The ultimate Rorshack Test

[bulldogtragic]

Losses:

50 points
51 points
14 points
7 points
22 points
22 points
12 points
2 points
5 points


8 losses - 6 by under 4 goals


Wins:

14 points
5 points
49 points
29 points
15 points
20 points
45 points
29 points
21 points
41 points

10 wins - 5 by under goals



So what do you see? A team that just needs to tweak things and pull back those narrow losses?

Or a team that finds ways to lose and needs a change on and/or off field?

I can accept that you can see either argument. Sure there is narrow losses and if we just kicked better and but for injuries then maybe we aren’t where we are now. On the other hand, we led early (and late) in a lot of our losses and gave up some decent leads.

Depending on what you see, we just need to tweak things and top up at trade time, or, we need to get overhaul a myriad of issues to stop handing over winnable games.

So what do you see when you look at the results to date, and the context they are in?

[SonofScray]

Re: The ultimate Rorshack Test

I see a system that doesn’t generate enough goals to break a game and a team that puts its one trick up against whatever is in front of it and hopes for the best.

It’s like we have Peter Sagan on a fixie. Occasionally we come up against other strong riders also on a fixie. Occasionally weaker riders on a 12 speed. Occasionally weaker riders on an e-bike. Doesn’t matter the scenario, we just ask Peter to keep pedalling.

[Boots]

Re: The ultimate Rorshack Test

I think the problem isn?t the closeness of the losses, it?s how we get to them. I?d be interested to see analysis of whether we get to a close loss by failing to defend a lead or by just failing to chase down an opponent?s lead. My gut says we can?t defend a lead and that?s the problem here. But it?s just a hunch.

[anfo27]

Re: The ultimate Rorshack Test

I think the problem isn?t the closeness of the losses, it?s how we get to them. I?d be interested to see analysis of whether we get to a close loss by failing to defend a lead or by just failing to chase down an opponent?s lead. My gut says we can?t defend a lead and that?s the problem here. But it?s just a hunch.

Isn't it as simple as we can not defend. We are a poor tackling team as well. We don't have a balanced side either.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: The ultimate Rorshack Test

I think the problem isn?t the closeness of the losses, it?s how we get to them. I?d be interested to see analysis of whether we get to a close loss by failing to defend a lead or by just failing to chase down an opponent?s lead. My gut says we can?t defend a lead and that?s the problem here. But it?s just a hunch.

Of the close losses:

Port at Port: Gave up the last four goals - gave it up
GCS: Bounced out to a three goal lead in the first
Geelong: Led at half time
Port here: Four points down at half time
Collingwood: Led at half time
Sydney: Gave it up
GWS: Gave it up


So another Rorshack test. Do we choke. Do oppo adjust at half time and we can?t adapt. Are we not fit enough. Can we not put together the concentration for four quarters.

[Rocket Science]

Re: The ultimate Rorshack Test

Feels like a healthy chunk of it is our flaky, leaky, injury-depleted backline that's so vulnerable we're forced to craft the rest of our game around trying to insulate and protect it, and any phases during games when we veer from the task cost us accordingly.

We rightly hold our mids to account when they don't run both ways, big jobs carry big responsibilities, but you wonder if we could weaponise them better if we had defenders we can trust instead of the collection of warm bodies we call a backline.

[jeemak]

Re: The ultimate Rorshack Test

Feels like a healthy chunk of it is our flaky, leaky, injury-depleted backline that's so vulnerable we're forced to craft the rest of our game around trying to insulate and protect it, and any phases during games when we veer from the task cost us accordingly.

We rightly hold our mids to account when they don't run both ways, big jobs carry big responsibilities, but you wonder if we could weaponise them better if we had defenders we can trust instead of the collection of warm bodies we call a backline.

Excellent post.

We kick into the forward line narrow side to congestion so the ball doesn't come out quickly and expose the defence. We avoid the corridor mostly because we're shit scared of a quick defensive entry.

[Mantis]

Re: The ultimate Rorshack Test

Feels like a healthy chunk of it is our flaky, leaky, injury-depleted backline that's so vulnerable we're forced to craft the rest of our game around trying to insulate and protect it, and any phases during games when we veer from the task cost us accordingly.

We rightly hold our mids to account when they don't run both ways, big jobs carry big responsibilities, but you wonder if we could weaponise them better if we had defenders we can trust instead of the collection of warm bodies we call a backline.

Having some (small) forwards who lock the ball in our forward line would really help too.

22 inside 50 tackles to GWS yesterday, we had 7... filling our forward line with mids needs to stop.

[jazzadogs]

Re: The ultimate Rorshack Test

Having some (small) forwards who lock the ball in our forward line would really help too.

22 inside 50 tackles to GWS yesterday, we had 7... filling our forward line with mids needs to stop.

That number is particularly galling because we did have three 'pressure forwards' in Cody, VDM and West.

[DOG GOD]

Re: The ultimate Rorshack Test

We can’t hold the ball in our fwd 50
We can’t hold tackles, let alone break them
Our overrated team of mids can’t/won’t/don’t defend
Our backline is, and still is, our Achilles heel.

Until these get fixed, we are an average team