Is our gameplan sustainable?

[always right]

You can point to last week's slog against Sydney or the fact we have such a young group but it was concerning to see how we simply stopped to a walk in yesterday's last quarter. The manic pressure we applied in the first half was nowhere to be seen in the second half. Was that an attitude thing or are we simply unable to sustain that style of play?

If it's the latter, I wonder how we will perform as the season rolls on. Do we need a plan B for when we inevitably tire in a match?

[comrade]

Yes, our game plan is sustainable. In fact, when we play our A game, not many teams will go with us.

We need to get fitter and more experienced to pull it off over 4 quarters. I highly doubt it was an attitude thing after half time yesterday. The guys just saw their teammate go down again for probably the last time, a few other players were cooked and simply went out there to fill a spot (Koby and Stringer). Attitude had nothing to do with it.

We do need to find a way to adapt when we cop an injury, but I am confident that this will come with time.

[soupman]

I think possibly its a combo of both. I'd back us in to be one of the fitter teams in the comp but our game style is very high intensity and very taxing.

The only guys to run out the game really well yesterday were Honeychurch, JJ, Cordy and to a lesser extent Picken. While I admit that maybe the mental side had an affect, we did look exhausted very early in the last and maybe a lesson to learn from this is that we need to rotate more, or practice a less work intensive plan B that can absorb time and help slow opposition momentum and turn it in our favour.

[Go_Dogs]

In his post-match press-conference, Bevo made brief mention of our need to continue to improve at slowing the game down when we need to. I think we've demonstrated we can tear sides apart quickly with our run and gun approach, but adding a few more elements are required to go the distance.

Given the already drastic changes to our game style since last year, I don't think an overnight fix is realistic, however hopefully we can see improvement in our ability to control the game tempo as the year progresses.

[Sedat]

Our game plan wasn't really questioned when we were 55 points up just after half time.

[Hot_Doggies]

You can point to last week's slog against Sydney or the fact we have such a young group but it was concerning to see how we simply stopped to a walk in yesterday's last quarter. The manic pressure we applied in the first half was nowhere to be seen in the second half. Was that an attitude thing or are we simply unable to sustain that style of play?

If it's the latter, I wonder how we will perform as the season rolls on. Do we need a plan B for when we inevitably tire in a match?

You should watch the post match press conference.

We can't play 4 quarters of 'run and stun' nor does Bevo want us to.

[always right]

Our game plan wasn't really questioned when we were 55 points up just after half time.
Well that's fine if we then didn't allow a team to run over the top of us and win by 7.

[LostDoggy]

2 men short early, including koby, a lot of the team were visibly exhausted in the second half, last week was taxing.

[Bulldog4life]

Well that's fine if we then didn't allow a team to run over the top of us and win by 7.

We are still a huge work in progress.

[Maddog37]

I believe it is but you can't keep taking a key mid out of the side week after week and expect continued good form, especially from kids.

You lose Libba, and the pressure goes down the chain to the next guy. You lose Wallis and the same thing happens. You lose Jong etc etc.

[jazzadogs]

Yes, our game plan is sustainable. In fact, when we play our A game, not many teams will go with us.

We need to get fitter and more experienced to pull it off over 4 quarters. I highly doubt it was an attitude thing after half time yesterday. The guys just saw their teammate go down again for probably the last time, a few other players were cooked and simply went out there to fill a spot (Koby and Stringer). Attitude had nothing to do with it.

We do need to find a way to adapt when we cop an injury, but I am confident that this will come with time.

What was wrong with Stringer? I was wondering why he didn't get thrown in the middle at any stage in the last quarter...

[Eastdog]

Our skill level needs to improve I feel. While at times it can be quite good at other times its quite poor.

[Happy Days]

In his post-match press-conference, Bevo made brief mention of our need to continue to improve at slowing the game down when we need to. I think we've demonstrated we can tear sides apart quickly with our run and gun approach, but adding a few more elements are required to go the distance.


