How do we improve our midfield?

[Impatient Sainter]

How do we improve our midfield - Im talking this year?

Its time for Richo to stop playing his favourites and look outside the box. We need to get serious inside midfield minutes into blokes like Minchington, Sinclair, Billings, Gresham even McKenzie & Webster are options. Richo you need to take a step back and trust these other players and give them confidence to suceed (not one week in and the out again).

At seasons end we seriously need an A grade midfielder addition and several from the draft.

[mad saint guy]

Armo, Dunstan out. Shiel, Acres in.

[White Winmar]

Dustin Martin. Dylan Shiel. Josh Kelly. Nathan Fyfe.

[desertsaint]

this year? more guys that can rotate - lonie and wright out, acres and stevens in. billings can switch half forward and mid, long hopefully good enough to come in soon as a half forward.

[bigcarl]

How do we improve our midfield?

1) Give Acres, Gresham, Steele, Stevens (particularly those four, but aslso anyone else capable of joining the rotation and contributing) as many chances to prove themselves worthy as have been granted to Dunstan and Armo. We need 10 guys who can go through the midfield, not four.

2) We may need to consider two ruckmen sometimes. That will probably mean dropping Bruce, Paddy or Membrey unbless one of the rucks sits on the pine half the match.

[Johnny Member]

Are you talking about stoppages and center square?

Because almost every player is a midfielder these days.


Are you referring to improving stoppages?

[mightysainters]

Stop playing the same dour B- class mids all in the same middle.. Steele, armo, Dunstan, Ross..

Also don't play one of these on a wing..

[spert]

I think Armo is shot as a midfielder..didn't do much in the JLT, and looked VFL-grade last week. Over the last two seasons he has started well, then faded as the year went on. Ross is capable of a good effort, but is let down by lack of burst speed, and the same goes for Dustan. Steven is our most effective onballer, but can't shake a good tag..good leg speed but seems to get bumped off the contest a bit easily..maybe just not as strong as some mids going around.

I think the best bet for a quality midfield is built around bigger stronger players like Steele, Acres, and the smaller skilled players like Gresham, Sinclair- not super fast, but make up for it with excellent skills with hand and foot, something totally below par at the moment in our midfield.

[White Winmar]

How do we improve our midfield?

1) Give Acres, Gresham, Steele, Stevens (particularly those four, but aslso anyone else capable of joining the rotation and contributing) as many chances to prove themselves worthy as have been granted to Dunstan and Armo. We need 10 guys who can go through the midfield, not four.

2) We may need to consider two ruckmen sometimes. That will probably mean dropping Bruce, Paddy or Membrey unbless one of the rucks sits on the pine half the match.

Paragraph (1). I wouldn't be holding my breath, though. A bit too risky for AR, methinks. Likes to stick with what he knows, by the looks of things.

[Johnny Member]

Stop playing the same dour B- class mids all in the same middle.. Steele, armo, Dunstan, Ross..

Also don't play one of these on a wing..

There's no such thing as a 'wing' really anymore.


If anything, the new 'wing' is the corridor.

Teams use the wings to slow it down these days, and the corridor to move it quickly.

[Johnny Member]

How do we improve our midfield?

1) Give Acres, Gresham, Steele, Stevens (particularly those four, but aslso anyone else capable of joining the rotation and contributing) as many chances to prove themselves worthy as have been granted to Dunstan and Armo. We need 10 guys who can go through the midfield, not four.

2) We may need to consider two ruckmen sometimes. That will probably mean dropping Bruce, Paddy or Membrey unbless one of the rucks sits on the pine half the match.

Paragraph (1). I wouldn't be holding my breath, though. A bit too risky for AR, methinks. Likes to stick with what he knows, by the looks of things.

To be fair, that's what all coaches do. And not doing that, is often referred to as 'panicking' or 'knee jerk'.

[White Winmar]

How do we improve our midfield?

1) Give Acres, Gresham, Steele, Stevens (particularly those four, but aslso anyone else capable of joining the rotation and contributing) as many chances to prove themselves worthy as have been granted to Dunstan and Armo. We need 10 guys who can go through the midfield, not four.

2) We may need to consider two ruckmen sometimes. That will probably mean dropping Bruce, Paddy or Membrey unbless one of the rucks sits on the pine half the match.

Paragraph (1). I wouldn't be holding my breath, though. A bit too risky for AR, methinks. Likes to stick with what he knows, by the looks of things.

To be fair, that's what all coaches do. And not doing that, is often referred to as 'panicking' or 'knee jerk'.

You have to, at least to a certain extent, JM, but the best do take risks and change things up. Beveridge and Clarkson come to mind. Lyon does not. Playing Acres, McKenzie and McCartin doesn't strike me as a knee jerk. A calculated gamble, with a real prospect of great reward.

[spert]

When does "knee-jerk" become "jeez we need to do something about it, as it's costing us games" ?

[Johnny Member]

When does "knee-jerk" become "jeez we need to do something about it, as it's costing us games" ?

When you panic.


And panic isn't helpful at AFL footy clubs.

[Johnny Member]

You have to, at least to a certain extent, JM, but the best do take risks and change things up. Beveridge and Clarkson come to mind. Lyon does not. Playing Acres, McKenzie and McCartin doesn't strike me as a knee jerk. A calculated gamble, with a real prospect of great reward.

What have Beveridge and Clarkson done to support your view?

[desertsaint]

One bad game and so many have gone from lauding our lads to dismissing them. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Stevn is quality, Dunstan is fine and will just get better. Billings likewise. Steele will be very good, Acres as well, Stevens we are yet to know, Ross and Newnes dependable, Gresham may become a mid, but should develop in the forward line this year, Armo appears past his best and heading towards a depth player. We need a couple of top mids, but the first five mentioned will be in our core going forward.
The fault on Saturday was partly coaching and partly mental - Melbourne switched it up, we switched off.

[Bluthy]

this year? more guys that can rotate - lonie and wright out, acres and stevens in. billings can switch half forward and mid, long hopefully good enough to come in soon as a half forward.

Agree - I think that hurt us against Dees with all of Lonie, Weller and Wright not able to rotate through the midfield. Likewise Dunny, Ross & Armo can't really play anywhere but onball which limits your versatility and ability to mix it up when its going against you. I'm getting worried about our versatility now whereas I thought it was going to be a strength. Sinclair instead of Lonie would give you a better mix forward as he's a good little goal scoring opportunist and clever play maker when onball. Whether he can get enough of the foot in the middle is an issue.

For me the big worry this year is that teams will have worked out that our strength is our ability to chain ball movement to move the footy and will do what Dees did - use your own weapon of high pressuring against us to stop the chains and then we fall back on individual skills and that isn't at a high level. Guys like Newnes, Ross, Dunny, Armo, Gilbo Robbo, Savage etc were capable of covering the ground well last year and really brought into the gameplan of working hard to support your team-mate to keep the movement going often with deadly effect.

But I think teams will over-commit to us this year when we have it, pushing really high with the logic that we don't have the kicking power and creativity to hurt them in the open space behind them. That is why I think we are one-dimensional in the midfield. Unless you have the skilled, creative players who can make a clever individual play and open up through the oppo press and make razor sharp kicking to move it upfield and make the oppo back off with their press, they will just keep pressing to box us in, suffocate us and get the turnover often in deadly position.

The solution would be to take a gamble on a bit more of the x-factor, skilled kids in the midfield who won't have the bigger bodies but will use the ball better - Billings, Gresh, Acres, Sinclair, you could even try Phillips. But then you risk being physically underpowered until they bulk up. It could be going backwards to go forwards. If the results aren't there in the first half of the year, then we might need to look at that route.

Likewise half backs like White & Rice I think would be better around clearances when the ball is in the back half rather than Webster & Savage, as they have a higher footy IQ. Rice in particular I think could be effective onball even as he has a solid body and really intelligent hands you need in packs. The higher your footy IQ all over the field the more you can work the ball out effectively as the game is becoming so much about quick, clever handballs in heavy traffic to work it out to clear air.

But I do think the players from last week for most part deserve a chance at redemption. But watch for WC doing what dees did - taking a risk by over-committing at the ball carrier relentlessly knowing we don't have the individual skills to deal with it and hurt them the other way.

And then of course you can even cut-out that whole pesky "winning the footy in the midfield" thing by KEEPING THE FOOTY in the first place. The better kicking players we get in, the more we can run the oppo ragged like Dees did to us. There is nothing as demoralising and exhausting as chasing the ball around the field impotently like we did on Sat. You keep your energy by keeping the ball and bring players into the game by getting touches regularly.

[RODOS]

we could start by playing our most x factor type inside mid that can find and space where there is none. Seriously, it's very unlikely we're going to win this one, it's time to give acres a game in the f n guts. He needs games. Real games.

[robsaint]

we could start by playing our most x factor type inside mid that can find and space where there is none. Seriously, it's very unlikely we're going to win this one, it's time to give acres a game in the f n guts. He needs games. Real games.

Like the way you think. Try some of the guys with a bit of speed in the middle with one in and under player who can feed it out. No harm and you never know what will happen.

[WellardSaint]

put 2 young blokes in from VFL that can actually hit a target.
Drop Gilbert forever, as his delivery is suspect and goes to the wrong player, therefore disadvantages our mids.

It's like some warehouse staff not packing correctly, and loading the wrong stuff onto a truck.
Gilbo is the warehouse guy loading wrong, and our mids are the truckies.

Make Geary handball most of the time, and only kick if he can get it to a lone player easily

[White Winmar]

You have to, at least to a certain extent, JM, but the best do take risks and change things up. Beveridge and Clarkson come to mind. Lyon does not. Playing Acres, McKenzie and McCartin doesn't strike me as a knee jerk. A calculated gamble, with a real prospect of great reward.

What have Beveridge and Clarkson done to support your view?

Apart from the fact both pinched unexpected premierships by catching out the opposition with new tactics and playing young guys, not much, I suppose. Luke's "handball central" ring a bell? Taking risks at selection and sticking with guys like JJ, Hamling, Marcus Adams, Daniel, Redpath et. al. I could go on. Daring at selection. Daring with the culture. Daring with the kamikaze run and gun game style. Same with Clarkson. Let's not forget 2008. Brought in Dew, played the first-year kid in Rioli and stuck with him despite some annoying habits and flat spots(Acres anyone?). Created Clarkson's Cluster, which caught out the other teams, including the team that had lost one game all year, on the biggest stage of all. Innovation trumped the arrogant fish lips and his hillbillies. I can't believe you even asked the question as to what they'd done. They took calculated risks, which resulted in premierships.

I've stated on here many times that I'm a great fan of AR's coaching, but I was very disappointed with the selection of the round one side. I was also staggered to see the lack of tactical response to an obvious ploy, the nine-man defence rushing forward at the centre bounce, Goodwin deployed to swing the game their way. Not just AR's fault, but the whole coaching box. There was plenty of doubt expressed on here, most of it justified, prior to round one as to how the defence would be structured. All of Geary, Brown, Gilbert and Savage in the same defensive group is just asking for trouble. None of them can hit the side of a barn when the pressure is applied and doesn't the opposition know it? They are happy to see the ball in their hands because it gives them a chance to catch us on the rebound. They have little or nothing in terms of weapons that hurt the opposition. Can you see those four in a premiership side? I can't, and I doubt anyone else can, either. The same applies to the sameness of our midfielders. They are good individual players, with excellent skill levels, but they are a bit too similar in style and lack the weaponry of the best teams.

Time to roll the dice, Al. Montagna will come back, but he's not the future, either. McKenzie, Acres, Rice (when fit), ditto Freeman (if he ever gets fit), White, Phillips, Long when available, Goddard and Battle, should all be given a decent run at it this year. If Dempster goes, promote Marshall. He has potential in spadesful and will need games under his belt. He's 21 and has plenty of experience playing against men. We won't win the thing this year, that much was obvious from the start, but we need to use this year to develop our future stars, or at least see who is capable. AR's conservative style is starting to make him look a bit like Ross Lyon 2.0. Play it safe, stick to your favourites, and play the guys who are made in your image when you were a player. The dreaded term "role player" comes to mind. AR has told us it's all about versatility and he's right. Some of the guys he's playing are too one-dimensional to carry out this mantra.

I know several of the lads I mentioned weren't or aren't ready for selection, and you can't play them all at once, but I hope he shows some dash in this regard in the near future. Our success, if we are to have any depends on it.

[SaintPav]

Plus 1 WW.

Nice post.

[Johnny Member]

You have to, at least to a certain extent, JM, but the best do take risks and change things up. Beveridge and Clarkson come to mind. Lyon does not. Playing Acres, McKenzie and McCartin doesn't strike me as a knee jerk. A calculated gamble, with a real prospect of great reward.

What have Beveridge and Clarkson done to support your view?

Apart from the fact both pinched unexpected premierships by catching out the opposition with new tactics and playing young guys, not much, I suppose. Luke's "handball central" ring a bell? Taking risks at selection and sticking with guys like JJ, Hamling, Marcus Adams, Daniel, Redpath et. al. I could go on. Daring at selection. Daring with the culture. Daring with the kamikaze run and gun game style. Same with Clarkson. Let's not forget 2008. Brought in Dew, played the first-year kid in Rioli and stuck with him despite some annoying habits and flat spots(Acres anyone?). Created Clarkson's Cluster, which caught out the other teams, including the team that had lost one game all year, on the biggest stage of all. Innovation trumped the arrogant fish lips and his hillbillies. I can't believe you even asked the question as to what they'd done. They took calculated risks, which resulted in premierships.

I've stated on here many times that I'm a great fan of AR's coaching, but I was very disappointed with the selection of the round one side. I was also staggered to see the lack of tactical response to an obvious ploy, the nine-man defence rushing forward at the centre bounce, Goodwin deployed to swing the game their way. Not just AR's fault, but the whole coaching box. There was plenty of doubt expressed on here, most of it justified, prior to round one as to how the defence would be structured. All of Geary, Brown, Gilbert and Savage in the same defensive group is just asking for trouble. None of them can hit the side of a barn when the pressure is applied and doesn't the opposition know it? They are happy to see the ball in their hands because it gives them a chance to catch us on the rebound. They have little or nothing in terms of weapons that hurt the opposition. Can you see those four in a premiership side? I can't, and I doubt anyone else can, either. The same applies to the sameness of our midfielders. They are good individual players, with excellent skill levels, but they are a bit too similar in style and lack the weaponry of the best teams.

Time to roll the dice, Al. Montagna will come back, but he's not the future, either. McKenzie, Acres, Rice (when fit), ditto Freeman (if he ever gets fit), White, Phillips, Long when available, Goddard and Battle, should all be given a decent run at it this year. If Dempster goes, promote Marshall. He has potential in spadesful and will need games under his belt. He's 21 and has plenty of experience playing against men. We won't win the thing this year, that much was obvious from the start, but we need to use this year to develop our future stars, or at least see who is capable. AR's conservative style is starting to make him look a bit like Ross Lyon 2.0. Play it safe, stick to your favourites, and play the guys who are made in your image when you were a player. The dreaded term "role player" comes to mind. AR has told us it's all about versatility and he's right. Some of the guys he's playing are too one-dimensional to carry out this mantra.

I know several of the lads I mentioned weren't or aren't ready for selection, and you can't play them all at once, but I hope he shows some dash in this regard in the near future. Our success, if we are to have any depends on it.

But this is a different argument.


If winning a flag is what determines whether a coach is any good or not - then there's 17 dud coaches in the comp last year.

Longmire is no good - forget that he lost Alir before the game, and that Mills and McVeigh took injuries into the game. Forget that even though that happened, they were in front until Franklin did his ankle, then Parker and Hannebury both did their knees. And forget that Kennedy was knocked out too.

Forget that - they lost so the coach failed. He was outcoached by the opposition coach's tactics.


I'm being facetious obviously.

But your point that "Apart from the fact both pinched unexpected premierships by catching out the opposition with new tactics and playing young guys, not much, I suppose" is rubbish and not even relevant to this discussion.



But anyway, Beveridge didn't pinch a flag due to new tactics and playing young guys. There's been a lot history rewritten since the Dogs fell over the line in the GF, and a lot of myths spread - and this is one of the biggest.

The Dogs won the flag namely due to the fact that Sydney lost 7 guys due to injury, including 4 during the game itself! The other reason they won is that they have very good players, and had them on the park just in time for the finals (thanks to the Bye) and most importantly - they play with a manic intensity both offensively and defensively for 4 quarters. GWS matched them in that area for 3.5 quarters, but without Ward for most of the match faded under the pressure late in the game. The Dogs maintained it though. They played the 15 oldest and most experienced guys on their list, and were able to hold the level of pressure and intensity and concentration required, for 4 quarters. The younger inexperienced team without their captain on the ground couldn't match for the whole game.

That was the difference.



But anyway, back to the 'playing young guys' bit....

Of their top 15 oldest players that were available, all were picked in the GF team except for Suckling and a rookie ruckman.
Of their 15 most experienced players that were available (games played), every single one was in the GF team except for Suckling.

