Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mick Cowan's avatar

What was learnt:

1. Expectation creates a different form of pressure - A West Indian cricket commentator coined the phrase of "a batsman drowning in honey" i.e. the bowling became too easy for them and they then get themselves out because it had become too easy for them to score. With an inside 50 count of 25-4 in the first quarter, having gone in as favourites for the first time in months, it was evident that the desire to make the most of this advantage was high and increased as the quarter progressed.

Watching the Roos kick the ball in brought to mind our own issues when facing the same scenario - the Roos mainly kicked to the same spot just outside 50 on the broadcast wing which we won back and then had entries to a congested forward 50. The four times that the Roos entered their F50 allowed us to redirect our entries. There wasn't a great desire to move the entry point around the arc.

Having said that, with Impey taking 2 shots from outside or on 50, plus Breust hitting the post and Wingard missing a snap on his right foot, the missed opportunities were not as poor as the scoreboard suggested.

2. Lewis/Greene combination is not a productive pairing - following on from the previous point, with Lewis the only realistic contested marking option in the F50, the entries became Lewis centric which allowed the Roos to kill the contest. This is not a knock on Fergus as he can only provide what he is capable of, but perhaps is a learning for future drafting in that a clever forward in the VFL will not have the same opportunities at AFL level. With Breust (182cm) and the return of Wingard (183), Greene (186) doesn't appear to fit the needs of the forward line. A point to consider: in a one on one marking contest, how would you rate the chances of these three players?

Given the first point, we were looking for a leading forward option who may have attracted some defenders and then created space for the other forwards.

3. Back 6 were in synch - With domination of the I50 in the first quarter, and the manner in which the players were drawn up the field, when the Roos did break through to a wide open forward line, the back 6 were able to cover the open play. This remained the case for the rest of the game, although the Roos' forward structure was disorganised at best.

4. Two rucks is no clearer - for the supporters, it remains our Ford/Holden; Coke/Pepsi debate as to whether we play two rucks and if it is one, who it will be.

The one point being that Reeves is the preferred centre square option (has better hit outs to advantage stats for what they are worth) which I think means that Meek will have to kick or create 2-3 goals from forward 50 work to take over the mantle. With a forward half that struggles to score, winning clearances out of the middle and setting up a defensive wall to keep the ball in the F50 is a key to any success in the coming weeks.

The other aspect to this discussion is to not look through the lens of what we want the rucks to do or be, but rather what they are able to do.

5. Clean hands in the middle - this is the keystone to the previous point and was demonstrated in the difference between the 2nd & 3rd quarters.

6. Maginness a better game than last week for his future - Finn whilst tagging Thomas ended up at full back, so there may have been some method to his recent games at BH where he played off half back. The more interesting aspect of his tagging role was when he went to Sheezel, when Sheezel went into the centre square, Finn started off half back, indicating that Sam didn't want to upset the centre square combinations, although Ward had 6 centre ball attendances. I think for his future that the variety of roles gave a stronger arm to his bow than being an outside tagger, although the quality of the opposition has to be taken into account.

24 hour learning (which may have a high degree of optimism attached to it):

Whilst a high scoring and easy win may have been the desire, the inaccurate kicking meant that the scoreboard was still in play at half time, although the game didn't reflect the run of play. This being case meant that the game was "live", so there was still an intensity and need for application to the task in the second half. If the game had turned into another Eagles outcome, I don't think that it would have been of any benefit at this stage of the year as to playing style and player development.

Observations:

* Starting 4 - Reeves, Newcombe, Day & Worpel - again a change from the last game.

* No Frostball i.e. with the ball in hand, Frosty did the expected things which should be acknowledged as we are all happy to call out the errors.

* Ward/CMac - Ying & Yang - an early watch on the roles of these two, with Ward playing back half to half forward and CMac playing half back to forward 50. With Ward being the more "dependable" in his decision making and ball use, he provides the outlet from the back half whereas CMac has a little more flair and ambition to his disposals that provides forward opportunities. Ward may be death by 1000 cuts whereas CMac may be the slice and dice option.

* Weddle is the most compulsive runner we've had since Billy Hartung, (although Seamus may challenge him) and whilst there are the line breaking opportunities, just how it connects with those up the field is still a work in progress. Interesting with the shift of Amon to half back, Weddle lined up on the wing through periods of the 2nd & 3rd quarters.

* Nash delivery by foot to inside 50 targets is a growing skill.

* Dumb decisions are coach killers - Scrimshaw taking a mark 20 metres out from their goals and playing on without looking around for a North player who put him off wasn't bad enough, to stop and appeal for a free kick whilst the ball was live is another thing. Thankfully his back 6 brothers covered for him. Equally, Sicily attempting to out mark Reeves in the back half without a North player in sight also had some heads shaking.

* Tagging an intercept marking half back was an interesting strategy.

* Mitch Lewis looked to have learnt from his last chance to run into the goal square to kick the ball into the stands against the Cats where he did a hammy!

* Ramsden is fortunate that he doesn't play soccer!!

* The surface at Marvel look to play as a slippery deck.

Don't mention the "tanking" discussion.

When looking at the Roos, it brought to mind that with Ziebell, Goldstein, Cunnington (acknowledging his health issues), along with Shiels and Howe, what they would have looked like if they had traded Ziebell and Goldstein in recent years when they had some currency?

There is no right/wrong to this argument as clubs & players do have "mutual" obligation of loyalty just as we had to Breust and Gunston; however you are to wonder who would benefit from the game experience when you are in a development stage.

As to Ash's question on how many more wins - I would prefer to see a couple of more players be given the chance to play. I think DGB as a forward (or back, but with Blanck returning it may not be possible) gets another full game(s) and Serong playing in the back half would be good to see. Unfortunately for the midfield options - Mackenzie, Long, Stephens & Hustwaite - may be sweating on injuries.

Expand full comment
Graeme's avatar

Glad you gave Scrimshaw credit. Thought he played well. No bells and whistles with him but his intercept marking is first class and often brave.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts