A notice to the critics: Its a team game

[tigersnake]

A lot of critics on this site, including myself at times, are looking at our list all wrong.

Its a team game, not a bunch of individuals.

The pattern of criticism, debate and analysis tend to be around X player (can't kick, not good enough etc) Now a lot of this criticism is valid on one level, on another its highly questionable.

Its a team game. Its not about who and who isn't a poor or flawed player, its what how certain players fit in, contribute and play their part.

To look at a team perspective, and I don't want to debate the following model its just and example off the top of my head)

A successful side, (22) has, say 2 or 3 superstars, another 3 or 4 elite or very good players, another 2 to 4 pretty good players, and 10 to 12 middling and/ or flawed players. In other words, half your decent footy side are good, and half are not, to varying degrees.

Geelong has poor players, if Milburn, Stokes, Tenace, Wojinski, Mooney were currently playing for us there'd be long negative threads on them.

Our problems are we have one superstar, who is too old. And two Future who aren't old enough yet.

We are 2 - 3 elite players short.

That is the problem. Some of our young players may yet develop, But currently our proportion of third tier players is too high, its not that they are all duds or wouldn't contribute to a good side. Once you get the superstar / elite core, (and get A smiling decent coach, but thats a separate issue), you'r third tier players gain confidence, kick better, go in harder and suddenly look like decent players.

Its a team game.

 

[tigersnake]

I'll just add to the above, (and reply to my own thread to elevate it), I love Hawthorn's approach to the above concepts.

They accept that every player on your list can't be elite, so they focus on aggression. If you are a flawed middling player, you at least have to be a tough flawed middling player. Its a key part of their success.

 

[IanG]

I'll just add to the above, (and reply to my own thread to elevate it), I love Hawthorn's approach to the above concepts.

They accept that every player on your list can't be elite, so they focus on aggression. If you are a flawed middling player, you at least have to be a tough flawed middling player. Its a key part of their success.

St Kilda are doing the same this year.

 

[K3]

St Kilda are doing the same this year.

They are also playing man-on-man footy, not so much of this zoning nonsense.

I would love to see the Tiger players told to get out there and beat their man, I recon they may like it too.

 

[tigertrue]

Good post.

I wish the umpiring fraternity would have the same revelation - would be a much better game to watch.

 

[Silent Bob]

I'll just add to the above, (and reply to my own thread to elevate it), I love Hawthorn's approach to the above concepts.

They accept that every player on your list can't be elite, so they focus on aggression. If you are a flawed middling player, you at least have to be a tough flawed middling player. Its a key part of their success.

Hear Hear.

 

[Tigerhart04]

Agree 100%. It's as plain as the proverbial "nose on your face" , when we have played man on man we have performed very well this year, 3rd quarter against Geelong, last half against Melbourne (too little too late though), most of the game against the Roos and again the second half against the Swans.

Our players are quite happy to play man on man it seems and do it pretty well, so FFS Terry play the game as man on man and stick your zone crap in the too hard box and deal with it.

 

[Mac]

I dunno ts. I know what you're getting at and you may be on track with part of it, but I think it doesn't go deep enough into the issues at this level of professional football.

I don't know that I'd class those Geelong players as "poor" - I'd argue they would make our best 22, or at least add depth in reserve. I also wouldn't say too many on the Hawks list are flawed in too many critical areas - they are tough, but tough and unskilled won't cut it in AFL nowadays - across the ground they have players who can deliver the ball, particularly by foot. The depth/back up players of good sides are the same type of players we have as our starting 22 - that's why we are struggling and will continue to for a while yet.

I know you said you don't want to debate the components of the side you've put up, but it doesn't address list need in a tangible way. How do you target and draft a "superstar core"? Well, you don't. You've noted that some of our younger players may or may not come on and be the elite/good/servicable type, we don't have a crystal ball - this is why you need to address your list structure needs and play the numbers game - have the right numbers of player types and sizes to cover all positions and injuries and also the fact that some will come on and some won't. Keep turning the list over when they don't and of the ones you keep your elite core will emerge. Importantly, draft players that don't have too many flaws - at least you know the player's starting point that he can read the play, kick well and hand ball well or adequately. If he's picked on some x-factor in the hope he can learn to kick, statisically, you'll fail more than succeed (which almost defines x-factor, which is why it's a risk you should only take when you can afford to - say off the rookie list, or a late pick)

Size alone is a good example to look at. If a hypothetical backline had 6 gun players, but none over 189 cms, they might make do against bottom 8 sides, but they would get creamed by the better sides (an slightly extreme example I concede, but our back line is not very big for instance) What to do then, rob your foward line of talls to cover this and not score enough goals - same result.

