Primus - how is the gloss looking

[FishingRick04]

If only we could have gotten Walsh back, that is one thing I can't forgive the club for

 

[Malibu#27]

Had a quick look at our 4 games to date in the AFL analyser.

One thing we still need to focus on is stopping sides getting a run on.

Collingwood in a 24 minute period from 13:42 in the first put 7 unanswered goals on the board.

Sydney in a 17 1/2 minute period from 10:08 in the first put on 5 goals to one, and then put on 6 to one in an 18 minute period.

Essendon kicked 5 goals to one in a 10 minute period from the middle of the second, and then despite us practically owning the ball in our forward line for the first half of the last still managed to kick the last three in a hurry.

Even St kilda had a run of 4 to 1 in under ten minutes late in the second.

Other than these periods we have basically outscored all sides in the remainder of games.

Now I'm not saying other sides may not have relaxed a fraction, always hard to tell, but when your constantly giving up these spurts of goals you are always up against it.

None of these runs of goals against us have really been late in games, so perhaps fitness isn't the big issue here - I didn't watch the Sydney game but we were all over Essendon to start the last quarter, but couldn't convert our chances, they eventually got it forward and banged three on late.

I also remember the St Kilda game early in the last where we owned the ball in our forward half but couldn't register a goal.

It feels more like structure is letting us down, both in allowing sides to get over the back of us, and forcing bad disposal inside 50 to forwards who (I can only guess) are out of position.

 

[b0ydman]

Had a quick look at our 4 games to date in the AFL analyser.

One thing we still need to focus on is stopping sides getting a run on.

Collingwood in a 24 minute period from 13:42 in the first put 7 unanswered goals on the board.

Sydney in a 17 1/2 minute period from 10:08 in the first put on 5 goals to one, and then put on 6 to one in an 18 minute period.

Essendon kicked 5 goals to one in a 10 minute period from the middle of the second, and then despite us practically owning the ball in our forward line for the first half of the last still managed to kick the last three in a hurry.

Even St kilda had a run of 4 to 1 in under ten minutes late in the second.

Other than these periods we have basically outscored all sides in the remainder of games.

Now I'm not saying other sides may not have relaxed a fraction, always hard to tell, but when your constantly giving up these spurts of goals you are always up against it.

None of these runs of goals against us have really been late in games, so perhaps fitness isn't the big issue here - I didn't watch the Sydney game but we were all over Essendon to start the last quarter, but couldn't convert our chances, they eventually got it forward and banged three on late.

I also remember the St Kilda game early in the last where we owned the ball in our forward half but couldn't register a goal.

It feels more like structure is letting us down, both in allowing sides to get over the back of us, and forcing bad disposal inside 50 to forwards who (I can only guess) are out of position.

great analysis
my recollection is apart from the sydney thing where they got 13 inside 50s to our 1? or was that vs saints..or essendon?

hmm., anyway, my observation was we had it in the F line, but poor delivery and lack of crumbers saw it come out and was unstopped to their goal

the issues for me, which apply to this thread about primus, are

1. why doesnt he change the delivery style intra game when we can ALL see it isn't working

2. why didn't he stop the loose man, such as obrien?

3. why are the players like dom going wide as a first instinct

4. where are the mids for it to rebound (from so deep to mind you) right back over them. this is his 3rd season. they had a good pre season, a long season break to get fit, more coaching resources. mids not running both ways its a non-negotiable. Rodan can't be made the bunny for that. 1Q vs St Kinda where he starred, 1 vs Sydney can't remember, one plodder tried to hard vs Essendon and fired for Collingwood. Surely if he can be fired for not running both ways others have to be too. remember your 2 bad games policy Matty? I'm calling you for gold pass

5. are these goal run-ons coinciding with taking off the ruckman
the poor use of sub doesnt seem to be related to their run on.

6. 3rd season as a league coach and he appears to be the ONLY person who can't see the obvious. The Ages Sundayt review of the game noted 5 times how Obrien was so bad he should have been dropped, and how Primus just let him. 5 times they said that. It was the kindest way of pointing to the elephant in the corner

which brings us to

7. where is the board in this? we dont see the changes as demanded (2 bad games) nor the change in strategy inside a game.