This is really good to hear, and contrast with head in the sand coaches like Hardwick and B. Scott, who seem to be dumbfounded when plan A doesn't work. This is a concession that needed to be made and hopefully will be worked on.

[Topdog]

For a group of 21 year olds, no it is not sustainable. In fact even for match hardened 25 year olds it probably isn't. As others have mentioned though Bevo doesn't want us to go full tilt for 120 minutes. We need to learn to control the ball better and slow it down.

[Eastdog]

Our best vs our worst. How do you compare these with our team currently and what do you predict as the year goes on.

[Ghost Dog]

In his post-match press-conference, Bevo made brief mention of our need to continue to improve at slowing the game down when we need to. I think we've demonstrated we can tear sides apart quickly with our run and gun approach, but adding a few more elements are required to go the distance.

Given the already drastic changes to our game style since last year, I don't think an overnight fix is realistic, however hopefully we can see improvement in our ability to control the game tempo as the year progresses.

Matty Boyd was what we needed. A bit of hard nosed, scraped-knuckled, shaved head leadership.

[stefoid]

Its about midfield depth and having a few inside specialists available - something we have lost over the last couple of games.

Theres some guys pulling almost 'double duty' at the moment, by which I mean trying to win contested ball inside the contest and also pressuring the opposition and providing spread outside the contest. Thats going to tire them quicker.

Dalhaus, Dickson, Honeychurch, Macrae - in a perfect world these guys are not in and under players, but with Libba and Wally out of the side, we need them to be.

Plus or midfield depth has suffered. To maintain that intensity we need to run more guys through the midfield from the bench and from the forward line.

Getting Wallis and Jong back automatically increases our midfield depth significantly and provides inside grunt to free up our smaller players who do their best work on their feet.

These injuries have thrown up some interesting results, though - who would have thought Picken would turn out to be a gun - his last couple of games have been outstanding. I think we have found our Lbba replacement for the year.

Ideally we would have another small forward/mid to add to the mix which is why it would be great to have Hrovat or Hunter step up.
Im hoping Daniel will get a run at it as well, because there is a spot for him if he can get fit.

[1eyedog]

No it's not. We are playing a style that stands up in finals no doubt, hard contested work and quick ball movement. It's hard to sustain that week in week out. You can't go anywhere in the finals just by moving the ball quickly and shoot outs ala Knights when he was at Essendon and you can't actually win enough games of football taking the contested approach ala McCartney.

It's great to see Bevo trying to amalgamate the two, but you need good depth, few injuries and a number of pre-seasons under your belt in order to sustain it. We've used a lot of our depth players, had a pretty crap run with injuries at critical times and have a young list.

We'll be better next year and even better the year after. Thing is, if we can just do enough I think there's a flag up for grabs. Hawthorn have been knocked over a few times already, we've knocked Sydney over and who knows which Freo would turn up on Grand Final day.

[ratsmac]

Matty Boyd was what we needed. A bit of hard nosed, scraped-knuckled, shaved head leadership.

Yesterdays fade out was a combination of a few injuries to the wrong personnel and the hard slog in the wet against Sydney with a young list. Wallis, Boyd, Morris, Jong, Smith and Stevens. These guys are the stronger body types in our team that were all missing yesterday with Smith and Stevens only missing in the second half. When you think about it, we were primed for the picking. Stkilda's mids realised it and out muscled and out ran ours in the second half. We are lucky we were 55 points up otherwise it would of been a belting (obviously).

Is our gameplan sustainable?

yes, as long as we don't get injuries especially to our midfielders, where we are down a rotation for starters.

No if we don't quickly learn to control the tempo when we have the ball and when we don't.

Our gameplan is all about pressure and structure and fast ball movement forward on the rebound. Once the structure isn't being upheld across the ground the pressure drops off there are no turn overs (which we are relying on), and there are gaping holes through our defensive setup. As a result we are easily scored against.

