PDA

View Full Version : Some good signs.....


PJ Power
21 Aug 2004, 02:41
Well, we would have taken a six goal win at the start of the week, when one considers the injury to Tredders and the subsequent furore over selection.

I thought it wasn't a game that should be bracketed as one of our best efforts and in truth there were lengthy periods of the game where we were either asleep or we lairized far too much, especially coming out of defence.

Even so, there were also patches where we played awesome footy, predominantly due to the efforts of Brendon Lade and his troop of hard-nuts in the middle: Dimma, Jamesy, Kane Cornes and to a lesser extent Carry and Burger.

Very disappointed with the TV commentary so it took me about 10 minutes to switch over to 5AA. I have to say that most commentary lacks real insight into what goes on out there. It is though people are just filling in time telling us the same things. Nevertheless, the early bias re umpiring calls and the unevenness of excitement shown when the respective teams scroed goals, made the TV crew a bit hard to bear. Eddie starts it, but the other three do nothing to lift the standard. Really surprised at how far Commetti has dropped with regards to his uneven calls.


Re the game:

Certain things surprised me about the way we started. I would have thought Kingers had earned a spot on the ground after the last month, and we missed his run early. Also, even though he did pretty little, I thought Cassisi could have been on the ground from the outset to show some desperation. Our second half of the first term was typical September stuff from our guys, with players literally looking frightened to do anything positive: Mahoney and Thurstans set the early scene with really weak attacks on the ball.

Quarter two was fantastic. Could not have been in starker contrast to the early laziness.
Have to say, if we want impact and clearances out of the middle, Dimma has to be on the ground. He has set a new standard for toughness in the last eight weeks. Just doesn't give away anything in a contest, even when out of it. Also impresses with his clearances, usually by hand but still effective.

Lade was brilliant. Ebert was asked on 5AA why Williams would have used Brogan in the ruck first, given Ladey's excellent recent form. Was it a kick in the guts for Brendon? Russell told us predictably that it was about sharing the workload and Brendon understood that.
Dean Brogan's early form resembled that of finals 2004 - from champ to chump.
Lade rectified it all. He now must be our main ruck force. Broges actually looks better and more competitive as a tall forward.

James was our best midfielder without question. Now you appreciate why he was so sorely missed last year.
Kane got plenty of it, but must have had a 50% clanger rate up to half-time. He was pretty cute with his disposal and was getting into Schofield and Burgoyne habits with his dicky handball and chip kicks out of defence.

Thought Peter Burgoyne evaded well, but disposal errors could have hurt against a quality team.

Carr looked more direct and interested tonight. Slowly, slowly he is resurrecting his season and kicking goals is a great sign.

Tredders was wonderful in the middle-part of the game. Took a great array of contested and leading marks. Inaccuracy would have cost him Brownlow votes tonight. He kicked terribly for goal. Again Russell blamed his shoulder injury.

Chad was pretty good really. Know his opponents got a bit of it, but each of Buckley's possessions were in no-man's land and he was rendered ineffectual. When there were 1-on-1s, they broke pretty even.

Wilson was solid. Probably one of only 2-3 guys in our side (along with James and Hardwick) who could have stopped Burns in some of those gut-wrenching hardball situations. Did very well.

I love that JB is still in defence. He is quality all over and reduced Neon Leon to a mere form of Peon (the Greek word for pus!).

Byron showed good signs - arguably his best game for a longtime.

Wangas was the cream on the cake and early he and Dimma were the only two players who didn't look to be playing in traditional Power September mode.



Now to players who did not do so well:
1. Mahoney and Cassisi - you could argue that they were due for poor games, but they seemed to fumble so much. They made Woewoedin look like a supreme aerialist on occasions. Neither provided any real class tonight. I only hope they don't go missing like that in two weeks.

