What type of Players do we need to bridge the Gap?

[AshMac]

Deleted. Posted twice on train w patchy service

[AshMac]

We don’t need more fringe type players , we need our current list to be able to coached :
1. Stop run of play where they kick 2 goals . More stoppages and defensive mindset
2. Reduce fumbles
3. More Fwd line pressure and being able to crumb
4. Goal kicking
5. Being able to execute in the moment

This comes down to coaching

I agree completely the issue is coaching. There were 2 blatant differences between the teams I noticed at the ground,

1. Collingwood defensive setup from our kick ins. They closed all space and had players marked, created perceived pressure on the goal kick and the next 2 kicks. There was a period in the second quarter when we couldn?t kick out of our defensive zone for 10 minutes. Their forward pressure was incredibly effective. We on the other hand guard blades of grass and allow at least 2 easy kicks out of defence every week and rely on pressure further up the ground.

2. The speed of ball movement - not speed of players. Every! Single! Week! We have stale ball movement end to end - kick, mark, wait, kick backward, wait, congestion at every option. I blame this in part on D grade players exiting defence - O?Brien, Keath, Gardiner - or transitioning through the middle - McNeil, Scott etc - (these guys just don?t trust themselves to execute high risk) but in part to our game plan and low risk footy. The result is that extra few seconds every disposal allowing the other team to close gaps and a tendency to avoid higher risk disposals - e.g into the corridor - and thus taking a much longer route to goal.

I think both the port Adelaide and Collingwood games were winnable. The core difference between both top teams and us was point 2. Port straight through the corridor, pies switch and down the wing.

There are other factors - agree pies were a lot fitter than us and their end to end movement was simply brilliant. They had their key players stand up too. But the ability to negate at a team level is a coachable game plan.

[bornadog]

I agree completely the issue is coaching. There were 2 blatant differences between the teams I noticed at the ground,

1. Collingwood defensive setup from our kick ins. They closed all space and had players marked, created perceived pressure on the goal kick and the next 2 kicks. There was a period in the second quarter when we couldn?t kick out of our defensive zone for 10 minutes. Their forward pressure was incredibly effective. We on the other hand guard blades of grass and allow at least 2 easy kicks out of defence every week and rely on pressure further up the ground.

2. The speed of ball movement - not speed of players. Every! Single! Week! We have stale ball movement end to end - kick, mark, wait, kick backward, wait, congestion at every option. I blame this in part on D grade players exiting defence - O?Brien, Keath, Gardiner - or transitioning through the middle - McNeil, Scott etc - (these guys just don?t trust themselves to execute high risk) but in part to our game plan and low risk footy. The result is that extra few seconds every disposal allowing the other team to close gaps and a tendency to avoid higher risk disposals - e.g into the corridor - and thus taking a much longer route to goal.

I think both the port Adelaide and Collingwood games were winnable. The core difference between both top teams and us was point 2. Port straight through the corridor, pies switch and down the wing.

There are other factors - agree pies were a lot fitter than us and their end to end movement was simply brilliant. They had their key players stand up too. But the ability to negate at a team level is a coachable game plan.

So based on your post, we don't need a particular type of player to bridge the gap with the top sides. It is a game plan issue?

[GVGjr]

So based on your post, we don't need a particular type of player to bridge the gap with the top sides. It is a game plan issue?

Like all teams we could do with a variety of players to come in and add depth or quality in a few positions but it's looking like our game plan or match selections aren't stacking up in the bigger games.
Our weak percentage highlights some problems but we added Lobb, Jones and Baker and haven't really improved on last year.

[bornadog]

Like all teams we could do with a variety of players to come in and add depth or quality in a few positions but it's looking like our game plan or match selections aren't stacking up in the bigger games.
Our weak percentage highlights some problems but we added Lobb, Jones and Baker and haven't really improved on last year.

So, again, you don't think we need any particular type of player for next year?

Collingwood have some really fast players that are hard to stop. Yes, they do move the ball quickly, but they have the leg speed that we don't. Our speedsters like VDM, McNeil are not in the same league, West is slow. Yes we miss JJs pace but he is also getting on.

I also believe we are too tall and don't understand why we needed JOD in. Cleary should have come in.

We have been competitive against Port, Geelong, Collingwood but are just that 10% off and it is not just coaching (they must share responsibility as well), it is the type of players we have.

[jeemak]

I think we kick shallow/ near/ skinny side into the forward line rather than more aggressively to space up the corridor or fat side because the coaches are trying to protect our defence from the quick exit which we're not great at defending for a range of reasons.

Additionally, you need players who are both competent and confident in executing aggressive ball movement from defence via the corridor - and we've seen that we can do that with JJ in full flight and on occasion with Dale and Ed executing well but each of those guys have their issues in execution. Our coaches in my view direct ball movement to be conservative due to our defficiencies in the defencive half.

[mjp]

So, again, you don't think we need any particular type of player for next year?

I don't.

Unless you mean some players who will CONCENTRATE when it matters...If Collingwood are too fast for us, why did they look so slow for the first 20 minutes of the game?

Saying it's the game-plan simply ignores the fact that when we execute it we score against the best teams in the comp...and we are really hard to score against. Jones is a pretty big out for us right now and clearly covers up a few 'ills' that the likes of Alex Keath are unable to, but even so...just CONCENTRATE through the forward/mid zone and make it hard for them.

If we're going to switch our brains off for 15 minutes then it wont matter what players we bring in...

[bornadog]

I don't.

Unless you mean some players who will CONCENTRATE when it matters...If Collingwood are too fast for us, why did they look so slow for the first 20 minutes of the game?

