| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Funkadelic
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Good post swoop. I think one reason is we don't really have a player with both the ability to rack up touches and is an elite kick. We have lots of players with good kicks who take nice safe options but sometimes you need a guy who can just break open a play with a long low accurate kick. It's round one so some of the clangers especially going inside 50 should get sorted out as the season goes but the last elite kick we had was probably Didak and Leon.
_________________
Tear the roof off tha sucker!!! |
|
|
|
 |
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | No flaw in the game plan. When we find genuine crumbers in front of goal who can convert their opportunities, then we'll win games of footy against the top teams. We need to fast track the Daicos and Kirby type of players. |
Agree. We really lack crumbing forwards at the moment. If only Leon Davis was 10 years younger.
It's crucial that Elliott returns from injury soon as he's a reliable forward target who can mark and kick goals, something that we're lacking from most of our forwards at the moment.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
DT
Joined: 06 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think that we can look to soccer to explain what is happening. You can either seek to dominate possession or set up to be a potent counter attacking team. We seek to dominate possession. The issue with this style is that you need to be very skilful and cope with opposition stratgies that flood the forward 50 area - similar to the box in soccer. If you turnover then the field is open and you saw how adept the Dogs were at counter attacking at speed that leads to easy goals.
By contrast I don't think we can switch styles to defend well and counter attack well from the possession game. I actually think our foot skills have improved due to having better quality players. Blair is a remnant of the old guard and has to go as he exposes the team with his poor skills and decision making. Aish and Wells will help us out massively here with good entries into dangerous field position.
The other issue is that the forward line just does not have personnel who are sufficiently experienced and who have played together long enough to form a good chemistry with each other. This is our major list flaw and will take outstanding coaching to overcome. Not sure that we have this.
So be prepared to see some frustrating losses where we dominate possession and key stats yet fail to capitalise on opportunities.
The really interesting games will be against Melbourne who have the best ruck and a tough midfield. If they get on top of us it will be a mauling. If we can match it with them then I will really believe that we have improved.
_________________
Daicos, impossible angle ... Goal! |
|
|
|
|
BHPIE
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Broken Hill
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| To me its simple, by the time we have gone backwards and sideways and or over handballed that when we actually get in to the forward 50 the oppositions flooded and covered our fwds |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname 
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BHPIE wrote: | | To me its simple, by the time we have gone backwards and sideways and or over handballed that when we actually get in to the forward 50 the oppositions flooded and covered our fwds |
We navigate around the boundary giving every player a chance to get back into our F50.
If we actually took the shortest route, we would see us getting so many more easy goals.
As much as people complain that it's our lack of marking big forward letting us down, coast to coast goals air usually kicked by small forwards / mids who run into space because of quick ball movement.
As I said, Bucks can't seem to move on from the press / boundary game plan that he helped perfect in 2010. |
|
|
|
|
neil 
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Our key forward is 21 Cox is poor and White is what he is. Add Elliot to the forwards and see the difference If Broomhead could ever get out of the medical rooms then Blair could be dropped
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
magpieazza
magpieazza
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Location: Griffith N.S.W
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Great post Swoop and some great feedback.
The frustration I feel is the same, when you see us dominating the game except on the scoreboard. Soooo many points and missed opportunities.
What about Moores mark!!! it should have been paid !!!! and if it was , we could be having a different conversation right now, which in hindsight would be a flawed conversation because it could be glossing over areas of improvement we needed to discuss.
My views, fwiw, is that our forward pressure needs to be at another level. Cox, WHE and I noticed Moore not putting in a couple times, needed to apply more pressure due to mobility issues or attitude!
If you have 3 players not applying pressure at an elite level, it therefore creates holes and spaces that allow the opposition to slingshot big time
( and to no fault of our defence).
I would make Mayne a permanent fixture in attack. Elliott will bring defence to our attack. Im happy with what Fasolo does. Moore can stay as a focal point. I would pay WHE and White on the wings and get Howe into the forward line and Howe should bring some defensive nous into the forward line from what he has learnt along with his screaming marks.
Scharenberg can fill Howes position soon hopefully.
So I dont think we are not that far off. It could be a matter of 2-3 personnell changes but sometimes you just gotta be able to hit a target and hold that mark at the crucial moment(s).
Still think we will make the 8.
_________________
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero. |
|
|
|
|
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: Re: Possession Kings but when will we see the benefit? | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | Last night we had the dominant midfield and won in important areas like contested ball, clearances and inside 50's.
And yet we've come away defeated.
Again.
This is something I've identified and raised in the past and it's become rather common place these past few seasons under Buckley.
We seem to have no problem getting our hands on the ball but doing something constructive with it time and again and getting the reward on the scoreboard is the problem.
Last night we had the 4 leading possession winners on the ground and 7 of the top 10.
Sidebottom, Pendlebury, Treloar and Adams staggeringly had more than 30 touches each.
You'd think for most sides that would equate to an almost certain victory but for us it seems at best a 50/50 proposition we'll get the 4 points.
So what's going wrong?
To me it would indicate 3 probable scenarios.
a)A fundamental flaw in the game plan.
b)Real inadequacy in one area of the field.
c)Below average skill of the playing group.
|
Swoop I like the premise of this thread as a discussion point.
However - On clearances and centre clearances over the last 3 years we have actually really struggled and ranked poorly 14th, 11th, 17th in the league.
It needed to change especially in light of our midfield who according to champion data is statistically one of if not the best in the Comp in 2017.
Against the doggies we thrashed them out of the middle at certain points of the game and it was pleasing to see as I feel if they can maintain that it's a real step forward ( quite literally).
What we then need is some real crumbers up forward to support the big guys. We have them but havnt been able to get them on the park or in the right position. Last year they were swan and Elliot. Didn't happen.
