Happy Days
08-07-2017, 03:50 PM
(Sorry if this is rambling; I thought of a number of points as I was writing)
Sedat made a very insightful comment (as is his way) in another thread that we have blindly overcommitted to a system that doesn't work, and I wholly agree with him. However, I don't think we have a way out.
Basically, I think we are in big time systemic trouble.
Our finals football success last year was predicated on a manic pressure at the ball, and a fierce, unwavering commitment to contested possession. I really hate talking about football in intangible terms, but it's true of us last year.
This, to me, was achieved by a system implemented by Beveridge, set up to accentuate our positives, and hide our negatives. By placing emphasis on forward line stoppages and keeping the ball in the front half of the ground, it kept the pressure on our think KPD stocks to a minimum, and allowed our strengths, mostly contested ball based, to be used to their maximum effect. If you, like I do, ever find yourself exasperated at why we are so often conceding goals out the back to useless pricks like Jenkins, it is a by-product of this system.
Unfortunately, at least for our 2017 model, this creates some unfortunate side effects. One, the system does not work if there is even a 2% lapse in intent, or straying from contested focus in the name of creativity. I blame the focus on front half stoppages wholly on both our infuriating inability to score, or the seeming unwillingness for players to be the one to take a shot; passing the ball off to a man in a "better" position will either (ideally) create a better chance or a stoppage, whereas taking the shot might result in a point, and therefore a turnover. Same thing with kicking to a contest, rather than to a lead. But when it doesn't work as idealised, it creates nothing. The model isn't working, and it's creating a flow on effect on guys like Dickson and Stringer having nowhere near the impact they should. Both would be far more suited to more space inside 50, and being able to lead up at the ball.
However, this model is also not possible, as it would leave our (quite frankly poor) defence exposed on more occasions, and greater scores against. I think we have gone too far in compromising scoring to create a defence from our forward line, at the expense of some of our more talented forwards. But the profile of our list will not allow us to play more openly, because we are just too thin down back. I understand why it's happening, but when it doesn't work it just makes for ugly, frustrating football that is resulting in bad, listless losses.
There is nothing harder to watch than low-scoring, poorly skilled football, but our list profile demands it. Form issues notwithstanding, I think the style has to change. And it starts with getting a backline that we can have some faith in.
Sedat made a very insightful comment (as is his way) in another thread that we have blindly overcommitted to a system that doesn't work, and I wholly agree with him. However, I don't think we have a way out.
Basically, I think we are in big time systemic trouble.
Our finals football success last year was predicated on a manic pressure at the ball, and a fierce, unwavering commitment to contested possession. I really hate talking about football in intangible terms, but it's true of us last year.
This, to me, was achieved by a system implemented by Beveridge, set up to accentuate our positives, and hide our negatives. By placing emphasis on forward line stoppages and keeping the ball in the front half of the ground, it kept the pressure on our think KPD stocks to a minimum, and allowed our strengths, mostly contested ball based, to be used to their maximum effect. If you, like I do, ever find yourself exasperated at why we are so often conceding goals out the back to useless pricks like Jenkins, it is a by-product of this system.
Unfortunately, at least for our 2017 model, this creates some unfortunate side effects. One, the system does not work if there is even a 2% lapse in intent, or straying from contested focus in the name of creativity. I blame the focus on front half stoppages wholly on both our infuriating inability to score, or the seeming unwillingness for players to be the one to take a shot; passing the ball off to a man in a "better" position will either (ideally) create a better chance or a stoppage, whereas taking the shot might result in a point, and therefore a turnover. Same thing with kicking to a contest, rather than to a lead. But when it doesn't work as idealised, it creates nothing. The model isn't working, and it's creating a flow on effect on guys like Dickson and Stringer having nowhere near the impact they should. Both would be far more suited to more space inside 50, and being able to lead up at the ball.
However, this model is also not possible, as it would leave our (quite frankly poor) defence exposed on more occasions, and greater scores against. I think we have gone too far in compromising scoring to create a defence from our forward line, at the expense of some of our more talented forwards. But the profile of our list will not allow us to play more openly, because we are just too thin down back. I understand why it's happening, but when it doesn't work it just makes for ugly, frustrating football that is resulting in bad, listless losses.
There is nothing harder to watch than low-scoring, poorly skilled football, but our list profile demands it. Form issues notwithstanding, I think the style has to change. And it starts with getting a backline that we can have some faith in.