Are there answers? And if there are, where can you find them?

[mjp]

Tough week.

Tough couple of weeks really. I obviously had a bad feeling going into the Essendon game - it just felt like "the club" thought we won the Geelong game even though Geelong were in charge for at least 80% of the contest...and sure, we were coming at the end but was that just because it was 'the end'...

There is no doubt (to me) that the club is in need of a serious circuit breaker in order to break out of this rut of dispirited performances. It's not losing. I could actually care less about losing. But it's losing to WCE and Hawthorn late last year with a finals spot on the line. And yep, it's losing to the Bombers on a Friday night at Marvel with the chance to really grab the season by the neck. When you have games 'like this' (the one vs Essendon on Friday) you understand as a player that it's super important to be successful in order to set up the season...when you play in the way that we did, something is 'up'/'awry'/'insert swear word here' and needs to be addressed. Don't get me wrong, losing to Melbourne in Round 1 was bad. But most independent followers would have said Melbourne were better than us...Essendon though? That's a different story.

Over the past few weeks the MC have done some stuff that *SHOULD* have sent a pretty strong message to the group. Macrae out. Daniel out. Dale sub. 3x 'core' members of the group. Decisions like that are not so much 'heard' but "FELT" by the playing group...and can't help but have an impact. Except when they don't. So what does that mean?

It means either the players:

1/. Don't understand why those players were left out of the side. As in, they know they are out (everyone can read a team-sheet), but based on what they have seen (at training/games) and heard (expectations, metrics) they don't know WHY they are out.

2/. They don't care why and will continue to do what they do.

I would never say 'sack the coach' - it's just not in me. But by their actions in the past 8-10 games in particular the players have sent a clear message that they are not listening...or if they are listening, that they basically do not care what is being said...I actually have no idea what else the club can do right now. The assistants have been changed around and the footy department re-structured. New voices have been added in (Egan, Geary) and given new roles. There have been changes to the leadership group. But nothing is different...and whilst I'm happy to say that I still don't think we are QUITE as good or that many of our players have the 'elite' attributes that a lot of other supporters seem too, well, we are a lot better than losses to Essendon, West Coast and Hawthorn within (I think) 7-games would indicate...

If things are to remain 'as is' at the top, then things need to change significantly on the field. Make some UNCHARACTERISTIC moves:

1/. Move Naughton back. It sends a message.
2/. Put Richards into the mids. It sends a message.
3/. Play Cleary. He can do no more. It sends a message.
4/. Play Garcia. He can do no more. It sends a message.
5/. Work out WHO the players think should be in...and PLAY THEM!!!
...
Most of all - and I'm sure they're doing 'some' of this, but get the players to agree on some simple stuff relating to the game-plan...'cos surely to goodness they aren't buying in right now.
...
I am at the point where I don't think this can be fixed without some kind of circuit breaker type change. It needs to be either FACILITATED by the coach or it needs to BE the coach.

[azabob]

Thanks mjp, some interesting insights.

How can the coach reconcile making an onfield changes to help send a message if he doesn?t believe in them?

Beveridge seems to be in a lose lose situation.

[Go_Dogs]

mjp said “sack the coach” without saying “sack the coach”

[Go_Dogs]

Can’t argue with any of that.

I wonder if the leadership group have got together over the weekend and discussed how they can help improve things?

Good loss to have in some ways. Can’t walk past this one.

Going to be an interesting week.

Media is getting stuck in now, including onto Bevo’s Brief, supporters are I sense a majority of “sack the coach” and with St Kilda and Freo away the next two weeks were now looking at 2-5.

[D Mitchell]

Dale, McRae, Daniel all worthy of spots in the AFL team but all lack intensity and desperation around the ball. I wonder if they are the qualities that Bev's looking for in Bramble, Gallaghar, Baker.

[Grantysghost]

Bevo will never move Naughton back.

He was asked and basically did the school teacher / disappointed parent thing. 'you know better'.

[josie]

Dale, McRae, Daniel all worthy of spots in the AFL team but all lack intensity and desperation around the ball. I wonder if they are the qualities that Bev's looking for in Bramble, Gallaghar, Baker.