There's definately an element to what you say (and leaderships fits into that too), but it's only part of the picture and without the proper structure and player types, we're just hoping for the best without properly planning for success.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Geelong has poor players, if Milburn, Stokes, Tenace, Wojinski, Mooney were currently playing for us there'd be long negative threads on them.

Please - one of the best HBF in the last decade

Wojinski & Mooney both perform a role

You can have the other 2 - Tenace not near their best 22 and Stokes on the edge of it

 

[the claw]

I dunno ts. I know what you're getting at and you may be on track with part of it, but I think it doesn't go deep enough into the issues at this level of professional football.

I don't know that I'd class those Geelong players as "poor" - I'd argue they would make our best 22, or at least add depth in reserve. I also wouldn't say too many on the Hawks list are flawed in too many critical areas - they are tough, but tough and unskilled won't cut it in AFL nowadays - across the ground they have players who can deliver the ball, particularly by foot. The depth/back up players of good sides are the same type of players we have as our starting 22 - that's why we are struggling and will continue to for a while yet.

I know you said you don't want to debate the components of the side you've put up, but it doesn't address list need in a tangible way. How do you target and draft a "superstar core"? Well, you don't. You've noted that some of our younger players may or may not come on and be the elite/good/servicable type, we don't have a crystal ball - this is why you need to address your list structure needs and play the numbers game - have the right numbers of player types and sizes to cover all positions and injuries and also the fact that some will come on and some won't. Keep turning the list over when they don't and of the ones you keep your elite core will emerge. Importantly, draft players that don't have too many flaws - at least you know the player's starting point that he can read the play, kick well and hand ball well or adequately. If he's picked on some x-factor in the hope he can learn to kick, statisically, you'll fail more than succeed (which almost defines x-factor, which is why it's a risk you should only take when you can afford to - say off the rookie list, or a late pick)

Size alone is a good example to look at. If a hypothetical backline had 6 gun players, but none over 189 cms, they might make do against bottom 8 sides, but they would get creamed by the better sides (an slightly extreme example I concede, but our back line is not very big for instance) What to do then, rob your foward line of talls to cover this and not score enough goals - same result.

There's definately an element to what you say (and leaderships fits into that too), but it's only part of the picture and without the proper structure and player types, we're just hoping for the best without properly planning for success.

very well said mac and agree in the main.

most of those so called critics that ts mention are not wrong. to solely focus on player deficiency is asking for trouble but an over view of everything is the only way to look at all players.

also i think most agree we lack quality across the board quality being those superstars, elite, and pretty good players.
the obvious question to ask is how does a club get access to those players the obvious answer is thru early draft picks.

things like size height structure footskills footy smarts flexability all come into play in the team aspect. an example is play to many poor kicks what happens you turn it over regularly under pressure.. or play to many skinny types you get belted at the breakdown or the tackle count is non existant. lack of height means an inability to cope with good sides in the air. its about balance its about all of these things and more. some areas you can get away with having just plain average players but other areas you need quality and in all cases you need to surround the average with enough quality.

many players on our list cop it because of chronic deficiency our better players are other clubs average players and our average players are rubbish.

 

[craig]

many players on our list cop it because of chronic deficiency our better players are other clubs average players and our average players are rubbish.

Here here accurate and concise and sadly true Dear Claws.

Easiest and most time honoured exercise.

Write down who at Geelong would get a game for the RFC and then who at the RFC would get a game for the Cats.

Tells the story pure and simple.

The RFC list is rubbish and unbalanced and completely lacking in depth .... quality depth.

As for Milburn getting a touch up hes better than any player in the current RFC back 6 fair dinkum. Tough, reliable, smart composed and skilled.

 

[billyb#40]

Agree 100%. It's as plain as the proverbial "nose on your face" , when we have played man on man we have performed very well this year, 3rd quarter against Geelong, last half against Melbourne (too little too late though), most of the game against the Roos and again the second half against the Swans.
Our players are quite happy to play man on man it seems and do it pretty well, so FFS Terry play the game as man on man and stick your zone crap in the too hard box and deal with it.