2. Toby: the final statistics will show 2 goals. But it was a pretty meek effort really. Considering the quality of ball coming in and the lack of defensive prowess he was standing, it was really a downer by Toby. This is the last I will say about it here, but Damon must have been scratching his head and wondering just what Toby offers up there that he doesn't. Tonight should have been about Toby standing up and crashing through balls and packs and taking 6-10 quality marks. The opportunity was there. I think he met it half-heartedly. If you think a lack of composure or experience should deny players a finals spot, I think laconism is a bigger flaw by far. Not good enough for a final big fella.

3. Wakelin: really was unsure with his hands. He, Bishop and Chad on occasions made us look like the three stooges in defence. Didn't have much to do, but needs to bring a better game to the table.

I also thought that Monty looked a bit scratchy after two good weeks. Took a wonderful grab and didbn't play badly, but just wasn't clinical in snaring the footy and giving off well.


As for Cochrane - nice goal. I loved that little handball in that tight pack near the end of the third term at CHF, when Toby couldn't trap that half-volley. Pity Stuey the handball went to a nest of opponents. Don't panic mate.





Finally, when we were at our best tonight, the tackling was magnificent. We were at our worst when we overdid the handball and the criss-crossing short kicks out of defence.

Rucks tonight: 9/10 (Lade 7 of those and Brogan 2)

Forwards: 7/10 (inaccuracy and our reliance on Tredders, Pickett and Wangas let us down. More required from Mahoney, Cassisi and Thurstans)

Midfield: 9/10 (brilliant for the third week in a row)

Defence: 6/10 (some real botch-ups running out of defence despite being on an impotent forward opponent).







Overall a sound win but one we will need to tidy up on to make the big one.

wishbone
21 Aug 2004, 03:09
Forwards: 7/10 (inaccuracy and our reliance on Tredders, Pickett and Wangas let us down. More required from Mahoney, Cassisi and Thurstans).


I'm not sure being reliant on 3 of our main forwards to kick goals is too bad, but i know what you mean. :)

It's probably the best game i've been able to watch Port play at the MCG. Collingwood weren't nearly as loose as they usually are when we play them there.

One of our coaches said something along the lines of 'Players know they need to perform to stay in the team', when questioned about Dew's omission. I assume Cochrane will be questioned? Has ANYONE heard a reporter question Williams about it in a post-match interview? Ever?

sog35
21 Aug 2004, 10:54
I'm not sure being reliant on 3 of our main forwards to kick goals is too bad, but i know what you mean. :)

It's probably the best game i've been able to watch Port play at the MCG. Collingwood weren't nearly as loose as they usually are when we play them there.

One of our coaches said something along the lines of 'Players know they need to perform to stay in the team', when questioned about Dew's omission. I assume Cochrane will be questioned? Has ANYONE heard a reporter question Williams about it in a post-match interview? Ever?
I think there is an agreement in those post-match non-press conferance interviews just to ask some pretty generic questions. Complete waste of time.

sog35
21 Aug 2004, 11:00
I thought an even better sign was the players willingness to throw 2-3 players at a contest. More often than not if a Collingwood player got possession of the ball he would have a player chasing and a player peeling off the defensive line in front to attack the ball.

Malthouse may say they didn't pressure us enough to find out what we are truly like. It's a bit hard to judge how you are under pressure if you are the ones dishing it out. Pressure in finals won't matter if we start positively and agressively.

Personally I didn't think Thurstans was even on the ground. Maybe he was and I was just watching Tredders pluck them out of the sky. If we have Tredders in good form really all Thrust needs to do is get him and his man away from the contest OR provide an option further up the field. Maybe he was acting as a decoy. It was pretty hard to tell from the television. The angles aren't that great with the camera right on the boundary line.

Ford Fairlane
21 Aug 2004, 13:41
Good, solid, tough effort. Looked in control for most of the match. Like PJ, last mention of this, but a few times I thought how good it would look with Damon hitting the ball at pace thru HF/midfield. But other than that minor mention, can't complain. The twin towers were magnificent and BOTT (brother of twin tower) zoomed everywhere between them.

BTW anyone gonna give Cochrane votes for his goal ... ;)

portly
21 Aug 2004, 13:48
Our second half of the first term was typical September stuff from our guys, with players literally looking frightened to do anything positive


Yeah :(

I had a feeling of dejavu watching that!