I think you?re onto something here. Intensity is sadly lacking.

Good post mjp, thought provoking. Agree playing Cleary and Garcia. Busslingers form in last vfl game says to me he is close to a debut too. If they are not up to it at least we?ll know. And if they are that?s a bonus.

[Willofwest]

good posts. I think I would like to see Naughton in the middle changing with Bont. Need Garcia as Libba replacement too. The Richard?s to midfield and Cleary as a back I don?t mind either. Let?s mix it up.


I think you?re onto something here. Intensity is sadly lacking.

Good post mjp, thought provoking. Agree playing Cleary and Garcia. Busslingers form in last vfl game says to me he is close to a debut too. If they are not up to it at least we?ll know. And if they are that?s a bonus.

[Mofra]

1. While we don't rotate hard enough in the middle, it signals that the coach doesn't "trust" everyone in the 23 to do the job. It leaves too much to be done by too few.

2. I said it after the Essendon game that not all losses are the same. The Essendon loss was a spiritless loss, with some players just going through the motions.

I don't think it's tactics, it's 'spirit' and 'belief' that are missing.
I don't even know if we are asking the right question. It's not 'how do we get it back' but 'is it possible to get it back'? Right now, I'm not sure it is.

We weren't ready in round 1. We weren't ready on Friday night. Hawks and West Coast jumped us last year. Teams with spirit don;t put in those performances.

[Danjul]

Dale, McRae, Daniel all worthy of spots in the AFL team but all lack intensity and desperation around the ball. I wonder if they are the qualities that Bev's looking for in Bramble, Gallaghar, Baker.
Macrae brought intelligence around the ball. Almost all his possessions resulted in teammates getting opportunities. Critical attribute that most seemed to lack.

[macca]

I was at the game on friday night, and what shocked me most was our players completely dropping the bundle in the 3rd quarter.

I get it they had some some shocking free kicks , which netted 4 goals and more to the Bombers, but the players had to be better than that and play a more disciplined football.

first 2 mins of this analysis highlights some very selfish play, just kicking long without looking up to the leading players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot_N61n6eYA

I think that added to a lot of the frustration the players had.

The club should ask the please explain on some of the terrible umpire decisions.

JOD gets smashed in the face and the umpires ignored it.
Draper pushes Darcy in the back, takes him out of the ruck
English gets pushed in the back whilst in front, turnover which resulted in Bombbers goal
Stringer dumps Libba in a dangerous tackle.

These are just some utter putrid missed umpiring .

I cant recall someone got a arm over the back, which resulted in a free kic in the Bombers fwd line. Th eumpires should just let it but they seemed to ping our players severely for something that was soft as. I reckon there must be some sort of betting odds conspiracy going on , to allow Essendon to be infront by half time, or the stats to be in their favour.

When our team is under pressure , the players just drop their bundle collectively. JOD kicking to JJ down back, and the kick drops in front of him, Essendon players tackle him. That was the worst moment of the game I thought. It was like conceding defeat.

[The bulldog tragician]

Tough week.

Tough couple of weeks really. I obviously had a bad feeling going into the Essendon game - it just felt like "the club" thought we won the Geelong game even though Geelong were in charge for at least 80% of the contest...and sure, we were coming at the end but was that just because it was 'the end'...

There is no doubt (to me) that the club is in need of a serious circuit breaker in order to break out of this rut of dispirited performances. It's not losing. I could actually care less about losing. But it's losing to WCE and Hawthorn late last year with a finals spot on the line. And yep, it's losing to the Bombers on a Friday night at Marvel with the chance to really grab the season by the neck. When you have games 'like this' (the one vs Essendon on Friday) you understand as a player that it's super important to be successful in order to set up the season...when you play in the way that we did, something is 'up'/'awry'/'insert swear word here' and needs to be addressed. Don't get me wrong, losing to Melbourne in Round 1 was bad. But most independent followers would have said Melbourne were better than us...Essendon though? That's a different story.

