It's been a tough season so far in 2019 but........

[bornadog]

Yeah, but to be fair it's turnovers that are killing everyone. Pretty much ALL scoring this year is coming on the back of turnover - scoring either comes from turnover, stoppage or kick-in - and both scores and scoring percentages from stoppages and kick-ins are down.

Thanks MJP. The stats on turnovers is interesting:

For the season to date here are the total turnover rankings:

Rk	Team	TO
1	Power	802
2	Dockers	774
3	Demons	768
4	Bombers	763
5	Crows	758
6	Swans	749
7	Tigers	729
8	Suns	723
9	Blues	714
10	Eagles	712
11	Bulldogs	708
12	Hawks	701
13	Kangaroos	696
14	Saints	695
15	Lions	686
16	Magpies	679
17	Giants	642
18	Cats	620

Surprise surprise the least turnover teams are on the top of the ladder. We are ranked 8th lowest and really should be in the top 8, and need to work out why our last quarter fade outs (since the Hawks game) are happening.

[Mofra]

Surprise surprise the least turnover teams are on the top of the ladder. We are ranked 8th lowest and really should be in the top 8, and need to work out why our last quarter fade outs (since the Hawks game) are happening.

If I was to guess, I'd say our F50 efficiency is quite low in comparison to other teams. We've won the inside 50 count but lost games this year (as we did last year).

It's a major reason why I agree with calls to find class forward of the ball at this year's trade period.

[Ghost Dog]

Thanks MJP. The stats on turnovers is interesting:

For the season to date here are the total turnover rankings:

Rk	Team	TO
1	Power	802
2	Dockers	774
3	Demons	768
4	Bombers	763
5	Crows	758
6	Swans	749
7	Tigers	729
8	Suns	723
9	Blues	714
10	Eagles	712
11	Bulldogs	708
12	Hawks	701
13	Kangaroos	696
14	Saints	695
15	Lions	686
16	Magpies	679
17	Giants	642
18	Cats	620

Surprise surprise the least turnover teams are on the top of the ladder. We are ranked 8th lowest and really should be in the top 8, and need to work out why our last quarter fade outs (since the Hawks game) are happening.

Turnovers are one thing. WHEN you turn over the ball and where is another. If you drop your bundle at certain key points of a game close to goal it can kill you. Caleb Daniel.....argh

[mjp]

Turnovers are one thing. WHEN you turn over the ball and where is another. If you drop your bundle at certain key points of a game it can kill you. If you are 40 points ahead you can afford to turn it over ten times.

Maybe 6!

[Ghost Dog]

Maybe 6!

Well depends on where you turn it over too

[Bulldog4life]

Thanks MJP. The stats on turnovers is interesting:

For the season to date here are the total turnover rankings:

Rk	Team	TO
1	Power	802
2	Dockers	774
3	Demons	768
4	Bombers	763
5	Crows	758
6	Swans	749
7	Tigers	729
8	Suns	723
9	Blues	714
10	Eagles	712
11	Bulldogs	708
12	Hawks	701
13	Kangaroos	696
14	Saints	695
15	Lions	686
16	Magpies	679
17	Giants	642
18	Cats	620

Surprise surprise the least turnover teams are on the top of the ladder. We are ranked 8th lowest and really should be in the top 8, and need to work out why our last quarter fade outs (since the Hawks game) are happening.

And North should be 6th.

[Rocket Science]

You'd suggest the impact of turnovers can be remedied to a degree by a mobile, well-organised backline who can scramble to limit the damage.

Not sure that sounds like us at the moment.

[The bulldog tragician]

Thanks MJP. The stats on turnovers is interesting:

For the season to date here are the total turnover rankings:

Rk	Team	TO
1	Power	802
2	Dockers	774
3	Demons	768
4	Bombers	763
5	Crows	758
6	Swans	749
7	Tigers	729
8	Suns	723
9	Blues	714
10	Eagles	712
11	Bulldogs	708
12	Hawks	701
13	Kangaroos	696
14	Saints	695
15	Lions	686
16	Magpies	679
17	Giants	642
18	Cats	620

Surprise surprise the least turnover teams are on the top of the ladder. We are ranked 8th lowest and really should be in the top 8, and need to work out why our last quarter fade outs (since the Hawks game) are happening.

Intriguing. Is it just supporter angst, or do more of ours result directly in opposition goals? And what’s the definition of turnover, because a turnover caused by extreme pressure (five blokes heroically throw their bodies over your boot in the act of kicking) is surely different from taking an ultra risky kick across the ground, or as even Bont did, a kick that was easily intercepted by the man on the mark.

[mjp]

Intriguing. Is it just supporter angst, or do more of ours result directly in opposition goals?

Well, like I said, given 80% of scores are coming from turnover - and we are losing more than we win - I guess MARGINALLY more of our turnovers are resulting in goals.

Mostly though, it is just supporter angst. We all expect the players to be perfect.

[Go_Dogs]

Quoted because it's the truth.

Our 2-way running is dreadful.. to a man our players go half rat power when transitioning from offence into defence. And when you have a backline that isn't all that good at one-on-one defending you're in big trouble.

Except Matt Suckling, who is head and shoulders our best defensive runner.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Good post. Not the end of the discussion but very very good post

Yeah, but to be fair it's turnovers that are killing everyone. Pretty much ALL scoring this year is coming on the back of turnover - scoring either comes from turnover, stoppage or kick-in - and both scores and scoring percentages from stoppages and kick-ins are down.

