Review Purple Tiger Tamers - Freo beat Richmond by 54 points at the MCG

[Bigger]

Here's something mildly interesting and somewhat counter-intuitive.

In quarters 2 and 3, when we attacked more quickly and used the corridor more, we scored less.

In quarters 1 and 4, when we set new world records in uncontested kick and mark, we scored more.

Does that mean we should always chip it around and bore the opposition into defeat? Does looking at things discretely - ignoring relationships which determine causes (for example, that the effort expended by a young team trying to physically dominate us directly led to a lack of fuel tickets which directly led to us kicking away literally and metaphorically in the last quarter) - really give meaningful insight into the overall picture?

I find a lot of stats-based analysis to be like the Borgesian map that was so accurate it lay completely over the area it was a map of. Just pointless.

We were miles away from being perfect in that game. There are a few important parts of the picture that are a bit off. I think we made plenty of unforced errors and we cocked up more than a few forward entries fundamentally through a lack of willingness to own the situation and say "I will kick this ficking goal." (But when dudes did try and do that - Slayshaw, notably - they kind of just confirmed why they shouldn't be blazing from 50 out expecting glory). But we controlled that game. We determined the outcome through system and effort.

And that's all you can aspire to do.

I was convinced we were going to lose this Friday for all the usual Freo reasons but looking back at this Richmond game, I am coming around to believing again.

 

[DragoDelph]

Here's something mildly interesting and somewhat counter-intuitive.

In quarters 2 and 3, when we attacked more quickly and used the corridor more, we scored less.

In quarters 1 and 4, when we set new world records in uncontested kick and mark, we scored more.

Does that mean we should always chip it around and bore the opposition into defeat? Does looking at things discretely - ignoring relationships which determine causes (for example, that the effort expended by a young team trying to physically dominate us directly led to a lack of fuel tickets which directly led to us kicking away literally and metaphorically in the last quarter) - really give meaningful insight into the overall picture?

I find a lot of stats-based analysis to be like the Borgesian map that was so accurate it lay completely over the area it was a map of. Just pointless.

We were miles away from being perfect in that game. There are a few important parts of the picture that are a bit off. I think we made plenty of unforced errors and we cocked up more than a few forward entries fundamentally through a lack of willingness to own the situation and say "I will kick this ficking goal." (But when dudes did try and do that - Slayshaw, notably - they kind of just confirmed why they shouldn't be blazing from 50 out expecting glory). But we controlled that game. We determined the outcome through system and effort.

And that's all you can aspire to do.

I was convinced we were going to lose this Friday for all the usual Freo reasons but looking back at this Richmond game, I am coming around to believing again.

Richmond denied us the corridor, so we took the flanks.

We just need to be ready when teams try and deny us the flanks, to take the corridor.

Knowing when to take either option is something they still need to learn.

 

[dockshark]

Here's something mildly interesting and somewhat counter-intuitive.

In quarters 2 and 3, when we attacked more quickly and used the corridor more, we scored less.

In quarters 1 and 4, when we set new world records in uncontested kick and mark, we scored more.

Does that mean we should always chip it around and bore the opposition into defeat? Does looking at things discretely - ignoring relationships which determine causes (for example, that the effort expended by a young team trying to physically dominate us directly led to a lack of fuel tickets which directly led to us kicking away literally and metaphorically in the last quarter) - really give meaningful insight into the overall picture?

I find a lot of stats-based analysis to be like the Borgesian map that was so accurate it lay completely over the area it was a map of. Just pointless.

We were miles away from being perfect in that game. There are a few important parts of the picture that are a bit off. I think we made plenty of unforced errors and we cocked up more than a few forward entries fundamentally through a lack of willingness to own the situation and say "I will kick this ficking goal." (But when dudes did try and do that - Slayshaw, notably - they kind of just confirmed why they shouldn't be blazing from 50 out expecting glory). But we controlled that game. We determined the outcome through system and effort.

And that's all you can aspire to do.

I was convinced we were going to lose this Friday for all the usual Freo reasons but looking back at this Richmond game, I am coming around to believing again.

Yeah this is actually a really interesting area to look at and exactly what I was posting earlier in the thread but led to a bit of pile on.

I think that the Q1/Q4 vs Q2/Q3 would have featured very heavily in the review done by the club. We took 78 uncontested marks in Q1 and Q4 which is extraordinarily high, and higher than many clubs average per game.

At the moment we struggle to score (and struggle to restrict scoring) when we try to move the ball fast via the corridor, and we are scoring much more heavily with slower and more controlled approaches via the flanks. The potential issue with this is when you face better teams, it's much harder to play this uncontested possession wide angled entry game as the better teams are more disciplined with maintaining their centre back structure and apply more pressure moe consistently to the ball carrier leading to more errors.

I think we can win on Friday night but it requires a lower reliance on uncontested possession, and some bold and fearless play to take the game on. I for one would rather see us lose to Sydney trying to win, than try to lock the game down and restrict their scoring. If you watch the Sydney vs GWS game it was a pretty brutal contest and Sydney really did a good job (particularly in the second half) of restricting possession and movement of GWS. Not really sure how the rain plays in, but possibly it is a good thing as it might drive a bit of unpredictability in and just maybe what we need is a bit of a 'play on whenever possible' game.

 

[Bigger]

Good teams have a few ways of winning. Great teams force other teams to allow them one way of winning.

We are becoming a good team. And are so young.

 

[Lach72]

I reckon this is often the case with flankers and wingers and it's hard to know without asking the coaches.

Case in point, Sharp v Bulldogs.

Barely got a sniff, but ran close to 16km or something

 

[ignoramus]

Yeah this is actually a really interesting area to look at and exactly what I was posting earlier in the thread but led to a bit of pile on.

I think that the Q1/Q4 vs Q2/Q3 would have featured very heavily in the review done by the club. We took 78 uncontested marks in Q1 and Q4 which is extraordinarily high, and higher than many clubs average per game.

At the moment we struggle to score (and struggle to restrict scoring) when we try to move the ball fast via the corridor, and we are scoring much more heavily with slower and more controlled approaches via the flanks. The potential issue with this is when you face better teams, it's much harder to play this uncontested possession wide angled entry game as the better teams are more disciplined with maintaining their centre back structure and apply more pressure moe consistently to the ball carrier leading to more errors.

I think we can win on Friday night but it requires a lower reliance on uncontested possession, and some bold and fearless play to take the game on. I for one would rather see us lose to Sydney trying to win, than try to lock the game down and restrict their scoring. If you watch the Sydney vs GWS game it was a pretty brutal contest and Sydney really did a good job (particularly in the second half) of restricting possession and movement of GWS. Not really sure how the rain plays in, but possibly it is a good thing as it might drive a bit of unpredictability in and just maybe what we need is a bit of a 'play on whenever possible' game.

Rewatching the third quarter, my only significant disagreement with what you say here is with every time you say "try", as though what unfolds during the game is the deliberate implementation of a planned strategy. I didn't see much in the way of especially “trying" to to move the ball fast via the corridor in this quarter. Rather, from the start of the second half (almost as though they'd had a bit of a gee up during the break) Richmond actually started applying a ton of pressure, which restricted the scope for possession-based play along the flanks — as you’ve noted (at the same time as you’ve stated that Richmond were “really, really poor” at applying pressure). This resulted in some quick play from Freo through the middle, e.g. towards the end of the quarter, when a kick in was deemed not 15, and the rushed play on set in chain some quality movement through the middle, resulting in a goal.

That demonstrates one of my issues with the way stats are sometimes used in analysis (hello, King). Stats give a relatively reliable measure of certain elements of what happened, but they are essentially agnostic (so to speak) with regard to why. Was it by design or was it by consequence? That fast play I just mentioned started as a possession play but became something else because Richmond by that time had stopped giving Freo the time and space required to complete that play. What happens is the product of two teams’ competing plans, such that what one side does is always a product of what the other side gives them to do.

The flipside is that what looks to be Freo’s “game plan” of using high numbers of uncontested marks to maintain possession, etc., is also a product of what the oppo gives them. The “game plan” looked very different to me, for instance, when we played the Dogs (notoriously bad defence) and likewise Brisbane. And it looked different again when playing Adelaide, Carlton and Port (reputedly high scoring teams).

In the end, that — the ability to do it in different ways — is what has me feeling pretty happy with how we’ve played so far this season. No doubt, the players are more adept at or comfortable with doing it one way over others, and we can’t rely on the oppo giving us the chance to play it that way in future. But the fact that there are signs of being to “switch” “styles” on the fly (as per the e.g. above) is comforting.

I’m looking forward to seeing that ability being tested and hopefully confirmed in the remaining games of the season.

 

[anchor man]

As with all analytical discussions. Without the facts it is hard to analyze.

Eg. We rate players as not performing due to lack of kicks. or lack of goals etc. What if that player had done all the tasks the coach asked of him. Most of us will never know the coaches instructions. Right or wrong the players must follow the coaches instructions. if he says "Hey run up and down the wing screaming for the ball, but no one will kick it to you as it is my plan to use you as a decoy" the fans may think the team are not playing well as they not using an individual in space or we may think that player shouldbe dropped as they got no touches for the game.

Having coached for many years, the coaches pick of best player is not always the guy with most touchs or most goals. but a lot of times it is simply the guy that did as instructed.

Totally agree re stats. It is really only relevant to the fantasy fotball,and the likes.
Some players are therd to fill a role and just do what the coach demands.
Some "experts" get totally wrapped up in stats. One in particular on Fox makes it sound like the most vital part of the game, more important than kicking a winning score.
Only stat that matters at games end is the score board.

 

[Purple Jesus]

LOL...I'm confecting a narrative to suit my agenda now am I

You could try just being a bit tolerant to alternative views and consider that just maybe I see things a bit differently to you. I responded to your last attack with some analysis as I see it, and explained the alignment between uncontested possesion and uncontested marks and scoring penetration in qtr 1 and qtr 4, and why that is something that needs working on if we intend to be competitive against tougher teams and in September. You seem more interested in being rude and reading things that arent there than in actually discussing the game though so I'll leave you to that.

The bloody hypocrisy of this is sending me

 

[dockshark]

The bloody hypocrisy of this is sending me

Cool. Well I hope you day gets better.

 

[tacopavlich]

AFL in my opinion is nearly always better to watch live at ground than on TV as a lot happens off the ball, up the ground and down the ground. Positioning of players etc.

On TV they focus a lot on where the ball is at times they zoom in too far i feel.

This to me is the biggest difference between Rugby and AFL. Rugby the ball movement is everything and not a lot happening off screen. The only benifit for live is the atmosphere (depending on where you sitting and other fans it can be a negative too LOL)

so as some have said. Whenever i could i would go to the live game and then rewatch it on TV to pick up on all those free kicks i missed when sitting so far away. Sadly due to work and other issues havent been to an AFL match live for quite a long time now.

The response to thoughtful criticisms can be a bit cult-like on here at times. We don't want an echo chamber do we?

One is not really objectively better than the other, It's just different perspectives. I just want to say I went to the game as well and only just saw it again on Kayo and I'm a bit baffled by Docksharks opinion, there wasn't any notable difference to the quality of pressure and running that was evident on screen vs live. We closed down any easy outlets and shut them down early, so to call it "we beat poor opposition badly" is a narrative I don't get. If anything our professionalism was more evident if you were at the game.

Nothing wrong with criticism but I feel there is a bit of extra sauce being added under the assumption you're less likely to get called out for it unless you also live in Melbourne.

 

[Tonga Bob]

Good pick up here.

 

[GingerDocker]

That is awesome analysis, should be more of it.

So much happens on the ground that I'm totally unaware of...I feel almost ashamed to have an opinion sometimes!

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

That is awesome analysis, should be more of it.

So much happens on the ground that I'm totally unaware of...I feel almost ashamed to have an opinion sometimes!

I've said it before but it's a crime how much the footy public are let down by the media. There's so much room for analysis and interesting pick-ups that we just dont get with minor exceptions like The Mongrel Punt a bit and The Shinboner. It's really sad how far even the most diehard supporters (those on BF really) are off from fully understanding AFL tactics / moments

 

[Demons09]

Great to listen to in the huddles during the breaks knows what he’s talking about, don’t know how he ended up at Perth Demons.

 

[E Shed]

As with all analytical discussions. Without the facts it is hard to analyze.

Eg. We rate players as not performing due to lack of kicks. or lack of goals etc. What if that player had done all the tasks the coach asked of him. Most of us will never know the coaches instructions. Right or wrong the players must follow the coaches instructions. if he says "Hey run up and down the wing screaming for the ball, but no one will kick it to you as it is my plan to use you as a decoy" the fans may think the team are not playing well as they not using an individual in space or we may think that player shouldbe dropped as they got no touches for the game.

Having coached for many years, the coaches pick of best player is not always the guy with most touchs or most goals. but a lot of times it is simply the guy that did as instructed.

I relate to this. I used to captain/coach a social cricket team for years which was like herding cats, the players would vary from ex county/state level ring-ins to blokes who would literally smoke joints in the outfield (one guy actually went to sleep at fine leg one day).

But the games could get pretty serious at times and there would always be a couple of decent opening bowlers.

I used to get the 2 most useless unco batsmen & tell them to more or less stand in front of their stumps & do anything except get out. Since bowlers were only allowed 3 overs each if they could see off the first 4 I’d send our best technical players in next then the biggest hitters as the attack got weaker & weaker.

We almost always won & those 2 guys did their jobs. I always singled them out for praise afterwards.

A bit of trivia, one of the most blatant pot smoking, disinterested fielders was a former Eagles player.