Over the past few weeks the MC have done some stuff that *SHOULD* have sent a pretty strong message to the group. Macrae out. Daniel out. Dale sub. 3x 'core' members of the group. Decisions like that are not so much 'heard' but "FELT" by the playing group...and can't help but have an impact. Except when they don't. So what does that mean?

It means either the players:

1/. Don't understand why those players were left out of the side. As in, they know they are out (everyone can read a team-sheet), but based on what they have seen (at training/games) and heard (expectations, metrics) they don't know WHY they are out.

2/. They don't care why and will continue to do what they do.

I would never say 'sack the coach' - it's just not in me. But by their actions in the past 8-10 games in particular the players have sent a clear message that they are not listening...or if they are listening, that they basically do not care what is being said...I actually have no idea what else the club can do right now. The assistants have been changed around and the footy department re-structured. New voices have been added in (Egan, Geary) and given new roles. There have been changes to the leadership group. But nothing is different...and whilst I'm happy to say that I still don't think we are QUITE as good or that many of our players have the 'elite' attributes that a lot of other supporters seem too, well, we are a lot better than losses to Essendon, West Coast and Hawthorn within (I think) 7-games would indicate...

If things are to remain 'as is' at the top, then things need to change significantly on the field. Make some UNCHARACTERISTIC moves:

1/. Move Naughton back. It sends a message.
2/. Put Richards into the mids. It sends a message.
3/. Play Cleary. He can do no more. It sends a message.
4/. Play Garcia. He can do no more. It sends a message.
5/. Work out WHO the players think should be in...and PLAY THEM!!!
...
Most of all - and I'm sure they're doing 'some' of this, but get the players to agree on some simple stuff relating to the game-plan...'cos surely to goodness they aren't buying in right now.
...
I am at the point where I don't think this can be fixed without some kind of circuit breaker type change. It needs to be either FACILITATED by the coach or it needs to BE the coach.
A thought provoking post but I’m interested in your reasons for the bolded bit. Why would the players self interest/ defensiveness about their mates be used to determine when should happen? I actually have an uneasy feeling that these traits are what’s causing our malaise.

I feel from your post that you would believe the suggestions people have followed up with below, are not the radical change you’re implying. I feel Bevo has backed himself into a corner with a mindset that is going to make change very hard. You just know he won’t put Naughton back unless all our defenders go down with injury. Sometimes I wonder if the 2016 flag came too early for Bevo (though obviously not for the rest of us) and has given him a stubborn sense of his own rightness no matter what.

The bit of your post that most struck me, was linking the hawthorn, W.C., Melb and Essendon losses. You could add in the 2021 late season brain fade matches that cost us top 4 and consigned us to a travel nightmare, and the insipid performances in the GWS and St Kilda finals. It’s all trending to a realisation that is painful but very damning to Bevo. I really wish now we’d pulled the trigger at the end of last year. I hoped so much that change would come through the extra support around him but watching the unacceptable effort on Friday I just don’t see that the pattern won’t continue.

[macca]

Macrae brought intelligence around the ball. Almost all his possessions resulted in teammates getting opportunities. Critical attribute that most seemed to lack.

I don't see Macrae fumble often, would be interesting to see his clanger stats. I think he just has good balance and very calm under pressure.

[Uninformed]

Good points and things the match committee will undoubtably be examining.

But it may be a bit early to be going there yet.

Everyone has noticed a new game plan, but it is still a game plan in the making and old habits die hard. It takes time to implement a new game style.

There are some other factors as well. Melbourne had a game under the belt when we played them. We were much better the next week. Also we hit the bombers after two six day breaks in a row. It may be fatigue rather than being dispirited.

This may just be excuses I am making to cover over deeper problems, but I think it is too early in the season to say just yet.

[mjp]

A thought provoking post but I’m interested in your reasons for the bolded bit. Why would the players self interest/ defensiveness about their mates be used to determine when should happen? I actually have an uneasy feeling that these traits are what’s causing our malaise.

Because the players have to play.

It's all very well saying coaches coach and players play (and I have said that) but something is awry. To me the fact that the dropping of Macrae and Daniel and demotion of Dale to sub has not brought a reaction of ANY sort points pretty clearly at the fact that the group thinks that those are not the decisions that need to be made...the players 100% need to feel supported by the coaches/feel that they are all in it together. Their game day performances make me think there is a disconnect between what is happening selection wise vs the messaging.

