The 'opposition run on'
Why is it happening so often?
How do we stop it?
No doubt it's a topic of hot discussion amongst our coaching group.
They're struggling to find the answer.
There seems to be a couple of 'schools of thought' at a supporter level....
Some see us as 'very close'. We dominate games for long stretches. If we can just stop these constant periods where the opposition get a bit of run... we'll be there!
Other see us as still a 'fair way away'. A line up that's far from settled. To them it just seems the opposition have to press a button, go up a level, and we have no answer.
Is it a mental/attitude thing? (not coming ready to play, switching off when in a winning position)
Is it a personnel issue (players capable of the shutdown)
Is it a 'fitness issue'? (possibly, but many of these lapses occur in early parts of a game.)
Is it a leadership problem when these runs occur? (Who stands up?)
Is it a coaching issue (moves that don't occur, or don't work)?
(All of the above?)
The 'opposition run on'
Why is it happening so often?
How do we stop it?
No doubt it's a topic of hot discussion amongst our coaching group.
They're struggling to find the answer.
There seems to be a couple of 'schools of thought' at a supporter level....
Some see us as 'very close'. We dominate games for long stretches. If we can just stop these constant periods where the opposition get a bit of run... we'll be there!
Other see us as still a 'fair way away'. A line up that's far from settled. To them it just seems the opposition have to press a button, go up a level, and we have no answer.
Is it a mental/attitude thing? (not coming ready to play, switching off when in a winning position)
Is it a personnel issue (players capable of the shutdown)
Is it a 'fitness issue'? (possibly, but many of these lapses occur in early parts of a game.)
Is it a leadership problem when these runs occur? (Who stands up?)
Is it a coaching issue (moves that don't occur, or don't work)?
(All of the above?)
1. On-field leadership. Too much reliance on too few - too many passengers/lack of discipline.
2. Reactionary game day changes only.
3. Loser in-ground culture resulting from 20 + years of instability = zero killer instinct - fold under pressure/brittle confidence/not enough mongrel.
4. Injuries to key personnel / playing injured & poor performing blokes.
5. Is the game plan designed to suit the list (?) or are we trying to make blokes into things they're not - square peg, round hole syndrome.
Just some thought starters.
It is a lack of self belief ( probably justified) within a group of players who know that when pressured they are not good enough mentally or skill wise to deal with quality opposition.
When added to a complete lack of leadership onfield when the pressure is applied and little or no help from the coaches' box, we have a perfect recipe for producing the disgraceful last quarter performance we had yesterday.
Its all of the above, I think in this order:
Fitness/Mental - These two go hand in hand (Mens Sana in Corpore Sano), something not quite right it seems. We fall away physically and aren't competitive which lets teams in. I dont see us as having elite fitness, we look out on our feet at (the wrong) times. Healthy mind then leads to good decisions. we are poor decision makers (e.g Jones trying to mark instead of spoil and kill it).
Coaching - When the above starts to happen, the coaches need to make the right move or have a plan/tactic at the right time. The coach said they tried stuff and didn't work, did they?
Leadership - Onfield to drive the coaching move or game plan/tactic when needed. They need to see it before the coaches do almost. Forget Cripps, he is busy trying to win a Brownlow and be the hero. Doc should be doing much better in this regards given his coaching aspirations. This is the one we are poorest at it seems.
You didn't list personnel but get the following in and things are different:
TDK (in place of Levi)
C Curnow (a fit one, in place of Cottrell)
Fisher (in place of Gibbons)
Martin (in place of Newnes)
You didn't list personnel but get the following in and things are different:
TDK (in place of Levi)
C Curnow (a fit one, in place of Cottrell)
Fisher (in place of Gibbons)
Martin (in place of Newnes)
I did mention personnel...but from a shut down/stopping point of view.
Who was looking after Bont in the last quarter. (probably needed two or three.)
I did mention personnel...but from a shut down/stopping point of view.
