Blue Vain wrote:
SurreyBlue wrote:
Blue Vain wrote:
SurreyBlue wrote:
jim wrote:
Just watching Talking Footy.
Lions had 309 uncontested possession and 24 marks inside 50. That's off the chart!
They were showing highlights of how we were zoning and showing how, as Carey said, we had absolutely no idea where we should be standing and positioning ourselves. Just totally lost as to what to do. He said the message, whatever he's teaching, is just not getting though using that style of play.
Bingo. My concern of late. It’s nothing to do with age but more confusion of our game plan. Real worry but some of us didn’t need Duck to tell us.
BB needs to address this ASAP!
Really?
Rowe, Jones, Murphy, Lamb, Silvagni, Petrevski Seton, Thomas.
They've probably played a total of about 40 games in defence between them. How observant of Carey.
Put Docherty, Simpson, Alex Silvagni, Plowman, Williamson, Byrne in there and if they're struggling, get back to me. The smalls in there are our midfielders plugging holes. They've probably never played defence in their lives let alone having no experienced heads in there, giving them instruction.
BV, what about Weitering and Marchbank ( 3 quArters) playing the sweeping role. Thomas, Rowe and Jones have been our main defenders. That’s 5 of our defenders playing in their roles. The others rolled thru there and Lamb played back as needed. The zone defence isn’t working.
Thomas and Rowe are constant defenders because Alex Silvagni, Docherty, Williamson, Byrne, Plowman, Simpson are not available.
If half of them were available, Thomas would be playing wing or half forward. As would Lamb, Silvagni, Murphy, Lang, Petrevski Seton, Wright and any other forward/mid who has been forced to play there. Not only does it totally @#$%&! up our defence, it removes any midfield depth we had which was probably worst in the AFL. They aren't rolling through there. Several of them have become our first choice defenders.
Our defence has been our strength over the past couple of years. It's been totally decimated this year.
Plowman. A Silvagni. Simpson. Byrne. Macreadie. Williamson. Cuningham. Docherty. Shumacher. All injured and all would be better than some of our defensive options. That also allows Jack to offer midfield support. It allows Daisy and/or Lamb to play wing/high half forward so Ed and Graham etc are trying to get their rest on the wing. It becomes a domino effect.
Yep, agree. Have been trying to explain to my mates the same thing.
Take Rance/Grimes/Astbury out of Rich for the year and I'll bet they lose at least 3 extra games and are sitting in 5th spot
If we give Rich a score of 10 with their best side and without Rance/Grimes/Astbury, they drop down to say an 8, they have effectively lost 20% ability
If we give Carl a score of 5 with their best side and they lose Docherty/Marchbank/Williamson, they drop down to a 3, a 40% drop in overall ability
I've made these numbers up so I don't want people to get hung up on them but it's a way of saying that the better sides can buffer against injuries. This was probably the worst year to get the injuries we have had.
Collingwood's injury woes over the last 3 years are now paying them back. They have had injuries this year but have been able to buffer because more players were given opportunities over the last 3 years than would have had they not had an injury crisis
Injuries are the biggest reason we are where we are right now
Effort is another issue which we need to address