Fun times.

 

[Joao]

I relate to this. I used to captain/coach a social cricket team for years which was like herding cats, the players would vary from ex county/state level ring-ins to blokes who would literally smoke joints in the outfield (one guy actually went to sleep at fine leg one day).

But the games could get pretty serious at times and there would always be a couple of decent opening bowlers.

I used to get the 2 most useless unco batsmen & tell them to more or less stand in front of their stumps & do anything except get out. Since bowlers were only allowed 3 overs each if they could see off the first 4 I’d send our best technical players in next then the biggest hitters as the attack got weaker & weaker.

We almost always won & those 2 guys did their jobs. I always singled them out for praise afterwards.

A bit of trivia, one of the most blatant pot smoking, disinterested fielders was a former Eagles player.

Fun times.

They couldn't have been that unco if they managed to see off 6 overs of potentially former FC/1st grade level bowlers. Those blokes, even in their twilight, are a handful.

 

[dockshark]

One is not really objectively better than the other, It's just different perspectives. I just want to say I went to the game as well and only just saw it again on Kayo and I'm a bit baffled by Docksharks opinion, there wasn't any notable difference to the quality of pressure and running that was evident on screen vs live. We closed down any easy outlets and shut them down early, so to call it "we beat poor opposition badly" is a narrative I don't get. If anything our professionalism was more evident if you were at the game.

Nothing wrong with criticism but I feel there is a bit of extra sauce being added under the assumption you're less likely to get called out for it unless you also live in Melbourne.

Evidently I wasn’t clear with what I was saying. What I was saying is that the telecast doesn’t show the lack of structural pressure being applied by Richmond ahead of the ball carrier. This was particularly evident in Q1 and Q4 where they were frankly disorganised, but even in Q2 and Q3 where their pressure was up it was principally pressure on the ball carrier and man on pressure with still pretty poorly implemented structure. I wasn’t referring to the quality of our pressure or running at all.

 

[E Shed]

They couldn't have been that unco if they managed to see off 6 overs of potentially former FC/1st grade level bowlers. Those blokes, even in their twilight, are a handful.

We used to train every week back then & I’d have them face our best bowling & practice getting behind the line and playing straight. But they were the guys you would normally bat at 10/11. I’m just using them as an example of turning your weakest link into a strength by using it in an unexpected way.

And to be honest most of the guys that had played at those levels that came down were sloggers, carrying too much weight who could bowl a bit of medium at best and more likely just handy leggies. They would make 30-40 in a couple of overs & be retired.

The opening bowling wasn’t much more than guys who were quick in school & a bit of club cricket with the odd guy (we had one) who could swing it at decent slow medium. We had a very competitive indoor team most of my guys came from so it was pretty accurate but never anything that would be considered fast at the higher levels.

There was one guy I had who was very tall & pretty quick for the level but he would (completely accidental due to lacking control) occasionally bowl a dangerous bouncer and one opener from the other mob dropped his bat, came down and took a swing at him after nearly copping one on the chin so the scary stuff was very much discouraged.

 

[Joao]

We used to train every week back then & I’d have them face our best bowling & practice getting behind the line and playing straight. But they were the guys you would normally bat at 10/11. I’m just using them as an example of turning your weakest link into a strength by using it in an unexpected way.

And to be honest most of the guys that had played at those levels that came down were sloggers, carrying too much weight who could bowl a bit of medium at best and more likely just handy leggies. They would make 30-40 in a couple of overs & be retired.

The opening bowling wasn’t much more than guys who were quick in school & a bit of club cricket with the odd guy (we had one) who could swing it at decent slow medium. We had a very competitive indoor team most of my guys came from so it was pretty accurate but never anything that would be considered fast at the higher levels.

There was one guy I had who was very tall & pretty quick for the level but he would (completely accidental due to lacking control) occasionally bowl a dangerous bouncer and one opener from the other mob dropped his bat, came down and took a swing at him after nearly copping one on the chin so the scary stuff was very much discouraged.

Fair enough.

Whenever I've run into 1st graders (or the very odd 2nd XI/FC player), they are so far beyond most blokes, even if carrying a few kgs. The batsman especially. Just ton up for fun.

I love those bush leagues ( I played in regional NSW when I was young) where you get blokes from that level down to blokes who've barely held a bat all playing in the same teams though. See off some bloke bowling 125 to get out to some plodder struggling to make the 22 yards...

 

[ignoramus]

I've said it before but it's a crime how much the footy public are let down by the media. There's so much room for analysis and interesting pick-ups that we just dont get with minor exceptions like The Mongrel Punt a bit and The Shinboner. It's really sad how far even the most diehard supporters (those on BF really) are off from fully understanding AFL tactics / moments

Amen. I'm an MP subscriber, and I like it for the amount of coverage Freo gets, but it does tend to be more holistic assessment, rather than close analysis of structures, plays, etc. I really appreciate Shinboner doing the latter — possibly the only text-based outlet providing that (I don't care for podcasts), made even better by its use of marked-up clips for illustration. If Shinboner posted weekly analysis of Freo games, I'd happily pay his top tier membership fee.

Thanks for reminding me that I haven't checked in on Shinboner this week.

 

[anchor man]

I go to all home games, but my eye sight is not he best and miss a bit.
I am no expert on tactics and such, but from my positon in 521, I get a good view of the game unfolding.You can see a lot from up there.As someone said in a previous post. some players are given a role, like run up and down the wing like a chook with its head chopped off.Waving your arms, yelling like a Banshee.. all for the game plan.
I watch the game again when I get home and see a totally different perspective of the game.
I am not sure about others, but I see things I never saw at the game. See things players do that you don't see at the game.
I have watched a lot of football and am not guru or expert, but just love to view the game from different levels Up high and on the couch at home.I think on leaving the oval, gee so and so didn't do much tonigt, only to see the block, the shielding of team mate going for a mark,etc etc etc.
Why I always wait to watch the replay before making comment.

 

[MadMundy]

Great teams know how to get the four points at whatever cost.

 

[Paracleet]

Fair enough.

Whenever I've run into 1st graders (or the very odd 2nd XI/FC player), they are so far beyond most blokes, even if carrying a few kgs. The batsman especially. Just ton up for fun.

I love those bush leagues ( I played in regional NSW when I was young) where you get blokes from that level down to blokes who've barely held a bat all playing in the same teams though. See off some bloke bowling 125 to get out to some plodder struggling to make the 22 yards...

I have played club cricket on astroturf, otherwise known as park cricket to the uninitiated or snooty superior grade cricketers, for the best part 25 seasons and captained at least 1/4 of those from near the bottom grade to near the top. The idea you could send guys that can't bat in 8ths out to face the equivalent of 1st graders and expect them to last 3 balls, let alone 3 overs, seems absurd to me.

 

[dockshark]

I've said it before but it's a crime how much the footy public are let down by the media. There's so much room for analysis and interesting pick-ups that we just dont get with minor exceptions like The Mongrel Punt a bit and The Shinboner. It's really sad how far even the most diehard supporters (those on BF really) are off from fully understanding AFL tactics / moments

100% I would love to see some type of AFL viewing/streaming package released where you have access to more than one camera angle and with some more in depth analysis of structure and method going on.

I go to all home games, but my eye sight is not he best and miss a bit.
I am no expert on tactics and such, but from my positon in 521, I get a good view of the game unfolding.You can see a lot from up there.As someone said in a previous post. some players are given a role, like run up and down the wing like a chook with its head chopped off.Waving your arms, yelling like a Banshee.. all for the game plan.
I watch the game again when I get home and see a totally different perspective of the game.
I am not sure about others, but I see things I never saw at the game. See things players do that you don't see at the game.
I have watched a lot of football and am not guru or expert, but just love to view the game from different levels Up high and on the couch at home.I think on leaving the oval, gee so and so didn't do much tonigt, only to see the block, the shielding of team mate going for a mark,etc etc etc.
Why I always wait to watch the replay before making comment.

Totally agree. Live at the ground is much better for the bigger picture view, so you can see what’s happening off the ball, how teams are structuring, zone implementation, stoppage set-up etc. TV is much better for the closeup detail of what’s happening in each individual play.

Given how much of the games revenue comes from TV rights it’s would be amazing if tv viewers who can’t get to games could get better insight into the bigger picture but at the moment that’s pretty limited on telecast.

 

[anchor man]

If that is possible during games maybe. But would take away the thrill of watching it live.
But I do really blame the TV broadcasters for the way treat the viewers as if they are imbeciles and know nothing about the game.
Dermott is a prime example. He does know his sheeit, I will give him that, but he rambles on and on, during the run of play. By the time he has said what he has, he uses a thousand words where he could use ten.
Most who watch the game on tele know what they see. Those that don't generally would have no idea what he is talking about.
They have run with the same tripe for heaven knows how long and they keep bringing in former players that struggle to get the mesage across.
A pair that drive me mad are BT and Richo. Richo is BTs nodding head. BT says something he nods his head and says... "Yes Brian"



100% I would love to see some type of AFL viewing/streaming package released where you have access to more than one camera angle and with some more in depth analysis of structure and method going on.