Who was looking after Bont in the last quarter. (probably needed two or three.)
Not sure anyone was solely responsible.
I made a comment that he was the only person we had to stop before the floodgates opened....in the 3rd.
Soon after he was taking intercept marks in D50, and linking up through the middle. Did it a couple times.
In the last he lifted another gear and was helping out down in defence, pushing forward hard and was obviously in the midfield too.
He went wherever he wanted to go, wherever he needed to go and we simply didn't have a good matchup for him.
I suspect we were trying to 'swap out' or 'handover' when he went deep one end or the other, and because he did it so often, he was often without an opponent nearby.
I did mention personnel...but from a shut down/stopping point of view.
Who was looking after Bont in the last quarter. (probably needed two or three.)
I keep saying it but when you have Cripps in the middle his man is a free spirit and if its someone decent then you have real problems. The coach keeps backing Cripps in to win the day, get more ball, do more damage etc but the reality is he isnt doing any of that on a consistent basis and if its the Bont, Macrae, Treloar etc playing as his man they are going to carve us up.
From memory Ed had Treloar, Libba had Walsh which meant the Bont would have been the spare on Cripps...
I keep saying it but when you have Cripps in the middle his man is a free spirit and if its someone decent then you have real problems. The coach keeps backing Cripps in to win the day, get more ball, do more damage etc but the reality is he isnt doing any of that on a consistent basis and if its the Bont, Macrae, Treloar etc playing as his man they are going to carve us up.
From memory Ed had Treloar, Libba had Walsh which meant the Bont would have been the spare on Cripps...
We did well for three qtrs EB.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-troubling-stats-behind-carlton-s-fade-out-20210510-p57qin.html
We did well for three qtrs EB.
Carlton used to win games all the time by playing one (Premiership)quarter back in the good old days.
A wise supporter told me that.........😉
You look at the Bonts stats vs Cripps and tell me you can get away with teams better mids getting a free ride when they play on our co captain.. I remember Collingwood started this with Pendlebury a season or two back, Saints copied with Steele and now every club does it.
The run on.
Its really simple. We convert one behind to a goal, and that run on is a non event.
We compound the issue, by using the ball poorly, and making stupid decisions (like playing on from a pack mark on the wing and getting done for holding the ball).
Its the biggest misnomer in history to worry about run ons like they are habitual patterns that play out because we cant or wont stop it. We can, we just dont, because we miss too many easy shots for goal.
Geelong kicked 8 in a row against the reigning premiers on friday night. Richmond fumbled and they scored a lot. Stop fumbling so much, and this is the magic potion that stops it, retain possession and take the momentum back.
Its the number one way to arrest the momentum turn, and that is possess the footy.
We turn it over. Stop the turnovers, stop the run ons.
Carlton used to win games all the time by playing one (Premiership)quarter back in the good old days.
A wise supporter told me that.........😉
You look at the Bonts stats vs Cripps and tell me you can get away with teams better mids getting a free ride when they play on our co captain.. I remember Collingwood started this with Pendlebury a season or two back, Saints copied with Steele and now every club does it.
I agree with you, all I was saying is we did a lot right and well for 3 qtrs against the second best team in the comp.
As far as the Cripps v Bont argument, Bont has nudged ahead. Better impact player, better leader (from a supporter looking in) and a slightly more reliable kick for goal.
I agree with you, all I was saying is we did a lot right and well for 3 qtrs against the second best team in the comp.
As far as the Cripps v Bont argument, Bont has nudged ahead. Better impact player, better leader (from a supporter looking in) and a slightly more reliable kick for goal.
Think the Bont has bolted ahead, his skills are better and he is a strong unit, in the last quarter we just couldnt restrain him even when he was tackled. Cripps was like Samson but Russell decided to play Deliah and cut his size back to make him quicker and its been downhill since with him being injured and teams showing him no respect by not playing taggers on him but playing their better mids so they get a free run once the stoppage has finished like I said.
The modern quicker game has caught up with him and when you are slow to start with and then have to carry the team on your back along with your own injuries its made him as much a liability as a weapon.
We did do a lot right but never really had them by the throat and I think we all knew what was coming at 3/4 time.....
Think the Bont has bolted ahead, his skills are better and he is a strong unit, in the last quarter we just couldnt restrain him even when he was tackled. Cripps was like Samson but Russell decided to play Deliah and cut his size back to make him quicker and its been downhill since with him being injured and teams showing him no respect by not playing taggers on him but playing their better mids so they get a free run once the stoppage has finished like I said.
The modern quicker game has caught up with him and when you are slow to start with and then have to carry the team on your back along with your own injuries its made him as much a liability as a weapon.
We did do a lot right but never really had them by the throat and I think we all knew what was coming at 3/4 time.....
He's heavier this year, he stripped a few kegs off last year.
Cripps is clearly injured.
The Club needs to force the guy to rest and heal.
He's no good to anyone in his current physical and mental state.
Mentally, he's trying to do way too much.
Adopt the KISS principle Crippa ffs.
we need team defence been saying this for years ,we need to run back and plug the holes in our d50
We apply the least amount of pressure in the comp. It's that simple.
We apply the least amount of pressure in the comp. It's that simple.
When you cant be bothered manning the mark for a kick on goal thats a giveaway about their mindset.
Never seen that before in a senior AFL game, thats year 7 schoolboy stuff when the kids who prefer quiet times in the library are
seconded to make up the numbers and have zero interest in the game.
Other coaches would have gone off their nut with attitude, Ross Lyon goes on about our lack of pressure and where we rate in the comp each week on Footy class when he does his game reviews.
We apply the least amount of pressure in the comp. It's that simple.
Part of that must be coaching. I'm quite certain that the boys are playing to instruction. I'm of the opinion that Teague wants the players not to be sucked into the contest, to be ready for the next chain of disposals. Obviously the balance is off at the moment, and as Leppitsch says, it's something that needs tweaking and not wholesale renovation.
When you cant be bothered manning the mark for a kick on goal thats a giveaway about their mindset.
Never seen that before in a senior AFL game, thats year 7 schoolboy stuff when the kids who prefer quiet times in the library are
seconded to make up the numbers and have zero interest in the game.
Other coaches would have gone off their nut with attitude, Ross Lyon goes on about our lack of pressure and where we rate in the comp each week on Footy class when he does his game reviews.
I mentioned this in the other thread.
I think it was a tactic.
If you rewatch, you'll see Eddie Betts is running flat stick at the goal kicker as play on is called. He just got the kick away.
I think without a man on the mark a player will walk/run into goal past where the mark was (thus being called play on) and it may catch him by surprise and make him miss when the likes of Eddie is closing fast.
It didn't work, but it almost worked.
I mentioned this in the other thread.
I think it was a tactic.
If you rewatch, you'll see Eddie Betts is running flat stick at the goal kicker as play on is called. He just got the kick away.
I think without a man on the mark a player will walk/run into goal past where the mark was (thus being called play on) and it may catch him by surprise and make him miss when the likes of Eddie is closing fast.
It didn't work, but it almost worked.
Ok sorry I missed your post and explanation, that would only work in a play on situation though wouldnt it?, if the player is walking in to kick on the same line and doesnt cross the mark then its just a unhindered kick at goal. I might watch it again on Kayo and take more notice of Eddie's movements.
Ok sorry I missed your post and explanation, that would only work in a play on situation though wouldnt it?, if the player is walking in to kick on the same line and doesnt cross the mark then its just a unhindered kick at goal. I might watch it again on Kayo and take more notice of Eddie's movements.
It would only work in a play on situation......and this one was a play on situation....that is he crossed the mark and the umpire called play on.