Saying it's the game-plan simply ignores the fact that when we execute it we score against the best teams in the comp...and we are really hard to score against. Jones is a pretty big out for us right now and clearly covers up a few 'ills' that the likes of Alex Keath are unable to, but even so...just CONCENTRATE through the forward/mid zone and make it hard for them.

If we're going to switch our brains off for 15 minutes then it wont matter what players we bring in...

Fine, can't dispute that.

So based on that, we have a Premiership winning team but we can't execute for 100% of game time.

Personally, I don't think we have 22 players that are all best 22 and that are able to win the premiership, even if we are missing Jones and JJ. We are close, but not quiet there.

[GVGjr]

So, again, you don't think we need any particular type of player for next year?

Collingwood have some really fast players that are hard to stop. Yes, they do move the ball quickly, but they have the leg speed that we don't. Our speedsters like VDM, McNeil are not in the same league, West is slow. Yes we miss JJs pace but he is also getting on.

I also believe we are too tall and don't understand why we needed JOD in. Cleary should have come in.

We have been competitive against Port, Geelong, Collingwood but are just that 10% off and it is not just coaching (they must share responsibility as well), it is the type of players we have.

I've said for a while we need a genuine ruckman on the list but that's not likely to happen. A quality quick midfielder would be a good addition but the list really isn't the issue.

Regarding the bolded section, you are mistaking players heights as a problem when really in the case of JOD it's more of a selection issue. If JOD was performing it wouldn't matter one bit if he was 197cm tall or 187cm. He plays more like a 190cm player than a 197cm player anyway.
He's not playing poorly because of his height, it's because he's not ready and hasn't run himself into form like he might if he had been given an extended run at Footscray. That comes down to coaches, development and our selection process.

If it's now the type of players we have (the 2nd bolded bit) and not really the coaches I know a few people here think we don't quite cut into the list enough and perhaps that is now becoming a bit more evident.

[bornadog]

I've said for a while we need a genuine ruckman on the list but that's not likely to happen. A quality quick midfielder would be a good addition but the list really isn't the issue.

Regarding the bolded section, you are mistaking players heights as a problem when really in the case of JOD it's more of a selection issue. If JOD was performing it wouldn't matter one bit if he was 197cm tall or 187cm. He plays more like a 190cm player than a 197cm player anyway.
He's not playing poorly because of his height, it's because he's not ready and hasn't run himself into form like he might if he had been given an extended run at Footscray. That comes down to coaches, development and our selection process.

If it's now the type of players we have (the 2nd bolded bit) and not really the coaches I know a few people here think we don't quite cut into the list enough and perhaps that is now becoming a bit more evident.

I picked on JOD because Collingwood don't have a tall forward line and in hindsight a smaller player should have taken his spot.

Anyway, this thread is to see what posters feel we need in the future in order to be a top 4 side. Of course it goes off track like many threads, but that is natural and can't be helped.

[AshMac]

So based on your post, we don't need a particular type of player to bridge the gap with the top sides. It is a game plan issue?

That is correct. I thought I made that clear when I said I completely agree the issue is coaching

[Bulldog Joe]

I am totally on not needing anything extra except the intent to perform for the full game.
We talk about game plan and personnel, but I believe our list is good enough to contend.
We have been consistent only in our inconsistency and we need to bring our best ALL of the time

[macca]

I've said for a while we need a genuine ruckman on the list but that's not likely to happen. A quality quick midfielder would be a good addition but the list really isn't the issue.

Regarding the bolded section, you are mistaking players heights as a problem when really in the case of JOD it's more of a selection issue. If JOD was performing it wouldn't matter one bit if he was 197cm tall or 187cm. He plays more like a 190cm player than a 197cm player anyway.
He's not playing poorly because of his height, it's because he's not ready and hasn't run himself into form like he might if he had been given an extended run at Footscray. That comes down to coaches, development and our selection process.

If it's now the type of players we have (the 2nd bolded bit) and not really the coaches I know a few people here think we don't quite cut into the list enough and perhaps that is now becoming a bit more evident.

We have a ruck man , it?s Sweet but his not a hybrid ruck man that can run all day and spend 90% tog
So either we need to have a game plan to suit Sweet limitations or we just use him as backup
Honestly , I am finding this discussion very frustrating as we are talking about either players not executing or developing to the way we like to , Inorder to become a top 4 team .

Maybe we do have the players , they are not developing to the way they are being coached or fitting into the game plan

I can give heaps of examples , but geez if we had one of the Daicos to kick those goals when they matter , Elliott or Hill to always seem to be in right areas. Quaynor who just seems to find heaps of space and be there on the bad kick out .

[AshMac]

We have a ruck man , it?s Sweet but his not a hybrid ruck man that can run all day and spend 90% tog
So either we need to have a game plan to suit Sweet limitations or we just use him as backup
Honestly , I am finding this discussion very frustrating as we are talking about either players not executing or developing to the way we like to , Inorder to become a top 4 team .

Maybe we do have the players , they are not developing to the way they are being coached or fitting into the game plan

I can give heaps of examples , but geez if we had one of the Daicos to kick those goals when they matter , Elliott or Hill to always seem to be in right areas. Quaynor who just seems to find heaps of space and be there on the bad kick out .

We do have those players (except for a permanent small speedy forward) IMO - we just don?t have the best game plan for our players or the ability to pivot our game plan inside 4 qtrs and adapt to a game in the moment. For god sake can we start tagging players at centre bounces when they get on a 40 minute tear!

What we do with sweet is interesting. He is a good tap ruckman but honestly may as well not be on the ground at other times. I honestly think I?d prefer Lobb over sweet.