aboynamedsue wrote:
ferdinand wrote:
Seemed like lots of those contests where Port outmarked us way too easily. After watching Teague's press conference, I'm not sure that Gibbons can be accused of lacking composure, seems like he was doing exactly what he was expected to do.
Yep. The alternative for Gibbons was to kick backwards into our defensive fifty. Port would have pressed up and the next kick would have been dicey unless we could somehow get a free man. He took seconds off the clock, steadied and kicked long to a contest on the boundary where we had Pittonet, Levi & Harry. It wasn’t a bad option if there was nothing else on.
The really disappointing thing was that Pittonet, Levi & Harry couldn’t kill the contest and get the ball out of bounds. Getting out marked in that situation is unforgivable.
We seemed to turn it over time and time again kicking it long to a contest.
We need to work on positioning and having someone at the fall of the ball. Port seemed to be able to take it away from those contests with ease.
I thought we were clearly outmuscled and outbodied in contested/clearance situations as well but we somehow stuck with them.
We did bloody well and should have earned some respect. I guess it's good that losing hurts again? @#$%&! that top of the ladder team had to be one that got away.
It doesn’t matter how many you have at the fall of the ball if the opposition mark it! Pittonet, Levi or Harry needed to impact that last contest. Opposition marks in our forward line is a source of immense frustration for me, especially when we field 3 tall targets down there. For me, the long kick into attack isn’t the problem, it’s when our big blokes allow the opposition to mark it.