See my earlier quote, I agree.
1 FOOTBALL / DYER-TRIBE / Re: Changes vs North on: April 21, 2009, 11:11:40 pm
Outs -- the Sag-off-Zone we arent playing at all well.
Each week we play a sag off zone where there is no pressure on the player with the ball, we just sag back 5 metres guard a space and watch the ball get kicked over our heads to someone whose free and can then run on and bomb long, or delicately find a target. We neither put pressure on the ball, nor drop fully back. Then if the ball is bombed long into their forward line we are often one on one or out numbered.

Our p1ss weak zone takes away our aggression and leaves us flat footed.

When we have possession there is no-one to kick forward to because we are behind the ball zoning back.
Sometimes in the second half Richo was forward at a one on three defenders contest, no crumbers and thats crap.
The reason the players look uninspired and uncommitted is that the game plan takes away one-on-one footy, the necessity to commit and its confusing our boys. They aren't buying into it with their actions, and anyway its a crap style.
In the last half against the Demons we manned up a little more, opened up the game forward, kicked it long to Richo and started to have a go.
Its time to simplify the game plan, man up, value pressure on the ball, tacklers, aggressively chase the ball and break down the Shinboners. Then we can start quick direct moves forward and get some defensive and forward aggression into things.
Our guys need a simpler structure to play to at least until we gain some confidence. Most of the forwards are decent leads and it can be mixed up who we kick to.

The wishy washy zone back stuff is the start of a crap game plan that our blokes havent bought into it. Lets drop it, man up, lots of aggressive pressure at the ball and ball carrier, and have a red hot crack at them.
Start a new style revolution in the AFL, by having a decent one-on-one game plan and some style.

Come on Terry innovate, p1ss off the soft sock zone, before it does the same to your career.

 

[dessy]

Agree with the basic premise of the thread and also that good teams seem to be able to 'carry' some players that have deficiencies in some areas of their game.

Not everyone needs to be an in and under type. Not everyone needs to be standing on their direct opponents head. That's one of the great things about this game - it provides opportunity for all different types of players to find their way.

Having said that, there are basic benchmarks that need to be met by anyone playing senior footy - the ability to hit a target by hand and foot is one of these basic benchmarks. Intensity at the ball is another. Some players get flack here because they are unable to meet these basic benchmarks - and rightly so.

People here have mentioned both Geelong and St Kilda as models for us to aim at emulating. I would agree - and I think it needs to start with players being able to be honest with their team mates. Something that has happened at both Geelong and St Kilda more recently has been an open and honest airing of players feelings, doubts and concerns about their team mates' work ethic, strengths and weaknesses. Not coach driven - player driven, which has the power to change the culture of a footy club.

It appears to an outside observer that after this tact was taken by the players of these clubs, the culture seems to have turned around immeasurably.

I wonder how honest our players feel they can be with each other at Richmond...

 

[frickenel]

Here here accurate and concise and sadly true Dear Claws.

Easiest and most time honoured exercise.

Write down who at Geelong would get a game for the RFC and then who at the RFC would get a game for the Cats.

Tells the story pure and simple.

The RFC list is rubbish and unbalanced and completely lacking in depth .... quality depth.

As for Milburn getting a touch up hes better than any player in the current RFC back 6 fair dinkum. Tough, reliable, smart composed and skilled.

I don't think that's the point TS is trying to make. Consider how effective Milburn would be in our defence without the sort of support he has around him in the Geelong backline. Add to that how easily the ball comes out of the centre against us as opposed to Geelong, and i bet Milburn would be counting the days till retirement.

Ponder that and then ask, had we recruited Franklin instead of Tambling - where would Franklin's career be right now? You think Richo gets the sh..... with poor delivery? Franklin would have more runs than a cheap pair of stockings.

 

[IanG]

People here have mentioned both Geelong and St Kilda as models for us to aim at emulating. I would agree - and I think it needs to start with players being able to be honest with their team mates. Something that has happened at both Geelong and St Kilda more recently has been an open and honest airing of players feelings, doubts and concerns about their team mates' work ethic, strengths and weaknesses. Not coach driven - player driven, which has the power to change the culture of a footy club.

It appears to an outside observer that after this tact was taken by the players of these clubs, the culture seems to have turned around immeasurably.

I wonder how honest our players feel they can be with each other at Richmond...

Problem is we did employ Leading Teams a couple of years ago who did take the team through just this sort of exercise, Nathan Brown talked about it at the time. Obviously it didn't have much effect.

 

[Tigermad2005]

Bull if we had 3 to 4 stars and another 4 to 5 very good player we would be an outstanding side.
Put any of the best players in the land in our side and we will be in the 8 now.
That all it take have the best in your side it make everyone better.

