Forwardline much better, Backline terrible

[bigred]

Dreadful conversion and almost zero forward pressure.

Some of the second efforts from kosi were terrible.

Far from the lone ranger though

[gringo]

Carlton has reinvented it's forward line why can't we? I wasn't keen on R. Stanley for the sake of it but if we had a genuine forward line instead of a reshuffle it would have to help.

Stanley
Kosi
Milne
Schnider
Peake
and go all out attack quickly. Stanley would at least hold it in there and take the odd contested grab with Kosi and a heap of good crumbers.

[bigcarl]

There are obviously people on this forum that know more than me so can someone explain why we wouldn't:

1. leave the back 6 alone - they are up there with the best
2. Leave the midfield alone minus Goddard
2. Goddard to CHF to replace Roo

At the moment neither the forward line or the backlline can settle as every 5 minutes there's someone new there.

At the start of the last 1/4 Goddard goes forward and all of a sudden we look dangerous with a serious marking option in there. Then he goes. Why?

We looked dangerous in the first part of the last quarter because MG dominated in the ruck. I think it was a bit of coincidence that BJ was up there at the time.

A coincidence like the freo game? Gardy was great, but I think you underestimate the value of a dangerous, creative target inside the 50, which kosi isn't providing.

[plugger66]

There are obviously people on this forum that know more than me so can someone explain why we wouldn't:

1. leave the back 6 alone - they are up there with the best
2. Leave the midfield alone minus Goddard
2. Goddard to CHF to replace Roo

At the moment neither the forward line or the backlline can settle as every 5 minutes there's someone new there.

At the start of the last 1/4 Goddard goes forward and all of a sudden we look dangerous with a serious marking option in there. Then he goes. Why?

We looked dangerous in the first part of the last quarter because MG dominated in the ruck. I think it was a bit of coincidence that BJ was up there at the time.

A coincidence like the freo game? Gardy was great, but I think you underestimate the value of a dangerous, creative target inside the 50, which kosi isn't providing.

But i dont think he had a kick in the first 10 minutes of the last quarter, well at least not up forward. MG was just about the sole instigator of the short comeback.

[borderbarry]

We had 76 more possessions than the Dons, 76. Yet were beaten. They were attacking through the corridor, we were going around the flanks. Like a few years ago.

[samoht]

Yes borderbarry We dominated play around the ground ... and should have won by 10 goals - all being equal.

Unfortunately as we all saw everything wasn't equal for 2 weeks running.

Essendon and Carlton had a strike force of 2 or 3 lethal quicks that can break loose to either kick goals themselves or set goals up - and as you say they go straight down the guts, there's no mucking around or a need to hold on to the ball , it's too easy - whereas we have to work hard for our goals and need a lot more possessions.

[fingers]

There are obviously people on this forum that know more than me so can someone explain why we wouldn't:

1. leave the back 6 alone - they are up there with the best
2. Leave the midfield alone minus Goddard
2. Goddard to CHF to replace Roo

At the moment neither the forward line or the backlline can settle as every 5 minutes there's someone new there.

At the start of the last 1/4 Goddard goes forward and all of a sudden we look dangerous with a serious marking option in there. Then he goes. Why?

We looked dangerous in the first part of the last quarter because MG dominated in the ruck. I think it was a bit of coincidence that BJ was up there at the time.

Good point.

[bigcarl]

Yes borderbarry We dominated play around the ground ... and should have won by 10 goals - all being equal.

Unfortunately as we all saw everything wasn't equal for 2 weeks running.

Essendon and Carlton had a strike force of 2 or 3 lethal quicks that can break loose to either kick goals themselves or set goals up - and as you say they go straight down the guts, there's no mucking around or a need to hold on to the ball , it's too easy - whereas we have to work hard for our goals and need a lot more possessions.

correct, the forward line is a major concern. we would have put them away by half time with a potent forward.

[bigcarl]

There are obviously people on this forum that know more than me so can someone explain why we wouldn't:

1. leave the back 6 alone - they are up there with the best
2. Leave the midfield alone minus Goddard
2. Goddard to CHF to replace Roo

At the moment neither the forward line or the backlline can settle as every 5 minutes there's someone new there.

At the start of the last 1/4 Goddard goes forward and all of a sudden we look dangerous with a serious marking option in there. Then he goes. Why?

We looked dangerous in the first part of the last quarter because MG dominated in the ruck. I think it was a bit of coincidence that BJ was up there at the time.

A coincidence like the freo game? Gardy was great, but I think you underestimate the value of a dangerous, creative target inside the 50, which kosi isn't providing.

But i dont think he had a kick in the first 10 minutes of the last quarter, well at least not up forward. MG was just about the sole instigator of the short comeback.

just knowing bj was up there would have pumped them up a bit. you have to give them something to kick to and at present we don't.