+3

 

[Gray Day]

The eyebrow-raising selection policy and slow-reaction gameday coaching is a huge concern for me.

The majority of the board here can see the following:

vs Sydney
- O'Shea is not a sub
- Rodan is not alone when it comes to only running one way, should not have been dropped

vs Collingwood
- O'Brien was killing us as a loose man, Primus far too slow to react and in denial about O'Brien's impact
- Wingard should have been subbed in before 3/4-time
- The forward structure of 4 talls flopped, this is a coaching issue due to the forwards' positioning for contest and the method of delivery from the midfield

If we can see these issues, why can't Primus?

 

[b0ydman]

The eyebrow-raising selection policy and slow-reaction gameday coaching is a huge concern for me.

The majority of the board here can see the following:

vs Sydney
- O'Shea is not a sub
- Rodan is not alone when it comes to only running one way, should not have been dropped
- missed the boat when goodes got his run on

vs Collingwood
- O'Brien was killing us as a loose man, Primus far too slow to react and in denial about O'Brien's impact
- Wingard should have been subbed in before 3/4-time
- The forward structure of 4 talls flopped, this is a coaching issue due to the forwards' positioning for contest and the method of delivery from the midfield
had Kane in the wrong position for the first quarter. needed to be front and centre but was on the oater side

If we can see these issues, why can't Primus?

I think we know the answer. sigh


EFA


+32

 

[Forzaport]

A really interesting article on Primus' decision to let O'Brien run riot and the effects of outcome bias cropped up on the AFL website this morning. Very insightful and a joy to read. It really does suggest we still lack the cattle to challenge the top teams as opposed to a lack of coaching prowess in the box.

Link

Outcome bias

PERHAPS Port Adelaide coach Matthew Primus will reflect on the theory of outcome bias this week.

That decision-making theory says decisions are assessed on the eventual outcome rather than by taking into account the information or perspective available at decision time.

The theory is relevant to the questions surrounding Primus's decision to allow Collingwood's Harry O'Brien to play as a spare in defence on Saturday.

The decision looked worse than it was because Port Adelaide lost the game with O'Brien running loose. Therefore whether or not leaving O'Brien alone was the main cause of the loss became less relevant.

Link

 

[oporto]

A really interesting article on Primus' decision to let O'Brien run riot and the effects of outcome bias cropped up on the AFL website this morning. Very insightful and a joy to read. It really does suggest we still lack the cattle to challenge the top teams as opposed to a lack of coaching prowess in the box.

It doesn't suggest that at all. what the article suggests is that despite generating more inside 50's which appeared to be Primus' goal, the structural set up was wrong, something we've all pointed to in regards to the 4 tall set up

the thing that irked me about o'brien was his first 3 games were well below average, then he is played into form by port. If you don't have the ball, you can't score

port adelaide challenged 4 2012 finalists coming up short in 3 of the 4. the issue becomes will this become the norm, or will the team improve further and get over the hump? If Port doesn't, I would hope the board tables an offer to Malthouse

 

[sog35]

Good article that should be handed out on arrival at all home games. I've given up explaining that the reason we regularly let the opposition have a spare is so that we can try our best to win the ball. Overall our midfield needs to pick up to lessen that need.

May also be linked to the losing the rucks but winning the clearances.

 

[FishingRick04]

We have tried a spare mid in every game, I noticed it against the Saints, thatr was just as they got the roll on, I'm not sure if we have the tactic correct yet.

 

[Forzaport]

It doesn't suggest that at all. what the article suggests is that despite generating more inside 50's which appeared to be Primus' goal, the structural set up was wrong, something we've all pointed to in regards to the 4 tall set up

No.

Link

Throughout the game the Magpies started 44 chains of possession from its defensive 50. Only five (two goals, three behinds) ended in scores.

The real danger, as Primus noted, was coming from centre clearances and rebounds from the defensive part of the midfield. Collingwood kicked three goals from centre clearances and four goals, three behinds from chains of possession generated in the back half of the midfield.

Port Adelaide's players did not make use of the extra number in that part of the ground. They did not tackle hard enough or exert enough pressure to stop Collingwood making quick entries inside 50. With the lowest tackling numbers in the competition, it is an area Port need to address.

Link

Suggests to me the players simply weren't good enough as opposed to any failure in structure.

