Shutting the game down so early symptom of fatigue? Melbourne may have noticed this at the time and/or expected it to happen.
Fatigue because players making extra runs to make up for lack of defensive run from others?
Players who I see are or suspect are poor defensive runners:
Daniher - not required or expected to be a great defensive runner when not on the ball.
Gunston - has lost the ability to run defensively. May be an upgrade on McStay in some respects but a downgrade athletically and arguably in contested marking. McStay was IMO a better defender last year when sent back than Gunston is at this stage of his career. McStay’s workrate probably underrated. I felt that McStay probably could have played a mid/wing role if we required it and he worked on it during the preseason. Not a mistake to let him go for the money he was being offered though.
Lyons if we/he don’t win the clearance he generally becomes a liability. He can be quite slow on the spread defensively.
Rayner, doesn’t have the want or maybe the gas tank to do so. Can get sucked in hunting the ball. Has probably had his best year to date and keeps threatening to break a game open. He looked more settled in a hybrid 3rd tall role which also allowed us an extra runner to cover for his defensive short comings.
Oscar/Fort neither are great athletes. Don’t expect your ruckmen to be a great defensive runner either way. You need a ruckman, realistically each ruckmans is going to cancel each other out when talking about defensive run. Ruckman, as Gawn showed over the weekend can be a huge asset in defensive setup though. Oscar has shown the ability to do so but was massively outplayed. I expect Gawn may have pushed O to the point of exhaustion. I don’t believe bringing in two ruckman is the answer though, I don’t see the point in trying to h2h with Melbourne in a ruck battle by bringing 2 x ruckman who are both worse than either Melbourne ruck. We are better off trying to take advantage of the weaknesses their two-ruck setup will have. Harris to play on resting ruck.
Teams can only afford to carry a few guys who can’t or won’t run defensively, the first/easiest player to give a pass to is Joe. You cop poor defensive run from your #1 key forward and it is almost an expectation that they will not give you great defensive run. Joe is probably no weaker than any other key forward in this aspect and does run defensively at times. The way I see it, if x is the number of poor defensive runners you can realistically cover for a full game, then you cannot go over x in the modern game regardless of what other players may bring to the table offensively. What x actually is, is up for debate, I think it is 3 at most(not including #1 ruck). Lets say for arguments sake say those 3 players when we have played our best with the 2 forward set up are Rayner, Neale and Daniher. Which isn’t that out of the ordinary 2 x forwards, 1 x #1 mid. You don’t expect your #1 KPF and #1 mid to be great defensively all game. With Rayner you hope offensively what he brings outweighs what he doesn’t bring defensively but can cover his endurance, rather than a lack of intent over a game.
With Rayner, Gunston, Lyons, Zorko, Daniher and Neale all playing on the weekend, our run in general suffered but particuarly on defence. Your remaining 16 players probably need to run an extra 15-20% more/harder. With 10 mins left in the game, or 12.5% of game time left when they started to run over us/we failed to shut the game down and looked more fatigued than they did. I'm not giving Rayner a pass, but it is my belief that he offers more than Gunston both defensively and offensively which is why I would drop Gunston ahead of him. Rayner still needs to work on his tank though, without it he will never be the player he has the raw talent to be.
Important aspect of team balance is now a teams ability to cover ground defensively. This is why IMO 2 dedicated ruckmen has gone out of favour and potentially why the Demons looked better in spurts, particularly late against us than they have all year. More runners.
Disappointing thing (although still a big silver lining in a way) is it looked to me like the young guys + Daniher were the ones who really drove our comeback/dominance and the leaders in the team (outside of Clugg) did not step up, especially when it mattered most towards the end. The first crack does show that Gunston, mentally still has great awareness and game sense and looked like he was making the right calls but others weren't listening or couldn't hear him. But athletically the game has gone past him unless something changes quickly for him. Either way, we have a lot of experienced players now, we shouldn't need another premiership hawk to act as a kind of on field coach, our players are mature enough that they shouldn't need it anymore.
This is a fantastic post and nails the issue I think. It also should be shown to the coaching staff on why Fagan needs to make the tough decisions on some of his favourites who just don’t run. If he goes back to Rich this week, this season and era I will concede becomes a write off. This really will be a sliding doors moment for the club this week. Which way will they go?