bluechampion wrote:
In some respects this reminded me most of the St. Kilda loss. Another team we always struggle to match-up with, and we looked 'off' from the first bounce. Like the 9-day break and all the back-and-forth had left us a little flat. Players were getting stuck over the ball and unable to pick it up cleanly off the deck all day. Partially this was Collingwood's pressure, but even early we just couldn't be clean where we have been pretty clean the last month.
I appreciate everyone's frustration with this loss, as I am also frustrated in a way I have not been this season. We've actually been okay for seven weeks - basically since the Saints loss. We followed that up with our best win of the season vs. The Dogs. Then a pulsating narrow loss against the top-of-table Port. A solid win against North. The Hawks game... we played very well in that game for a period before being overwhelmed by an opponent that got on a roll. The Eagles loss - we played really well that day and it didn't work out against one of the better teams in the comp. We then out-played Freo for three quarters and snatched a game in shit conditions before easily accounting for Gold Coast in different shit conditions, and despite extreme inaccuracy.
So we've been up for a while, even if we haven't got the results we wanted. Looking across the competition, that's par for the course outside of maybe the Eagles (and their are question marks over their ability to win on the road), Port (who are very good, but have had some narrow wins lately), The Cats (who are on a genuine roll), The Tigers (also on a roll, but also having some narrow wins) and Brisbane (inaccuracy is harming their chances). Everyone else in the comp, bar North and Adelaide are 'thereabouts'. Teams who can win on their day. We fit into this category.
Speaking specifically about this game, it's interesting... We have had a settled back seven for 90% of the season. We made a change to it and they played as poorly as they have since the first quarter of the Melbourne game. We have mostly eliminated mistakes from kick-outs and handling errors in the backline this year, but we made all of them yesterday. Gifting goals from shit kick-ins and loose handballs under pressure...
Jones did okay on Cox (who the Pies actually used well for a change). Weitering took care of Mihocek, but I also think Mihocek drew Weitering out of the hole, which is why Plowman was forced to play Stephenson looser than he'd like. Plow seemed to be playing off his man so that he could drop into the space in front of Cox because Weitering was elsewhere. This allowed Stephenson the room he needed, and the Pies were good enough to get it to him. Williamson tries to do too much sometimes. Docherty was pretty good. Simmo fairly anonymous and Polson made no difference at all. If he's going to be a running defender, surely he has to run and then hit targets?
I think Pittonet's output has dropped since they picked De Koning. Pitto was anonymous all day, except for the period late in the second where we got on top in the centre, and he attended a couple of those centre-bounces. I'd drop Pittonet except I'm not sure you'd want to ruck De Koning all day. I'm not sure he's up to it yet. De Koning was good, but it'd be nice if he took a couple of those marks inside forward 50, and not just the ones further afield. Also, I think Casboult plays better when he get a run in the ruck. It can get him off his opponent and allows him to crash into blokes a bit and just get involved. Hes been down for a month, I reckon. Also just about the length of time De Koning has been in the team...
We base a huge amount of our game on locking the ball in the forward 50 and trying to generate scoring shots from pressure. This is a good strategy when it pays off, and honestly, depending on the umpires. If you have a trigger-happy umpire you can get some cheap shots at goal. We were unlucky against West Coast - we generated so much pressure in the forward 50, laying tackle after tackle and it all went unrewarded. Same yesterday in the 3rd Q, except I think that Collingwood actually didn't infringe and their reciprocal pressure was maybe even better than ours. Every time we shoved the ball out the next possession was under-the-pump, even when we retreated to 60 meters out where the defenders were zoned. That's great discipline from Collingwood. None of their forwards wandered off to let their man get a kick. So we generated very little from our pressure - except in the first quarter: Walsh's goal was from forward-line pressure. As an aside we've done this a lot this year. There have been long periods of play, especially in the third quarter, where we lock the ball in and spend huge amounts of energy and effort for little return. The Melbourne game comes to mind again. Even with Betts (who is not the player he was, and we cannot expect him to be), we lack natural forwards in this regard. Blokes with x-factor. Charlie Curnow has it, Fisher has a bit of it... maybe Cunningham. Guys who can turn a half-chance into a goal.
Interestingly we must have had an instruction to not just attack the goals. I have a feeling that Collingwood generate lots of scoring from the backline, so we were trying very hard not to just score points and hand the ball over. They highlighted how little of the ball Maynard and Moore had at half-time, so we'd clearly worked on getting them out of the game. And in not just having a ping at the goals in the third, we were continuing to try and avoid handing the ball over. Unfortunately, as we became more desperate and kept on banging the ball forward, we started to do just that. Collingwood was much more disciplined in getting an extra tall into the hole so that our tall forwards were outnumbered. Then they took intercept marks, and started chains of possession. And our small forwards drifted up the ground trying to get involved and so Maynard and Quaynor started to get the footy in space.
I don't rate Cripps as highly as a lot of people do, and I think he's struggling. I'm not for giving him a rest or putting the cue in the rack. He's a professional footballer, and a well-paid one as well. I strained my voice bellowing in disgust at Martin when he [REDACTED] up passing it to Cripps. Not just for the poor execution, but the target. And I left the room to get a drink when Cripps took the mark late in the game. I knew what was going to happen. With Martin (50/50), Cripps (hopeless), Dow (historically bad), Casboult (better from far out), Murphy (who is still good on the run) and McKay (50/50) in the side... There's just too little confidence they'll actually kick the goals when they get opportunities.
So, a disappointing day at the office. I'm not as despondent as some folks, but I will admit to basically composing this post in the pre-dawn hours when I was laying in bed unable to sleep and all I could think about was the footy. I think it will be an interesting match-up with GWS.
Enjoyable read.
First time I read this I thought you were at the ground, and could see what the problem was with Plowman. Then I realised you did saay "I think..." and " "it seems..."
Making excuses for Plow me thinks.
Any backman who can see the ball coming into their area and doesn't have touch with his opponent is either [ not doing his job ] or [ doesn't respect his opponent ] or [ not a good backman ] or [ can't play against certain types ] or [ not interested ] or [following the coaches instructions to get some votes in the B N F ].
Plow
Levi
Cripps
Doch
Murph
all senior players
all leaders
all let us down badly
Crippas worst game of the year in his worst year for the club
Doch hasn't been the same since he got tagged (did well against a tired GCS)
Levi was plain lazy
Plow was playing Russian Roulette on the last line
Murph was gutless in the contest, again.
Am I wrong?
Was it all Teague's fault for allowing it to happen and not mixing things up?