The Fox Report - Round 18

[Solar]

fantastic report

on a couple of things. I think that the swans matched highlighted the fact that we can't have both blake and max in the same side. Zac, gilbo, chips all can use the ball. Blake can run and use it but they still issolate him and max. It's way too obvious.

I also agree with the size of the ground, we actually play better with more space. You can work over the zone easier on a smaller ground through kick hands then a long kick. On a larger ground you need to hit targets 40 metres away, whch is hard when you are under frontal pressure and pushing through the zone. I can't wait to see us at the G!

[desertsaint]

i think ball was dropped simply to help push the message that he needs to tune his game and carry out his role completely - we need him firing. and the vfl allows him to work on these things outside the intensity of the afl.

eddy has a different role in the overall scheme of things, including filling in holes of unavailable first team players (whether thru injury or loss of form), he's been doing his job but has dropped off, and ball, as was the plan, will come in if fit and ready, in time to properly prepare for finals.

[bergholt]

If Eddy was actually quick, this theory would have something going for it.

Eddy is fairly pedestrian, but he has an enormous motor on him, and can literally run all day.

that makes him quick in the final quarter, i reckon.

[saintsRrising]

Pretty fair summary of the weekends game and news reports.

Yes Lyon has now indicated that we are now tapering for the finals.

Roles. I think all coaches are pretty obsessed with players having roles. However Lyon has taken the TEAM focus to a great high. This is not surprising having come from Sydney where Roos honed this at the Swans where their ability to apply themselves to roles (tasks) gained them a flag in front of teams with more ability.

If a player delivers his role...his team-mates can play better. Zones only wrk well when each do their part.

A TEAM is like a jig saw...and is only complete when you have every piece.

However a twist on that is that IMO Lyon likes versatile players that can play more than one role....so if a piece goes missing you have an instant replacement.

Big Ben is showing good signs with his general field play and confidence...and willingness to use his body (I love this in a ruckman and ama HUGE believer in the value that physical ruckman can add). BUT Ben is still a LONG way off with his ruckwork. When King went off Jolly dominated. Now this is nota negative critism of Ben for I believe his tap and ruckwork will improve in time.

[matrix]

im still trying to figure out where the hell this came from:

"They aren't picked on their ability, and I also don't believe that they are picked on their work ethic."
"I believe it's to the point where you will get picked simply because you can run hard."

[rodgerfox]

im still trying to figure out where the hell this came from:

"They aren't picked on their ability, and I also don't believe that they are picked on their work ethic."
"I believe it's to the point where you will get picked simply because you can run hard."

It's a theory based on the fact that certain players appear to be 'first picked' types of guys, when the rest of the football wouldn't have them in the best 25.

Lyon clearly has some sort of different philosophy on selection, and I don't believe it's simply due to the fact that someone works hard on the track.

And I also don't believe it's based on football talent or ability.

[saint66au]

im still trying to figure out where the hell this came from:

"They aren't picked on their ability, and I also don't believe that they are picked on their work ethic."
"I believe it's to the point where you will get picked simply because you can run hard."

It's a theory based on the fact that certain players appear to be 'first picked' types of guys, when the rest of the football wouldn't have them in the best 25.

Lyon clearly has some sort of different philosophy on selection, and I don't believe it's simply due to the fact that someone works hard on the track.

And I also don't believe it's based on football talent or ability.

Hmm..thats a pretty big call...sure blokes may be picked to "do a role", but at some point they have to be able to kick, mark, handpass, tackle..you know...all that football talent that got them on an AFL list in the first place?

Well whatever it is...seems to be working ok so far eh?

[rodgerfox]

Hmm..thats a pretty big call...sure blokes may be picked to "do a role", but at some point they have to be able to kick, mark, handpass, tackle..you know...all that football talent that got them on an AFL list in the first place?

Well whatever it is...seems to be working ok so far eh?

Sure, but when there are guys in the 2s who can kick, mark, handpass and tackle better than them, it does make people wonder why they are picked each week.

Just to clarify, I'm not being critical of selection. Just floating a theory around it, that's all.

The selection criteria does seem to be outside of what the average footy fan has come to expect.

[saint66au]

Hmm..thats a pretty big call...sure blokes may be picked to "do a role", but at some point they have to be able to kick, mark, handpass, tackle..you know...all that football talent that got them on an AFL list in the first place?

Well whatever it is...seems to be working ok so far eh?

