WB Game Day V Geelong R12 2022

[Danjul]

He will not be the difference but neither is our current structure. We need two genuine ruck men which includes Sweet and a second tall forward be it Schache until Bruce is fit again. There is also a lack of experience on the forward line with McComb McNeil and West. Players like Bont Dunkley and Treloar need to play more time forward to provide more experience and goal kicking abilities.
Until we get the balance right we can expect more of the same as was experienced against Geelong

We should thank Geelong for forcing us to look at our history/future?

After the premiership we hit the middle of 2017 at 6:6.

Then we spent seasons as cellar dwellers. Bottom 4 for too many games.

We are now 6:6 after a grand final. It is time to get serious.

[Danjul]

You can compare the style of Schache (75 goals from 68 games, best year 24.8 from 14 games in 2019) to Cameron (503 goals from 198 games, averaging 2.53 per game with 6 out of 10 seasons 40+ goals) but you can't compare the results.

I would have Shack in the team this week, but let's not get too carried away about him being the difference.

During 2018 and 2019 Schache played 27 games and was goalless 4 times. That’s in a struggling team. His 20 goals in the second half of 2019 helped restore some dignity to a club whose catastrophic failure after a premiership had everyone scratching their head. He worked well with Dale and Naughton who also got about 20 goals late in the season.

Then the bizarre stuff happened.

I have no expectations. If he is benched and sits out half the game I won’t be surprised. In fact what will surprise me is if he comes into the team.

[jeemak]

We didn't have a plan.

Stewart positioned himself on whoever he wanted - at times it was West, others it was Weightman or McNeil. All of these are terrible match-ups for us.

Have you considered that we did have a plan and that in a lot of instances it would have worked if we had have not butchered the footy in the first quarter?

I'm not sure if you've decided to torture yourself like I have and re-watched the first quarter, but it was the execution and lack of help and numbers assisting the ball carrier, that fed Stewart. And Dekoning for that matter.

Additionally, the old bees to a honey pot mentality was in our game and we didn't respect the wider side of each stoppage and contest and were burned more than a few times because of it. Holding width is the buzz phrase around the AFL, if you don't do it you get torched all over the ground, and if the coaches aren't preaching that then it's very bad news (see Cameron's miss-kick receive/ sealer).

Not pissing in your pocket TBB, you're a really smart guy when it comes to footy, but there's a bit of a blind spot with you on this one in my view.

Edit - If it is as you say then we're riddled with incompetence across our entire football department because every shit head commentator knows you need to have a plan for counter-balancing Stewart's influence, and it's gross incompetence not to have one. This could be the case, sure, but essentially you're suggesting we spent our entire planning for the game last week avoiding the most obvious issue we need to deal with and that's concerning and to me, entirely unbelievable.

[comrade]

So we either didn’t plan adequately and adapt our usual game plan to counter Stewart or we did have a plan but the coaching group was unable to coordinate the playing group and get them to buy in and adhere to it?

Either way, not great.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

So we either didn’t plan adequately and adapt our usual game plan to counter Stewart or we did have a plan but the coaching group was unable to coordinate the playing group and get them to buy in and adhere to it?

Either way, not great.

So there is no situation where the player's need to shoulder blame for failing to implement what was in all probability a pretty clear instruction of what not to do against Geelong?

I'm not sure any of our coaches could've done anything game plan wise to combat the horrible skills errors that saw us commit unforced, costly turnovers. Similarly our constant bombing to Stewart and De Koning was probably rule number 1 that the coaches instructed the players to avoid. Beveridge even spoke of the poor decisions in the first quarter when delivering the ball inside 50. Pointing out that they chose the wrong options when there were better targets open.

And there has been talk about the role of the 2nd ruck amongst many posters. Khamis' might not have won many hitouts, but athe ruck contests he was in, we won just about all of the resulting clearances. Others have said we were one tall short, up forward. OK, but without inside context of what we were hoping to achieve game plan wise, I don't know how we can objectively critique it.
What I'm confident of, is that the decision wasn't made lightly. They must've had a tactical reason for it. They didn't do it for shits and giggles.

I totally agree that the club has strategically been wrong footed on our list management and as a result we're short a decent 2nd ruck that fits in with our preferred game plan, and obviously our back 6 stocks are thin for key defenders. The club absolutely needs to correct this going forward.
That being said, knowing these strategic deficiencies and without ability to address it during a season, the club must therefore look for tactical ways to mitigate. I think that's the genesis for why we're seeing less than orthodoxy in our selections.

[Grantysghost]

So we either didn’t plan adequately and adapt our usual game plan to counter Stewart or we did have a plan but the coaching group was unable to coordinate the playing group and get them to buy in and adhere to it?

Either way, not great.

The plan appeared to be: go small.

McNeil, West, McComb, Weightman.

So that left Naughton and Khamis.

Naughts was the primary target for the most part so I guess that leaves Buku maybe as the plan to foil him in the air with the down stream group instructed not to kick it near him?
It was hard to tell.

[azabob]

The plan appeared to be: go small.

McNeil, West, McComb, Weightman.

So that left Naughton and Khamis.

Naughts was the primary target for the most part so I guess that leaves Buku maybe as the plan to foil him in the air with the down stream group instructed not to kick it near him?
It was hard to tell.

Not really. Buku only played 53% game time. Plan was to go small and stay small.

[Grantysghost]

Not really. Buku only played 53% game time. Plan was to go small and stay small.

It's certainly confusing. 53 percent, that's odd.

I guess then getting it in any which way and keeping it there was the tactic.

[GVGjr]

So there is no situation where the player's need to shoulder blame for failing to implement what was in all probability a pretty clear instruction of what not to do against Geelong?

