Blue Vain wrote:
Thanks for the insight. Yes, I must be naive to think we'd be trying to negate some of the better defenders in the game.
Keeping Houli to his 3rd lowest possession numbers for the year. All Australian candidate Dylan Grimes to his lowest possession tally for the year. Massive failure.
Lucky you're here to set me straight on the strategies and tactics of the contest. FWIW, I'm not saying that's the role they played, as I said, I didn't see the game. I'm just suggesting there may have been roles for the players that weren't evident to those who aren't in the know.
Not including yourself of course.
C'mon BV, you like giving it but you can't take it.....at all!
Surely you're scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Have you thought for one minute that the majority of the game was played in the middle to their forward half of the ground. It's pretty easy to have your stats down when the ball is not near you and when it's easy to clear the ball from defence without the need to chip it around when it does go down there. 59 inside 50s to 43, there's 16 possible possessions right there. FWIW Houli's lowest possession numbers were in round 7 against the Dogs when the Tigers got belted by 47 points and Grimes only had 4 more possessions than on Sunday. Yet the Dogs still managed to hit the scoreboard.
It's not about being in the know BV, it's common sense. Something you seem to be eluding for the sake of arguing a moot point.
So unless you have some solid evidence that the message from coaching was to only defend and negate and not score (basically a defender) so the other players could hit the scoreboard (but didn't). Then it's still a fail for me.