The flaws in Richo's tackling/pressure game

[Bluthy]

Last night I thought we saw some of the flaws in Richo's tackling/pressure game that is our main brand:

1) Against a quality team like Swans with big bodies who can brush off tackles, and have the quick hands to get it accurately, and have the numbers to support, they can still work it out through our tackling press. We couldn't get the turnovers that has been one of our big weapons. In GF you will be against a big bodies, talented team and it will be very hard to get those turnovers.

2) Once they have got it out they can slice us up. Do we have a proper defensive structure in place or is it relying on this tackling game to bottle it up and if that comes undone, we have no proper defensive zoning. In several games this year now against teams that have beaten our tackling press, they slaughter us on the outside, going through us like butter.

3) That pressure game is extremely draining. All players have to keep throwing themselves at the ball carrier and do a lot of running to get to contests as any drop off in the chain lets them get out. Tackling is probably the most physically demanding activity in the game. That can be hard to maintain throughout a marathon season, year after year.

3) Swans were able to keep the footy with crisp, clean, accurate possession. Nearly all their players can use the footy well. You can't tackle when you are standing on the mark. And swans let the ball do a lot of their work. They had a lot of energy up their sleeve for that second half. You keep the ball, you keep your energy, you can make the oppo run and shake them out of their zone set up, and you also are the ones in control, able to play to your strengths.

No game plan is perfect. It's a constant chess game out there trying to undo the oppo's tactics and alter yours to work better. I just have worries that this tackling/pressure game plan is too simplistic. I thought we were going to be developing a really good kicking/possession based game.

Choosing Billings as pick 3 was a big statement of intent that we value good kicking and creativity. But I worry Richo is devaluing good kicking - guys like Billings, Sinclair, Lonie, White don't seem to be being valued for their good foot skills and instead of getting better because they are used a lot its the opposite - there skills are degenerating. Instead guys like Wright and Minch who I think have bad decision making, are move valued for their ability to bring pressure and tackling.

Signed,
Worried with a little woe

[HitTheBoundary]

The Swans may be premiers.
They are a very good side.
We stayed with them until half time.
We had three players injured - Hickey, Armitage, Fisher.

Our tackling pressure worked but their sheer volume of quality mids meant that they could still clear the ball.

All last night showed was that we need more mids.

[Joffa 5]

The Swans may be premiers.
They are a very good side.
We stayed with them until half time.
We had three players injured - Hickey, Armitage, Fisher.

Our tackling pressure worked but their sheer volume of quality mids meant that they could still clear the ball.

All last night showed was that we need more mids.

I agree with this sentiment, it's not all bad news. We're still rebuilding and last nights first half is a good indication we're on the right track. We just need to get better which will come with experience

[Impatient Sainter]

Excellent summation Bluthy - we are far too reliant on winning the contested ball in close. Teams that spread the ball quickly by hands have cut us up far too easily. I wonder how so many of there players linking up from hbehind had no one near them - how can that happen.

Having said that I think Sydney will WIN it this year their midfield and flankers are superior to any other club in the finals.

[spert]

Probably not for the first time, it appears Richo has gone defensive too much in the midfield in one quarter, in this case the third. It stifles our run and let's quality teams run and spread, and kill us. Should be more on the offence as we do it well- our defensive work ain't good.

[SemperFidelis]

I agree that if we were playing finals this year we would be cut up by the bigger bodies.

But I do think Richo's teaching them the fundamentals of how he wants them to play. All the under 25s will come back bigger and better next year. The disparity between body size will narrow.

I would be worried if I thought we were losing skills, and if that happens others here will rightly say "I told you so". But looking at our first half last night, I thought our handballs and especially our kicking efficiency were as good as they've been.

I agree that if we can't execute both better for more of the game next year there will be cause for concern, but this year I am happy we are travelling in the right direction.

[Scollop]

Spert

I'm not surei if that happened but I'll watch the replay and take your word for now. I hate it when teams defend too early especially if the manic attacking style is what got you so close to being in with a chance. Once you start trying to save games or stop your opposition from scoring instead of focusing on trying to score you're gone.