Sure, but when there are guys in the 2s who can kick, mark, handpass and tackle better than them, it does make people wonder why they are picked each week.

Just to clarify, I'm not being critical of selection. Just floating a theory around it, that's all.

The selection criteria does seem to be outside of what the average footy fan has come to expect.

Nah thats fine..I think the "do a role" theory has many other belivers as well..

The key to this side, and RL as said as much. seems to be flexibility..the "total football" rationale that our lovers of the World game are so fond of quoting. Everyone doing everything. You wold think that along with that would be a Plan B should we lose a "A" lister to a game-ending injury during a match. the role-players if you will stepping up to fill an "A"list role.

I dont think its too much of a stretch to suggest that this years premiership will be won by the team that has to implement that Plan B the least.

[bergholt]

The key to this side, and RL as said as much. seems to be flexibility..the "total football" rationale that our lovers of the World game are so fond of quoting.

does that mean that riewoldt is cruyff?

[bigred]

fantastic report

on a couple of things. I think that the swans matched highlighted the fact that we can't have both blake and max in the same side. Zac, gilbo, chips all can use the ball. Blake can run and use it but they still issolate him and max. It's way too obvious.

I also agree with the size of the ground, we actually play better with more space. You can work over the zone easier on a smaller ground through kick hands then a long kick. On a larger ground you need to hit targets 40 metres away, whch is hard when you are under frontal pressure and pushing through the zone. I can't wait to see us at the G!

Agreed.

Thought the same thing last night when I watched the replay.

The whole MCG fail idea is moot. I look forward to seeing us play there.

[matrix]

im still trying to figure out where the hell this came from:

"They aren't picked on their ability, and I also don't believe that they are picked on their work ethic."
"I believe it's to the point where you will get picked simply because you can run hard."

It's a theory based on the fact that certain players appear to be 'first picked' types of guys, when the rest of the football wouldn't have them in the best 25.

Lyon clearly has some sort of different philosophy on selection, and I don't believe it's simply due to the fact that someone works hard on the track.

And I also don't believe it's based on football talent or ability.

wanna give us the players u think are in this category?
cause im friggin stumped

[saintsRrising]

On Roles and Football Ability


I don't think it is so much that players are chosen without regard to "fooball ability", but rather what makes a good footballer has had the criteria broadened and changed.

It is no good being a fantastic kick or mark, if a player cannot also do many other aspects of the game including team and fitness requirements.

The Saints are playing TEAM football as few team have ever done, and arguably as none have done.

The full oval press only works when you have a team of players with the "ability" to concentrate and work hard for 4 quarters.

The press requires players to be able to zone properly and as soon as the opposition have the ball. If a few players do not...then it all falls apart.

While Eddy might cop a lot of flack for his "pure football skills (though his marking is actually fair)" he performs very well in these team "abilities' and roles.

Whereas for example Fiora could not and fell by the wayside...despite being clearly a better football skilled player.

McQualter is probably the better compariosn as Eddy is still fringe.

McQualter has embraced all the TEAM aspects and so overall is a better "footballer" than the more naturally gifted and skilled Fiora.

Great footgae of Mini om OTC this week showing how Mini organises the forward line stoppages. No stats for this...but I am sure Lyon is well aware...and this leadership and "ability" shown by Mini is one reason why he is now in our best 22.



So Lyon as coach needs to pick 22 players who can:
* FIRST and most importnatly play TEAM football
* Have the fitness capacity to work-hard oulast the opposition
* As a group have reasonable football skills (naturally one might desire fantastic football skills, but it s only one factor and is not the be all to end all).

*******BUT the clever part is to fully exploit individual talents to the max within the Team structure. So wee see Roo doing the leading, Gram the running, BJ set-up play with his beautiful kicking, CJ as the run with tagger.

But talent is not enough....and so for example Roo, Milne and Schneider have all had to lift the defensive side of their game too.

Ball too has been asked to work on aspects of his game.


What made a good footballer in 1966 is vastly different from what is required in 2009..........and ball-skills are now just a part of what is required.

But have no fear...there still very much place for a "fooballer" who reads the play well...kicks well...or marks well. But this skills are not enough in themselves.

Kosi is perhaps an example of player with great marking skill, who is down somewhat on some team aspects but still gets selected because a power forward is a very good thing to have in your team structure.

[asiu]

players with the "ability" to concentrate and work hard for 4 quarters.

concentrate = key

i loved how , as soon as joey grubbered the point ...all focus went imediately to the next play

players moved .....no nothing but the next play

very impressive

[meher baba]

On Roles and Football Ability

Interesting essay, sRr, although I do feel that you have glossed over a small but significant flaw in Lyon's thinking

I totally agree that Lyon has been trying to get his players to play a particular strategy as a team. Key elements of that strategy include:

- an expectation that, having disposed of the ball, a player will run forward as quickly as possible to the next contest
- likewise, an expectation that a player who turns over the ball, or misses a tackle, will get over this instantly and move on with the game
- players away from the immediate contest should be constantly thinking about what they can be doing to help with the next contest: running dangerous opponents out of position, getting ready to receive/block/shepherd/tackle/run as a decoy, etc.
- players should be thinking all the time about how they are positioning themselves on the ground in relation to their teammates, to ensure the maximum zonal coverage and forward pressure when our opponents have the ball, and to maximise the disposal options when one of our players has the ball.

We are behind or only equal to some of the other teams in terms of clearances, the ability to create and convert goal scoring opportunities, and even tackling. But we are streets ahead of all other 15 teams in terms of the four characteristics I have outlined above: all of which relate to what players do off the ball.

I assume that Ball (and probably Geary before him) was dropped because - although he was doing ok in winning the ball in tight - he wasn't doing enough of these "off the ball" things to satisfy Lyon.

Even watching on TV, I have been able to observe other fringe players - Eddy and Gwilt in particular - busting their guts running away from a contest in which they were involved to find their best possible position for the next play. And, while I haven't noticed him doing that much of it so far, Dempster is apparently a renowned exponent of these "off the ball" skills.

The obvious flaw with all of this is that, if you emphasise the off ball play to the point that you weaken your ability to win and use the ball, you have shot yourself in the foot. I reckon Lyon came very close to doing this on Saturday night. We had a lot of players in the team whose skills at winning and using the ball are at best questionable: Max, Blake, Jones, Eddy, Gwilt and Dempster (the latter two of whom actually have good ball skills, but appear to have developed a bit of an allergy to leather).

With all these non "ball playing" guys in the team, too much of the midfield engine room work fell on the shoulders of Lenny, Dal and Joey, giving the Swans the opportunity to target these three with close tags and take away a lot of our forward thrust.

I defy anyone to argue against the proposition that Ball playing instead of Eddy would have made a huge difference by presenting the Swans with a fourth ball-winning player to target. I think the Geelong brains trust is desperately hoping that Lyon remains out of love with Ball and is seriously thinking of using Eddy instead in the finals.

And this is where I have a bit of a disagreement with Lyon. I found his comment about Ball's 30 odd possessions for the Zebras last week both condescending and trite. I would agree that what players do off the ball matters. But, if you leave aside the Swans and look at the other teams that have done well in recent years - Brisbane, Port, Eagles, Geelong and even the more defensive Hawks - all of them have an abundance of ball winners and ball users. The Swans are an undoubted exception to the rule. They have lots of defensive, negating players, and even some of their more celebrated "ball playing" players aren't really that skillful: Micky O for example (I don't know about you, but I wouldn't ever want to put any of my $$$ on him nailing a foot pass or kicking straight for goal).

Geelong doesn't have a single player who is as negative as Eddy, Dempster and Jones. Their best negating player is Ling, who is almost as dangerous with the ball as without it.

And I certainly don't agree with you, sRr, that ball skills are less important in footy than they were in 1966: they seem to be far more important to me. Players with brute strength but without ball skills don't seem to cut it any more: increasingly, even ruckmen. Teams have the ability to move the ball out of defence so quickly that a behind or a turnover inside our forward 50 can end up costing you twice: so players who are vulnerable when they have the ball in their hands are becoming significant liabilities.

When we get to the finals, I really hope Lyon has a rethink and starts to focus more on players who are going to make an impact in contests rather than simply through hard running and good positional play. Finals footy is different: opposing sides can come out of the blocks pumped up with adrenalin and kick a bagful of goals before you know where you are.

In those situations, your totally defensive guys like Dempster, Jones and Eddy aren't going to be much use to you (Baker, McQualter Gwilt and Blake would be more helpful, because they have other ways of making an impact other than purely through defensive pressure).

I remember some games in 2007 and 2008 (one terrible one was against North Melbourne) when we got behind and Lyon suddenly tried to switch our approach to all-out attack. It was like watching a beatup old Datsun sedan trying to match it on a formula one track. We totally stuffed it up and fell further behind.

And that's the (small) inherent risk in the style of footy we are currently playing.

And that's why we need to have guys like Ball and perhaps Geary in the team, rather than too many of the Eddys and Dempsters.

[bergholt]

In those situations, your totally defensive guys like Dempster, Jones and Eddy aren't going to be much use to you (Baker, McQualter Gwilt and Blake would be more helpful, because they have other ways of making an impact other than purely through defensive pressure).

unfair on jones here, i reckon. no, he's not an elite ball winner, but has been more than useful as an extra body in midfield this year, averaging 18+ possessions, kicking 7 goals with 9 goal assists - 41 inside 50s is more than two a game.

[True Blue Sainter]

The key to this side, and RL as said as much. seems to be flexibility..the "total football" rationale that our lovers of the World game are so fond of quoting.

does that mean that riewoldt is cruyff?

Surely it means Sandilands is Peter Crouch/Jan Koller

[BringBackMadDog]

With all these non "ball playing" guys in the team, too much of the midfield engine room work fell on the shoulders of Lenny, Dal and Joey, giving the Swans the opportunity to target these three with close tags and take away a lot of our forward thrust.

I defy anyone to argue against the proposition that Ball playing instead of Eddy would have made a huge difference by presenting the Swans with a fourth ball-winning player to target. I think the Geelong brains trust is desperately hoping that Lyon remains out of love with Ball and is seriously thinking of using Eddy instead in the finals.

And this is where I have a bit of a disagreement with Lyon. I found his comment about Ball's 30 odd possessions for the Zebras last week both condescending and trite. I would agree that what players do off the ball matters. But, if you leave aside the Swans and look at the other teams that have done well in recent years - Brisbane, Port, Eagles, Geelong and even the more defensive Hawks - all of them have an abundance of ball winners and ball users. The Swans are an undoubted exception to the rule. They have lots of defensive, negating players, and even some of their more celebrated "ball playing" players aren't really that skillful: Micky O for example (I don't know about you, but I wouldn't ever want to put any of my $$$ on him nailing a foot pass or kicking straight for goal).

Geelong doesn't have a single player who is as negative as Eddy, Dempster and Jones. Their best negating player is Ling, who is almost as dangerous with the ball as without it.

And I certainly don't agree with you, sRr, that ball skills are less important in footy than they were in 1966: they seem to be far more important to me. Players with brute strength but without ball skills don't seem to cut it any more: increasingly, even ruckmen. Teams have the ability to move the ball out of defence so quickly that a behind or a turnover inside our forward 50 can end up costing you twice: so players who are vulnerable when they have the ball in their hands are becoming significant liabilities.

When we get to the finals, I really hope Lyon has a rethink and starts to focus more on players who are going to make an impact in contests rather than simply through hard running and good positional play. Finals footy is different: opposing sides can come out of the blocks pumped up with adrenalin and kick a bagful of goals before you know where you are.

In those situations, your totally defensive guys like Dempster, Jones and Eddy aren't going to be much use to you (Baker, McQualter Gwilt and Blake would be more helpful, because they have other ways of making an impact other than purely through defensive pressure).

Totally agree MB, There needs to be a better balance between ball getters and defensive players, we had too many guys who got less than 10 possies last week which puts a hell of a lot of pressure on Dal, Lenny, Goddard and Joey and also makes us very predictable.
Plus the fact that for the first 14 rounds of the season Ball was either first or second in tackles and contested possies, and was averaging close to 20 possessions a game, Eddy wouldn't get close to this.

[meher baba]

In those situations, your totally defensive guys like Dempster, Jones and Eddy aren't going to be much use to you (Baker, McQualter Gwilt and Blake would be more helpful, because they have other ways of making an impact other than purely through defensive pressure).

unfair on jones here, i reckon. no, he's not an elite ball winner, but has been more than useful as an extra body in midfield this year, averaging 18+ possessions, kicking 7 goals with 9 goal assists - 41 inside 50s is more than two a game.

Yes, fair point: I suppose I should have checked his stats first.

I remember him having a lot of possies and inside 50s early in the season, but this appears to have dropped off a bit in recent weeks: indeed, it has been my impression that his performance in general has dropped off a bit since the break (including in the Geelong game where some, but not me, rated him highly).

Anyway, a lot like Bakes and unlike Dempster, CJ at his best seems to be able to juggle tagging responsibilities with some attacking play. He's certainly been a revelation this season.

[desertsaint]

it's the old but true cliche - 'a champion team will always beat a team of champions!'