This year Elliot and query Sidebottom with Wells and De Goey freeing his move forward. And yep hasn't happened .....yet.
Faz and Blair who often play that role just don't have the same class to keep the ball in and create danger in front of goal. Blair has little barring accuracy within 30m in his bag of tricks. Faz at least has a little X factor and is why he'll likely be retained but on his own he is easily countered.
In my mind it's about continuing what we started on Friday out of the middle and then getting our forward line together, fit and playing particularly the crumbers.
In any case I thought our midfield finally started to hit its straps on Friday night and based on the last few years it was promising.
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
|
ThePieMind
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What'sinaname wrote: | | BHPIE wrote: | | To me its simple, by the time we have gone backwards and sideways and or over handballed that when we actually get in to the forward 50 the oppositions flooded and covered our fwds |
We navigate around the boundary giving every player a chance to get back into our F50.
If we actually took the shortest route, we would see us getting so many more easy goals.
As much as people complain that it's our lack of marking big forward letting us down, coast to coast goals air usually kicked by small forwards / mids who run into space because of quick ball movement.
As I said, Bucks can't seem to move on from the press / boundary game plan that he helped perfect in 2010. |
Seriously mate I wonder whether you have your eyes and ears painted on.
During the JLT is was very clearly that we had changed the game plan and used the corridor at every opportunity. All the experts made a point of this.
On Friday night we used the boundary because the corridor was being denied to us by the WB setup.
You have again exposed your ILL -INFORMED anti Buckley bias.
Frankly it's getting predictable and boring.
It laughable that you actually believe we are playing the same game plan as 2010 under MM. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Of course we aren't - the players we have don't, for the most part, have the skills to execute that gameplan. |
|
|
|
|
Boot
Joined: 22 Feb 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
By trying to pin point delivery into the forward 50 players stopped and allowed time for the Bulldogs to swamp our forward line. What got us back into the game was when we reverted to a kamikaze attack on the forward line with "chaos" kicks into the forward 50 that gave our forwards a chance for one-on-one competition This was when Faz took advantge of the quick movement a couple of times and he could have got a couple of more goals that he would usually gobble given that he is usually a great kick at goal.
The game is too hard when we allow our opposition time to flood the forward line. Quick movement is the only answer and if under pressure just bomb it long for Moore and Cox to try and clunk it or bring it to ground.
Defensive Press - This tactic won Collingwood the 2010 premeirship and we have been trying to maintain a version of it ever since, but it is killing us when our defenders all get dragged up the ground too far. Buckley needs to tinker with this tactic to ensure that at least one defender remain a kick behind the play at all times, preferrably in the defensive 50 to stop the easy opposition goals that have plagued Collingwood for the past three years.
_________________
Collingwood Domination. Envy of the Nation! |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ThePieMind wrote: | | What'sinaname wrote: | | BHPIE wrote: | | To me its simple, by the time we have gone backwards and sideways and or over handballed that when we actually get in to the forward 50 the oppositions flooded and covered our fwds |
We navigate around the boundary giving every player a chance to get back into our F50.
If we actually took the shortest route, we would see us getting so many more easy goals.
As much as people complain that it's our lack of marking big forward letting us down, coast to coast goals air usually kicked by small forwards / mids who run into space because of quick ball movement.
As I said, Bucks can't seem to move on from the press / boundary game plan that he helped perfect in 2010. |
Seriously mate I wonder whether you have your eyes and ears painted on.
During the JLT is was very clearly that we had changed the game plan and used the corridor at every opportunity. All the experts made a point of this.
On Friday night we used the boundary because the corridor was being denied to us by the WB setup.
You have again exposed your ILL -INFORMED anti Buckley bias.
Frankly it's getting predictable and boring.
It laughable that you actually believe we are playing the same game plan as 2010 under MM. |
Perhaps we extend Buckley's contract based on us never losing an intra club practise match and the fact that our structures during training a first class....because, you know......what we do it training and JLT games is what matters. |
|
|
|
|
MarkOSuv
Joined: 22 Mar 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The worry is what will be the result if we don't win the Inside 50's and clearances like we did on Friday night. Either way, the next month will decide the coaches fate. |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What'sinaname wrote: | | ThePieMind wrote: | | What'sinaname wrote: | | BHPIE wrote: | | To me its simple, by the time we have gone backwards and sideways and or over handballed that when we actually get in to the forward 50 the oppositions flooded and covered our fwds |
We navigate around the boundary giving every player a chance to get back into our F50.
If we actually took the shortest route, we would see us getting so many more easy goals.
As much as people complain that it's our lack of marking big forward letting us down, coast to coast goals air usually kicked by small forwards / mids who run into space because of quick ball movement.
As I said, Bucks can't seem to move on from the press / boundary game plan that he helped perfect in 2010. |
Seriously mate I wonder whether you have your eyes and ears painted on.
During the JLT is was very clearly that we had changed the game plan and used the corridor at every opportunity. All the experts made a point of this.
On Friday night we used the boundary because the corridor was being denied to us by the WB setup.
You have again exposed your ILL -INFORMED anti Buckley bias.
Frankly it's getting predictable and boring.
It laughable that you actually believe we are playing the same game plan as 2010 under MM. |
Perhaps we extend Buckley's contract based on us never losing an intra club practise match and the fact that our structures during training a first class....because, you know......what we do it training and JLT games is what matters. |
You're confusing wins and losses with the game plan. We lost because our players failed to execute their game plan, whereas the dogs executed theirs better. When our players get better and execute the game plan as well as the dogs, then we will start winning games. Some players may not get any better, so they get ditched for others who play better. If as a side we don't improve by the end of the season, then it'll be the coach who pays the price and resigns. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| That was not much of an explanation. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