It's like a team is saying we are not interested in scoring and the opposition gets a taste of blood and becomes more aggressive. The opposition is interested in winning and you are only interested in reducing the losing margin. I hate it when teams try and defend a 2 goal lead with 5-6 minutes to go in a match...idon't mind slowing down the play but you still need an attacking mindset

Sydney are showing signs of being a ruthless attacking team and Horse has evolved into a damn good coach. In years gone by he would have taken the foot off and Swans were renowned for having poor second halfs. I reckon Richo woul have learned a lot from their gamestyle, but gee it sure helps having such bulls in the midfield and a bloke called Buddy in your team

[Johnny Member]

??

You make it sound as if this high pressure brand of footy is some kind of new thing that we've come up with?


All teams aim for an extreme level of intensity for 4 quarters. I'd be gravely concerned if our coach wasn't trying to implement a style of play that wasn't based on a non-negotiable of fierce pressure every week.



As I've said all season, we have a chronic lack of talent. Sorry, but it's fact.

Shane Savage as our loose half back, vs. McVeigh as theirs.

Armitage vs. Steven Parker and Hannebury.


I could go on. And on.


We don't score, or prevent scoring through winning contests. We're not good enough.

Reiwoldt, Stevens and Sam Fisher are probably the only 3 that are capable of winning a one on one contest. Gresham does it at times too.


Compare that with other teams and you'll find that they are made up of players that are good enough to turn a 50-50 contest into a win for their team.

We just don't have that.

We need to get talent to the club. Some guys will improve as they get older and find themselves being able to win contests, but realistically we will need to get more of these guys to the club externally.


We can only score 3 ways:

1) Via a Hickey-Stevens clearance
2) Switching from defence until we free up the loose man
3) Turnovers


The better teams have been able to shutdown the first two, and also reduce their own turnovers by not succumbing to our pressure.


That's what happened last night. And also pretty much what's happened in each game that we've lost.

We need to be able to generate scores through sheer ability too, like the good teams do. We need to also be able to win contests that prevent scores against us. We don't have the cattle to do that at the moment.

But suggesting having a high-pressure game plan is a problem, is bordering on ridiculous.

[Johnny Member]

Probably not for the first time, it appears Richo has gone defensive too much in the midfield in one quarter, in this case the third. It stifles our run and let's quality teams run and spread, and kill us. Should be more on the offence as we do it well- our defensive work ain't good.

Who do we have that can play quality, attacking football in the middle of the ground?

Who do we have with the ability of Hannebury, McVeigh and Parker? Who on our list could possibly go head to head with these guys for 4 quarters?

[mr six o'clock]

The Swans may be premiers.
They are a very good side.
We stayed with them until half time.
We had three players injured - Hickey, Armitage, Fisher.

Our tackling pressure worked but their sheer volume of quality mids meant that they could still clear the ball.

All last night showed was that we need more mids.

I agree with this sentiment, it's not all bad news. We're still rebuilding and last nights first half is a good indication we're on the right track. We just need to get better which will come with experience

Also we didn't have much luck
Many times are pressure was great and the loose ball still fell the swines way

[saynta]

The Swans may be premiers.
They are a very good side.
We stayed with them until half time.
We had three players injured - Hickey, Armitage, Fisher.

Our tackling pressure worked but their sheer volume of quality mids meant that they could still clear the ball.

All last night showed was that we need more mids.

I agree with this sentiment, it's not all bad news. We're still rebuilding and last nights first half is a good indication we're on the right track. We just need to get better which will come with experience

Also we didn't have much luck
Many times are pressure was great and the loose ball still fell the swines way

Yep. Rarely does the fickle bounce of the ball favour us.

[carn_sainter]

??

You make it sound as if this high pressure brand of footy is some kind of new thing that we've come up with?


All teams aim for an extreme level of intensity for 4 quarters. I'd be gravely concerned if our coach wasn't trying to implement a style of play that wasn't based on a non-negotiable of fierce pressure every week.



As I've said all season, we have a chronic lack of talent. Sorry, but it's fact.

Shane Savage as our loose half back, vs. McVeigh as theirs.

Armitage vs. Steven Parker and Hannebury.


I could go on. And on.


We don't score, or prevent scoring through winning contests. We're not good enough.

Reiwoldt, Stevens and Sam Fisher are probably the only 3 that are capable of winning a one on one contest. Gresham does it at times too.


Compare that with other teams and you'll find that they are made up of players that are good enough to turn a 50-50 contest into a win for their team.

We just don't have that.

We need to get talent to the club. Some guys will improve as they get older and find themselves being able to win contests, but realistically we will need to get more of these guys to the club externally.


We can only score 3 ways:

1) Via a Hickey-Stevens clearance
2) Switching from defence until we free up the loose man
3) Turnovers


The better teams have been able to shutdown the first two, and also reduce their own turnovers by not succumbing to our pressure.


That's what happened last night. And also pretty much what's happened in each game that we've lost.

We need to be able to generate scores through sheer ability too, like the good teams do. We need to also be able to win contests that prevent scores against us. We don't have the cattle to do that at the moment.

But suggesting having a high-pressure game plan is a problem, is bordering on ridiculous.

I agree.

High pressure is the cornerstone of every team's gameplan. Every team aims to apply very high levels of pressure when they don't have the ball and when the ball is in dispute.

I think the Swans a) have far more talent than we do and b) are better at having their structure set up around stoppages and congested ground ball situations. They also have cleaner hands to get out of these situations.

But every team is doing everything they can to apply as much pressure as possible. It's not a St.Kilda invention.

[carn_sainter]

The other thing to add about gameplan is that we are awful at kick-ins.

Whether we have just kicked a point and are defending the opposition or (and even worse) when they have scored a point and we are kicking in.

We are terrible. I'm sure of it. If anyone finds stats on this I would love to see them because I am just going off my patchy, confirmation bias memory on this one, but I am sure that we would be in the bottom 6 for this part of the game.

Needs to get better. You'd think with a great marking ruckman and 4 genuine leading forward targets to spread around the ground, as well as a guy like Dempster who is more than competent in the air we'd be better but it is a big weakness for us.

[fugazi]

Felt like we got shown how to play the kind of footy we aspire by a side that can actually do it.....bit like being beaten up by your big brother

[Trev from the Bush]

Felt like we got shown how to play the kind of footy we aspire by a side that can actually do it.....bit like being beaten up by your big brother

Hooray! You got it!

[Bluthy]

??

You make it sound as if this high pressure brand of footy is some kind of new thing that we've come up with?


All teams aim for an extreme level of intensity for 4 quarters. I'd be gravely concerned if our coach wasn't trying to implement a style of play that wasn't based on a non-negotiable of fierce pressure every week.



As I've said all season, we have a chronic lack of talent. Sorry, but it's fact.

Shane Savage as our loose half back, vs. McVeigh as theirs.

Armitage vs. Steven Parker and Hannebury.


I could go on. And on.


We don't score, or prevent scoring through winning contests. We're not good enough.

Reiwoldt, Stevens and Sam Fisher are probably the only 3 that are capable of winning a one on one contest. Gresham does it at times too.


Compare that with other teams and you'll find that they are made up of players that are good enough to turn a 50-50 contest into a win for their team.

We just don't have that.

We need to get talent to the club. Some guys will improve as they get older and find themselves being able to win contests, but realistically we will need to get more of these guys to the club externally.


We can only score 3 ways:

1) Via a Hickey-Stevens clearance
2) Switching from defence until we free up the loose man
3) Turnovers


The better teams have been able to shutdown the first two, and also reduce their own turnovers by not succumbing to our pressure.


That's what happened last night. And also pretty much what's happened in each game that we've lost.

We need to be able to generate scores through sheer ability too, like the good teams do. We need to also be able to win contests that prevent scores against us. We don't have the cattle to do that at the moment.

But suggesting having a high-pressure game plan is a problem, is bordering on ridiculous.

The analogy I always trot out JM is that the pressure should be the icing on the cake, but not the cake itself. Our main focus is now becoming "pressure" - and I suspect a lot of energy and planning is going into making that our main course of action. If you put energy into that, then you can't use your energy on other things. Of course all the good teams implement great pressure - in a way that's the problem - where is your competitive advantage when all teams do it but you are using it as your main focus. It's almost a Lyonesque approach and one I think has flaws in it particularly the deeper into the year you go.

I prefer a more possession based focus. I was excited at having Pelchen at the club because he helped set a tone at PA and Hawthorn about recruiting players and implementing a game plan based on keeping the ball. If you have the ball, you have the control. You can take it where you want to. The oppo need to spend petrol tickets to get it off you. You can let the ball do the work. you can kill the oppo's momentum just by keeping the footy for a bit. You then have the energy to ramp up you pressure when you need to get it off them. But if you keep handing it over then you are back to spending a lot of energy and physicality to bottle it up again.

But if you want to be a team that keeps the footy, then you've got to have an explicit focus that that is what you want your team to become and push through the set backs and criticism and long development time around that - both Williams at PA and Clarkson copped a lot of criticism for playing a possession based style of footy that many said wouldn't hold up in Sept. Players will struggle to keep the footy at first if they kick it a lot and you could have a lot of losses - but you've got to keep encouraging them to do it knowing it will pay off long term.

I don't think Richo has a big focus on possession. His brand is pressure and tackling and effort - thats his thing. Its a strength of his that he can get good player buy into for players to really push themselves to implement it - bit like Lyon was. But I worry the amount of work our players have to do to implement that and the toll it takes over a year and then multiple years. And to me its no surprise we give away a lot of frees - if you spend a lot of time without the ball tackling and chasing then you will give away frees - footy still rewards the guy with the ball first and foremost.

You play a guy like Nathan Wright, you are not putting a premium on keeping the footy. I think we should put a premium on keeping the footy. That should be the cake. And then the pressure and harassing is scrumptious chocolate icing with sprinkles.

I noticed Swans have definitely switched to a more possession based approach perhaps after being smashed by Hawks in the grannie a couple of years ago but also getting access to some highly skilled young talent through their academy to add to their blue collars. They want the control that comes with good disposal and used it to smash us over the head in the second quarter when we wilted after a big first half.

We do have some good kicking talent on our books - Billings, White, Rice, Sinclair, Lonie - but the more I see the likes of Wright, Minch and Geary thrive within Richo's game over the aforementioned creative, good disposal players, the more worried I get. To me its a signal of where we are headed and has me signing off as...

Concerned Saints Supporter who wants his team to keep that damn footy cos that's how you win a flag in the modern game

[Johnny Member]

You're basing this entirely on an assumption though.


I think you're assumption is wrong.

[Jacks Back]

??

You make it sound as if this high pressure brand of footy is some kind of new thing that we've come up with?


All teams aim for an extreme level of intensity for 4 quarters. I'd be gravely concerned if our coach wasn't trying to implement a style of play that wasn't based on a non-negotiable of fierce pressure every week.



As I've said all season, we have a chronic lack of talent. Sorry, but it's fact.

Shane Savage as our loose half back, vs. McVeigh as theirs.

Armitage vs. Steven Parker and Hannebury.


I could go on. And on.


We don't score, or prevent scoring through winning contests. We're not good enough.

Reiwoldt, Stevens and Sam Fisher are probably the only 3 that are capable of winning a one on one contest. Gresham does it at times too.


Compare that with other teams and you'll find that they are made up of players that are good enough to turn a 50-50 contest into a win for their team.

We just don't have that.

We need to get talent to the club. Some guys will improve as they get older and find themselves being able to win contests, but realistically we will need to get more of these guys to the club externally.


We can only score 3 ways:

1) Via a Hickey-Stevens clearance
2) Switching from defence until we free up the loose man
3) Turnovers


The better teams have been able to shutdown the first two, and also reduce their own turnovers by not succumbing to our pressure.


That's what happened last night. And also pretty much what's happened in each game that we've lost.

We need to be able to generate scores through sheer ability too, like the good teams do. We need to also be able to win contests that prevent scores against us. We don't have the cattle to do that at the moment.

But suggesting having a high-pressure game plan is a problem, is bordering on ridiculous.

It's Steven. STEVEN (no 's' on the end). S T E V E N.

He's one of our best players so at least you could get his name right.

[Devilhead]

Good Thread!

I understand your assessment Bluthy but I dont think its as straightforward as having a possession type game.

As a developing team full of developing bodies we need to hardened these minds and bodies as they slowly approach maturity and we have seen already this season that our younger players are starting to reap the benefits are starting to present with hardened attitudes and physical aptitude for the contest hence our marked improvement over the last two years.

As they say you got to learn to walk before you can run and the physical aspect of the game style we are currently trying to implement will hold them in good stead down the track when we are final contenders.

Looking at teams like Hawthorn who do play a possession type game you need a hard nosed back line that can win the ball and in having players like Gibson who rarely loses a one on one contests the Hawks back line allows their mids freedom to find space on the flanks wings and centre to receive knowing that the majority of the time the Hawthorn backs will win the ball and deliver precisely - interesting that we have accumulated quite a few backs who can kick the ball - White, Rice, Webster, Dmac who are also pretty strong in one on one situations (See Birchall, Dureya) - currently our back line is undersized and we seemingly are continually under pressure to clear the ball but I think we are on the right track with recruiting Carlisle (good one on one and can deliver precisely as well) and in a few more years I can see our back line being rock solid and dependable which will take the pressure off our mids to run down back and help out enabling them to have a more attacking mindset in the middle third of the ground and conserve energy.

The Hawks also have an exceptional forward line with talent in all positions who can get the ball but also pressure the opposition forwards to turn it over - again something that we are building towards slowly - this in turn again allows their mids to again concentrate in the middle of the ground and make good use of their skills to keep the ball when they do have it.

At the moment it is all about development and the style of gameplan I think suits our young team as it shows them what it takes to win the ball and create turnovers if and when required through pressure acts. As our back line develops I think you might see a change to more of a Hawthorn style but at the moment i like the idea of fast tracking our young uns in terms of hardness cause not only will it help them build their tanks and their physical contact endurance it will hold them in good stead comes finals when the intensity is 10 fold.

I know some supporters are screaming out for more mids (and yes it is super important to have depth here and we do need more class in this position) but defense wins championships as they say and if we can manage to put together a great one then that quick possession type game style will be easier to implement knowing that the harder pressure type game plan is already in place

and yes I do agree with JM that we need more talent - and it will come - see Salary Cap

[Teflon]

Im no game plan expert but 1 things stuck out like proverbial to me watching live last night was our forward entries (under pressure ofcourse but who isnt?)

We bombed in long, or kicked wide to a pocket
Swans brought it to near 50 m then looked for the chip lead up pass and time and again found them.
We looked to lack structure going forward and needed to rely on a big pack mark to have a shot which is not a % game play for mine.

[Devilhead]

Im no game plan expert but 1 things stuck out like proverbial to me watching live last night was our forward entries (under pressure ofcourse but who isnt?)

We bombed in long, or kicked wide to a pocket
Swans brought it to near 50 m then looked for the chip lead up pass and time and again found them.
We looked to lack structure going forward and needed to rely on a big pack mark to have a shot which is not a % game play for mine.

Its having that confidence knowing that your team mate is going to win the ball (whether it down back or in the middle of the ground) in that it allows you to leave your opponent and run to space with conviction and receive it in a great position forward of the centre.

Their mids are also hard nosed and strip a lot fitter than ours - its where we have to get to and that will come as they mature

[supersaints]

Maybe I just don't understand the OP
I have only seen this match on the screen but we were possibly the better side in the first half. Sydney's more seasoned bigger bodied mids were too much and too experienced once Hickey was basically Ineffective after injury.
Buddy got off the chain on the end of a dominant center clearances and Fishers injury

On the basis of a possession game it's only as good as your teams skills. There is not a team that would not like to control possession including us. Hawthorn have a great possession game Because they have great skills. Port Adelaide were found out because they possess and try to control the tempo but are not good enough.

Sydney are also the masters at creating stoppages this is thier ace. They won there grand final by playing for stoppages and deliberately handballed to someone with an apponent directly behind them so they seould be wrapped up and cause another ball up. They are exceptional at clearances and keeping possession like all good teams.
Simple fact.... the better the team the more they control possession.

If you want to talk about possession game look at Richmond once they have the ball they hang on to it, but don't know what to do with it , they have one tempo , even worse was Lyn's attempt at tempo controlled possession football this season . It was a complete disaster, he recruited ex Hawks players to try to do what Hawthorn do.

There is the obvious question to ask is how do Hawthorn actually get the ball? ....through skill getting if first at stoppages or pressure acts causing forced turn overs or the opponents unforced skill errors.

I think most coaches are on record as saying that the Saints manic tackling pressure is hard to beat. It's the thing that has got us more wins than even the most optomistic poster could hope for.

We WILL have a more possessive game as our skills allow, its not a thought out game plan it's about your skills when you have the ball. The better your skills the more you can control possession and tempo.

You will be able to say however that AR changed his gamelan because he listened to you, however the truth will be natural evolvement will increase our possession rate as our skills ( including foot and ball speed ) improve.

its a simple game plan for all teams from juniors up ... See ball, get ball, keep ball and when you loose ball, get ball back back to and start over again It's just how good you are at doing it over and over and over again. Of course the more you can keep ball the less arse you have to chase

I saw a better team in the premiership window beat an inferior team , but one which is quickly on the rise

[Johnny Member]

Im no game plan expert but 1 things stuck out like proverbial to me watching live last night was our forward entries (under pressure ofcourse but who isnt?)

We bombed in long, or kicked wide to a pocket
Swans brought it to near 50 m then looked for the chip lead up pass and time and again found them.
We looked to lack structure going forward and needed to rely on a big pack mark to have a shot which is not a % game play for mine.

There is no 'game plan' as such.

Not in modern footy.

There are probably 10-15 different scenarios which teams train for. I think we even had a club insider on here recently explain this to everyone. It's more like an NFL situation where there is a playbook, as opposed to the single 'game plan' that many think still exists in the modern game.

The team trains for reacting to various scenarios. When we have the ball, when we don't, when it's in defence, when it's forward, when it's close, when we create a turnover, when we get the pill deep in defence, when the opposition has the ball deep in defence, when we get the ball and the forwards are still up on the wing etc. etc.

The 'possession game' is a bit of a myth. No team plans to turn the ball over and give it to the opposition. Everyone wants to hold the ball until they score. Obviously. Some are better drilled at waiting until their forwards are setup before pressing forward with the ball. Others leave their forwards setup so when they get the ball, they can go bang as quickly a possible. But that only applies in certain scenarios during a game. There is no way in hell that any of these supposed 'possession game' teams hold the ball up and chip it around when they could move the ball forward into advantage in their F50 with 1 or 2 possessions. They move the ball in the most appropriate manner depending on the circumstance they find themselves in.

The more experienced the player, the better they are at making the correct play. The more experienced the team are as a unit (ie. games played together) the better they become at reacting as a unit.


This concept of a 'Richo's pressure game plan' is confusing. I don't get what the OP is saying. It almost has a 'just kick the bloody thing!' feel to it in terms of the outdated nature of what is being suggested.

I assume the OP is saying that Richardson has created a single way of playing footy, which is basically go as hard as you can at every contest and run like madmen for 4 quarters. With no other strategy around it. That skillful natural footballers are being told not to get the ball and be creative, but instead just bash and crash and froth at the mouth mindlessly for 4 quarters.

It's a silly premise, at best.





Every team, in order to compete with the best needs to have intense pressure as the cornerstone of their game. It has to be non-negotiable and done without even thinking about it for 4 quarters every week. The good teams can do it, the s*** ones can't. That's what makes them good teams, and s*** teams. Not a single premiership or GF team in the history of the AFL, or any sport for that matter, has had a problem with pressure and intensity. It's non-negotiable if you want to be a great team.

No strategy in the world will work unless pressure and intensity is matching your opponent's. They'll dismantle any strategy you have if they're first to the ball, if they're putting you under pressure when you have it, and running hard when they have it.

This is why s*** teams can cause upsets. It's why we beat Geelong - and nearly beat Hawthorn. They're both far better football teams in terms of their systems, experience and talent - but we matched their pressure and as a result were able to compete.

It's when both teams are bringing intense pressure for 4 quarters, like the top teams do at the business end, that strategy and system becomes the difference. Generally, it's actually individual skill and ability that proves to be the difference more than anything.


FWIW, I think we've trained and practiced several aspects of our game under Richardson - but a few we either haven't focused on yet, or just aren't any good at yet.

We can score well on the rebound from a turnover.
We can score well from a centre clearance and our system when we win the pill from any clearance is pretty good.
We can switch the ball and create a loose player and score when we're held up in defence.

The problem is that the good teams don't buckle under pressure as much, therefore the opportunity for turnovers is reduced. The other issue that good teams are able to shutdown our clearances and our switch from defence. Outside of Steven, our midfield just doesn't have the talent in there to extract the pill. As I posted a while ago in reference to being 'worked out', when these options are shutdown we find it hard to score. Sydney did it again to us in the second half.

We also have some big deficiencies in defensive setup. We're good at setting up against a slow opposition build up, but terrible at defending a fast one where a line anywhere ahead of the centre circle is broken. I've seen some behind the scenes footage of coaching meetings, and it does seem as though we focus heavily on what to do when the opposition has the ball at a stop in play. Where to stand, what to protect, etc. etc. But It's my guess that either we haven't started drilling it yet or we're just no good at it - but we fall apart when the opposotion wins a contest and breaks a line going forward. We're lost and there are opposition players everywhere.

We get beaten badly in one on one contests in most areas across the ground too, due to a lack of ability. As per above, if we get caught out in contests we're vulnerable on the rebound. Guys like Hannebury, McVeigh and Parker just brushed us aside. As did Cunnington against North. Armitage is virtually non-competitive this year in that stat which has hurt us.



We will get better. We'll get better at winning contests, but ultimately I think we're going to have to recruit externally in order to really improve in that space. We will get better at carrying out plays, we'll get better at working together as we play more games together.

But we're just not good enough yet - and I don't think anyone should really expect us to be. I think we're ahead of where we realistically should be to be honest. Well ahead of where I thought we'd be this year.

Next year and the year after is when we should be really decent.


But seriously, if we think we're being too hard on these young guys by teaching them to play hard and intense footy, we're fair dinkum kidding ourselves.

And if we think clubs employ 10-15 assistant coaches to come up with a strategy of 'just go out there and tackle as hard as you can', then I think as supporters we have a lot to learn about footy.

[samoht]

I agree. We need to throw the kitchen sink and bathroom sink and laundry trough at recruiting tough midfielders like Cunnington who don't get brushed aside but do the brushing aside themselves especially a couple of tough run and carry midfielders like a Treloar or the next Dustin Martin - the coaches are outcoached by better players hence better recruiters ultimately.
The Collingwood recruiters trumped ours with Treloar - that's where we need to improve .

[SemperFidelis]

Im no game plan expert but 1 things stuck out like proverbial to me watching live last night was our forward entries (under pressure ofcourse but who isnt?)

We bombed in long, or kicked wide to a pocket
Swans brought it to near 50 m then looked for the chip lead up pass and time and again found them.
We looked to lack structure going forward and needed to rely on a big pack mark to have a shot which is not a % game play for mine.

The fantastic thing about the Carlton game was the short stabs into inside 50 on a lead, rather than the long bombs. Obviously Carlton allowed us to do that, but the more accurate we are, the better we will be able to execute that.