For example - if the decision on Dale was related to (guessing) lack of defensive engagement off the ball and that was an issue that had been hightlighted by the coaches...the players would take the "well, that's fair enough" approach when he was left out. I don't believe for a second that they would be worried about their mates...they would be HARD on their mates if they weren't doing the right thing and eventually would be "yeah, I love that guy but he has to follow the same rules as the rest of us...".

Again, the famous example of Ross Lyon dropping Nick Dal Santo sprrings to mind. Ross insisted the players defend. He got 30+ and didn't defend. Ross dropped him. The rest of the group said 'fair enough' and it took Dal Santo a couple of weeks to get back in...

In his absence - the Saints were UNITED and WON.

We have been the opposite...

[mjp]

Bevo will never move Naughton back.

He was asked and basically did the school teacher / disappointed parent thing. 'you know better'.

I don't think he will either and I am a "Play Naughton up forward" person of long standing...but at this point we are DESPERATE for a spark. And if we aren't, well, we bloody well should be. If we keep rolling out the same group every week, what do you think is going to happen....whatever 'this' is, it IS NOT WORKING.

And I know you're not directly disagreeing that we don't need change - you're saying Bevo wont move Naughton...and I get that. But if he doesn't move Naughton then he at least needs to do SOMETHING. And it needs to be 'significant'...

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Good post mjp.

My concern is we're now out of ideas. I have no issue with Daniel, Macrae, Dale and Lobb being put on notice but as you mentioned it actually hasn't worked, so where to from here?

This group has done a lot of talking over the offseason. A lotttt. Nothing has changed in terms of performance or spirit when we're challenged. That's end of the road type stuff.

There's really only one big change lever left to pull...

... Or we back Bevo in to do a rebuild.

[Scorlibo]

Because the players have to play.

It's all very well saying coaches coach and players play (and I have said that) but something is awry. To me the fact that the dropping of Macrae and Daniel and demotion of Dale to sub has not brought a reaction of ANY sort points pretty clearly at the fact that the group thinks that those are not the decisions that need to be made...the players 100% need to feel supported by the coaches/feel that they are all in it together. Their game day performances make me think there is a disconnect between what is happening selection wise vs the messaging.

For example - if the decision on Dale was related to (guessing) lack of defensive engagement off the ball and that was an issue that had been hightlighted by the coaches...the players would take the "well, that's fair enough" approach when he was left out. I don't believe for a second that they would be worried about their mates...they would be HARD on their mates if they weren't doing the right thing and eventually would be "yeah, I love that guy but he has to follow the same rules as the rest of us...".

Again, the famous example of Ross Lyon dropping Nick Dal Santo sprrings to mind. Ross insisted the players defend. He got 30+ and didn't defend. Ross dropped him. The rest of the group said 'fair enough' and it took Dal Santo a couple of weeks to get back in...

In his absence - the Saints were UNITED and WON.

We have been the opposite...

It's an interesting line of thought.

I think the difference between Bevo's selection statements right now and Ross Lyon's in that classic example is that Bevo seems to be dropping regular players that do not possess the kind of innate abilities that he values in the now - namely pace. Whereas Lyon dropped Dal Santo and Milne like you say based on effort/decision related defensive output.

If you see a teammate dropped because they're not working hard enough the other way, you're going to focus on working harder the other way. If you see them dropped because they're too slow, you can't just magic yourself into being faster.

[JanLorMill]

Dropping players just because they haven’t got pace is ridiculous. There are plenty of others that lack pace. Eg Khamis is no faster that Daniel. There is more to it.

[1eyedog]

Wrong thread

[westbulldog]

Bevo will never move Naughton back.

He was asked and basically did the school teacher / disappointed parent thing. 'you know better'.

Bevo won't move Naughton back for the same reason he was convinced Dunkley was a first ruck, he was wrong then and he is wrong now.

[westbulldog]

Dropping players just because they haven’t got pace is ridiculous. There are plenty of others that lack pace. Eg Khamis is no faster that Daniel. There is more to it.

Agreed. VDM is a speedster, Greg Williams was rather slow...and a champion.

[lemmon]

I can kind of get why some of those 'player levers' haven't garnered a response.

In terms of Macrae and Dale, they were pretty ordinary last season too. They should've dropped them 12-month ago - I can see why players aren't going to react to that considering it had been a sustained spell of poor form that had largely not been addressed.

I wonder if the Caleb Daniel dropping was the wrong move and did more harm than good. He's well-liked, in the leadership group, a good trainer, a good runner and had a top-5 BnF finish last year. What kind of message does dropping him for round 1 send to the other senior guys? You're probably walking on egg shells and pretty confused about the direction of the side.

[mjp]

I wonder if the Caleb Daniel dropping was the wrong move and did more harm than good.

Ask them. They're the ones who have to do it.

[westdog54]

I was at the game on friday night, and what shocked me most was our players completely dropping the bundle in the 3rd quarter.



Interesting you bring up the third quarter.

I was on the AFL app on Sunday night, trying to get the Telstra Tracker info to see if I could see how many kms Vandermeer covered in the game. I didn't find that, but I did find some concerning numbers concerning our work rate around the ground and over the course of the game.

In the third quarter, our sprint efforts dropped right off. Our repeat sprints were almost non-existent.

Our measured work rate in attack (that being the team's average speed whilst in possession) was lower than in defence (average speed when not in possesssion. Essendon's defensive work rate was higher by the same margin.

Overall across the course of the game, Essendon's players ran for a longer distance than our players.

When measuring individual average speed's in attack, four of the top five players were Bulldogs (VDM, Dale, Caldwell, Weightman and Gallagher). In defence, all of the top five were Bombers (Hind, Duursma, Jones, Menzie and Heppell).

Put quite simply, we worked harder when we had the ball than when we didn't. Essendon worked harder in defence, and yet they won by five goals.

We had more disposals, forced more turnovers, laid more tackles and had more intercepts. We even had one more inside 50 than Essendon. We had more contested marks and matched them for marks inside 50. And yet we've lost by five goals, driven by a lack of work rate going the other way.

We've only had two games out of the five we've played so far, where our average work rate was higher in defence than it was in attack. And wouldn't you know it, it was the Gold Coast and West Coast games.

The answers lie with the players. They're not working hard enough. Am I being simplistic. Maybe. But there's data there that backs me up.

[jeemak]

Great post WD54.

[josie]

Thanks Westdog. Good post.

[macca]

Interesting you bring up the third quarter.

I was on the AFL app on Sunday night, trying to get the Telstra Tracker info to see if I could see how many kms Vandermeer covered in the game. I didn't find that, but I did find some concerning numbers concerning our work rate around the ground and over the course of the game.

In the third quarter, our sprint efforts dropped right off. Our repeat sprints were almost non-existent.

Our measured work rate in attack (that being the team's average speed whilst in possession) was lower than in defence (average speed when not in possesssion. Essendon's defensive work rate was higher by the same margin.

Overall across the course of the game, Essendon's players ran for a longer distance than our players.

When measuring individual average speed's in attack, four of the top five players were Bulldogs (VDM, Dale, Caldwell, Weightman and Gallagher). In defence, all of the top five were Bombers (Hind, Duursma, Jones, Menzie and Heppell).

Put quite simply, we worked harder when we had the ball than when we didn't. Essendon worked harder in defence, and yet they won by five goals.

We had more disposals, forced more turnovers, laid more tackles and had more intercepts. We even had one more inside 50 than Essendon. We had more contested marks and matched them for marks inside 50. And yet we've lost by five goals, driven by a lack of work rate going the other way.

We've only had two games out of the five we've played so far, where our average work rate was higher in defence than it was in attack. And wouldn't you know it, it was the Gold Coast and West Coast games.

The answers lie with the players. They're not working hard enough. Am I being simplistic. Maybe. But there's data there that backs me up.

I like how you are using data to explain the 3rd quarter drop off. I was at the game on Friday night and I was honestly shocked to see in the 3rd quarter the lack of defensive pressure the team had. They just kicked long to a forward line. Some out of bound kicks. Missed handballs, players not running back hard enough. I got really worried that the team lost cohesion.

