I realise many don't pay attention to stats and some stats (like inside 50's) are a complete waste of time - but there are some stats that Mick Malthouse and crew would definitely be highlighting to the Carlton players and it spells a tale of woe. What happened in that second half? Who instructed the different style of play? (Who ordered the code red Colonel Jessop?) Carlton left the corridor as naked as Helen D'Amico in the 2nd half....why? Biggest crime in footy when playing Essendon*. Why? I want answers and YES...I can handle the truth goddammit!

Ok...let's start with the engine room.

The midfield was monstered in that second half. Score emanating from midfield clearances: Essendon* 5.4.34, Carlton 1.4.10

2nd half kicks Inside 50: Essendon* 25, Carlton 17. Score %: Essendon* 40%, Carlton 35.3%. Goal %: Essendon* 28%, Carlton 5.9%

Second half mark 'play on' percentage: Essendon* 41.5%, Carlton 16.7%. Slow and steady doesn't win anything in second halves. I find this stat particularly damning. It's a clear change in game style that isn't necessarily forced upon you by the opposition. It's a directive from upstairs. At least I think it is ...but why (prey tell, Mr Malthouse)...why?

2nd half turnovers: 17 each. 2nd half points from turnovers: Bombers 39, Blues 15...that's just pathetic!

So how about some individual performances? What happened to our backline players who weren't called Henderson or Walker?

Crameri 2nd half: Led all players with 16 disposals, had 5 marks, 4 inside 50's and a goal. Simon White - did you get ahead of yourself?

Carlisle 2nd half: 11 disposals, 9 marks (3 contested), 7 effective kicks, 3 inside 50's, 1 goal assist, 1 goal. We made this guy look like an All-Australian!

Joe Daniher led all players for disposals per minute tonight. When Jamison was moved onto him - all his birthdays came at once.

I'm at a loss to explain the change. There are other damning stats I'm sure - but I don't have a missed tackle count in front of me...

most of the dominance that you point out above happened from about the 16-17 mark of the 3rd quarter so it makes it even more galling

I think our most damning stat was that only 1 goal was kicked by a midfielder (Murphy).

Sure Betts/Garlett didn't do much however it isn't uncommon for small forwards to have quiet matches - regardless they should be the icing not the cake.

_________________
There is no footy god

When we stopped running.

_________________
I hope Essendon* folds.

Some very good observations there lads. As the Doc said WHY? Was it from upstairs? I am not sure. Why would he change a winning formula. My honest opinion is that I don't think we can sustain the way MM wants us to play for the whole game. We have had lapses against every team we have played this year. Unfortunately the goods ones end up beating us. I don't think it is fitness and believe it's a mental thing. Poorly skilled players get found out under pressure and we have a few.

to me it shows we struggle when sides come hard at us

start playing reactive footy and go into our shells

we definitely lack belief

we had Essendon* on toast in the first half and yet we were only 3 goals in front. Don't think Essendon* could have played worse.

From 10 minutes into the 3rd the players looked knackered.

_________________
I hope Essendon* folds.

Was basically a replica of the Fremantle V Essendon* game

This was it for me.

I was so confident we would just run away with it once the Bombers started chasing the game, we would take the game on and away from them. How wrong I was, thats what has guttered me.

I agree with how stagnant and stop/start we were in the second half. Very, very hesitant going forward and then left the middle wide open.

The sad thing is a lot went right last night and we generally had the better of the key match ups but still lost. Terribly deflating.

We have been unable to convert our dominance of general play to the scoreboard and are leaving sides in the game. Speaks to our inefficiency going forward for mine and also our non ability to cope when good sides come at us.

_________________
We are on our way back...

Interesting thread.

Not all Kreuzer's fault obviously, but this is a problem when he's our ruckman. At his best he seems to merely nullify the opposition. But then I thought Ryder belted him late in the game.

I have it on good authority that the missed tackle count figures were rubbed out by a K Lucas before being made public.

Seriously what were we thinking not playing Menzel or even Laidler. With all their attention on Waite and with Levi leading half way up the ground we had no other strong overhead mark to target near the goals. Take out Waite, and our conversion rate was atrocious. It is as though Waite has replaced Fev as our one man forward target.

Conundrum

MM has no strategy for the sub. A total of 11 touches in 4 games from our subs.

damn heavy training loads

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.

Here's a "damning stat"

In the past 5 years....
Calculate how many if our wins have been against teams who were in the top 8.

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

..really..?.. ..and yet krooz had more hitouts than ryder [35 to 34], and middle clearances we won 12 to 5.. ..and dont say it was levi, cos for all the time he had in the ruck he got 5 hitouts.. ..ryder only had a couple more possessions and just a couple more marks.. .. ..krooz had his dominant times in the game, as did ryder.. ..for the most part they had an even battle.. ..cant blame krooz for the mids and flankers giving up their run..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

Kreuzer had support in Casboult and Ryder had nothing. Yet in the last Q Ryder was jumping over Kreuzer and Casboult. Why didn't they stop him from jumping?
Shouldn't Ryder fade out in a 2 against 1 contest? WTF!!!!!

I read Ryder had 37 hit outs, nevertheless the 197cm part time ruckman did too well against 2 x 200cm ruckmen.....are they ruckmen or did they just play in the ruck?

Would Warnock have been more effective in the last Q?

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Great thread Doc.

Thanks for the insight.

What I noticed (and I've already mentioned it) is the 15-20 foot passes in the 3rd and 4th which didn't hit their targets...too short, just across, too high...I'm talking Murphy, Judd, Simpson, Walker, Kreuzer.....aren't they seasoned players by now?

Skills fell way.

Confidence fell away.

They took the win for granted.

The stats are damning....as for tackling...attack the flower hips and stop trying to predict the baulking...go for the pricks not corrall them. FMD!!

We have a good group of players....what are they being instructed? Good question Doc.

We have fitness gurus, Arizona, kids who've become men....why the fade outs...the opposition have built up bigger engines...we've fallen behind? Dunno.

I'm a glass full because we have not been blown out of the game by anyone except the first 3/4's against Tigers, but then came back to let let Yarran miss 3 shots at goal which could've won it for us....as we could against the Saints and Pies....we need to get the formula right.

Menzel is 187cms...is he a good sized target up forward? Hamill was.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

That's damning!!!!!!!

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue