I'm wrapped we lost th Essendon* game..... Cause in hindsight, it was the kick in the ass that we so desperetly needed. Ratts, the players, everybody.
Lookng back, it's the best thing that's happened to us.
I LOVE the way were playing now.
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Should we be 6-2? http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28024 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | motts [ Tue May 18, 2010 2:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should we be 6-2? |
Lots of talk about injuries in the press this week and especially the impact of how players are pulling up after playing on the rock hard Gabba. Our performance against Essendon* after playing at the Gabba the week before was flat and totally different to how we've played every other game. Do you think this had an impact on our performance? |
|
| Author: | TomAlvin'sWig [ Tue May 18, 2010 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
I think the rock was one J. Brown, not the surface. That, us at that stage still learning to hold a lead. wrt to Essendon*, we didn't play our running game from the start so that's more to do with game plan, and when we eventually did we looked much better. Ratts was spooked again by Essendon*'s running ability. I wonder what he would do now if we played them again after our recent confidence-building wins? |
|
| Author: | woof [ Tue May 18, 2010 3:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
No, we just played soft, unaccountable football. All credit to Essendon* who stitched us up .... again. |
|
| Author: | buzzaaaah [ Tue May 18, 2010 3:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
If we hadn't lost to Essendon*, we mightn't have beaten Adelaide or Geelong or St Kilda. We could have been 6-2, 7-1, 5-3, 4-4, 3-5, whatever |
|
| Author: | jake_h03 [ Tue May 18, 2010 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
I thought after the Essendon*, we were THAT bad that it really could be the turning point in our season. It's still early but since then we have won 4 of 5, beating both S.A teams over there and last years 2 grand finalists, comfortably too. I'm not sure we would have won 4 of the last 5 if we hadn't had that shocker to kick us into gear |
|
| Author: | tommi [ Tue May 18, 2010 3:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
8 %$#@ING ZIP........... that's what we SHOULD be..............! eight...................%$#@ING............................NADA............! kindest regards tommi and TEN FLAGS IN A ROW...............! |
|
| Author: | CK95 [ Tue May 18, 2010 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
We had a 9 day break before the Ess game. No excuses. |
|
| Author: | Adam Chatfield [ Tue May 18, 2010 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
jake_h03 wrote: I thought after the Essendon*, we were THAT bad that it really could be the turning point in our season. It's still early but since then we have won 4 of 5, beating both S.A teams over there and last years 2 grand finalists, comfortably too. I'm not sure we would have won 4 of the last 5 if we hadn't had that shocker to kick us into gear Similar thing happened in 2008 when we lost to them in R3 (even though we didn't play as badly as R3 this year), seemed to galvanise us and we were much more consistent from then on. |
|
| Author: | Virgin Blue [ Tue May 18, 2010 5:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
We didn't beat Ess bec we never beat them, bec we don't know how to beat them and/or they just match up well on us like we have matched up well on the Dogs for a few years now The game we let slip was the Lions game. When I say 'let slip' I really mean we were unlucky bec J.Brown had one of his best games ever that night and single handedly beat us. Had he not had such a night out we would have won that game for sure. We also missed our skip that night. So all in all just a bit of bad luck that night But really this is a pointless exercise bec you win some and you lose some, you get some luck your way one day and then it goes the other way another day. At the end of the day your WL ratio is what it is. We are 5-3 and that is all there is to it. Mike Sheehan says we are the best of the rest but our % is not the rd best. We are 5th - let's see if we can beat the Hawks and go from there. |
|
| Author: | TruBlueBrad [ Tue May 18, 2010 5:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
motts wrote: Lots of talk about injuries in the press this week and especially the impact of how players are pulling up after playing on the rock hard Gabba. Our performance against Essendon* after playing at the Gabba the week before was flat and totally different to how we've played every other game. Do you think this had an impact on our performance? You'd have to look at how other teams pull up from a game at the Gabba to start with. |
|
| Author: | ryan2000 [ Tue May 18, 2010 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
I'm wrapped we lost th Essendon* game..... Cause in hindsight, it was the kick in the ass that we so desperetly needed. Ratts, the players, everybody. Lookng back, it's the best thing that's happened to us. I LOVE the way were playing now.
|
|
| Author: | lily of laguna [ Tue May 18, 2010 6:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
Actually I think we were helped a fair bit by the way Melb played the Crows the week before our game against them. It showed what a young team could do when playing direct quick football and using pace out of the backline to open up scoring opportunities in the fornt half. We also had to apply the defensive pressure that Melb did against the crows, which we did, but I know Ratts was at the game D's vs Crows and would have gained a good insight into how both teams played. I also think that we benefited from watching the doggies play the saints the week before too, we knew we had to play fast and "roll up" the ground in order to beat the zone. This is not in anyway a negative on the coaching staff, it just shows that the draw can have many impacts on a season, and that could haves and should haves are just part of an even competition. Still very happy with 5 - 3 especially given who we have played and the manner in which we have won. |
|
| Author: | blueblood2345678 [ Tue May 18, 2010 7:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
Yes. Could have even been 7-1 but i'm more than happy with 5-3. |
|
| Author: | molsey [ Tue May 18, 2010 7:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
Shoulds in football are like should in life - nothing but wasted space. You can ponder other alternatives but the only thing we have is what is. If we'd have won earlier against a lower grade Bombers, would we have turned on the pace and direct football (albeit running wide) that we currently have? I mean even Thornton sprinted forward and took a bounce on the weekend - BOING. Great stuff. We are where we are. |
|
| Author: | Belisarius [ Wed May 19, 2010 9:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
motts wrote: Lots of talk about injuries in the press this week and especially the impact of how players are pulling up after playing on the rock hard Gabba. Our performance against Essendon* after playing at the Gabba the week before was flat and totally different to how we've played every other game. Do you think this had an impact on our performance? It would be nice to blame the Gabba, but the Dogs won after playing up there and on a similar turnaround to us against Port. Although it was Adelaide they beat. I think we were just as nervous as all hell. Coaching staff down. I think the intention was there to take the game on when we had the chance, but we just couldn't execute. Walks very early in the first steamed through the centre to pump it into the forwardline, Sugar took a mark at CHB and played on straight away in traffic with his first possession I think, in senior football, which I think indicates the instruction was there to be proactive. Unfortunately we just kept on coughing it up and any momentum we were buliding was continually stifled. The continual mistakes also led to a number of players going into their shells. It is damn hard to win a game of football with a disposal efficiency of 65% and it was worse at halftime. Ten players were in the fifties with Waite at 35%. Army in the first half does all the hard work and then storming towards goal misses the lot. Walks, Sugar and Yazz all under little or no physical pressure miss targets by twenty or thirty metres and kick it out on the full. That is the indication of a tense team that just weren't relaxed enough to execute their skills. The workrate wasn't there either. The Bombers were much better than us with their defensive pressure and we continually seemed to be outnumbered which is generally a good indicator of which team is working harder. Offensively our little blokes (although no Garlett) weren't getting to the feet of our big blokes who couldn't catch a cold, which made it even more important. Forty two inside fifties isn't high, but we won with thirty six the next week against the Crows. Our execution on the night was deplorable. As much as I hate to say it the Bombers have to be given some credit. They counter attacked against us very well. It wasn't the usual shootout they have used to beat us in the past as they actually used the slowplay more than they usually did up until that point in time. This was a reaction to them being criticised for not being able to stop a team with a run on and to stop them running out of legs in the last quarter as they had in the previous two rounds. If we had played them the week before the game would have looked very different IMO. Some of the elements of our game that worked against St Kilda, for example, weren't possible against Essendon*, because of their faster backs. The also have a mental hold on us, as Port do against them and we do against Port  We really need to win our next game aginst them. Just to show that the coaching staff weren't totally with it on the night either, late in the third just after the Bombers had used their version of the slowplay keep possession signal(refreshingly a raised clenched fist  ), we when we won it back then used our own version. Why did we do this when it was obviously what the bombers wanted?  It was just a really poor night for pretty much all concerned at Blueland. This is where I totally agree with Rexy the personnel changes over the coming weeks allowed us to execute how we wanted to play a bit better. The main inclusion being Judd  The kick up the backside to senior players who performed badly also sent a strong message about acceptable performance levels.
|
|
| Author: | Virgin Blue [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
molsey wrote: Shoulds in football are like should in life - nothing but wasted space. You can ponder other alternatives but the only thing we have is what is. If we'd have won earlier against a lower grade Bombers, would we have turned on the pace and direct football (albeit running wide) that we currently have? I mean even Thornton sprinted forward and took a bounce on the weekend - BOING. Great stuff. We are where we are. Spot on |
|
| Author: | Navy Blue Horse [ Wed May 19, 2010 10:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
Only reason we lost to Brisbane was due to one of the great individual performances in living memory, simple as that. Brown was unbelievable that night. Can’t wait to play them at Etihad. |
|
| Author: | exsing [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
Shoulda coulda woulda... |
|
| Author: | Rod Spooky Galt [ Wed May 19, 2010 11:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
We truly should not have lost to Essendon*, other than that, fair enough. |
|
| Author: | blueboys101 [ Wed May 19, 2010 2:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should we be 6-2? |
shoulda woulda all bs we probably shouldnt have beaten geelong or st kilda maybe even adelaide bc we never beat them , its footy and its the team that plays better on the day |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|