Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

[mjp]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

-Time oppo have to get rid of ball
-Number of oppo link-up plays - ie how many oppo players touched the ball before we did and how many of these were there.
-Ground ball gets

Just spitballing.

I'm 100% on board with this. Consecutive oppo possessions...what's a reasonable number to keep them under?

3?
5?

I would think 5 consecutive possessions = disaster so maybe the number would be 4?

Something like - Maximum of 3x oppo possession chains (4-or-more) in any quarter of play.

Simple to measure. Simple to provide visual feedback on. Big impact on the game....plus, the players can COUNT them on-field and it could be a bit unifying. I like it.

[Bornadog]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

Isn't a low Rebound 50 count good? Or can't it be good?

If the oppo have low i50 numbers, then your rebound 50 numbers are - by extension - gonna be low.

From Champion data:

Rebound 50: Moving the ball from the defensive zone into the midfield.

Rebound 50 Rate: Measures how often a side rebounds from its defensive 50 without conceding a goal to the opposition.

Of course the fewer entries into 50 the better and therefore a lower rate, but in most games inside 50s are very even between teams.

[Axe Man]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

Carlton had 69 and won.
Sydney had 72 and won.
Essendon had 61 and won.
GWS had 45 and won.
Geelong had 53 and won.
Adelaide had 72 and LOST.
Port had 44 and won.
Freo had 67 and won.

Last year we came 9th averaging 65 per game and as supporters were unhappy with results all year.

Is it really tackles we are after?

I don't mind it - I just want to understand what changes if we lay 60?

I was only providing some numbers to back Boots' tackle target, not advocating it as a metric.

Tackle numbers are a bit weird, looking at last season there is a general trend of higher finishers being in the top half of tackle numbers, but there are a few outliers - the Crows (1st) us (3rd) and Brisbane dead last.

Brisbane were the only finalist to average under 60 though, seems like a reasonable target for most games but of course in isolation isn't that meaningful, like most stats.

[Axe Man]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

We were 7th. I want more and converted to goals.

We were 7th in what?

Conversion is a different matter and is more about skill than effort.

[Axe Man]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

I'm 100% on board with this. Consecutive oppo possessions...what's a reasonable number to keep them under?

3?
5?

I would think 5 consecutive possessions = disaster so maybe the number would be 4?

Something like - Maximum of 3x oppo possession chains (4-or-more) in any quarter of play.

Simple to measure. Simple to provide visual feedback on. Big impact on the game....plus, the players can COUNT them on-field and it could be a bit unifying. I like it.

It's very situational though. 5 quick handballs that go nowhere or switches back and forth across the defensive 50 aren't a major concern. Possession chains that take a lot of ground and result in scoring opportunities are the biggest worry.

[Bornadog]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

We were 7th in what?

Conversion is a different matter and is more about skill than effort.

13 marks is 7th most in AFL. Teams like GWS had 19, Power had an unbelievable 25, and Hawks had 19, but kicked 17 behinds.

The conversion remark is - I want more conversions if we mark it in F50. The number of set shots we missed last week was deplorable.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

I'm 100% on board with this. Consecutive oppo possessions...what's a reasonable number to keep them under?

3?
5?

I would think 5 consecutive possessions = disaster so maybe the number would be 4?

Something like - Maximum of 3x oppo possession chains (4-or-more) in any quarter of play.

Simple to measure. Simple to provide visual feedback on. Big impact on the game....plus, the players can COUNT them on-field and it could be a bit unifying. I like it.

Determining an acceptable number is interesting. I'd have to watch our matches as well as thise of the best teams. You can only imagine what the difference would be in watching Sundays game vs say the 2016 prelim.

I think any more than 3 consecutive oppo possessions is in danger territory so if you're giving up that more than 2 or 3 times a quarter I reckon the score will look pretty bad.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

It's very situational though. 5 quick handballs that go nowhere or switches back and forth across the defensive 50 aren't a major concern. Possession chains that take a lot of ground and result in scoring opportunities are the biggest worry.

Yeah this is true. You'd want metres gained in these sequences to accompany this.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

No more than 3 consecutive goals scored against.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

Target:

Kick 16 goals (and less than 16 behinds!) - maybe too obvious / doesn?t mean we win I suppose, but gee I?d love us to score 100 points and if we kick 16 goals we?re likely to get there

Have 12+ tackles inside F50 - let?s get our intensity up in the front half so we can generate repeat shots on goal / entries

Win contested ball by +5 or more - GC will be coming hard for this and if we can better the ledger great result

[Axe Man]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

13 marks is 7th most in AFL. Teams like GWS had 19, Power had an unbelievable 25, and Hawks had 19, but kicked 17 behinds.

The conversion remark is - I want more conversions if we mark it in F50. The number of set shots we missed last week was deplorable.

Looking at the inside 50 marks (or any stat) in a single round is fairly pointless. 13 is a reasonable number, above average last season. It's well down the list of things that concerned me last week.

We all want better conversion but I'm not sure it's in the spirt of this thread. There's not much point in the coach saying we want an X% conversion rate as a non-negotiable. Players don't try and miss, they can't really put in extra effort during a game to kick more accurately.

[Bornadog]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

Looking at the inside 50 marks (or any stat) in a single round is fairly pointless. 13 is a reasonable number, above average last season. It's well down the list of things that concerned me last week.

We all want better conversion but I'm not sure it's in the spirt of this thread. There's not much point in the coach saying we want an X% conversion rate as a non-negotiable. Players don't try and miss, they can't really put in extra effort during a game to kick more accurately.

Well that is my opinion and that is what I want to see.

[Rocket Science]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

No more than 3 consecutive goals scored against.

Ambitious. I like it.



We duly addressed this by letting Melbourne turn last week's game on its ear with five unanswered goals hello darkness my old friend.

[Grantysghost]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

13 marks is 7th most in AFL. Teams like GWS had 19, Power had an unbelievable 25, and Hawks had 19, but kicked 17 behinds.

The conversion remark is - I want more conversions if we mark it in F50. The number of set shots we missed last week was deplorable.

Bad, we were terrible. No excuses.

[mjp]

Re: Do you have a non-negotiable for this week (R#2)??

Target:

Kick 16 goals (and less than 16 behinds!) - maybe too obvious / doesn?t mean we win I suppose, but gee I?d love us to score 100 points and if we kick 16 goals we?re likely to get there

Have 12+ tackles inside F50 - let?s get our intensity up in the front half so we can generate repeat shots on goal / entries

Win contested ball by +5 or more - GC will be coming hard for this and if we can better the ledger great result

I just think this is an outcome.

You have to remember that it takes ONE player to kick a goal but it takes 18 to stop one. Setting a target of 16x goals is cool and all but we did that 4x for all of the last season...it just feels like it's a goal that can't be achieved.