Overrated?

[Event Horizon]

Dont come on this board much but are you implying the bolded are bad? If so I dont see how.

Don't take this too seriously. I think we are just frustrated by the result and some are basically saying that the above players aren't or shouldn't be ahead of our players of similar type. It's more a reflection of us not doing as well as we'd hoped for in this game.

 

[R00StaR]

Game plans are evolving quickly, look at the Pies they are starting to be heavily scored against. Teams are working their way through the press more often. Long kick - contested grab - long kick or series of shorter kicks and handballs, running it through. This will be why our higher handball use imo

I thought we did look inside way more often, just that when we were feeling scoreboard pressure as they dominated large parts of the middle of the game we went wide. Perhaps its the new tempo play to slow things down?

Our defence held up wonderfully well, our rebound and run was great again. To achieve this we're trying to keep the taller players to a min who dont offer an attacking side and ground skills. A reason we overlooked Delaney imo. Despite being flogged around the stoppages we still generated a healthy 54 I50s ourselves. That tells me the rebound and carry was pretty good.

Essendon were pretty good at the contested anyway with Watson a gun, they have been flogged over preseason we're told, with the mids putting on extra weight plus extra endurance work. Despite that they are still a very good running side, they're very dangerous when on.

Theres no doubt in my mind with the team we took in Tarrant was always going to play back when needed, when he went down we didnt have the options to release Goldy when he was drawn down back. Taking away our best tap ruckman, not only that but we're told Cunnington played some of his 62% game time with one eye closed. We may well of still been beaten around the stoppages, but perhaps not by as much. Those two injuries really hurt our structure imo.

Get Goldy rucking more often and Ziebell in there and our stoppage work will improve. No doubt we'll still have periods where it doesnt all go to plan, just look at the age of our mid group. Goldy and our insiders are all young still. We couldve had Greenwood as others mention, but he sucked on the weekend (perhaps playing injured or injured during the game?) while Port Melbourne ripped Werribess midfield apart far worse than ours was.

Edit: if Grima or Hansen were fit i have no doubt one of them wouldve played, most likely at Tarrant's expense. Keeps Goldstein in the ruck and allows us not to be ridiculously big/ cumbersome in attack.

 

[GreatBradScott]

I for the first time since Carey saw space inside forward 50.

I like the idea of us running in waves, but when we turn that s*** over; we got so caught out. Didn't help that chip-scab Heppell was always 40 meters in space.

Learn how to run defensively, and we'll be fine.

 

[Hunters Host #3]

It seems obvious though that over the course of the preseason that they have attempted to alter the game style to incorporate more run and carry off half back, which is indicated by the drastic increase in the use of handball, as well as the defensive personnel used on Saturday night. That this has occurred at the same time as a significant drop off in contested ball and clearance output is a touch concerning.

It's not just the inside work.

The handball to kick ratios also need to be analysed.

No doubt.

Watching our ball movement closely throughout the preseason, we are definitely looking to run and carry from the back half of the ground 'much' more. Even as far as employing some sort of rampant counter attack, putting the ball into space for forwards to run onto in our forward half.

I actually thought it worked well against the Blues, and I thought we looked the slicker side against the bombers and on the verge of breaking the game open early before fading noticeably at the 18-19 min mark of the second quarter.

Without a shadow of a doubt, we tired considerably. We allowed them to hit us on the turnover with limited pressure going the other way, when we turned the ball over (case in point. Brent Stanton's running goal in the last).

Is it a gameplan we can sustain? Particularly if we turn the ball over with skill errors in our forward half on a quick break, when Essendon are still set up behind the ball. We couldn't sustain the frenetic pace early on. Watching the game through the first half, I was desperately waiting for us to hold onto the ball to buy us some time to recover. I can't recall that happening until Monster kicked the first of the 3rd, and we held the ball in the back-line for close to a minute.

It'll be interesting to see if we can hold up against Geelong and Sydney.

 

[Hunters Host #3]

I like the idea of us running in waves, but when we turn that s*** over; we got so caught out. Didn't help that chip-scab Heppell was always 40 meters in space.

Learn how to run defensively, and we'll be fine.

GBS, next time you interview Brad himself.

Ask about tactical/gameplan flexibility, and whether he promotes players to take it upon themselves to make changes in-game if necessary.

Late in the first half, I would have liked to have seen us not pull the trigger and stick to the gameplan so blindly when we were out on our feet. It hurt us.

 

[Slattery_20]

IMHO on one hand - on the other quite positive - the most worrying bit is you looked at your most dangerous with a small, agile forward line and Petrie cleared out. Hard to say whether that will continue to work but our blokes definitely struggled with it.

Backline worked well too, both winning it around true centre half-back and kicking/running it out through our zone. Despite being weaker on paper.

Possibly handballed a bit too much, needed to kick a touch more at times just to clear space.

Midfield we probably edged, although it wasn't by much - there was a lot of box-to-box stuff that we had the better of, at least for the last 3 quarters.
Think we'll see, across the league, defensive structures breaking down, games breaking open and high scores all this year.

Could've been an entirely different game if you'd kicked straight early (had us on toast) or we kicked straight late when we had you.

As most of you will know from various other threads/polls I do think some of the younger guys have been slightly over-hyped as ball winners; but I would've thought there was plenty of positives in how Atley, Wright Harper went; Cunnington Bastinac serviceable enough without really cutting up.

Game came down to ball movement in the end, we just kicked that little bit better & more often

 

[BlueandWhiteElf]

Funny. Going in to Saturday night I would have thought a 'we need a better back six' thread would be the topic of conversation post match. Not a 'problem midfield' thread. Part of me thinks it was a personnel problem. Jz in, Levi in, goldy rucking 80 per cent and problem solved. But agree the real reason seems slightly more complicated. Evolution of our game plan seems partly responsible. But If so, this is more positive than negative. Can't say I'm overly worried about our midfield being beaten week in week out.

 

[Devil Fish]

Anthony Banik = The Button.

 

[glenn2479]

Funny. Going in to Saturday night I would have thought a 'we need a better back six' thread would be the topic of conversation post match. Not a 'problem midfield' thread. Part of me thinks it was a personnel problem. Jz in, Levi in, goldy rucking 80 per cent and problem solved. But agree the real reason seems slightly more complicated. Evolution of our game plan seems partly responsible. But If so, this is more positive than negative. Can't say I'm overly worried about our midfield being beaten week in week out.

Last year we showed that as a team we can stand up over the course of a (long) year. I have no doubt that although we aren't running 100% right now we will still be going strong in the back half of the season while other sides begin to fall over. Our 'plodder' midfield will still be going strong while the downhill skiers will begin to fall over.

 

[jacko57]

Funny. Going in to Saturday night I would have thought a 'we need a better back six' thread would be the topic of conversation post match. Not a 'problem midfield' thread. Part of me thinks it was a personnel problem. Jz in, Levi in, goldy rucking 80 per cent and problem solved. But agree the real reason seems slightly more complicated. Evolution of our game plan seems partly responsible. But If so, this is more positive than negative. Can't say I'm overly worried about our midfield being beaten week in week out.

I thought our back 6 was great, especially give that we had a lot of kids or near-kids there for much of the game (Atley, McMillan, Mullet). The glaring problem was the lack of a big defender, Goldy ain't it, Tarrant ain't it. I'm worried that our coach/selectors actually thought they might be the answer.

 

[Old Skool]

Hansen goes back with McMahon, Thompson, Firrito, Atley, Wright and Mullet.

This is our future backline. McKenzie to take Spuds spot in 2 years time.

 

[Husk]

Watched the first half again today.

Wright was excellent back there. Took 2 or 3 contested marks and was clean and composed. Playing in the back line also affords him a little more time which suits him I reckon.

 

[jacko57]

Hansen goes back with McMahon, Thompson, Firrito, Atley, Wright and Mullet.

This is our future backline. McKenzie to take Spuds spot in 2 years time.

No room for Tarrant & Goldstein?????













Thank Christ for that!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Roosurgence]

We just couldn't get first use of the ball from the middle and we were pretty much smashed at the clearances.

The funny thing is I don't think we were dominated physically but dominated by a side who were much cleaner than us.

There were plenty of times we got first hands to it only to fumble and cough it up.

I also think we don't set up that well at stoppages with too many of our players being sucked into the contest or not positioned in a place to effectively clear the ball. It also seems that we don't pay any respect to the opposition midfield and with no defensive aspect to our clearance work..

 

[BlueandWhiteElf]

I thought our back 6 was great, especially give that we had a lot of kids or near-kids there for much of the game (Atley, McMillan, Mullet). The glaring problem was the lack of a big defender, Goldy ain't it, Tarrant ain't it. I'm worried that our coach/selectors actually thought they might be the answer.

Absolutely.

Pretty much to a man, our backline was fantastic.

I mean to say, going into the Dons game, I thought our backline was going to be stretched, and I was, to be honest, surprised they did so well. Especially with all the inside 50s Essendon had.

On the other hand, I thought our midfield would have done better. But I suppose that's pretty trite.

 

[R00StaR]

Hansen goes back with McMahon, Thompson, Firrito, Atley, Wright and Mullet.

This is our future backline. McKenzie to take Spuds spot in 2 years time.

Grima instead of Hansen, who will be back where he should be....forward. I think he's just learning the forward running patterns while improving the defensive side atm and then the move will be made.

He's still only 23, to think he's was being howled downed for the past 2 years, only 21. A skin young 21y/o playing KPs.

Hansen stats compared to Petrie at 23

And of course as posted on this site before Hansen 07-10 highlights

[YOUTUBE]UwnUUaNIuHA[/YOUTUBE]

True a different player to Drew, but compare the marks taken. This guy is not only elite endurance but an elite contested grab. Perhaps they play him more like Buddy, pushing up the ground and drifting back, that clears the space for Petrie.

But he will be back as a forward at some point, too much talent for spoiling marks a whole career.

 

[Event Horizon]

Game came down to ball movement in the end, we just kicked that little bit better & more often

Or you could say the game came down to a relative regulation set shot that was missed. Had it gone in as it should have, all the other points would have mattered little. As it stands, you have the four points and we have zero. That's it really.

 

[Slattery_20]

Or you could say the game came down to a relative regulation set shot that was missed. Had it gone in as it should have, all the other points would have mattered little. As it stands, you have the four points and we have zero. That's it really.

You could, do you actually think that's a true representation or do you think both goalkicking (/playing on from easy shots) played a fair part for both sides?

Both sides would feel they missed chances in front of the sticks, so I was talking about where there was a point of difference.

I'm not here to argue or troll, I was just offering my thoughts.