 

[tigersnake]

As I said, I didn't want to debate to side issues but Big Cat Lover you are basically agreeing with me accept for Milburn. Your rating of him is laughable. He tough, he's dirty, but he's not that good. A lot of hard core Geelong fans I know rated him as we do King before they turned the corner.

A few here have missed my point. Which I'll state diffferently. 10 of Geelongs regular 22 would look ordinary or terrible if playing for us right now, and 10 of our 30 players who look ordinary or terrible could, with the right coaching and team around them, get a game and contribute to Geelongs current side and look OK.

Not all of our apparently crap players are actually crap, so to speak. We just have to high a proportion of that level of player, and they lack confidence because they don't have enough stars/ elite players in the side so they can walk taller.

To get real positive on your arses, its conceivable that in 1-2 years time, BD, NF, and Chimp could be superstars. JR, AC, RN (and 3 - 6 new and future draftees we haven't really seen yet) are elite / pretty good. We have sifted our flawed/ middling players to fit in the side, and their bodies are bigger, new coach, and things might be looking OK.

 

[tigersnake]

Easiest and most time honoured exercise.

Write down who at Geelong would get a game for the RFC and then who at the RFC would get a game for the Cats.

Tells the story pure and simple.

As for Milburn getting a touch up hes better than any player in the current RFC back 6 fair dinkum. Tough, reliable, smart composed and skilled.

Missed the point completely, its not about picking and choosing who would or wouldn't get a game for whatever side. My point is that the way AFL lists are built is highly restrictive. Every side, good and bad, ends up with a fair whack of flawed middling players on their list and so on the field. Geelong, for example, if things were different, may have ended up with Shultz on their list who might be playing a Lonergan-type role. On the other hand, if Lonergan was on our list right now, he'd be being heavily criticised like everyone else. Stokes/ Tambling, White/ Wojinski, Blake / Patterson.

Your rating of Milburn again, is interesting. I disagree strongly. But for arguments sake lets say that over the last 3 - 4 seasons he has been good, and there's no denying he's contributed. What can't be debated is that for his first 5 - 6 seasons he was highly flawed / hopeless. Makes you think don't it?

 

[Mac]

A few here have missed my point. Which I'll state diffferently. 10 of Geelongs regular 22 would look ordinary or terrible if playing for us right now, and 10 of our 30 players who look ordinary or terrible could, with the right coaching and team around them, get a game and contribute to Geelongs current side and look OK.

I believe what you say has merit, but I also think it is a bit simplified and needs to go further.

My point is highlighted by what you have also said. "the right team around them" is actually the quick version of what I said earlier. But what does that really mean? It means we need a large number of much better players AND of the right type (back to my example, a good team usually needs at least 3 big blokes on the back line who are decent AFL level plus back up reserves, not slow strugglers who are good VFL standard like Sylvester) than we have now.

If you took 10 of Geelong's lesser lights (from their 22) and put them with our team, you're only swapping like for like, so the result will be similar (though I'd still argue we would be slightly better). If you put our best 10 in Geelong (assuming you're replacing their lessers), you are still maintaining the status quo or maybe achieving some improvement (if you replaced their best 10 with our best 10 you may have top 8 side, but not as good as what the Cats are now) - that part of your arguement doesn't change the fact we have too many players on our list that aren't good enough (or too many of similar type and size) to form a side good enough to challenge for the top 4. And this hypothetical swap doesn't even go into positions or getting team balance right

(note - I use size as an example intentionally to highlight the need to draft for structure - Daniel Kerr is elite, but 22 Daniel Kerrs will not be an elite AFL side for obvious reasons)

So, I'll give you that we have some players that would look a lot better in a good side (maybe more than we give credit for, because they may well develop differently), but I maintain that we need a lot more much better (and correct type for need) players to be able to acheive this desirable situation for the RFC.

 

[tigersnake]

I don't disagree with any of that Mac. Yes its a simplified model, it has to be to have an effective discussion of big issues on a forum like PRE otherwise every post has to be en essay.

To simplify the buggery out of it: I reckon if we get/ develop 1 more superstar (I reckon BD and TC will be the other 2 required), and we get/ develop 2 - 4 more elites ( I reckon NF is a down-on-form elite player, possible superstar even, and I'm confident of JR. and 2 more will develop from our existing youngsters, AC for example), and suddenly kids have got the numbers of some of the hordes of current bums ( who are bigger and more experienced) on their jumpers.

Easier said than done of course, but its far from inconceivable when you break it down like that.