 

[Port85]

So what that article is basically implying is that:

1. our midfielders don't work hard enough/aren't good enough without an extra man in there for help.

2. our forwards aren't good enough.

I can't really disagree with any of that. We have a working class average midfield with no true elite player. Our forwards, with the exception of Shulz and Gray (now obviously gone for the year) are at best inconsitent (Stewart, Westhoff, Brett Ebert, Hitchcock, Phillips) or too young (Butch).

Primus' tactics and match-day coaching aren't going to change that. His list development going forward might, if we make good decisions.

 

[PAUR]

Our #1 issues is disposal into the forward fifty. Our structure isn't right and our delivery to our forwards is abysmal.

Lost count of the time we kicked to their spare man - which doesn't bother me when kicking blindly - but we had times with 10 seconds to assess our delivery and still bombed it straight over the unmanned Collingwood player

Aside from that I am pretty much happy with our coaching.

Forzaport - the article you linked is good and actually good foorball journalism too. Of course our coaches could see O'Brien, they calculated that his impact was worse than the benefit of an extra midfielderer of when Westhoff went unmanned down back.

 

[oporto]

No.



Suggests to me the players simply weren't good enough as opposed to any failure in structure.

well, you're wrong. the issue is coaching and the set-up. the entire board has often commented that we have a dumb team. players who consistently make incorrect decisions take poor options because of coaching. if it's an isolated issue where it's one player, you point to the individual, when it's a problem that encapsulates the team, that's coaching and structure

 

[Malibu#27]

Allowing the opposition to have a spare man in defence is not on its own a bad thing.

You need to weigh up the impact your spare man (for us it was on ball) is having.... as well as devise strategies to minimise the impact of the spare man. (I know some will ague that he had an average game), but I'd have rather seen the ball in Hartletts hands as a spare mid as "generally" he is better at hitting up a target.

If you can put a spare man on the ball that can get their hand on it, and damage the opposition when they get hold of it then you can well negate any influence of the spare defender. but hand in hand with that, you need to set your forward line up to make it hard for the spare man to act as a spare man.

For instance, someone mentioned we were setting our 4 talls up in a tight 15 metre apart square formation. Logic says that if this is the case and the forwards are not spreading as the ball comes in that the loose man can chop out a lot easier than if there is some serious separation.
4 talls also presents problems if you are not delivering the ball well because as soon as the ball hits the ground you are at a disadvantage. I reckon you're better served with 3 talls, 2 crumbers if you are going to allow a spare man.

I know the article mentions Harry wasn't involved in any scoring chains in the first quarter, but he didn't need to be to be effective. If 5 of his chop outs resulted in the ball being cleared to the wing or to half forward for Collingwood and a pack formed or the ball went out of play, then Collingwood scoring from the resulting 50/50 means Harry has done his job.

the entire Malthouse/Collingwood coaching philosophy was about moving the ball out of the danger area and resetting the play further up the field - its why they played the boundaries, as they were more than happy for the ball to go out of play and to back themselves to win the next clearance.

I was also a bit miffed to read this morning that Port didn't want to activate the sub to early because they were worried that Renouf would run out of puff and they didn't want to hamstring themselves in this event. I would have thought this is a very defensive mindset - effectively treating the sub as a quasi emergency and only bringing them on when someone was injured just in case a ruckman got tired.
Jolly had been in average form, so I would have thought a better strategy was to give Renouf more rest during quarters - especially if jolly was resting, rather than burning him out then subbing him out. Afterall - one of the supposed bright lights of the pre-season was Daniel Stewart stepping in to support us in ruck.
Seeing Wingards imapct when he came on suggested we lost something by leaving him out of the game for so long.

 

[Forzaport]

well, you're wrong. the issue is coaching and the set-up. the entire board has often commented that we have a dumb team. players who consistently make incorrect decisions take poor options because of coaching. if it's an isolated issue where it's one player, you point to the individual, when it's a problem that encapsulates the team, that's coaching and structure

What happens when it's 5 players or 8 players? How can you possibly blame coaching and structure when our best 22 is loaded with honest triers? Do you honestly believe that if we bring Malthouse in we'll suddenly become a lot more skilled and hit our targets? Even Matlhouse took the good with the shit and had to develop players and teams and cycle through lists.

