Defensive Stats

[Johnny Member]

Not quite sure what to make of these.


Check this stat out...

We're currently 15h in the comp for Opposition Inside 50s. We're the 3rd best at keeping the opposition out of their F50. We concede on average only 49.8 per game.

But....in our losses we've conceded 55 (Melbourne), 45 (West Coast), 65 (Geelong), 56 (Sydney) and 58 (Bulldogs).

So we're good at defending through the midfield in the sense that we don't give up a lot of Inside 50s - but when we do give them up, we lose. All games except for West Coast (which we should have won) that we've held the opposition to under 50 Inside 50s, we've won.

So even though we've recruited Brown and Carlisle, we still have some issues back there in terms of giving up goals.


This is also interesting...

We conceded 14 Marks Inside 50 against the Bulldogs. Which considering they went with a small forward line, was unusually high. However that's obviously why they did it...

In all of our losses, we've conceded 14 or more Marks Inside 50. If we concede less than that - we win. Brown and Carlisle have been great at stopping the big guys from taking marks inside 50 and no big 'key' forward has kicked a bag against us as a result.

But the small/medium forwards are taking marks inside 50 against us. Even against Collingwood, we gave up 12 marks inside 50 - but they blew it and kicked 7.13 which let us off the hook.

Since the GWS game, we've given up 3 more Marks Inside 50 per week on average.


Have the opposition found a way keep Brown and Carlisle away from contests by going smaller against us?

[Leo.J]

For a bloke who apparently doesn't support the club according to some, you sure do spend a lot of time caring about it.

[WellardSaint]

that certainly is confusing.
The worry is, although we are stingy about letting the ball into our defence, when it does come in,
the oppo scoring efficiency is high enough for them to kick a winning score.

In most of our games, we seem to get a lot of entries into our F50, but we muck around and fumble and bumble,
and it takes many many entries before we get a goal. Inefficient.

The entire coaching staff will be looking at those numbers as well.
Carlisle and Brown have been awesome, as expected, so they will remain.
Frawley (one of the defence coaches) and the others will be working on tactics to improve,
especially when we kick out, where we are really poor, we cannot clear the ball, and it just comes back for a goal.

[dragit]

We conceded 14 Marks Inside 50 against the Bulldogs. Which considering they went with a small forward line, was unusually high. However that's obviously why they did it...

Are you still running with this?

You never replied when I pointed out that the dogs actually increased their forward height against us by 25 CM

Jordan Roughead 200cm - Travis Cloke 196 - +4cm
Tim English 205cm - Jack Redpath 194cm - +11cm
Jake Stringer 192 - Clay Smith 182cm +10cm

[Johnny Member]

We conceded 14 Marks Inside 50 against the Bulldogs. Which considering they went with a small forward line, was unusually high. However that's obviously why they did it...

Are you still running with this?

You never replied when I pointed out that the dogs actually increased their forward height against us by 25 CM

Jordan Roughead 200cm - Travis Cloke 196 - +4cm
Tim English 205cm - Jack Redpath 194cm - +11cm
Jake Stringer 192 - Clay Smith 182cm +10cm

I didn't bother replying for obvious reasons.

We both know that firstly its not that simplistic, and that secondly that the term 'small forward' doesn't directly relate to a player's height.


In addition to that, when a tall did rest forward, they were very high and left Brown on his own against Stringer who was way too 'small' for him.

Only 1 Bulldogs tall kicked a goal that day, and that was Boyd late in the last quarter whilst he was in the ruck. That was no coincidence.

[WellardSaint]

In Tassy,
The inside 50's were
Hawks 44...us 56

Marks inside 50
Hawks 8...us 15

interesting
we seemed to be very efficient in killing their entries and scoring with ours

[shrodes]

So we're good at defending through the midfield in the sense that we don't give up a lot of Inside 50s - but when we do give them up, we lose. All games except for West Coast (which we should have won) that we've held the opposition to under 50 Inside 50s, we've won.

So even though we've recruited Brown and Carlisle, we still have some issues back there in terms of giving up goals.

I've thought about this a bit over the last few weeks. I think we're getting burnt a lot on turnovers. It's next to impossible for Brown / Carlisle to do anything if we turn it over as we rely on our players streaming back hard. Also leads to easy uncontested marks in our D50. I would be interested to see where we sit on goals from turnovers / goals from rebound 50 on those losses.

[dragit]

I didn't bother replying for obvious reasons.

I think the only obvious reason was that you were wrong…

When you increase the height of your forward line by 25cm over three players, then it would be absurd to suggest that you are going in with a small forward line…

[Johnny Member]

I didn't bother replying for obvious reasons.

I think the only obvious reason was that you were wrong…

When you increase the height of your forward line by 25cm over three players, then it would be absurd to suggest that you are going in with a small forward line…

What if firstly, those guys dont play forward? What if secondly, when they do, they play up near the wings and purposely stay out of the F50?

And what if a bloke is 15cms smaller than another bloke, but is useless below his knees compared to the other player? He's shorter, but can't play small.


It's just terminology. 'Small' forward doesn't necessarily refer to a player's height.


But you already knew that.

[dragit]

Did you watch any of the game mate?

Here's a screen grab from early in the game of the dogs exploiting us with their small forward line

pictured (Boyd 201cm, Roughead 200cm, English 205cm, Stringer 192cm, Jong 188cm)

[Johnny Member]

Seriously?

[dragit]

Did you watch it?

[Jacks Back]

Did you watch it?

he's a troll don't worry about him

[Johnny Member]

Did you watch it?

Yes.

I don't know whether you're purposely being naive for a laugh, or if you just don't understand?


Stringer being 192cms tall doesn't make him a 'tall forward' - even though he's nearly 6 foot 3.

We all know that.

Being 'small' refers to your style of play, and generally your mobility.

Cloke is only 196 - but plays 'tall'. Bontempelli is only 3cms shorter - but plays 'small'. It's not their height that is the factor.


What I saw when we played the Bulldogs was, them trialling a first gamer as he was only ever being used a decoy to drag our tall defenders away from the F50. I also saw Roughead come in for his first game for the same reason and to exploit Longer.

They left out their two 'tall forwards' in Redpath and Cloke. Those two play one position and one role only.


What I saw was exactly what I anticipated happening - an arm wrestle early where the Dogs were trying to get our tall defenders away from the D50 - and our tall defenders were trying to roll back into the D50.

What I saw was that at half time, a mobile medium forward who plays small, was stitching up our tall defender who couldn't go with him. The Bulldogs had isolated him and it was working. He'd kicked 4 by half time from minimal entries.


What I also saw, was that between Boyd, English and Roughead - they kicked 1.1 and took 5 marks.

Meanwhile, by playing a small forward line and dragging our tall defenders away to isolate their small targets inside - Stringer, Dixon, Bont and Dale took 22 marks between them (12 inside 50) and kicked 8.7 between them.


That's what I saw.


You'd have seen it too if you weren't so hell bent on winning an unwinnable argument.


Let it go. I was right. It's no big deal.

[Jacks Back]

ZZzzzzzzzz

[dragit]

This is like being on the magical mystery tour...

play 3 ruckmen forward to exploit a side by going small.

Stringer is an all Australian gun who plays as their target, he's not a small...

If Cloke & Redpath play and it probably would have been worse, because Carlisle and brown would have had their hands full.

[WellardSaint]

Did you watch it?

Yes.

I don't know whether you're purposely being naive for a laugh, or if you just don't understand?


Stringer being 192cms tall doesn't make him a 'tall forward' - even though he's nearly 6 foot 3.

We all know that.

Being 'small' refers to your style of play, and generally your mobility.

....edited for brevity


What I also saw, was that between Boyd, English and Roughead - they kicked 1.1 and took 5 marks.

Meanwhile, by playing a small forward line and dragging our tall defenders away to isolate their small targets inside - Stringer, Dixon, Bont and Dale took 22 marks between them (12 inside 50) and kicked 8.7 between them.


That's what I saw.


You'd have seen it too if you weren't so hell bent on winning an unwinnable argument.


Let it go. I was right. It's no big deal.

I didn't realise that sort of detail, but it makes sense now.
Full marks to JM for picking this up in a brilliant analysis

[Johnny Member]

Did you watch it?

Yes.

I don't know whether you're purposely being naive for a laugh, or if you just don't understand?


Stringer being 192cms tall doesn't make him a 'tall forward' - even though he's nearly 6 foot 3.

We all know that.

Being 'small' refers to your style of play, and generally your mobility.

....edited for brevity


What I also saw, was that between Boyd, English and Roughead - they kicked 1.1 and took 5 marks.

Meanwhile, by playing a small forward line and dragging our tall defenders away to isolate their small targets inside - Stringer, Dixon, Bont and Dale took 22 marks between them (12 inside 50) and kicked 8.7 between them.


That's what I saw.


You'd have seen it too if you weren't so hell bent on winning an unwinnable argument.


Let it go. I was right. It's no big deal.

I didn't realise that sort of detail, but it makes sense now.
Full marks to JM for picking this up in a brilliant analysis

They just mentioned this on SEN actually.

"Beveridge caught the Saints off guard by going with a small forward line"

[dragit]

LOL

[dragit]

I wonder if the crows will also go in small and play three rucks plus Walker & Jenkins.

[To the top]

The assessment of JM is correct

And I agree re Roughead and Longer, with Longer (again) badly exploited as noted - then they had other ruck options so beat us at selection

And they "went small" and found us out

So who else was not up to the task?

I know what I saw - and my proposed changes for this week reflect that

Stringer was just too mobile for Brown and we were too slow to put Gilbert onto him - acknowledging Gilbert had other responsibilities

So we were comprehensively beaten not just on the Chess Board but in personnel comparatives with their small defenders (given we also went "small" in attack

[To the top]

The interesting aspect of the image is that Carlisle had taken a mark - and there are 6 WB players in the frame with only 5 Saints players, one with ball in hand, 2 on the outer and not in a position to give option because they have WB players inside them, Gilbert blocking one of their players and a covered Montagna looking to make space

So where were Carlisle's options to set up run and carry from deep in defence?

Where was the required release option - because were outnumbered and out positioned, near their goal square

This was typical of the game that unfolded

And we need to address this issue because the image is an indictment on our personnel and their positioning

When you have been around for a few years and you have done a few things these are the aspects you pick up on and then drill on

Carlisle was forced to a static disposal allowing any free player further afield to be defended

That is not the game in 2017

[dragit]

The interesting aspect of the image is that Carlisle had taken a mark - and there are 6 WB players in the frame with only 5 Saints players, one with ball in hand, 2 on the outer and not in a position to give option because they have WB players inside them, Gilbert blocking one of their players and a covered Montagna looking to make space

So where were Carlisle's options to set up run and carry from deep in defence?

Where was the required release option - because were outnumbered and out positioned, near their goal square

This was typical of the game that unfolded

And we need to address this issue because the image is an indictment on our personnel and their positioning

When you have been around for a few years and you have done a few things these are the aspects you pick up on and then drill on

Carlisle was forced to a static disposal allowing any free player further afield to be defended

That is not the game in 2017

A lot of words for what is essentially complete nonsense…

After Carlisle takes a mark between 3 small 200cm+ players, he handballs to Stevens 10m in the clear who handballs to Roberton who kicks it outside defensive 50 to Ross who marks… we kick a goal about 30 seconds later.

[dragit]

Meanwhile, by playing a small forward line and dragging our tall defenders away to isolate their small targets inside - Stringer, Dixon, Bont and Dale took 22 marks between them (12 inside 50)

Do you just make stuff up and hope that no-one checks?

Those 4 took 8 marks inside 50 between them, 6 came from stringer, one each from dickson and bont… none to dale

[To the top]

What were the scores in the game again?