I get what you are saying I guess - but I just cant shake the feeling that as supporters we want it both ways...all the comments on here about going 'faster'...the fastest sides in the competition (most play-ons) are Melbourne and Carlton - and they are on the bottom. We rank 7th or 8th quickest...Geelong are the slowest and they are on top. Further to that, we aren't happy when the side plays 'safe' footy (like the first half vs Collingwood, generally speaking vs North) but then get upset when the players take a chance to try and open it up and a turnover is the result. I just don't think we are very fair with this - it is bloody hard to strike the right balance of being composed/getting a mark in D50/D-half then trying to hit the 45 in order to accelerate with the opposition sweating on the kick (they practice as well you know).

Admittedly, I was upset a couple of weeks ago because I thought we had the kick/handball balance skewed...again, that is hard. You work for one another and get to the contest in numbers, the reaction is going to be to handball the ball to your team-mate because first option would be preached at training every day.

Again, we have a talented group and even going back to my last post where I talk about Schache not being the CHF focal point, that is probably a dumb comment as it really does feel over the past few weeks we are all getting into 'deck-chairs on the Titanic' mode by suggesting we move player x here and player y there...I mean, a week ago the calls for Dale to be promoted were vigorous and pretty unanimous...a week later he cant play and his career is over...the truth (as always) is in the middle. Yes, he needs to play better but he also needs to be given a chance to do so. The discussion over Richards 'role', Toby's 'role' etc...does it really matter as ultimately what the group needs to do is commit to being in front/1st to the ball in the contest (which we usually are), clean with our hands (50-50 we are) and defend like crazy (20-80 we do).

There was a great stat on that 'TRENDS' podcast a couple of weeks ago about how the team that records the highest number for DEFENSIVE running wins basically every single game...and that team usually records the LOWER number for offensive running...

I have never really liked the whole 'men of mayhem' type commentary, and whilst the 'wall of Biggs' was amazing in the moment and even more remarkable in replay, watching our team around that time it really was incredible how hard we challenged the opposition defensively...defeating the GWS running machine was achieved with running, workrate and effort...I feel we have watched what Richmond, West Coast and Collingwood have done over the past couple of years and defend with structure/positioning (with a bit of help from Howe, McGovern, Shepherd, Grimes and Rance!) and tried to become 'that' sort of team...for whatever reason, it hasn't worked/resonated with our group and we leak goals...so the EFFORT needs to take the place of the structure, the forwards need to be quicker to empty out, we need to apply more pressure through the mids, the defenders need to more aggressively take away leading lanes....

It's going to be ok.

[boydogs]

Geelong go slow because they have so much marking power, they don't need to take risks with the ball to move it down the field and score. They have multiple elite mids and a big gap between their best and worst players, so they allow their best to run from contest to contest and use the ball well. Their slow pace reduces the amount of time their best need to spend resting on the bench, so they're putting out and involving their best more often

Their typical stats show a big marking advantage, fewer handballs and more kicks. Not massive possession counts or goal fests, lots of touches for their stars and limited involvement from their bottom 6

I'd do that too if we had Hawkins, Fort, Stanley, Blicavs, Taylor, Dangerfield, Selwood, Ablett, Kelly & Duncan. We don't, we're more evenly balanced and not strong in the air, so we're better off moving quickly and using our run to get free and score

[mjp]

I'd do that too if we had Hawkins, Fort, Stanley, Blicavs, Taylor, Dangerfield, Selwood, Ablett, Kelly & Duncan. We don't, we're more evenly balanced and not strong in the air, so we're better off moving quickly and using our run to get free and score

LOL. Well, let's go with lies and damned statistics.

First off, Geelong have taken 961 marks this season (96.1 per game) and we have taken 912 (91.2 per game)...so the stats that show us with 17 less marks per game than the Catters just aren't accurate.

Of the players you mentioned:
Hawkins - 5 marks per game
Fort - 4 per game (he's played 1 game so not sure how he made the list)
Stanley - 5 per game
Blicavs - 5 per game
Taylor - 5 per game
Dangerfield - 4 per game
Selwood - 4 per game
Ablett - 4 per game
Kelly - 3 per game
Duncan - NINE per game

Stewart has actually taken more marks out of that player grouping than all of them except Duncan...pretty sure they aren't kicking it slow to him through the mids...and most of Duncan's are lateral kicks - it isn't like he is an elite mark, he is just an elite runner who works hard to find space and they kick it to him...Jake Kolo, O'Connor, Miers etc are all ahead of Dangerfield and Selwood...they are taking more marks because of their style of play, not because they are good marks of the footy. They are taking more marks because their style of play emphasises retaining possession of the footy (hence their high kicking numbers) and NOT because they have an amazing group of players who are simply sticking their hands up and going 'KLUNK'.

Further, if you look at our list of players - with the exception of Duncan, our mark averages are pretty similar to Geelong...Hunter (playing the 'DUNCAN Role') averages 7 per game, Crozier (the Stewart role) 6 per game etc...

Geelong are playing slower than us, retaining the ball etc - but a number for number comparison is not going to reveal the differences we are all talking about!

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/2019.html

[bornadog]

Geelong are playing slower than us, retaining the ball etc - but a number for number comparison is not going to reveal the differences we are all talking about!

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/2019.html

Our stats are very good and in most cases equal to our better than Geelong, however where Geelong is better is their forward 50 efficiency and goal accuracy. That makes a massive difference.

[Danjul]

Our stats are very good and in most cases equal to our better than Geelong, however where Geelong is better is their forward 50 efficiency and goal accuracy. That makes a massive difference.

Nobody is confident when one of our players marks the ball 40 - 50 metres from goal. Counts as an inside 50. They struggle to make the distance (couple of exceptions) which affects their accuracy.

We need a natural kicker or a kicking coach or both.