I'm sure if Primus had Jolly controlling the taps with Pendlebury and Swan running through the middle and with Cloke up forward the results would be vastly different.

 

[oporto]

What happens when it's 5 players or 8 players? How can you possibly blame coaching and structure when our best 22 is loaded with honest triers? Do you honestly believe that if we bring Malthouse in we'll suddenly become a lot more skilled and hit our targets? Even Matlhouse took the good with the shit and had to develop players and teams and cycle through lists.

I'm sure if Primus had Jolly controlling the taps with Pendlebury and Swan running through the middle and with Cloke up forward the results would be vastly different.

why did the team pull itself back into the contest after the coaching staff made changes to the structure and strategy against Collingwood?

bringing a coach like Malthouse would improve this team dramatically. port adelaide has unrealised and underdeveloped talent in the list. You can blame this on Williams and you can blame this on Primus if you like. A coach like Malthouse, who has been through the ringer at several clubs as a player and coach, has seen what it takes to succeed at the top level. what has primus seen outside of port as a strategist? he's been at Port Adelaide for the majority of his career. he hasn't developed an appreciation for coaching outside of the club. Malthouse has and would bring a clearly defined structure to the team. sure, the top end talent in terms of Pendlebury and Swan aren't there, but why can't our B grade talent develop into A- talent?

Coaches like Malthouse clearly define roles in a team for the individual player. Sure, resources are one thing, but explain to me why Brad Gotch has been able to coach 5 - Alipate Carlile, Troy Chaplin, Jackson Trengove, Paul Stewart and Jacob Surjan of the 6 best performed Port Adelaide players in 2012?

The list needs improvement, there can be no doubt about that. the team looks to be improving with their competitiveness but you cannot tell me with a straight face that Primus and his staff have not butchered strategy, namely the use of the sub and some questionable match ups during the first four rounds to the ultimate detriment of the team. Gotch said as much when he admitted the staff was too slow to react to the O'Brien match up.

 

[FishingRick04]

Forwards are made to look based on how good their midfield is. How many times have we seen mid's kick the ball to a position where it forces a Forward to move to it? eg kick to position.

Kicking it defender side, kick it on the forward head etc just doesn't help. IMO our forwards are there, our midfield isn't.

 

[FishingRick04]

What happens when it's 5 players or 8 players? How can you possibly blame coaching and structure when our best 22 is loaded with honest triers? Do you honestly believe that if we bring Malthouse in we'll suddenly become a lot more skilled and hit our targets? Even Matlhouse took the good with the shit and had to develop players and teams and cycle through lists.

I'm sure if Primus had Jolly controlling the taps with Pendlebury and Swan running through the middle and with Cloke up forward the results would be vastly different.

Malthouse made honest players win games. God what were their names. The guy from Brisbane (not buckley), Licuria etc.

If we had Malthouse I would say we would get 9-10 wins with this team.

 

[Portia]

shane o'bree

 

[FishingRick04]

That's the spud, opps sorry that's the guy

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I think Mick Malthouse would make an enormous difference to our club.

To dismiss the whole list as 'honest trier' is a cop out. If they were honest triers they could arguably have won every game they played this year. There are too many players that are being more like dishonest with themselves and not playing to the limit of their ability. Many of them are cruising.

Malthouse in terms of the playing list brings an aura that players pay attention to. What he says resonates with them and they would believe in the game plan he would bring. He would know who is really giving it their all and who is there for the lulz and who is there to commit their human endeavour on the field until it is completely exhausted. He knows how to structure the team to produce to its maximum.

Off field he would make our list known across Australia. How many times have we read in the past few weeks that our players are unrecognisable to the media outside SA? Every media person would pore over our list to assess how Mick is doing and what could he can do to make it better. We would get immense media attention.

He would attract the best assistants because who is better to learn from than Mick Malthouse? The existing coaches would learn more and become even better coaches.

The reality is Primus will probably stay on and we will continue to build up from the bedrock we were digging through. It will take longer than with a Malthouse at the wheel but it will happen. There will still be painful times, but with success we should throw off some of that relative anonymity.

But my view is that the Port Adelaide Board would be exceptionally derelict if it did not sound out Malthouse during the year. All he can do is say no. There's no point assuming the crash position and saying he wouldn't come anyway. It costs nothing to ask and there is so much to be gained. And this year there isn't much competition as so many coaches were appointed last year, while the top teams will stick with their own.

 

[FishingRick04]

"It costs nothing to ask and there is so much to be gained. "

Everything you said is correct and the above is spot on. Sometimes coaches love these scenarios. His kids are older, he would identify plenty of untapped talent on our list with this year to come. Most other clubs coaches are secure it would be an ideal time to poach him from Victoria if at all possible.

I'm emailing KT now

 

[Waspy79]

To dismiss the whole list as 'honest trier' is a cop out. If they were honest triers they could arguably have won every game they played this year. There are too many players that are being more like dishonest with themselves and not playing to the limit of their ability. Many of them are cruising.

Ford I don't really agree with you. Who are the players that are cruising? Id only put Westhoff in that category as he at times looks disinterested, but I honestly think all of our players are trying their hardest to get success for our club. Many of our players have reached their peak and its not as high as we would have hoped or expected. We simply don't have the cattle to consistently compete with teams with several A-grade players, and only if we find or develop that cattle, the status quo will remain. Effort might get results in lower leagues, and it might be enough to cause an occasional upset at the top level if you catch an opponent on a bad day, but effort and skill is required at the top level to have a consistent impact, the impact which we are all craving.

 

[Forzaport]

why did the team pull itself back into the contest after the coaching staff made changes to the structure and strategy against Collingwood?

I think you can make the argument that Collingwood took their foot off the accelerator after the damage had been done in the first quarter and that allowed Port more opporunity to claw back the margin. I remember there was a 10 minute burst in the 3rd or 4th where Collingwood again pushed hard to get some breathing space.

bringing a coach like Malthouse would improve this team dramatically. port adelaide has unrealised and underdeveloped talent in the list. You can blame this on Williams and you can blame this on Primus if you like. A coach like Malthouse, who has been through the ringer at several clubs as a player and coach, has seen what it takes to succeed at the top level. what has primus seen outside of port as a strategist? he's been at Port Adelaide for the majority of his career. he hasn't developed an appreciation for coaching outside of the club. Malthouse has and would bring a clearly defined structure to the team. sure, the top end talent in terms of Pendlebury and Swan aren't there, but why can't our B grade talent develop into A- talent?

Malthouse would definately be an improvement, but a dramatic improvement? With our resources and support staff, I'm not convinced.

Coaches like Malthouse clearly define roles in a team for the individual player. Sure, resources are one thing, but explain to me why Brad Gotch has been able to coach 5 - Alipate Carlile, Troy Chaplin, Jackson Trengove, Paul Stewart and Jacob Surjan of the 6 best performed Port Adelaide players in 2012?

Gotch has done a tremendous job, but please keep in mind that the players he's working with are amongst the most experienced on our list and have played together the most. Trengove is just an on & off field gun for his age.

The list needs improvement, there can be no doubt about that. the team looks to be improving with their competitiveness but you cannot tell me with a straight face that Primus and his staff have not butchered strategy, namely the use of the sub and some questionable match ups during the first four rounds to the ultimate detriment of the team. Gotch said as much when he admitted the staff was too slow to react to the O'Brien match up.

I'm not going to deny that Primus' gameday strategy has been questionable. All I have done is highlight an article on the AFL website that suggested Primus' decision to let O'Brien run rampant wasn't completely insane, there was method to the madness and maybe, just maybe, it was a failure in the ability of the players instead of a failure in the structure/strategy.

 

[FishingRick04]

Ford I don't really agree with you. Who are the players that are cruising? Id only put Westhoff in that category as he at times looks disinterested, but I honestly think all of our players are trying their hardest to get success for our club. Many of our players have reached their peak and its not as high as we would have hoped or expected. We simply don't have the cattle to consistently compete with teams with several A-grade players, and only if we find or develop that cattle, the status quo will remain. Effort might get results in lower leagues, and it might be enough to cause an occasional upset at the top level if you catch an opponent on a bad day, but effort and skill is required at the top level to have a consistent impact, the impact which we are all craving.

D Pearce is another. then you have players like Boak, Gray, and a host of others not coming on or being consistent enough as they could be.