Are there answers? And if there are, where can you find them?

[mjp]

The answers lie with the players. They're not working hard enough. Am I being simplistic. Maybe. But there's data there that backs me up.

OK.

I wanna say "no shit" to a lot of this.

The problem is that the answer has been with the players for a few years now and nothing has/is changing...is it as simple as "if you guys would just defend 'better' we would play better?" - well, yeah, it is. But that doesn't matter because they need to actually decide to do it and something is holding them back.

What might that something be? Well, we're back to the start. I have no doubt the coaches are telling them all of this but nothing ever changes.

[Sedat]

Isn't the simple answer that our very best players didn't fire a shot on the night? Bont 17 possessions and no impact up forward, Libba clearance dominance blunted significantly and 27yo English getting destroyed both in the ruck and around the ground by a pensioner.

Factor in Essendon being wounded and stung and having a good plan to blunt our biggest weapons, and you get the recipe for the turd sandwich that ensued on Friday night.

[westdog54]

OK.

I wanna say "no shit" to a lot of this.

The problem is that the answer has been with the players for a few years now and nothing has/is changing...is it as simple as "if you guys would just defend 'better' we would play better?" - well, yeah, it is. But that doesn't matter because they need to actually decide to do it and something is holding them back.

What might that something be? Well, we're back to the start. I have no doubt the coaches are telling them all of this but nothing ever changes.

I know it's a bit of a "no shit" situation, but there's now hard data to back up the assertion that there is a bit of one way running going on.

It's not even asking them to "defend better", rather to (I'm not sure if I'm putting this correctly) defend "harder", that is, put more effort into winning the ball back, because there is a correlation there, if not a causation.

I know it's a circular argument and it is frustrating as a supporter. The clubs get more of this data than the public or the media. What they're doing with it, who knows?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

It's cos we're training at Skinner Reserve.....wait. No.

[westbulldog]

This doesn't help :- "Aaron Naughton and Jamarra Ugle-Hagan, are statistically the worst and third-worst kicks for goal since the start of 2021 in the AFL. "

[mjp]

I know it's a bit of a "no shit" situation, but there's now hard data to back up the assertion that there is a bit of one way running going on.

It's not even asking them to "defend better", rather to (I'm not sure if I'm putting this correctly) defend "harder", that is, put more effort into winning the ball back, because there is a correlation there, if not a causation.

I know it's a circular argument and it is frustrating as a supporter. The clubs get more of this data than the public or the media. What they're doing with it, who knows?

Ok. Im not sure this data is in any way relevant to the problem (and the outcome).

The team that wins generally has lower gps numbers than the winner - total distance, sprint % and metres per minute. I think it’s interesting but connecting the tracker to the outcome in any more than a superficial way is a long bow...I would have said lower running should = greater communication...perhaps it’s not a work rate issue but a connection problem.

[ledge]

So an article written by Robbo calling Bevo a bumbling idiot … umm I have no words.

[Flamethrower]

Interesting you bring up the third quarter.

I was on the AFL app on Sunday night, trying to get the Telstra Tracker info to see if I could see how many kms Vandermeer covered in the game. I didn't find that, but I did find some concerning numbers concerning our work rate around the ground and over the course of the game.

In the third quarter, our sprint efforts dropped right off. Our repeat sprints were almost non-existent.

Our measured work rate in attack (that being the team's average speed whilst in possession) was lower than in defence (average speed when not in possesssion. Essendon's defensive work rate was higher by the same margin.

Overall across the course of the game, Essendon's players ran for a longer distance than our players.

When measuring individual average speed's in attack, four of the top five players were Bulldogs (VDM, Dale, Caldwell, Weightman and Gallagher). In defence, all of the top five were Bombers (Hind, Duursma, Jones, Menzie and Heppell).

Put quite simply, we worked harder when we had the ball than when we didn't. Essendon worked harder in defence, and yet they won by five goals.

We had more disposals, forced more turnovers, laid more tackles and had more intercepts. We even had one more inside 50 than Essendon. We had more contested marks and matched them for marks inside 50. And yet we've lost by five goals, driven by a lack of work rate going the other way.

We've only had two games out of the five we've played so far, where our average work rate was higher in defence than it was in attack. And wouldn't you know it, it was the Gold Coast and West Coast games.

The answers lie with the players. They're not working hard enough. Am I being simplistic. Maybe. But there's data there that backs me up.

This 1000%.

And it has been a problem for a few years.

Our team work rate when we don't have the ball is terrible (more often than not).

I am surprised Treloar hasn't been dropped - he is one of the worst offenders. When we have the ball he is sprinting everywhere trying to get involved - unfortunately his disposal is still inconsistent and his forward entries are often turned over.
When the ball is in dispute, or the other mob has it, OMG - he basically walks towards the backline. It is why Collingwood* let him go and he still hasn't learnt. (I was warned by a Magpie supporting mate of mine when we traded for him who told me straight up that Adam often butchers the ball going forward, and is basically a spectator when the other team has the ball apart from his direct opponent).

