anchorman
I think it was Goby who raised the issue about our seemingly short number of options when kicking the ball back into play after a behind.Yep a behind, not a point.
I have been wondering the same thing about it as well for a long time.As was said , it seems we have two options.Bomb it long, or kick it short.
There must be some other way to attempt to get the ball out of the back line.David Mundy sais on the weekend after the loss to Essendon, the players were too predictable.Yep Dave, they sure are.
Back line. kick long and to the boundary line where we have a tall.Or short to the pocket or straight in front of the square.
Forward line, kick the ball as long and high as possible going into the square.
Not sure about how to cure the back line problem, but as for going forward, when we are under siege, would it sometimes pay to keep the ball low going forward.Even if it is run along the ground, give our little men something to pay with.
We need something different to make us unpredictable.

2x25=Seinor&Michael.

29 = 353.

Improver one,Taylin Duman.

Improver two, Brett Bewley.
Smokey, Tobe Watson.
 

Quote 0 0
Goby

I understand there is nothing worse for player and team confidence when there’s a turnover in the forward 50 from a kick out and also boundary safety is sometimes simply a percentage play but

When there’s an option which is ignored or often there are no options at all, it’s frustrating.  Possibly sometimes the option is a young player and for that reason it isn’t taken.  Doesn’t matter if they are a few meters clear of their opponent or not. Freo seem to play a few “risks” each game then play the less risky option.  Yeah that seems a little predicable.  Perhaps that will change when more senior heads are on board or when the younger players grow.  Also possibly that changes with the experience of the opponent team.

It's not like other teams don't bomb it down the line quite a bit. But for goodness sake provide some options. 

Quote 0 0
Frederick Ziffel
anchorman wrote:
I think it was Goby who raised the issue about our seemingly short number of options when kicking the ball back into play after a behind.Yep a behind, not a point.
I have been wondering the same thing about it as well for a long time.As was said , it seems we have two options.Bomb it long, or kick it short.
There must be some other way to attempt to get the ball out of the back line.David Mundy sais on the weekend after the loss to Essendon, the players were too predictable.Yep Dave, they sure are.
Back line. kick long and to the boundary line where we have a tall.Or short to the pocket or straight in front of the square.
Forward line, kick the ball as long and high as possible going into the square.
Not sure about how to cure the back line problem, but as for going forward, when we are under siege, would it sometimes pay to keep the ball low going forward.Even if it is run along the ground, give our little men something to pay with.
We need something different to make us unpredictable.


Anchorman, there are only three options when kicking the ball back in after a behind.
Long to the back flank which was a good option when we had Sandi or Fyfe there, short to the pocket or straight in the corridor which is fraught with danger.

In my view, when we have Luke Ryan and Nathan Wilson kicking in I only feel safe when we take the 1st option although I have noted success when Wilson for example goes short to the pocket and then runs past for the handball return and then travelling his measure before sending the ball beyond the wing.

It’s fair to say all teams have the same choices as us but generally we clear it as well as any team does.
Stephen Hill and now Shane Kersten are also reliable long kicks. We have plenty of player options but still only the 3 choices of how to bring it back in.

I never like going down the corridor regardless of who kicks it.
Quote 0 0