TOPIC: forwards

Raglan Matt forwards 1 year 1 week ago #15

Raglan Matt
Sox, I do agree we started off with brand new attacking game style, but then round 2 hit. All the rest followed.
Login to reply,

The_Yeti forwards 1 year 1 week ago #16

Sox, I agree with most of that except for the bit about midfield problem.

I think we have a system problem.

We focus on winning the ball in congested play. If it could be arranged, we would move from stoppage to stoppage with all our players on the inside. The problem with that is that other teams won't cooperate with us. They get the ball out and run away with it.

We have players who can win the ball but getting it out is difficult because there is nobody far enough in the clear to have time to use it effectively, we lack the razor sharp skills to hit a bloke in the clear and on the run and then if we get that far, we often hoof it into an intercept defender because all the talls are now behind the ball. Its a situation you see repeated dozens of times per game.

We have to get away from a congested only game. We have to use less players to extract the ball and use more players to deliver it. Defenders need to adjust to less midfielders dropping back to assist. Forwards need to avoid dropping into the midfield to make up the gaps.

Can we do that? Right now, no we can't. We lack the skills under pressure to make that work well enough to win games and that's our starting point. While we are working on that, we need to have a better link between mids and forwards because what we have now is garbage.

It's easy to say it's all Roly but what are the Ass Coaches contributing? If he is dominating them to the point they don't fill their role then what is the Footy Manager doing? If it's not Roly, are all of the Ass Coaches deadset useless? Again, what is the Footy Manager doing?

tldr: We can't fix the on-field deficiencies without significant change. We cannot get change if the off-field deficiencies are preventing people from taking necessary action
Egurls Suck!
Login to reply,
Raglan Matt said You Beaut

Raglan Matt forwards 1 year 1 week ago #17

Raglan Matt
Yeti, it is why our system is focused on going down the line, it gives 2 options for forcing a stoppage, hold the ball in for a bounce, or punch it over the line (sound familiar) for a throw in. We have the skilled outside runners, Tucker, Langdon, Walters, the 2 Hills, Mundy (shoot me down if you like on that one, but he has the skill and time-shifting ability and it would prolong his career a la M Tuck) to do the job, they just need to be allowed to.

And the defenders would be a lot happier if they were not running into our mids every time they dummied around an opponent. ( Just watch a few game replays to see how often that happens). The result of our mids staying out of the defenders way, would be that our forwards would not have to run up to behind the centre to provide an option for Hamling & co. Which would mean that they would be marking the footy within 40 meters of goal, and not be too stuffed to recover indside the 30 seconds allowed for a shot on goal.

Think back to the days before that rule, and how long those accurate kicks for goal took to setup. Food for thought, when did C Mayne become an inaccurate shot for goal.
Login to reply,

rogerrocks forwards 1 year 1 week ago #18

RM, if you want to know why teams (its not just us) go down the line, just watch the Melbourne/Eagles game. 4th quarter and Melbourne player kicks from the wing into the centre - gets it slightly wrong - ball intercepted - goal to Eagles.
Login to reply,
pollyanna said You Beaut

pollyanna forwards 1 year 1 week ago #19

Oops, I wanted to reply and missed, hit the youbeaut button by mistake. My reply:

Slightly missed him? That fool kicked it four metres above the player he was aiming for and it sailed over him like the Hindenburg!
Login to reply,
The_Yeti, rogerrocks, Raglan Matt said You Beaut

The_Yeti forwards 1 year 1 week ago #20

Skills training?

Not needed, right?
Egurls Suck!
Login to reply,

KingKepler forwards 1 year 1 week ago #21

At least the Melbourne bloke was trying to win the game for his club. The reason they were in a position to maybe win it was because of that kind of play throughout the day. I doubt if he kicked it wide it would have setup a scoring play.

I would prefer it when teams dare to win and maybe fail because it is how footy should be played. It is more entertaining and the teams with the best skill and endeavour more often than not get the chocolates.
Login to reply,
Bizkit said You Beaut

Davo forwards 1 year 1 week ago #22

I just watched a replay of the last quarter. Freo get a goal then the Swans get two. The score with 16:49 left was 7.7 to 7.6.

The game ends 7.10 to 7.9. No one could score a goal for the rest of the game? Each team was equally craptacular, it should have been a draw.

I wonder why Lobb at 206cm and a great mark wasn't permanently stationed as the last man forward. At the very least he could have palmed it down to Switkowski, Matera, Walters or Hill.

Seven goals for the game - what sort of winning score is that??
(Actually, Adelaide scored 7.9 to beat us so perhaps I don't know anything.)
Login to reply,
The_Yeti, shane, Burton, Suker said You Beaut

Gumnut forwards 1 year 1 week ago #23

I was discussing this with my son during the game. All that tall timber around and best piece of crumbing was by Reece Conca, twice off Sandi for a goal and an unlucky behind. Our small forwards are all carp when it comes to reading the spills off packs. Surely there are some genuine roving types around as at seems like another skill that has been lost in recent years. Sunny's goal that came after Sandi was disallowed a mark was also good but generally he gets a lot of his goals from marks or free kicks and not from a crumbed ball.
Login to reply,

larkin forwards 1 year 1 week ago #24

What many here seem to miss is that there are two teams on the park.
Our forwards playing the other side of the centre can be as much chasing the ball and filling space as chasing their opponent. Two teams set the tone of the game.
In general all teams play within 50 metres of the ball.
The difference is how they move the ball and that very much depends on your skills set and player attributes.
And what many forget is that 'defence first' is the starting point for all successful teams.
I've never been a coach. Don't watch training anymore and only see 10 or so games live a year.
I've got no idea how the coach rates our players or really what his game plan is but I see stuff and make comments here. I see a team of try-hards making progress under duress – limited experience, injuries etc and we are not a great side yet though I reckon we could win any game we play.
I don't rate sports commentators much although there are some good ones, just like fans on here – most everyone has an agenda. I'm not satisfied but I am still forgiving.
Login to reply,
goodie said You Beaut

FDB forwards 1 year 1 week ago #25

Mutatis mutandis, we could easily have a very effective forward line.

Unfortunately the main change required is Roly.
Login to reply,

Raglan Matt forwards 1 year 1 week ago #26

Raglan Matt
Gumnut, our forwards, tall or small, are too stuffed from running to function properly. Not everyone plays within 50 meters of the footy, they do against Freo, because Lyon's game plan demands that. The most successful teams over history have been those that have scored heavily.
The eagles could have scored 5 goals 2 and beaten us.
Login to reply,

Raglan Matt forwards 1 year 1 week ago #27

Raglan Matt
RR, just watched the last 2 minutes, the point that tied the scores, and led to the point which put us in front (should have been a free to Lobb in the marking contest that stuffed his shoulder by the way) and the release from defense by B Hill, both came from attacking through the corridor.
Login to reply,

Sox forwards 1 year 1 week ago #28

I don’t disagree, Yeti, I’m just not sure that it is the system that is causing our forward line problem. The system is definitely a problem, and we need much better systems around the stoppage.
I also agree with RM who said it would benefit our forwards AND defenders to have their space back.
But, I think this would be a non-issue if we were winning some post-stoppage-contested-possessions. I think if you’ve got a Hogan and a Taberner forward of those contests to take a mark from the quick kick forward, then the zone can spread and push forward while they stop to go back on the mark, next kick is over the zone to a forward in some space or one-on-one.
But, again, since we’ve lost that marking machine forward of the contest it falls down again (because RL’s new tactic is solid but NEEDS mobile big targets) and we end up seeing that clearance kick either mopped up by opposition defenders and we get cut up the other way, or our quickest midfielders catch it and have it on the run (Walters, Hill) and have no one forward of play to kick to because play hasn’t stopped at a mark for anyone to get forward.
I think RLs system can work, but it relies on fit talls. And I agree with those on here saying that our running program is buggering our forwards.
We need a new gameplan. I see this one, I think, I understand it. I see how it can work, and I don’t think it’s stupid. But it’s not working for us, and I don’t think it can work for us.
And it is VERY late in a “rebuild” to be changing the gameplan... but we either do it now or we suck for many more years to come.
As for whether ta the fault of RL or the assistants or the management? Well, all responsibility falls to the management, ultimately. First step is to sweep through he management (leaving Belly in place, I should think), and I would be wanting that new management to be asking very serious questions of RL - and based on that discussion, youdir then hire coaches accordingly.
Given that why I’m talking about is coaches gameplans, I’m going to point the finger at Lyon because when it comes to coaching our side: the buck stops with him.
Login to reply,