Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mick Cowan's avatar

What was learnt:

1. Whilst found wanting against the elite, we are more than capable in our the next weight division – As mentioned in the lead up into this run of games, these three games were classed as three-point games – Lions and Pies on track record and ability whilst the Dogs being a direct competitor for ladder positions made this one as another test. Considering, the fact that our depth was being further tested as we moved to play our 34th player for the season (3rd most behind Saints & Port/Ess eq. 2nd) to be able to exert so much control over the way the game was played meant that this test was passed with flying colours. Having said that, the Dogs’ form line isn’t all that flattering in contests against top 8 sides.

2. The Big 4 are transforming into the Flexible 5 – With the run of form that Ward has shown over the past 5-6 weeks, it is becoming clear that he is being rewarded for his work with a consistent starting role in the CBAs. Further to this, it actually provides Hale as the midfield coach with some variations as to how he employs this group. In this game, it meant that Nash started on the wing at times with more details as to how this plays out below. Ward’s point of difference to the Big 4 is twofold at least: a) being left footed he provides an alternate route out of the clearances and a couple of times in the centre square, as the sweeper, he handballed forward to Newcombe catching the Dogs offside in the contest; and b) in general play, his capacity to cover the ground at reasonable pace and with neat kicking, he hits a 20-30m pass, then runs to provide the overlap option with another disposal of similar or longer making it a 100+ metres game play. This season he looks better placed to run to the right side as well time his run to take full advantage of this. This style of play is in the mode of Robert Harvey, Dane Swan or Adam Treloar and they all had/have the same failing that from time to time their disposals miss targets. For me, I also give him credit in using his non-dominant side, which means that forwards know when and where to leave, even if the kick isn’t strong, it at least ensures that the forwards don’t have to double lead. A dirty entry inside our F50 suits the small forwards. If Butler establishes his spot with his pace, he can then provide another point of difference to our midfield mix.

3. Clean hands in the midfield and disruption on the opposition – As we discussed in the mid-week pod, the need for our mids to have clean hands in the contested ball situation to ensure that we could compete with one of the better midfields in the comp was essential and this proved to be the case. Similarly, the level of pressure our mids put on the Dogs’ mids meant that we disrupted their clearance work. It was evident that there was the inner ring for ground ball contests supported by an outer ring which meant that the Dogs had to work feverishly to get a clean clearance. With scoring from stoppage being their strength this season, it was a major win. Equally, to have Libba play as a half back in the second half is not something I recall happening previously.

4. Meek was majestic – If Meek has played a better game, then it would only be marginally better. Recognising that English's style of play is one that Meek has had issues with previously, so early in the first quarter, English played a smart game in the throw-ins when the ball hit the ground, he moved to the other side of the pack and acted as the first receiver and/or conduit to a mid (Bontempelli at least twice) for the clearance. Meek became aware of this and then either engaged English physically not allowing him to sneak off or take the ball the out of the air with either a dirty clearance or forcing another ball-up. Taking 4 contested marks wasn’t just a season high, but these marks were in situations that were important to the momentum of the game. Some may take issue with English taking a mark on the lead in their F50, but I would argue that a more agile defender should have matched the lead, leaving Meek to cover the square or a winger should have filled the leading lane.

5. Exiting from defensive contests returned to a 2024 tactic – In the D50, it looked as though we returned to a tactic that we used effectively last season but has been less obvious this year i.e. having a defensive sweeper behind ground ball contests and providing a safe release point when we won the ball. This does a few things – we have some protection should the Dogs win the ball; and when we win it, we can feed it back to a player who has some space and a little more time to find a target down the field. This season I think the tactic has been to handball forward or laterally, so going backwards also meant that the Dogs couldn’t exert direct pressure to disrupt these clearances.

6. Chol’s room to move (how Chol could be used to the best of his ability) – This game provided an insight into how Chol could make the best of his skill set. Being given space to move inside F50, particularly on an inexperienced opponent, his athleticism in an open forward line for his size would have them looking around for help. When you look at his own goals as well as his score involvements, when he has space to work in, Chol becomes a handful as distinct from having to jump three deep over a pack. He isn’t Carey, but he does have a skill set that could be more productive for the team which a few HIs would like to see tested.

Observations:

• Has Moore played a bad game when he was the acting captain?

• For those who want Weddle to be played further up the ground, you do need to appreciate the capacity for him to run through the lines and his long kicking is a skill set not common amongst the playing group. Equally, given he tries to play on a small/medium forward, his ability to be 3rd man up or float across the pack for an intercept mark is valuable, particularly with Sicily and Scrimshaw out.

• Hardwick took a half to reacquaint himself to his defensive role with an ineffective spoil that gave the Dogs a goal and giving his opponent too much leg rope in the centre square requiring another spoil where he lost his feet, fortunately they blew their chance. After half-time, he was back on track.

• Both wingers played strong defensive games supporting the back 6 as well as keeping their width. This is probably the first time that they have been working in unison. D’Ambrosio did butcher a forward pass in the 3rd quarter for no explicable reason.

• One of the concerns previously with Mitchell was his decision making and execution by foot, even at BH, he is prone to an execution error by foot, however he played to his strengths as evidenced below.

• The high half forwards whilst important didn’t really hit the scoreboard with 3 goals between Ginnivan, Macdonald and Moore comparable to Newcombe, Nash & Weddle.

• Jiath has the attributes to be the sub, however at times, he again becomes unpredictable with his execution which can leave his teammates out of position or needing to cover for him.

• With the depth of the list being given opportunities, and some to return in the coming weeks, if players don’t make a compelling argument to keep their spot, they may well find themselves taking a turn at BH.

• TOG % - Bottom 5 (leaving out subs): Butler 68%, C. Macdonald 73%, Ginnivan 73%, Nash 76%, Newcombe 76%. (Battle 93% & Weddle 92% highest.)

• Kicking efficiency (DE): Chol 100% (91), Weddle 92% (94), Morrison 91% (91) Mitchell 86% (80), Hardwick 80% (82).

Moore 50% (77) Macdonald 50% (60) Ramsden 40% (44), Meek 29% (53), Butler 29% (64), Maginness 0% (55)

Starting 4: (CBA/CC)

1st Qrt: Newcombe (19/6) Worpel (14/0) Ward (17/1)

2nd Qrt: Newcombe Worpel Ward

3rd Qrt: Newcombe Ward Nash (14/0)

4th Qrt: Newcombe Ward Nash

Meek 20/1 Butler 8/0 Chol 3/0 Ramsden 1/0

As mentioned earlier, the expansion to the “Flexible 5” meant that for this game, Nash found himself on a wing during the first half. Interestingly, after half time, his CBAs increased, admittedly Worpel was subbed off by then, however, I also wonder if this was a strategic move to keep him fresh to cover Bontempelli after half-time on the basis that he was the player who could turn the game in the Dogs’ favour. As it was, we only ran 5 midfielders through the centre square.

In total, there were 24 CBAs with the spread by quarter (7/7/6/4) as follows:

Newcombe 5/7/4/3 Ward 4/5/4/4 Nash 4/2/5/3 Butler 3/1/2/2 Worpel 5/6/3/sub

You’ll note that both Nash & Ward each only missed two CBAs in the second half with Newcombe missing three. Nash attended less than 50% in the first half.

Expand full comment
Reg Henry's avatar

Great summary. The pressure is key to us playing Hokball. It allowed us to control the tempo of the game when the ball got free from congestion. Ultimately pressure is what wins finals and glad to see the boys bring it. Next stop bringing heat to the Cows in Launceston.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts