Structurally it wasn't Pitto for Cerra. We weren't down a midfielder, we were down a pressure forward. Cerra/Fogarty out, Walsh/Pitto in.
So a starting midfielder goes out and is replaced by a superior one. A pressure forward goes out and is replaced by a ruckman.
I'm not blaming Pitto or the selections for the loss. Voss said in his press conference the coaches have been discussing the right time to try the 2 rucks and it's a structure we can go forward with if we need to. Injuries require creative solutions.
There's benefits and detrimental impacts either way. Pitto comes in and he gives us support in the ruck and our clearance numbers improve. The downside is we lose flexibility, defensive integrity and forward pressure IMO. We also have ruckmen taking up a rotation for best part of three quarters of the game for tactical reasons. It's a work in progress finding the formula.
We'd averaged 19 forward 50 tackles this season, Saturday we had 11. You can talk about the ease that Adelaide moved the ball yesterday and how they hit up their forwards. That's pressure from behind that's missing. When Voss talked about us not defending as well as we could have, he's not just talking about our defenders. 18 marks inside 50 to Adelaide yet they only had 6 contested marks all over the ground for the entire day.
But IMHO, that's not the main reason we lost. As much as it contributed significantly. We lost because we didn't capitalise on our opportunities and didn't ice the game when we had the chance. 28 scoring shots to 20 with more inside 50's, you shouldn't lose the match. Especially to a winless team that lost 8 of their away matches last year!
The challenge is back to the coaches now. What do you prioritise? Can you have a balanced game (turnover/clearance/defence) with 2 rucks or if not, how do you build your structure moving forward to achieve the best model. Which of those do you value the most and how can you capitalise on those achievable phases to bring short/long term success. Voss said after the game he's not caught up in clearance numbers, we won the clearances but lost the game. So which lever does he pull?
I've made no secret that I like the 1 ruck, 2 tall forward model. Injuries will occur and IMHO, both rucks will get their share at playing significant AFL time. Plus I believe Harrys game has improved by having a stint in the ruck. But I keep an open mind and I know most other posters will do the same. Don't get sucked into the narrative of conforming to the views of the loudest or the trolls. There is no one magic model that will satisfy our needs. Be open to having a different opinion.
Speaking of trolls. I've had a bit of a running battle with a couple on this site the past 6 months. I've mostly ignored them. Just stayed away or not responded to their baiting. But if you want a laugh, go back and read the post game thread from opening round. I had the audacity to suggest we were fortunate to get over the line against Brisbane as they missed several easy shots at goals. Not that we didn't deserve the win but their inaccuracy assisted us. The trolls took great delight in mocking that viewpoint in several consecutive posts. Scoring efficiency??? I obviously didn't factor the pressure we applied and I belonged in the nervous nellies thread.
After we lost playing an additional ruckman Saturday? Well, it was obviously because we missed too many shots at goal! The scoring shots tell the tale!
"Boom" was the phrase, corroborating totally opposing views in each thread from a disciple.
It just goes to show. You don't have to expose trolls. As their posting is often based upon baiting and not conviction of viewpoint, their hypocrisy and arrogance will see them eventually expose themselves.
Looking forward to what the coaches come up with.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
