statistically our most effective combination was Sloane - M Crouch - B Crouch. What was notable was how effective Sloane was in the centre square, and how ineffective Thompson was when he was in there.

Geelong swept the ball away fluently 7 times - Sloane was only in the centre square for 2 of these 7 occasions. Thompson was in the centre square for all 7. In fact, for all 14 of Geelong's centre clearances Thompson was in the centre square.

Sloane was in the centre square for all of our 12 centre clearances. Thompson was only there for 4 out of our 12.

Conclusion
Just a poor night for Thommo maybe...? Or are we putting too much faith in him? He has been our #1 for a long time and has just lost our "other" #1 so it's not surprising that he's still a major part of our planning. However Geelong put a lot of work into him. One player to engage Thompson, two players to hunt the football. Purely to box him out and keep him away from the footy.

He's been a beast but can't do it forever. It reeks a little of us still trying to lean on Goodwin, Burton, McLeod and Edwards in 2010. Overall our centre clearances work was reasonable against a good midfield - a 14 to 12 deficit. However for the 18 centre bounces attended by Thompson we were 14 to 4 down.

Interestingly one centre clearance he did get was when he was late coming off the interchange bench and had to run in off the back of the square. Hopefully food for thought for the coaching staff.

2. Our kick ins
We had twenty opportunities to see our kick in strategy under pressure and it didn't fare very well.

Of the 20 kick ins:
- 8 resulted in repeat Inside 50's to Geelong including 5 shots at goal... yuck.
- Only 4 made it into our F50
- The rest didn't amount to anything but didn't hurt us

I don't know what the league-wide benchmarks are but I'd imagine giving up another shot at goal 25% of the time is on the south side of diabolical. Any option we take is done very slowly. We never chip and play on and generate a handball receive. We are very timid. Worryingly, our most fluent kick ins tended to come when Geelong had scored on a fast break and we kicked the ball out immediately - before Geelong was able to set up its zone.

The long kick to Jacobs on the left or right flank only worked once from 10 attempts - where it spilled over the back and McGovern kicked the ball to half forward. One other time we got a free kick. It failed every other occasion. We need to stop using Jacobs as a long target.

Up the middle to Walker needs to be an option more often, rather than just the last 5 minutes. Just to break it open a little earlier and give the defence something else to think about. At the moment they know we're either going long to Jacobs or chipping it into one of the pockets

8 - Henderson
4 - Brown
2 - Smith, Hartigan
1 - Seesdman, Talia, Cheney, (one unknown)

We were struggling to get Smith and Seedsman into the game. Surely they could be taking more kick outs? Both of Hartigans kick outs ended up in a Repeat I50 entry. Thanks but no thanks, Kyle.

Henderson was best value for us. Of the 4 times we made it into our F50, he'd done the kick out on 3 occasions. However, each time that he bombed to Jacobs on the flank it resulted in a repeat I50 entry conceded. We absolutely must scrap this plan from our playbook. It is a guaranteed fail.

- Henderson, Smith and Seedsman should be doing all of our kick ins.
- Don't kick long to Jacobs
- Occasionally kick long up the middle to Tex
- Using short kicks to generate a play on situation where possible

The issues we have with our kick ins are just as prevalent in other stop ball situations in the D50 - marks, free kicks, out on fulls. It's not just the defensive action of our midfield that is causing the problem with the huge number of I50's we're conceding.

3. Our field kicking
Watching through the game I didn't feel quite as depressed as I did on Friday night. A lot of the trouble we found ourselves in was largely our own doing. Credit Geelong's pressure and the defensive structure they were able to set up to a degree but a lot of the errors were under zero pressure.

No one means to make mistakes and there are always going to be errors in a game of footy. What you need to get rid of though are the Gargantuan Zero Pressure Errors - the Smith pass to Seedsman vs Hawthorn for instance. These absolutely cripple your momentum and change the course of the game. We had a bunch of them on Friday night. Eight in just the 2nd and 3rd quarters that were just as bad as Smith's shocker:

1. Sloane marks just outside 50, kicks inside 50 for Lang to take an uncontested mark
2. M Crouch at half back looks for Tex on the lead in the centre square. At his ankles, turnover, goal to Motlop
3. Hartigan marks at half back, kicks in-board to Milera. Misses by a mile, shot at goal for Geelong.
4. Cameron marks on wing, kicks in-board, intercepted by Bartel
5. Cameron great mark vs Danger, kicks across ground to Henderson, spoiled, goal to Motlop
6. Atkins has the ball on the wing, looks for McGovern, overcooks it, I50 for Geelong
7. Seedsman has the ball in the back pocket, tries a chip pass to Lever, turnover. Geelong goal from ensuing bounce.
8. Hartigan has the ball in the back pocket, Lynch is free. Terrible kick, turnover, I50 for Geelong

These were all under no pressure. We were in complete control of the ball. The other common thread though is that on almost all of these occasions we were taking attacking options into the corridor, trying to open up the game. Which is good. These killed us on Friday night but I don't think are a pattern - just a team slightly down on confidence after a couple of average weeks.

However, there are a couple of issues with our ball movement:
1. The long kick up the line for us is largely ineffective. We don't have many players who can take a contested mark and are woeful when the ball hits the ground from a marking contest anywhere between the arcs.

2. The switch doesn't work for us. We have some slow players and average kicks in the back half - Talia, Lever, Hartigan, Cheney, Brown - none of whom are dynamic, long-kicking rebounders. It takes us half an hour to switch from one side of the ground to the other.

These two factors mean that if we get the ball anywhere between the arcs in a stop ball situation (mark, free kick, out on full) we are basically stuffed. Can't go long, can't go sideways and their zone is set up so we can't go short.

Solving this with our current personnel is difficult however the switch can be improved. At the moment when we find ourselves blocked in on a wing and choose to go backwards, all that happens is that we string 3-4 slow kicks across to the other side of the ground and find ourselves blocked in there.

Going back to the centre is fine - it opens up the field. Once it's back in the corridor though then there needs to be some change of direction. Something unexpected. Some unpredictability.

*If* we are going to continue with the switch all the way to the other wing then for Christ's sake dummy a kick the other way or something. Feign a long kick down the middle. Pretend you're going to give off a handball then don't. Take on the man on the mark. Occasionally kick the ball straight back from where it's come. And do it quickly. Do something so that all 18 opposition players don't know to the centimetre where the ball is going to end up.

Great stuff. When it gets bogged down between the arcs did we try and run with handballs much?Geelong did. Seemed to be the glaring difference to me. When and if we do it tends to be loopy and flat footed with zero forward momentum.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Great stuff. When it gets bogged down between the arcs did we try and run with handballs much?Geelong did. Seemed to be the glaring difference to me. When and if we do it tends to be loopy and flat footed with zero forward momentum.

The non performance of smith and Seedsman probably the main catalyst for us not doing this more - disappointing

And laird not being out there also

 

[marvin]

Great analysis.

With the kick ins from full back, the bomb to Sauce is predictable and ineffective, and the bomb to Jenkins if he's relieving in the ruck is worse. I'm amazed we don't use Lever, Talia and Hartigan as targets coming out more often. All are good contested marks when they get good position. I don't particularly want any of them putting the ball on the boot for the next kick, but if they take a mark at 50 and have the player who set up for the 20 metre chip kick running past to take the ball by hand, I think good things should happen more often than not.

 

[Red mist]

The non performance of smith and Seedsman probably the main catalyst for us not doing this more - disappointing

And laird not being out there also

Probable scenario having us pegged there.

 

[jenny61_99]

only 1 game but pretty damning for Thompson.

Pretty harsh. I think something was not right with Thommo, Dougie and Smith. Perhaps a flu/cold? They just did not look like their normal selves at all.