Always Right Match Committee Round 2 V St Kilda

[bornadog]

I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it.

A lot of the problem stems from the ruck contests. We win the majority of the clearances but they are poor quality clearances. This is because we set up defensively and have to battle for the ball. The players are under pressure and therefore indirect. Where Melbourne got the ball deep into the forward zone from the centre we got it to the half forward flank.

Everyone seems to be saying our midfielders were poor. Don’t think so. Gawn put the ball in Petracca’s hand repeatedly when he was moving at close to full speed. Swap ruckmen swap results.

We play a high risk game plan. Handball keeps the players close together, helps the opposition corral them, resulting in poor disposals and tires them out. How else could the Melbourne backline take so many more uncontested marks.

Melbourne kicked it. Gave them direction and speed we could not cope with. Kept them fresh.

We didn’t, result was being pressured and we had the characteristic fade out. Only 2 scoring shots in the last half hour. After a good start we couldn’t get to 10 goals.

None of this is new. We have been doing it consistently for over 12 months and it is getting boring.

Time to play in the style that others use to crush us.

hitouts to advantage
Tim - 6
Gawn 7
Grundy 4
Lobb 1

hardly supports your theory

[Danjul]

So Danjul - do you think we should play Sweet?

Not if he isn’t AFL standard.

How do we determine that?

We could simply say to the players :

Any careless long bomb that gives an unmanned opposition player a mark results in a fine of 5% of match payment.

Immediately we would be better and wouldn’t have to consider new players. Unlikely to be said.

So I am forced to consider players who weren’t given the opportunity to embarrass the club on Saturday. So I will compare Sweet to one who was.

In Sweet’s last game before he was banished last year, his worst for the year, he played better than Lobb did on Saturday. Both were 6 disposals but Sweet had 9 hitouts as second ruck and Lobb had 3.

Why did I say better, isn’t that almost equal. No, Sweet did more heavy work in packs helping smaller guys. (I realise that is a weak argument. But it will save Hannan, for example. And the half dozen others from Saturday.)

But another aspect which has never been revealed before. Lobb was given 50% more game time to get Sweet’s worst contribution. I was at the game and Bevo had Sweet sitting on an exercise bike for 40% of the match.

But Lobb was fantastic last year. Lots of goals.

Actually, in a quarter of his games he was goalless, in another quarter he scored only 1. And that’s standing in the forward line for about 80% of all matches, in a better team that delivered well into the forward line, as we saw close up twice. His 6 goals against us was nearly 20% of his total.

But Lobb got lots more possessions at Freo last year I hear you say.

He was in a better performing team and always given 90+% game time. Sweet was given 70%. Despite his advantages Lobb averaged 2 possessions a game more than Sweet. Did anyone know that when they chased him?

Ah, but he rucked a lot!

No he didn’t. In half of his games last year you could count his hitouts on your fingers. In 20 games he once got over 15 hitouts. He was a forward who didn’t ruck much.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticising Lobb. Our strategy hinges on him.

But our problem is not going to be solved by a forward who doesn’t like the ruck. We need a tap ruckman.

So in my opinion Sweet (or Sweetie as my iPad is suggesting) is selectable. But that’s not going to happen for the simple reason he is not blonde like Lobb.


And thanks for asking.

[1eyedog]

I think most are in agreeance that Sweetie can't get to enough contests. Very serviceable 10-15 years ago but you have to have shown you are more than just a tap ruckman in today's game. If he was a good mark of the footy I'm almost certain he'd be playing more but he's not.

He's a Dinosaur and is only really kept on the list in case English snaps in half.

[Danjul]

hitouts to advantage
Tim - 6
Gawn 7
Grundy 4
Lobb 1

hardly supports your theory

After the last of Melbourne’s 5 goals from 17 possessions the AFL website reported that Melbourne won the last 6 clearances.

In the last 10 minutes of the second quarter during the period of Melbourne’s ruck dominance the Dogs managed 4 possessions.

History records:

[bounce-tap-(thank you)-pass-pass-goal] x 5 = game over in a less than 10 minute burst (again).

average time between goals was 2 minutes (including getting the ball out of the crowd)

So yes, quality clearances from the centre generate goals and win games and demoralise opposing players and their supporters.

And we didn’t get any.

[Danjul]

hitouts to advantage
Tim - 6
Gawn 7
Grundy 4
Lobb 1

hardly supports your theory

English had 33 ruck contests against Gawn for 1 to advantage. Gawn had 7 to advantage. They were not close in impact.

But as I have said, English had an excellent game. I think I said it was his best yet. Just one problem with it.

[Danjul]

I think most are in agreeance that Sweetie can't get to enough contests. Very serviceable 10-15 years ago but you have to have shown you are more than just a tap ruckman in today's game. If he was a good mark of the footy I'm almost certain he'd be playing more but he's not.

He's a Dinosaur and is only really kept on the list in case English snaps in half.

In his last 8 games last season English averaged 13 possessions per game. The same as Sweet got against Collingwood.

But yes, I understand that not all 13s are equal.

And English’s 11 in round 20 was a thousand times better than Sweet’s 11 four weeks earlier. Maths is funny that way.