It's basically on the players the way they zoned off on us. I wonder if we had the right players though

I'm not sure any of our coaches could've done anything game plan wise to combat the horrible skills errors that saw us commit unforced, costly turnovers. Similarly our constant bombing to Stewart and De Koning was probably rule number 1 that the coaches instructed the players to avoid. Beveridge even spoke of the poor decisions in the first quarter when delivering the ball inside 50. Pointing out that they chose the wrong options when there were better targets open.

Agree, bombing into the forward line has been problematic for a few years now and the decision making and skill execution was a real challenge for us. A more composed effort early in the game on Friday night would have ensured we didn't have to whittle away at their lead for as long as we did.

And there has been talk about the role of the 2nd ruck amongst many posters. Khamis' might not have won many hitouts, but athe ruck contests he was in, we won just about all of the resulting clearances. Others have said we were one tall short, up forward. OK, but without inside context of what we were hoping to achieve game plan wise, I don't know how we can objectively critique it.
What I'm confident of, is that the decision wasn't made lightly. They must've had a tactical reason for it. They didn't do it for shits and giggles.

Khamis as a 2nd ruckman doesn't work for me, it's a poor plan in my opinion.

I totally agree that the club has strategically been wrong footed on our list management and as a result we're short a decent 2nd ruck that fits in with our preferred game plan, and obviously our back 6 stocks are thin for key defenders. The club absolutely needs to correct this going forward.
That being said, knowing these strategic deficiencies and without ability to address it during a season, the club must therefore look for tactical ways to mitigate. I think that's the genesis for why we're seeing less than orthodoxy in our selections.

Good post, thanks for sharing.

[Grantysghost]

So there is no situation where the player's need to shoulder blame for failing to implement what was in all probability a pretty clear instruction of what not to do against Geelong?

I'm not sure any of our coaches could've done anything game plan wise to combat the horrible skills errors that saw us commit unforced, costly turnovers. Similarly our constant bombing to Stewart and De Koning was probably rule number 1 that the coaches instructed the players to avoid. Beveridge even spoke of the poor decisions in the first quarter when delivering the ball inside 50. Pointing out that they chose the wrong options when there were better targets open.

And there has been talk about the role of the 2nd ruck amongst many posters. Khamis' might not have won many hitouts, but athe ruck contests he was in, we won just about all of the resulting clearances. Others have said we were one tall short, up forward. OK, but without inside context of what we were hoping to achieve game plan wise, I don't know how we can objectively critique it.
What I'm confident of, is that the decision wasn't made lightly. They must've had a tactical reason for it. They didn't do it for shits and giggles.

I totally agree that the club has strategically been wrong footed on our list management and as a result we're short a decent 2nd ruck that fits in with our preferred game plan, and obviously our back 6 stocks are thin for key defenders. The club absolutely needs to correct this going forward.
That being said, knowing these strategic deficiencies and without ability to address it during a season, the club must therefore look for tactical ways to mitigate. I think that's the genesis for why we're seeing less than orthodoxy in our selections.

I guess for me the coaching part of a coaches role, ergo actually teaching your strategy to the players and getting them to carry it out seems to be a big problem at times?

I think the tactics were poor to begin with, so coupled with a failure to execute you end up with the first qtr.

Why aren't the players getting it? Either they're all dumb or it's not being taught properly. Or maybe they aren't buying in to it.
I guess you'd have to be on the inside to know.

[azabob]

It's certainly confusing. 53 percent, that's odd.

I guess then getting it in any which way and keeping it there was the tactic.

My guess is Khamis tank is still questionable and needed to spend all his time in the ruck.

It was noticed in our interchange rotations. We only used 62 of the 75. Normally we are at low 70's

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I guess for me the coaching part of a coaches role, ergo actually teaching your strategy to the players and getting them to carry it out seems to be a big problem at times?

I think the tactics were poor to begin with, so coupled with a failure to execute you end up with the first qtr.

Why aren't the players getting it? Either they're all dumb or it's not being taught properly. Or maybe they aren't buying in to it.
I guess you'd have to be on the inside to know.

My worry is not that our gameplan is poor per se, but that some of our supposed elite players are prone to making really horrifying skill errors that opens us up. Bont, Macrae & Dale all committed fundamental skill errors in the first qtr that led to easy Geelong scores. I understand that players make mistakes, but it seems to happen quite regularly. So my question for the coaches would be around 'Is our game plan suitable for the player skillsets we have? If we can't trust Macrae, Bont or Dale to execute reliably on fundamentals then maybe we need to account for this in how we set up? I don't even know if that is feasible.

[Grantysghost]

My worry is not that our gameplan is poor per se, but that some of our supposed elite players are prone to making really horrifying skill errors that opens us up. Bont, Macrae & Dale all committed fundamental skill errors in the first qtr that led to easy Geelong scores. I understand that players make mistakes, but it seems to happen quite regularly. So my question for the coaches would be around 'Is our game plan suitable for the player skillsets we have? If we can't trust Macrae, Bont or Dale to execute reliably on fundamentals then maybe we need to account for this in how we set up? I don't even know if that is feasible.

Good points YHF.

There's also the opposition's ability to negate it I guess. It looked perfect against the Eagles

[bornadog]

Good points YHF.

There's also the opposition's ability to negate it I guess. It looked perfect against the Eagles

Geelong are good at pressuring the ball carrier

[MrMahatma]

My guess is Khamis tank is still questionable and needed to spend all his time in the ruck.

It was noticed in our interchange rotations. We only used 62 of the 75. Normally we are at low 70's

But JUH can't get a game cause his tank isn't big enough? Or Sweet doesn't impact enough outside of the ruck contest?

Why we'd have a player and only give them 53% game time is beyond me. I didn't know that until just now and don't get the double standards on that one.