If Crameri and Murphy were fit, they'd have been in the team also which would have mean that Beveridge was picking 18 of his oldest and most experienced players in his best 22.

So where do you get this 'he took a risk and played young guys' nonsense from? He was playing every single experienced guy he had - and topping up with 'young guys' such as Hunter, Tom Boyd and Caleb Daniel. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that there's any risk involved in there??



Clarkson is a great coach in the sense that his plan clearly is good enough to win a flag - and he gets his players to buy in to it. But even he with his brilliant strategies couldn't get over the line without superstar players to carry it out.


But really, are we saying that unless our club has a coach as good as Clarkson, we may as well give up??

Scott isn't a tactical genius. Longmire isn't. Worsfold wasn't and still isn't.

As per above, I don't think Beveridge is either.


The one thing that all of the premiership coaches of the past 20 years have had in common in though, is:

• A plan solid enough to win a flag. Doesn't mean it's sneaky, tricky or some masterstroke that catches everyone else off guard - just solid enough to win the flag
  A team that buys into what the their selling
  A team that can carry it out to the letter
  A team with very, very good experienced and solid senior players
  A team with superstars in it
  A team that can maintain pressure and intensity for 4 quarters week in, week out.

Does Richardson have the tactical brilliance of Clarkson? I doubt it.
Is the team buying into what he's selling? Seems to be.
Is the team carrying out his plan to the letter? No. At least it doesn't appear to be.
Is the team capable of carrying it out to the letter? No.
Do we have a team of very, very good experienced players? No.
Do we have a team with superstars in it? No.
Can we maintain pressure for 4 quarters every week? No.



To summarise, 'taking risks' and making knee jerk tactical changes mid game or even mid season is not what Clarkson and Beveridge do or did. It's a myth. It's local footy stuff. Like all coaches, they devise a plan and spend countless hours over several seasons trying to get it right. The 'Plan B' for all coaches is 'keep doing Plan A, just do it better and how we've practiced it over the past 4 years'.

Hird spent an entire pre-season preparing Hooker to be thrown up forward late in games. The armchair experts out their lauded the tactical brilliance to come up with such a pearl of genius when Hooker kicked the goal late to beat Hawthorn - but they'd trained for that for months.

[White Winmar]

You asked the question, JM and I answered it. They pinched unexpected flags. Using new tactics (Clarkson's cluster, Bevo's handball and they both were bold at selection, sticking with kids and someone like Dew, who no one else wanted. (Fairly clear, I would've thought). I suspect you didn't like the answer, hence the long and rambling reply, full of confirmation bias and irrelevant arguments. We used to have a saying in the Homicide Squad. If you get a long, rambling letter from a lawyer that is full of denials, irrelevant arguments and attacks on strong points of evidence, just relax and know you'll be ok. When you get a lawyer's letter that is a few sentences long, panic, because he knows he's got some dynamite in his brief.

A good example is your assertion that if Crameri and Murphy had played they would've had their oldest 18 out there. But they didn't play, Johnny, reMEMBER? If your Aunty had balls she'd be your uncle. So what is your point? Nonsense disguised as an attempt to argue? Didn't take a chance on Boyd and Daniel? Not just on GF day, but throughout the year in order to prepare and develop them. Daniel was, in the opinion of many, 'too small" and was drafted in the 40's. Boyd was consistently derided as the most expensive dud in history until the PF. Bevo persisted with both. That's called risk taking. And Clarko's Cluster? You seem to be the only person in the football world who doesn't laud him for it. Doesn't suit your argument to admit it was bold and innovative, does it? A brave attempt, but alas no cigar.

[Myron Gaines]

A lot including myself bemoan the opportunities afforded to Dunstan whilst others like Acres plays VFL or rots on a flank at the top level. Dunstan by all accounts has a smart footy brain & follows team instructions. His role doesn't seem to be to win an awful lot of the footy but instead defend, block & create space for Steven & Armo to propel the ball foward. I wonder with Armo out injured, if Dunny is given greater scope to play his natural game & play more offensive? His current output is about 15 touches a game, I'm starting to put that down to the role Richo has him playing & suspect he could give us more if the coach allowed it. Perhaps Dunny isn't the plodder many suspect him to be & there's room for improvement for him & by extension our midfield as a whole?