Sanders' defensive running also needs work but he is a rookie so gets a pass - hopefully is learning from Bontempelli and Liberatore about work ethic rather than Treloar.

Defensive transition is a mindset and one that can be easily fixed but needs a buy in from EVERYONE - one weak link and it falls apart.

The other glaring issues are:

1. a lack of a big bodied defender to help Liam Jones out - JOD and Buku are suited to 3rd tall but struggle to match big bodied 2nd tall forwards.

2. We don't have a real ruckman - Tim English is a follower. Sam Darcy to still too raw. Rory Lobb is a forward who pinch hits in the ruck. This is why we often lose clearances to "average" ruckmen (but ones who know ruck craft), and also have a habit of giving up run ons of goals.

Moving Naughton to the backline is an option to get a big bodied defender back to help LJ, but I fear it will open an even bigger hole in our forward line.

Bevo has shown that he doesn't rate slow one dimensional ruckmen, so I don't think getting one at the midseason draft is on the radar, so we just have to hope that Sam Darcy develops into a monster.

[EasternWest]

This 1000%.

And it has been a problem for a few years.

Our team work rate when we don't have the ball is terrible (more often than not).

I am surprised Treloar hasn't been dropped - he is one of the worst offenders. When we have the ball he is sprinting everywhere trying to get involved - unfortunately his disposal is still inconsistent and his forward entries are often turned over.
When the ball is in dispute, or the other mob has it, OMG - he basically walks towards the backline. It is why Collingwood* let him go and he still hasn't learnt. (I was warned by a Magpie supporting mate of mine when we traded for him who told me straight up that Adam often butchers the ball going forward, and is basically a spectator when the other team has the ball apart from his direct opponent).

Sanders' defensive running also needs work but he is a rookie so gets a pass - hopefully is learning from Bontempelli and Liberatore about work ethic rather than Treloar.

Defensive transition is a mindset and one that can be easily fixed but needs a buy in from EVERYONE - one weak link and it falls apart.

The other glaring issues are:

1. a lack of a big bodied defender to help Liam Jones out - JOD and Buku are suited to 3rd tall but struggle to match big bodied 2nd tall forwards.

2. We don't have a real ruckman - Tim English is a follower. Sam Darcy to still too raw. Rory Lobb is a forward who pinch hits in the ruck. This is why we often lose clearances to "average" ruckmen (but ones who know ruck craft), and also have a habit of giving up run ons of goals.

Moving Naughton to the backline is an option to get a big bodied defender back to help LJ, but I fear it will open an even bigger hole in our forward line.

Bevo has shown that he doesn't rate slow one dimensional ruckmen, so I don't think getting one at the midseason draft is on the radar, so we just have to hope that Sam Darcy develops into a monster.

Or we get rid of Beveridge and get a coach who can adapt.

[westdog54]

Ok. Im not sure this data is in any way relevant to the problem (and the outcome).

The team that wins generally has lower gps numbers than the winner - total distance, sprint % and metres per minute. I think it’s interesting but connecting the tracker to the outcome in any more than a superficial way is a long bow...I would have said lower running should = greater communication...perhaps it’s not a work rate issue but a connection problem.

I'm relying on your expertise here when I ask this question in all seriousness: should we be concerned that our GPS numbers are higher when we've got the ball as opposed to when the opposition have it?

[mjp]

I'm relying on your expertise here when I ask this question in all seriousness: should we be concerned that our GPS numbers are higher when we've got the ball as opposed to when the opposition have it?

Well - to me, they SHOULD BE HIGHER when we have it.

When the oppo have it, we should be in a grid/web/call it what you will all the way down to half back...and the players should be holding their spots, communicating to one another and handing over. If they get too one-on-one too high then the defenders will get 'pulled apart' leaving gaping holes for the oppo to hit up into.

When we have the footy, the players need to be making space, 'fishing' in and out of gaps, engaging with the zoning oppo to try and get them to engage...

GPS numbers (distance and high speed) being high are often indicators of a team that is getting beaten...or (of course) a team that is lazy and getting absolutely smashed and is just caravanning around the field being dictated too.

GPS numbers are like so many other stats in that when they are really good and really bad they can indicate the reverse.
eg. High tackle numbers can = good intensity...or that the other team constantly has the ball. High uncontested marks can be dominance with the ball...or being unable to penetrate the oppo defenders and going from side to side.

[Axe Man]

So an article written by Robbo calling Bevo a bumbling idiot … umm I have no words.

You should be in the media yourself taking that line completely out of context. I've posted the article, if you read it you'll see Robbo is actually defending Bevo in that instance.

[mjp]

1/. Move Naughton back. It sends a message.
2/. Put Richards into the mids. It sends a message.
3/. Play Cleary. He can do no more. It sends a message.
4/. Play Garcia. He can do no more. It sends a message.
5/. Work out WHO the players think should be in...and PLAY THEM!!!.

You can't win them all.

[comrade]

Now what happens when Libba returns?

[azabob]

You can't win them all.

Interesting Bevo went with Sanders as the sub. Your reasoning was sound for why not to start Sanders as a sub.

Clearly didn't matter due to the margin.