Your data observation pretty much validated what I saw on Friday.

They players really need to recoup and get their focus realigned. They need to be in the moment and just bust their gut to compete when they don't have possession of the ball.

I was astounded that a VFL Essendon side were just smashing us in the midfield and went on a run of goals.
One other thing I found disturbing is how we lack players at the drop of the ball, at the front of the pack. Essendon had players there waiting. And of course Stringer was waiting at the back for the one that dropped above the pack.

[Scraggers]

Great thread … enjoying the discussion and perspective of all posters. One thing I would add to the discussion is our leadership. Bont is an incredible player, a once in a generation talent; but is he a leader? He leads by example on the field, but is he a voice on the field? I don’t know the answers to these questions (or how much of a role the captain plays during a game) but compared to Darcy Moore or Max Gawn, where does Bont rank?

[MrMahatma]

Great thread … enjoying the discussion and perspective of all posters. One thing I would add to the discussion is our leadership. Bont is an incredible player, a once in a generation talent; but is he a leader? He leads by example on the field, but is he a voice on the field? I don’t know the answers to these questions (or how much of a role the captain plays during a game) but compared to Darcy Moore or Max Gawn, where does Bont rank?

He won AFLPA best captain last season. Think he’s prob ok?

[mjp]

The answers lie with the players. They're not working hard enough. Am I being simplistic. Maybe. But there's data there that backs me up.

OK.

I wanna say "no shit" to a lot of this.

The problem is that the answer has been with the players for a few years now and nothing has/is changing...is it as simple as "if you guys would just defend 'better' we would play better?" - well, yeah, it is. But that doesn't matter because they need to actually decide to do it and something is holding them back.

What might that something be? Well, we're back to the start. I have no doubt the coaches are telling them all of this but nothing ever changes.

[Sedat]

Isn't the simple answer that our very best players didn't fire a shot on the night? Bont 17 possessions and no impact up forward, Libba clearance dominance blunted significantly and 27yo English getting destroyed both in the ruck and around the ground by a pensioner.

Factor in Essendon being wounded and stung and having a good plan to blunt our biggest weapons, and you get the recipe for the turd sandwich that ensued on Friday night.

[westdog54]

OK.

I wanna say "no shit" to a lot of this.

The problem is that the answer has been with the players for a few years now and nothing has/is changing...is it as simple as "if you guys would just defend 'better' we would play better?" - well, yeah, it is. But that doesn't matter because they need to actually decide to do it and something is holding them back.

What might that something be? Well, we're back to the start. I have no doubt the coaches are telling them all of this but nothing ever changes.

I know it's a bit of a "no shit" situation, but there's now hard data to back up the assertion that there is a bit of one way running going on.

It's not even asking them to "defend better", rather to (I'm not sure if I'm putting this correctly) defend "harder", that is, put more effort into winning the ball back, because there is a correlation there, if not a causation.

I know it's a circular argument and it is frustrating as a supporter. The clubs get more of this data than the public or the media. What they're doing with it, who knows?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

It's cos we're training at Skinner Reserve.....wait. No.

[westbulldog]

This doesn't help :- "Aaron Naughton and Jamarra Ugle-Hagan, are statistically the worst and third-worst kicks for goal since the start of 2021 in the AFL. "

[mjp]

I know it's a bit of a "no shit" situation, but there's now hard data to back up the assertion that there is a bit of one way running going on.

It's not even asking them to "defend better", rather to (I'm not sure if I'm putting this correctly) defend "harder", that is, put more effort into winning the ball back, because there is a correlation there, if not a causation.

I know it's a circular argument and it is frustrating as a supporter. The clubs get more of this data than the public or the media. What they're doing with it, who knows?

Ok. Im not sure this data is in any way relevant to the problem (and the outcome).

The team that wins generally has lower gps numbers than the winner - total distance, sprint % and metres per minute. I think it’s interesting but connecting the tracker to the outcome in any more than a superficial way is a long bow...I would have said lower running should = greater communication...perhaps it’s not a work rate issue but a connection problem.

[ledge]

So an article written by Robbo calling Bevo a bumbling idiot … umm I have no words.

[Flamethrower]

Interesting you bring up the third quarter.

I was on the AFL app on Sunday night, trying to get the Telstra Tracker info to see if I could see how many kms Vandermeer covered in the game. I didn't find that, but I did find some concerning numbers concerning our work rate around the ground and over the course of the game.

In the third quarter, our sprint efforts dropped right off. Our repeat sprints were almost non-existent.

Our measured work rate in attack (that being the team's average speed whilst in possession) was lower than in defence (average speed when not in possesssion. Essendon's defensive work rate was higher by the same margin.

Overall across the course of the game, Essendon's players ran for a longer distance than our players.

When measuring individual average speed's in attack, four of the top five players were Bulldogs (VDM, Dale, Caldwell, Weightman and Gallagher). In defence, all of the top five were Bombers (Hind, Duursma, Jones, Menzie and Heppell).

Put quite simply, we worked harder when we had the ball than when we didn't. Essendon worked harder in defence, and yet they won by five goals.

We had more disposals, forced more turnovers, laid more tackles and had more intercepts. We even had one more inside 50 than Essendon. We had more contested marks and matched them for marks inside 50. And yet we've lost by five goals, driven by a lack of work rate going the other way.

We've only had two games out of the five we've played so far, where our average work rate was higher in defence than it was in attack. And wouldn't you know it, it was the Gold Coast and West Coast games.

The answers lie with the players. They're not working hard enough. Am I being simplistic. Maybe. But there's data there that backs me up.

This 1000%.

And it has been a problem for a few years.

Our team work rate when we don't have the ball is terrible (more often than not).

I am surprised Treloar hasn't been dropped - he is one of the worst offenders. When we have the ball he is sprinting everywhere trying to get involved - unfortunately his disposal is still inconsistent and his forward entries are often turned over.
When the ball is in dispute, or the other mob has it, OMG - he basically walks towards the backline. It is why Collingwood* let him go and he still hasn't learnt. (I was warned by a Magpie supporting mate of mine when we traded for him who told me straight up that Adam often butchers the ball going forward, and is basically a spectator when the other team has the ball apart from his direct opponent).

Sanders' defensive running also needs work but he is a rookie so gets a pass - hopefully is learning from Bontempelli and Liberatore about work ethic rather than Treloar.

Defensive transition is a mindset and one that can be easily fixed but needs a buy in from EVERYONE - one weak link and it falls apart.

The other glaring issues are:

1. a lack of a big bodied defender to help Liam Jones out - JOD and Buku are suited to 3rd tall but struggle to match big bodied 2nd tall forwards.

2. We don't have a real ruckman - Tim English is a follower. Sam Darcy to still too raw. Rory Lobb is a forward who pinch hits in the ruck. This is why we often lose clearances to "average" ruckmen (but ones who know ruck craft), and also have a habit of giving up run ons of goals.

Moving Naughton to the backline is an option to get a big bodied defender back to help LJ, but I fear it will open an even bigger hole in our forward line.

Bevo has shown that he doesn't rate slow one dimensional ruckmen, so I don't think getting one at the midseason draft is on the radar, so we just have to hope that Sam Darcy develops into a monster.

[EasternWest]

This 1000%.

And it has been a problem for a few years.

Our team work rate when we don't have the ball is terrible (more often than not).

I am surprised Treloar hasn't been dropped - he is one of the worst offenders. When we have the ball he is sprinting everywhere trying to get involved - unfortunately his disposal is still inconsistent and his forward entries are often turned over.
When the ball is in dispute, or the other mob has it, OMG - he basically walks towards the backline. It is why Collingwood* let him go and he still hasn't learnt. (I was warned by a Magpie supporting mate of mine when we traded for him who told me straight up that Adam often butchers the ball going forward, and is basically a spectator when the other team has the ball apart from his direct opponent).

Sanders' defensive running also needs work but he is a rookie so gets a pass - hopefully is learning from Bontempelli and Liberatore about work ethic rather than Treloar.

Defensive transition is a mindset and one that can be easily fixed but needs a buy in from EVERYONE - one weak link and it falls apart.

The other glaring issues are:

1. a lack of a big bodied defender to help Liam Jones out - JOD and Buku are suited to 3rd tall but struggle to match big bodied 2nd tall forwards.

2. We don't have a real ruckman - Tim English is a follower. Sam Darcy to still too raw. Rory Lobb is a forward who pinch hits in the ruck. This is why we often lose clearances to "average" ruckmen (but ones who know ruck craft), and also have a habit of giving up run ons of goals.

Moving Naughton to the backline is an option to get a big bodied defender back to help LJ, but I fear it will open an even bigger hole in our forward line.

Bevo has shown that he doesn't rate slow one dimensional ruckmen, so I don't think getting one at the midseason draft is on the radar, so we just have to hope that Sam Darcy develops into a monster.

Or we get rid of Beveridge and get a coach who can adapt.

[westdog54]

Ok. Im not sure this data is in any way relevant to the problem (and the outcome).

The team that wins generally has lower gps numbers than the winner - total distance, sprint % and metres per minute. I think it’s interesting but connecting the tracker to the outcome in any more than a superficial way is a long bow...I would have said lower running should = greater communication...perhaps it’s not a work rate issue but a connection problem.

I'm relying on your expertise here when I ask this question in all seriousness: should we be concerned that our GPS numbers are higher when we've got the ball as opposed to when the opposition have it?

[mjp]

I'm relying on your expertise here when I ask this question in all seriousness: should we be concerned that our GPS numbers are higher when we've got the ball as opposed to when the opposition have it?

Well - to me, they SHOULD BE HIGHER when we have it.

When the oppo have it, we should be in a grid/web/call it what you will all the way down to half back...and the players should be holding their spots, communicating to one another and handing over. If they get too one-on-one too high then the defenders will get 'pulled apart' leaving gaping holes for the oppo to hit up into.

When we have the footy, the players need to be making space, 'fishing' in and out of gaps, engaging with the zoning oppo to try and get them to engage...

GPS numbers (distance and high speed) being high are often indicators of a team that is getting beaten...or (of course) a team that is lazy and getting absolutely smashed and is just caravanning around the field being dictated too.

GPS numbers are like so many other stats in that when they are really good and really bad they can indicate the reverse.
eg. High tackle numbers can = good intensity...or that the other team constantly has the ball. High uncontested marks can be dominance with the ball...or being unable to penetrate the oppo defenders and going from side to side.

[Axe Man]

So an article written by Robbo calling Bevo a bumbling idiot … umm I have no words.

You should be in the media yourself taking that line completely out of context. I've posted the article, if you read it you'll see Robbo is actually defending Bevo in that instance.

[mjp]

1/. Move Naughton back. It sends a message.
2/. Put Richards into the mids. It sends a message.
3/. Play Cleary. He can do no more. It sends a message.
4/. Play Garcia. He can do no more. It sends a message.
5/. Work out WHO the players think should be in...and PLAY THEM!!!.

You can't win them all.

[comrade]

Now what happens when Libba returns?

[azabob]

You can't win them all.

Interesting Bevo went with Sanders as the sub. Your reasoning was sound for why not to start Sanders as a sub.

Clearly didn't matter due to the margin.

[ledge]

Now what happens when Libba returns?

I am worried about how we get Garcia and libba in the same team, Garcia will have to take the forward pocket role which is probably a plus with his urgency at the ball, they can swap.
It would be an injustice to drop Garcia, this is where we start the life after libba transition.

[ledge]

Interesting Bevo went with Sanders as the sub. Your reasoning was sound for why not to start Sanders as a sub.

Clearly didn't matter due to the margin.

I dont get the Sanders sub it makes no sense.
Poor kid can’t get a full game and it’s what he needs to learn.

[D Mitchell]

I dont get the Sanders sub it makes no sense.
Poor kid can’t get a full game and it’s what he needs to learn. He's been subbed out a couple of times, he has talent but perhaps not sufficient tank, maybe the thinking is to introduce the talent in the second half rather than the first.