Fitness is the key but show me a gameplan these days where you can carry unfit and injured players. Our game plan is fine but we need plan B when plan A isn't working. Our plan A is still a work in progress so we might have to wait to see plan B unfold.

[bornadog]

Our game plan wasn't really questioned when we were 55 points up just after half time.

That is what the OP is asking, can we sustain the plan for 4 quarters. You are just pointing out the obvious but not answering the question.

I think we do need a plan B especially when a couple of players go down.

[GVGjr]

Slowing the game down would have been the answer but it might not have been something we have practiced too much.
Late goals in the 3rd quarter got them within striking distance and sure we were running out of options but we didn't adjust and we didn't throw more behind the ball. We didn't even attempt to tighten up on their prime movers.

Time will well if it's sustainable but our 4th quarters haven't been great and we need to be capable of controlling the tempo in a much slower manner when we have to.

Might be a good lesson for the coach on if the playing group is capable of doing what he wants.

[FrediKanoute]

I believe it is but you can't keep taking a key mid out of the side week after week and expect continued good form, especially from kids.

You lose Libba, and the pressure goes down the chain to the next guy. You lose Wallis and the same thing happens. You lose Jong etc etc.

Completely agree. If the side that had played Sydney had played this week the result would have been different. You would back M BOyd and Jong to make us 7 points better.

[Sedat]

That is what the OP is asking, can we sustain the plan for 4 quarters. You are just pointing out the obvious but not answering the question.

I think we do need a plan B especially when a couple of players go down.
Bit hard for me to question the game plan yesterday having not seen the game (and I'm not going to ;)). My point is that all the talk about unsustainable game plan and too many young players were not being uttered at half time, nor were they discussed against Adelaide or Sydney.

All successful teams have tempo changes in their kitbag, and we need to be no exception. Having a tempo change is not a different game plan, it is adapting to circumstances during any given game. We obviously failed to listen to instructions to alter the tempo when we needed to yesterday, which is why we lost a game we should never have lost.

[stefoid]

Who knows, maybe the coach did say 'slow it down' for the third quarter and the players took that as 'slow to a walk'?

Its all great being a young team and all, but our on-field leadership is being left to too few, and is concentrated mostly in the backline even when Morris and Boyd take the field.

Picken, Dickson and Crameri have played really well this year, but they need to add that 'senior leadership' string to their bows as well.

[Mantis]

Slowing the game down would have been the answer but it might not have been something we have practiced too much.


I would be shocked and appalled if we haven't spend considerable time on this facet of the game.. To expect a young side to play a kamikaze style for 22 rounds is ridiculous.

[jeemak]

Our game style is a taxing one, and one that will require us to put in a couple more preseasons to be able to sustain for the bulk of 22 rounds plus finals - but it is sustainable providing we have the cattle/depth at our disposal.

Some cooler heads with the footy would have been all it took to slow the game down in patches on Saturday, and as GVGjr said perhaps some numbers behind the ball and a bit of congestion might have helped as well. This sort of thing doesn't take too much training that hasn't been given to elite footballers since they were 15 and playing in representative teams. A little bit of leadeship and composure from the likes Stefoid has mentioned, and from our captain was what was needed.

I can't help but think having one or both of Boyd and Morris available on Saturday would have made a difference.

From game to game we're going to need to adapt to changing circumstances, but this shouldn't drastically alter the fundamentals of our game plan. Strong tackling, pressure on the carrier and blocking space when not in control of the ball is pretty fundamental to any defensive structure and game plan. Moving the ball forward as quickly and accurately as possible when appropriate to do so isn't rocket science either, nor should knowing when to slow it down and chew up some pressure and time. We moved away from a couple of our defencive non-negotiable's on Saturday and that put us under pressure, pressure that we couldn't work through.

[Cyberdoggie]

In his post-match press-conference, Bevo made brief mention of our need to continue to improve at slowing the game down when we need to. I think we've demonstrated we can tear sides apart quickly with our run and gun approach, but adding a few more elements are required to go the distance.

Given the already drastic changes to our game style since last year, I don't think an overnight fix is realistic, however hopefully we can see improvement in our ability to control the game tempo as the year progresses.

That's right we do need to work on controlling the tempo, the problem is that you can practice this at training but it not the same as in games under pressure and when fatigued, which is when you need to resort to this tactic.

Doesn't help that we had only 1 player with over 150 games of experience the saints had 5. We had 7 with 50 or more games vs 10 of the saints, and far more with less than 50.

When we were tired in the second half, we stopped holding onto the ball and running and just banged the ball on the boot, which inevitably got returned straight away. Wiser heads would of realized this and tried to hold on to the ball, provide short lead up options and slowly work the ball until opportunities present themselves.

Will be a good lesson learnt for the boys, so better it happened now than later on in the season.

[bornadog]

Our game style is a taxing one, and one that will require us to put in a couple more preseasons to be able to sustain for the bulk of 22 rounds plus finals - but it is sustainable providing we have the cattle/depth at our disposal.

Some cooler heads with the footy would have been all it took to slow the game down in patches on Saturday, and as GVGjr said perhaps some numbers behind the ball and a bit of congestion might have helped as well. This sort of thing doesn't take too much training that hasn't been given to elite footballers since they were 15 and playing in representative teams. A little bit of leadeship and composure from the likes Stefoid has mentioned, and from our captain was what was needed.

I can't help but think having one or both of Boyd and Morris available on Saturday would have made a difference.

From game to game we're going to need to adapt to changing circumstances, but this shouldn't drastically alter the fundamentals of our game plan. Strong tackling, pressure on the carrier and blocking space when not in control of the ball is pretty fundamental to any defensive structure and game plan. Moving the ball forward as quickly and accurately as possible when appropriate to do so isn't rocket science either, nor should knowing when to slow it down and chew up some pressure and time. We moved away from a couple of our defencive non-negotiable's on Saturday and that put us under pressure, pressure that we couldn't work through.

Just goes to show why you need older players in the team. For years on WOOF, the call was to get rid of older guys for various reasons, but you can't go into a game with only two players with more than 100 games. I appreciate you must have the right older players and not just anyone.

[1eyedog]

I would be shocked and appalled if we haven't spend considerable time on this facet of the game.. To expect a young side to play a kamikaze style for 22 rounds is ridiculous.

Agreed. I would be shocked if Bevo didn't get the runner to get around to all our guys after we kicked the first two goals of the last quarter to slow the game down at all costs. It was pretty clear through the duration of the 3rd that we were knackered.

[Twodogs]

The defensive group spent a lot of time practising measuring kicks and icing the clock over preseason.

[1eyedog]

The defensive group spent a lot of time practising measuring kicks and icing the clock over preseason.

Yes and we did this very effectively in the later stages of the round 1 win over West Coke.

[mjp]

Was the fade out game plan related? Or mindset related?

Looked to me like the smith injury had a huge negative impact and once the switch is turned to 'off' turning it back on is not easy...the players would have known about the Smith injury at half-time and this is the outcome. Dockers this week!

[comrade]

Was the fade out game plan related? Or mindset related?

Looked to me like the smith injury had a huge negative impact and once the switch is turned to 'off' turning it back on is not easy...the players would have known about the Smith injury at half-time and this is the outcome. Dockers this week!

So no concerns on your behalf, mjp?

[Twodogs]

Was the fade out game plan related? Or mindset related?

Looked to me like the smith injury had a huge negative impact and once the switch is turned to 'off' turning it back on is not easy...the players would have known about the Smith injury at half-time and this is the outcome. Dockers this week!

Exhaustion set in too. You could see at the ground that the players were cooked. I think given the same circumstances that we would have bought some more fresh legs in for the Saints game if we had the chance.

[mjp]

Not really.