_espoir
21 Aug 2004, 15:13
I only saw the second half, but our ball handling during the 3rd and last quarter seemed very solid.

Thought Peter Burgoyne evaded well, but disposal errors could have hurt against a quality team.

Sometimes his and his brother's over use of the ball lands us in trouble. Too much "showing off", only down fall to the handling. Mostly in the backlines. Seemed like they need all the defenders to have a least 2 touches before heading down to the forward line. Need to play a more of a direct attack out of the backlines.

Otherwise, Lade/Tredders (yet needs to slot those simple shots)/James/Cornes x2/Wilson, impressive!

sog35
21 Aug 2004, 15:18
Before I forget, how good was that tap from Lade to Pickett for the goal. At least on par with Brogan feeding Burns.

Ford Fairlane
21 Aug 2004, 15:22
Before I forget, how good was that tap from Lade to Pickett for the goal. At least on par with Brogan feeding Burns.

And Broges's tap to rovin' Ladey!

dyertribe
21 Aug 2004, 15:26
_espoir: Agreed re the Burgoynes - sometimes you just need to put it on your boot. If it works ok well and good, but if it doesn't, especially in the back 50, you're in a world of hurt.

sog35
21 Aug 2004, 15:32
_espoir: Agreed re the Burgoynes - sometimes you just need to put it on your boot. If it works ok well and good, but if it doesn't, especially in the back 50, you're in a world of hurt.
I think that are just trying to do what they are instructed to do. Although it looks bad when it breaks down it worked more than it failed last night. Honestly they could run it out well 9 times out of 10 but the one remembered will be Cornsey snapping it over his shoulder to Lade and Burgoyne and getting outmarked.

I'd rather try and get the run out of defence working than keep turning the ball over on the wing and having the ball pumped into our defence.

Pred
21 Aug 2004, 15:37
I'd rather try and get the run out of defence working than keep turning the ball over on the wing and having the ball pumped into our defence.Definitely.

dyertribe
21 Aug 2004, 15:55
I'd rather try and get the run out of defence working than keep turning the ball over on the wing and having the ball pumped into our defence.

No doubt, just on occasion it was more headless chicken than calm and assured.

Without wishing to sound alarmist, that sort of stuff might fly against a poor Collingwood side already onto their third drink on mad Monday, but in September decision-making like that will be put under the hubble telescope.

Again, nothing wrong with trying to generate run - it was the shotgun handballs that were the worry, and as I initially said and _espoir alluded to, sometimes you just need to put it onto your boot.

sog35
21 Aug 2004, 16:06
No doubt, just on occasion it was more headless chicken than calm and assured.

Without wishing to sound alarmist, that sort of stuff might fly against a poor Collingwood side already onto their third drink on mad Monday, but in September decision-making like that will be put under the hubble telescope.

Again, nothing wrong with trying to generate run - it was the shotgun handballs that were the worry, and as I initially said and _espoir alluded to, sometimes you just need to put it onto your boot.
Fair play. But we have to give it a shot in September. In September's past we haven't even given it a shot.

I think the handball run out of defence is the least of our worries. If Lade can win the rucks like he is doing now, we will be in good shape. Our hardness around the ball was and is the most important thing. It WAS a danger game against an opponent that always has given us trouble and we blew them away with our intensity, led by Dimma.

_espoir
21 Aug 2004, 16:10
as I initially said and _espoir alluded to, sometimes you just need to put it onto your boot.

its dangerous to agree/quote me...... normally i dont make sense.

Bresh
21 Aug 2004, 16:22
Handpassing at all costs will not win finals. Make assured handpasses to the correct players, and you're laughing, but handballing for handballs sake won't fly in September. I don't see how handpassing to a guy who has someone a metre from him is included in "getting the run from defence working".

Running the gameplan is no excuse for a bad decision. It's like kicking for Tredders if he's 4-on-1 simply because he's a machine.

sog35
21 Aug 2004, 16:34
Handpassing at all costs will not win finals. Make assured handpasses to the correct players, and you're laughing, but handballing for handballs sake won't fly in September. I don't see how handpassing to a guy who has someone a metre from him is included in "getting the run from defence working".

Running the gameplan is no excuse for a bad decision. It's like kicking for Tredders if he's 4-on-1 simply because he's a machine.
And I reiterate. More often than not it comes off. We all remember the stuffup's because they are frustrating to see no matter what. Some people get frustrated at handpassing but eventually getting out of trouble, others like myself get frustrated by kicking long and losing the ball on the wing.

I do not believe we handpass at all costs and I also believe it is pretty low down on the things we need to fix. Starting well and imposing ourselves physically and mentally on the opposition need to be priorities because running the ball out of defence will then become second nature.

Our handpasses last night were primarly to advantage. Collingwood's handpassing was PAFC circa 2002/03 handpassing.

Bresh
21 Aug 2004, 16:40
And I reiterate. More often than not it comes off. We all remember the stuffup's because they are frustrating to see no matter what. Some people get frustrated at handpassing but eventually getting out of trouble, others like myself get frustrated by kicking long and losing the ball on the wing.


I don't look at it as one stat though. 10/10 of our handballs to open players get the run through defence going, 10/10 of our unnecessary handballs to guys who are manned-up see the ball turnover. There is no reason to make the latter handpass. Cut it out and we're unstoppable.

In finals, you can bet your bottom dollar that Brisbane will be contesting all of said handballs.

Andre
21 Aug 2004, 16:47
Sometimes his and his brother's over use of the ball lands us in trouble. Too much "showing off", only down fall to the handling. Mostly in the backlines.
I'd agree about Peter. Shaun had what is becoming a now customary run out of defense bouncing the ball whilst burning off his opponent. He's only been caught the once I can remember in defense - and really he should have had a teammate saying something then. Peter though I always get tense when he trys to do something - most of the time it works, but sometimes he just does the dumbest things. Though admittedly not too much the last few weeks. Hopefully it stays that way!

sog35
21 Aug 2004, 16:50
I don't look at it as one stat though. 10/10 of our handballs to open players get the run through defence going, 10/10 of our unnecessary handballs to guys who are manned-up see the ball turnover. There is no reason to make the latter handpass. Cut it out and we're unstoppable.

In finals, you can bet your bottom dollar that Brisbane will be contesting all of said handballs.

I can't recall too many handpasses to players manned up :confused:

Most of the time players are running off their man trying to create space and options. JB being a prime exponent.

I think the major issue with the handpass out of the defence is when their is a skill or handling error. I'd like to see us go a little bit more cautious with the handpass 10-20 metres out from goal. I'd even like to see us rush a few more balls through for points. It's not a sign of weakness boys!

Andre
21 Aug 2004, 16:50
I don't look at it as one stat though. 10/10 of our handballs to open players get the run through defence going, 10/10 of our unnecessary handballs to guys who are manned-up see the ball turnover. There is no reason to make the latter handpass. Cut it out and we're unstoppable.

In finals, you can bet your bottom dollar that Brisbane will be contesting all of said handballs.
Couldn't have put it better. The handball out of defense WHEN IT'S THE RIGHT OPTION looks great and is very effective. I don't think anyone is saying just bomb it long on those occasions, however too many times when the choice has been handball to a player under pressure or kick it long to a contest players take the handball to a player under pressure. Either choice there's a 50-50 chance of a turnover, but on those occasions those 50 that go against us are at least further up the field and more time to get it back ourselves.

_espoir
21 Aug 2004, 16:53
Shaun had what is becoming a now customary run out of defense bouncing the ball whilst burning off his opponent. He's only been caught the once I can remember in defense - and really he should have had a teammate saying something then.

Agreed. He has the pace, along with Bishop. They kinda remind me of Cockatoo-Collins, they have the skills and pace just sometimes either over do it or it doesn't come off to plan when they could have just drilled it to a player. But thats not in every case. I do quite enjoy the ball handling from them all sometimes. :)