When the oppo get a run on, we need to GET THE BALL.

[Mofra]

1. Lol. I haven't heard that before. Who could it be now?

2. Lol. We know AFL fights are just faux hardman occasionally torn jumper material. Which is why it's a great idea to fight on field to stop momentum.

Lever and Melksham were highly regarded boxers as juniors

[Happy Days]

Lever and Melksham were highly regarded boxers as juniors

First I’m hearing of it.

[mjp]

First I’m hearing of it.

Yeah. Me too. I'm sort of surprised the commentators don't mention it - they're usually all over the "he was a great basketballer/cricketer/uno player as a kid" type stuff.

[EasternWest]

Lever and Melksham were highly regarded boxers as juniors

Really? Never knew that. Someone should let Stephen May know.

First I’m hearing of it.

Seconded.

Yeah. Me too. I'm sort of surprised the commentators don't mention it - they're usually all over the "he was a great basketballer/cricketer/uno player as a kid" type stuff.

Thirded.

With Mason Cox being tall and US born I'm surprised he never played basketball.

[Ozza]

When the opposition gets a run on, the response should be that our 'assertive defensive positioning' is adjusted, and that we get some ball control when we get the footy instead of matching the breakneck pace that the opposition has put into the game.

I don't think we have the speed in our current team to be playing this same style we are attempting, and we see weekly how good team, or average teams in good patches, are able to easily sweep the ball from end to end against us - and then the coach usually blames it on turnover. There's clearly a broader defensive strategy issue.

Whilst I understand what the OP is getting at - that we MUST GET THE BALL - but that is pretty much our whole strategy anyway. Our gameplan is all about completely dominating possession, and the moment we lose control of that - we are completely vulnerable.

I think that it is ok to temporarily move away from your 'one wood' at stages in games when you've lost control - we saw it last week when Collingwood - who attack relentlessly - lost control of the game and Brisbane put 10 goals on them. You need to be able to switch modes and be harder to move the ball against until you arrest the momentum.

[jeemak]

This has bugged me so I went and had a look at the tapes against Melb, Stk (x2), and Richmond when they got their runs on goals.

Still a little confused but things I noticed:
clearances - WB 5, Opposition 9 plus 3 frees, Dead ball 3 - WB one next clearance once and opportunity twice.
English at all clearance bar 4 - Lobb 3 Darcy 1
Treloar 4 times, Caleb 3, Bailey 10, Bont 15, MacRae 15, Libba 16
Macrae, Bont & Libba together - 9 times
Bailey & Libba - 6; Bailey & Bont - 6; Bailey & MacRae - 5
During the Melbourne run - Bont & Libba in all; Bailey & McR seemed to swap
During the 1st StK run - McR, Bont & Libba in 3 of 4 bounces
During the 2nd StK run - McR & Libba in all; Caleb & Bont seemed to swap
During the Richmond run - McR had first crack then Treloar; Libba first crack then Bont; Bailey not swapped

Not sure if these stats are consistent with other bounces were there are no opposition runs as didn't look at those.

If I had to have a stab at what the issues were at the "source":
1. During these rushes English clearly lost a stack of the ruck duels
2. We kept playing with an attacking mindset and not having body on the opposing player (one instance Pertracca was two-three steps behind Bont and read the tap for an easy clearance and goal but others were just as guilty)
3. If plan is for Libba to go straight to player who gets the ball drop then someone else cover his (now free) player
4. When the heat is on - not convinced that Bailey is best in the centre just yet and I would also have less of Macrae in there during these runs.

Are you as confused as I am?

Not sure this surprises me, but it's a good effort/ analysis.

We have a real problem with all of Libba, Jack and Bont being able to adapt. The onus needs to be on them to nullify, let us roll someone up, and reset so they can use their prowess in congested space rather than try to dominate less contested stoppages where their offencive mindset and lack of pace is exposed.

[Scorlibo]

This has bugged me so I went and had a look at the tapes against Melb, Stk (x2), and Richmond when they got their runs on goals.

Still a little confused but things I noticed:
clearances - WB 5, Opposition 9 plus 3 frees, Dead ball 3 - WB one next clearance once and opportunity twice.
English at all clearance bar 4 - Lobb 3 Darcy 1
Treloar 4 times, Caleb 3, Bailey 10, Bont 15, MacRae 15, Libba 16
Macrae, Bont & Libba together - 9 times
Bailey & Libba - 6; Bailey & Bont - 6; Bailey & MacRae - 5
During the Melbourne run - Bont & Libba in all; Bailey & McR seemed to swap
During the 1st StK run - McR, Bont & Libba in 3 of 4 bounces
During the 2nd StK run - McR & Libba in all; Caleb & Bont seemed to swap
During the Richmond run - McR had first crack then Treloar; Libba first crack then Bont; Bailey not swapped

Not sure if these stats are consistent with other bounces were there are no opposition runs as didn't look at those.

If I had to have a stab at what the issues were at the "source":
1. During these rushes English clearly lost a stack of the ruck duels
2. We kept playing with an attacking mindset and not having body on the opposing player (one instance Pertracca was two-three steps behind Bont and read the tap for an easy clearance and goal but others were just as guilty)
3. If plan is for Libba to go straight to player who gets the ball drop then someone else cover his (now free) player
4. When the heat is on - not convinced that Bailey is best in the centre just yet and I would also have less of Macrae in there during these runs.

Are you as confused as I am?

Thanks meenies...

It stands out to me that Treloar attended only a small number of these centre bounces, and that he's been our best clearance player so far this year. He's gone from slightly superfluous to needs last year to a crucial cog in the early part of this year.