The saints came hard and to fight the fight your head needs to be switched on. When smith went down I was just glad we were a long way in front as - given it is recon#3- i thought it would suck the life out of the group. As it turned out we weren't quite far enough in front.

[comrade]

Not really.

The saints came hard and to fight the fight your head needs to be switched on. When smith went down I was just glad we were a long way in front as - given it is recon#3- i thought it would suck the life out of the group. As it turned out we weren't quite far enough in front.

In hindsight, had we just subbed Clay off earlier in the qtr, his injury may not have impacted the group to the extent it did - being at half time, stretcher, melee etc

[Cyberdoggie]

In hindsight, had we just subbed Clay off earlier in the qtr, his injury may not have impacted the group to the extent it did - being at half time, stretcher, melee etc

Exactly, but having said that they wouldn't of known that he would of gone down right on the half time buzzer for all to see, and perhaps they were hoping the sight of him out there albeit briefly might of worked in our favour, even if the news was bad.

But, I agree, he should never have gone back out there, because in hindsight it was probably the biggest factor in us losing the game.

[stefoid]

Not really.

The saints came hard and to fight the fight your head needs to be switched on. When smith went down I was just glad we were a long way in front as - given it is recon#3- i thought it would suck the life out of the group. As it turned out we weren't quite far enough in front.

I think so too. Normally at half time 50 points up youd be chipper, but once the news was out it was just blerg.

[Ghost Dog]

I think so too. Normally at half time 50 points up youd be chipper, but once the news was out it was just blerg.

Not sure you can pin it on that surely. As Bevo suggested, if anything it should have fired us up. Sydney game prolly had more to do with it eh?

[jeemak]

Not sure you can pin it on that surely. As Bevo suggested, if anything it should have fired us up. Sydney game prolly had more to do with it eh?

Slow reaction to changed circumstances and a lack of mental fortitude (potentially brought on with losing Clay, but equally likely as a result of taking the foot off) is to blame. It's pretty simple to me.

[bornadog]

Slow reaction to changed circumstances and a lack of mental fortitude (potentially brought on with losing Clay, but equally likely as a result of taking the foot off) is to blame. It's pretty simple to me.

I am still angry we let this one slip.

[Greystache]

After watching yesterday's game one thing that concerns me about how sustainable our game plan is that we seem to willingly concede first possession at the centre bounce majority of time, and instead rely on laying a tackle as soon as they take possession to either hold them up or turn the ball over. This strategy must take a lot out of the players playing in the midfield, and could be something that really starts to hurt later in the season.

[jeemak]

I was surprised yesterday by the lack of defencive set up, particularly at centre bounces.

Strange times, and considering we nearly won the game against the clear competition leader it's difficult to be too critical.

[Mantis]

After watching yesterday's game one thing that concerns me about how sustainable our game plan is that we seem to willingly concede first possession at the centre bounce majority of time, and instead rely on laying a tackle as soon as they take possession to either hold them up or turn the ball over. This strategy must take a lot out of the players playing in the midfield, and could be something that really starts to hurt later in the season.

It also allows the opposition to be creative with what they do when they win the tap, meaning we are always on the back-foot and 2nd guessing.

I'm also not a fan of using the '3rd man up' tactic on a regular basis as it denies you an extra player at the coal face when the ball isn't cleared.

[Maddog37]

I thought it was noticeable the slower short chip style was played for portions of the game and it served us well. It is also what Freo do very well.

[Sedat]

I thought it was noticeable the slower short chip style was played for portions of the game and it served us well. It is also what Freo do very well.
I noticed it too - better 1 week late than never. We'll definitely need this in the kitbag at stages in games throughout the year.

[Maddog37]

Our team seems like a sponge for knowledge at the moment. Very teachable.

Next week will tell us more.

[LostDoggy]

This is indeed the time for Bevo to keep experimenting — whilst he has the utmost faith of the players and fans.

There is no reason to expect that our current game plan will be our endgame.