cortez wrote:
9. Why did you play Kreuzer?
Kreuzer: 6 disposals: 2 marks: 0 scores: 91% game time.
Hampson: 9 disposals: 4 marks: 1 goal 2 behinds: 7 hitouts: 94% game time.
Warnock: 14 disposals: 5 marks: 0 scores: 42 hitouts: 91% game time.
McEvoy: 20 disposals: 10 marks: 0 scores: 18 hitouts: 87% game time.
Hickey: 14 disposals: 5 marks: 0 scores: 9 hitouts: 82% game time.
Dear cortez,
Once again I'll respond until Malthouse registers an account.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We thought that we could contain Big Boy McEvoy with a full rotation system on the bench. Once we lost both Yarran and Ellard, our rotation system of one tall and two mid-fielders was torn to pieces. Ideally we would have liked to rotate Warnock and Kreuzer through the ruck and rest the one on the bench while having a complete compliment of midfielders. Again, this was destroyed.
The dominance of of Big Boy McEvoy is two things. Firstly we kicked it right to where he was stationed in our forward fifty, and oh boy, wowee, did you see him take all those marks? We really served it up to him and it wasn't smart at all to continually do so. Secondly, it's hard to explain the absence of at least one tall causing a spillage even with Big Boy blocking the hole. One thing we did well against West Coast in particular was stopping Big Cox taking defensive marks (which he is very good at). We would deliberately go for the spoil, and allow our players to crumb. We failed at doing this on Monday night. With so much defensive rebound for the Saints, this was a game killer for us.
We thought we had the right mix. We did not have a strong position to adjust to when we lost two mids. (Had we lost a tall, we arguably could have compensated much better).
This is something we'll learn from as we move forward because it is not the game plan we have been working on.
*not authorised as an official response from Mick Malthouse.