[samoht]

Yes borderbarry We dominated play around the ground ... and should have won by 10 goals - all being equal.

Unfortunately as we all saw everything wasn't equal for 2 weeks running.

Essendon and Carlton had a strike force of 2 or 3 lethal quicks that can break loose to either kick goals themselves or set goals up - and as you say they go straight down the guts, there's no mucking around or a need to hold on to the ball , it's too easy - whereas we have to work hard for our goals and need a lot more possessions.

correct, the forward line is a major concern. we would have put them away by half time with a potent forward.

The problem is not just our forward line .. if we compare ourselves with Essendon ..
Essendon have a number of explosive quicks that were lurking around the centre like Davey (plus no. 32 and no. 38 ?)who wait for a loose ball opportunity to run it quickly forward - straight down the middle to set up quick opportunistic goals with their accurate passes.
It starts from the middle and there's no way of stopping that... you blink and it's all over.

Who do we have with that rare sort of pace playing around the centre to half forward (about 70 metres out) who can run forward and pinpoint passes - can we name even one player ?

[bigcarl]

The problem is not just our forward line

there are other issues, but yesterday the forward line was the major one imo.

we had 11 more inside 50s than them and still couldn't kick a winning score. since riewoldt went down we have one of the least efficient forward lines in the competition.

we should have put them away by half time yesterday and would have with just one potent key forward. by potent i mean someone who can 1) get the ball and 2) kick straight.

[SainterK]

The problem is not just our forward line

there are other issues, but yesterday the forward line was the major one imo.

we had 11 more inside 50s than them and still couldn't kick a winning score. since riewoldt went down we have one of the least efficient forward lines in the competition.

we should have put them away by half time yesterday and would have with one potent key forward. by potent i mean someone who can 1) get the ball and 2) kick straight.

I also think our crumbers were absent at every spillage, which allowed for a quick rebound.

Also some of those inside 50's, shouldn't have been inside 50's, and been kicked through the big sticks.

[bigcarl]

I also think our crumbers were absent at every spillage, which allowed for a quick rebound.

yes, that didn't help at all. going to kosi imo is very low percentage. we went to him about 15 times for the return of just one goal.

if he is there merely to bring the ball to ground, milne and schneider must be there to get the crumbs.

[samoht]

The problem is not just our forward line

there are other issues, but yesterday the forward line was the major one imo.

we had 11 more inside 50s than them and still couldn't kick a winning score. since riewoldt went down we have one of the least efficient forward lines in the competition.

we should have put them away by half time yesterday and would have with one potent key forward. by potent i mean someone who can 1) get the ball and 2) kick straight.

Our inside 50's were not as quick , decisive or as accurate as Essendon's..
We mucked around .. due to our lack of pace around the middle of the ground and as it was harder for us to find the necessary space to operate.
So as a result of our lack of pace we held on to the ball and overpossessed it and just passed it from one player to another in order to get a chance for a pass or a shot at goal as we were boxed in and corraled.
Whereas ..
Davey and company broke loose from 75 metres away and delivered unstoppable direct passes... there was no mucking around.
So there inside 50's were more potent.
There's no way to corral players with their leg speed.

[bigcarl]

Our inside 50's were not as quick , decisive or as accurate as Essendon's. We mucked around.

i put that down to lack of a potent key forward. goddard up there deep in riewoldt's absence would encourage quick, decisive and direct movement forward.

instead we go to kosi, a very low percentage play on recent evidence.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

There are obviously people on this forum that know more than me so can someone explain why we wouldn't:

1. leave the back 6 alone - they are up there with the best
2. Leave the midfield alone minus Goddard
2. Goddard to CHF to replace Roo

At the moment neither the forward line or the backlline can settle as every 5 minutes there's someone new there.

Because we're too busy beating around the bush and trying to do it the hardest and most disruptive way.
It would have been so easy to have just left BJ there after the Freo game and demand that the others in the midfield step up and there would have been very little disruption to the team setup and balance.
Instead they've completely destroyed the stability of our team (which was one of it's great strengths) and turned it into a shambles, that's hardly scoring.
If they'd persisted with Goddard forward and kept the backline settled, we'd have most likely have kept our opponents to the usual low scores and we'd have had 3+ weeks of getting used to the forward setup revolving around Goddard. If he'd been left one out for much of that time, we'd have had a dominant target to kick to and the usual very low score to beat.
I'd have much preferred our chances doing it that way, than the way we've done it, which has been disastrous.
Having said that, Kosi did take a couple of steps forward yesterday (only after being dragged, though) and Sammy Fisher did what I kept saying last year he could do if played at CHF, which was very "pleasing".
Yet he was then moved back to the backline for the last quarter. WTF? It's like whenever someone actually succeeds in a new role they're taken away from it, which to me says Ross and co are sabotaging themselves and scared to win.
We need to do what works and trust it and persist with it. Not find something that works and then change it all again. That's asking for trouble.

[SainterK]

I also think our crumbers were absent at every spillage, which allowed for a quick rebound.

yes, that didn't help at all. going to kosi imo is very low percentage. we went to him about 15 times for the return of just one goal.

if he is there merely to bring the ball to ground, milne and schneider must be there to get the crumbs.

Well I really cannot think of any other reasons why we play 3 crumbers?

Many times when unable to mark the ball, he palmed it to space and advantage, there was just never anyone around?

The most positive thing, is by the end of the game, players were getting the hang of how to kick the ball into his advantage.

[bigcarl]

It would have been so easy to have just left BJ there after the Freo game and demand that the others in the midfield step up and there would have been very little disruption to the team setup and balance.

Instead they've completely destroyed the stability of our team (which was one of it's great strengths) and turned it into a shambles, that's hardly scoring.

If they'd persisted with Goddard forward and kept the backline settled, we'd have most likely have kept our opponents to the usual low scores and we'd have had 3+ weeks of getting used to the forward setup revolving around Goddard.

exactly as i see it.

[samoht]

Our inside 50's were not as quick , decisive or as accurate as Essendon's. We mucked around.

i put that down to lack of a potent key forward. goddard up there deep in riewoldt's absence would straighten us up considerably.

See my above post again (which i edited while you were posting)... big Carl I maintain it's because we lack potent , unstoppable deliveries.

We take the scenic route with our deliveries due to our lack of pace - so we were under constant pressure - whereas Essendon with their fast trio created space and ran directly through the middle and set up a number of unstoppable lightning fast passes.

[SainterK]

Our inside 50's were not as quick , decisive or as accurate as Essendon's. We mucked around.

i put that down to lack of a potent key forward. goddard up there deep in riewoldt's absence would straighten us up considerably.

See my above post again (which i edited while you were posting)... big Carl I maintain it's because we lack potent , unstoppable deliveries.

We take the scenic route with our deliveries due to our lack of pace - so we were under constant pressure - whereas Essendon with their fast trio created space and ran directly through the middle and set up a number of unstoppable passes.

Heyne delivered the ball in as it should be IMO.

None of this running to the 50, stopping and being in two minds of having a shot on goal or kicking it to a forwad.

Either you kick it to advantage on the run while your opponents are scrambling to find their matchups, or you put it through the big sticks yourself.

[bigcarl]

Our inside 50's were not as quick , decisive or as accurate as Essendon's. We mucked around.

i put that down to lack of a potent key forward. goddard up there deep in riewoldt's absence would straighten us up considerably.

See my above post again (which i edited while you were posting)... big Carl I maintain it's because we lack potent , unstoppable deliveries.

We take the scenic route with our deliveries due to our lack of pace - so we were under constant pressure - whereas Essendon with their fast trio created space and ran directly through the middle and set up a number of unstoppable lightning fast passes.

i edited mine, too. it should have said:

i put that down to lack of a potent key forward. goddard up there deep in riewoldt's absence would encourage quick, decisive and direct movement forward.

instead we go to kosi, a very low percentage play on recent evidence.

[samoht]

Inside 50 numbers at the end of the day mean nothing.

You need quality inside 50's (which is what Essendon had due to their explosively fast midfield) not quantity (which is what we had).

[fingers]

Why do we have so many players who refuse to have a shot?

[bigcarl]

Inside 50 numbers at the end of the day mean nothing.

disagree. we had plenty of chances to put them away, but our forward line is inefficient.

you can blame poor delivery for all of kosi's woes if you like but the facts are:

1) he doesn't lead into space effectively.

2) he doesn't use his body well at all in marking contests.

3) he isn't a natural forward and has poor goal sense.

4) he is ineffective at ground level.

goddard would be a far better player to build an attack around and i hope we do this before the season slips away.

imo, the ability of the guy on the end of it is a key factor in how the ball is delivered in.

i was one of the guys who pushed for kosi to go forward a few seasons ago. i concede now that i was wrong about it. i feel partly to blame.

ruck him or move him to chf and make bj the focal point because it is costing us.

[SainterK]

Inside 50 numbers at the end of the day mean nothing.

disagree. we had plenty of chances to put them away, but our forward line is inefficient.

you can blame poor delivery for all of kosi's woes but the facts are:

1) he doesn't lead into space effectively.

2) he doesn't use his body well at all in marking contests.

3) he isn't a natural forward and has poor goal sense.

4) he is ineffective at ground level.

goddard would be a far better player to build an attack around and i hope we do this before the season slips away from us.

Roo is the one who's game is built on leading into space effectively.

Kosi plays a different game, and I thought we saw the boys getting the hang of just how to kick to his advantage.