And English combined his with 25 hitouts which were clearly a million times better than Sweets 26.

English is our champion and Sweet is our dinosaur, fortunately language doesn’t follow rules like mathematics.


I ‘m not criticising English and if I had to choose between them I would take English every time. But to get the most successful team I would often have both. We have squandered opportunities by playing favourites for too long.

Look at what happened on Saturday. Was anyone surprised?

[F'scary]

So let's play Sweet and anyone but Hannan.

[FrediKanoute]

In his last 8 games last season English averaged 13 possessions per game. The same as Sweet got against Collingwood.

But yes, I understand that not all 13s are equal.

And English’s 11 in round 20 was a thousand times better than Sweet’s 11 four weeks earlier. Maths is funny that way.

And English combined his with 25 hitouts which were clearly a million times better than Sweets 26.

English is our champion and Sweet is our dinosaur, fortunately language doesn’t follow rules like mathematics.


I ‘m not criticising English and if I had to choose between them I would take English every time. But to get the most successful team I would often have both. We have squandered opportunities by playing favourites for too long.

Look at what happened on Saturday. Was anyone surprised?

I agree. I would have English as the 2nd ruck forward and Sweet as our ruck.

I really though would have had English as our 2nd ruck forward and Grundy as our ruck, but we didn't go for that trade.

[Happy Days]

I'm pretty sure they had 65 inside 50's...still couldn't score.

It was like they knew, between Zaine and that undrafted first gamer guy, that they wouldn’t be able to generate scores if they tried to put the ball inside 50 properly and put no energy into it, instead just getting the ball in however if they happened to be in possession, and then shifting all their energy to defending from the arc back. Despite actually a million intercept possessions Freo couldn’t get any ball movement going at all, partially self inflicted but largely due to a very disciplined effort from the Saints.

Horrible to watch yet admirable and winning football. RTB’s prints all over it.

[Curly5]

I think we will break them. I see us as flat trackers. If a side brings skill + intensity we are cooked but otherwise we are fine. Think we will smash a lot of sides who aren't very good but uncompetitive when a gun side is firing.

I agree with this post but can't Like it as it's too sad
I hope we're both proved wrong...

[mjp]

Look at what happened on Saturday. Was anyone surprised?

Umm. I was ultimately surprised yeah. Well, I went in with high hopes.

As I have said, from where I sit a LOT of 'stuff' over the past 12-18 months has been blamed on a few malcontents within the group - in particular the fracturing of the relationship between Hunter and the rest of the group. So I had hoped that with his exit and all the reports over the break about the esprit d'corps of the group, well, things would be better and we would show a bit of resilience.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying btw - but when you concede 5x goals for just 17 possessions, well, that isn't about personnel...that's about effort, focus and a willingness to get your hands dirty.

[GVGjr]

Umm. I was ultimately surprised yeah. Well, I went in with high hopes.

As I have said, from where I sit a LOT of 'stuff' over the past 12-18 months has been blamed on a few malcontents within the group - in particular the fracturing of the relationship between Hunter and the rest of the group. So I had hoped that with his exit and all the reports over the break about the esprit d'corps of the group, well, things would be better and we would show a bit of resilience.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying btw - but when you concede 5x goals for just 17 possessions, well, that isn't about personnel...that's about effort, focus and a willingness to get your hands dirty.

I believe you can influence the effort players bring but you have to be prepared to make some big calls at the selection table and I don't think we've been particularly strong in that area.

[Rocco Jones]

I believe you can influence the effort players bring but you have to be prepared to make some big calls at the selection table and I don't think we've been particularly strong in that area.

I feel Bevo/MC are extremely strong on 'effort' type selections when it comes to filling out the side, however if you're a gun etc, you are not getting dropped.

[Mantis]

I feel Bevo/MC are extremely strong on 'effort' type selections when it comes to filling out the side, however if you're a gun etc, you are not getting dropped.

When you look at the output in terms of possessions from our ''guns'' who mostly reside in the midfield from the weekends game you'd struggle to have an issue:

Macrae - 33
Libba - 32
Treloar - 31
Smith - 27
Bont - 25

Even the players we want to get the ball in the back half had heaps or enough of it:

Daniel - 29
Richards - 27
Dale - 19

So who do you drop from this group?

[Rocco Jones]

When you look at the output in terms of possessions from our ''guns'' who mostly reside in the midfield from the weekends game you'd struggle to have an issue:

Macrae - 33
Libba - 32
Treloar - 31
Smith - 27
Bont - 25

Even the players we want to get the ball in the back half had heaps or enough of it:

Daniel - 29
Richards - 27
Dale - 19

So who do you drop from this group?

I worded my post poorly. My point wasn't so much about dropping gun players but that our MC/Bevo seem to value effort/team first type guys at the selection table when it comes to filling out the 22.

In terms of who we drop, I do not think we have got the value we'd expect from Macrae and Daniel last year and Round 1. I am not saying we drop them, I am not even saying it's their fault, maybe it's instructions or needing different roles. Overall, the issue isn't about individuals and lack of effort, but a collective thing. I just find it frustratingly ironic that we seem to place such an emphasis on being workmanlike when trying to break into the side, yet the team doesn't feel workman like at all.