View Full Version : Upside
1) Chaplin got knocked about by Archer, and didn't shy away from the contest.
2) Pearce is a player that will work to get us back into games that we are giving up.
Others?
PJ Power
2 Apr 2006, 21:25
Damon worked really hard - not unlike Tredrea, you could see him lead and lead again in the one play, get ignored and then dart back 30-50m before finally being in the contest.
My one fear is that he will not be the same player with Warren around and there will be great onus on the two and the coaches to get their system right to synergise not negate their combined influence on games.
Brett did ok. Held up in contests, worked hard, finished well. Main criticism would be sideways and slow movement of the ball.
Other than that, as you mentioned Pearce's ability to spark things up was refreshing. It did look out there as though he and Shaun Burgoyne were trying to lift the side on their own at the start of the last quarter. Pearce's two goals were both quality and difficult finishes.
Lade's game deserves mention. 18 touches, marks up forward and in defence. He could have got us right back into it in the last term, had that mark/free been paid and had he finished off with the later shot. Surprising he was off target with that one.
Unfortunately though, negatives massively outweighed any positives, especially in the clearance/turnover/run departments.
When Motlop went into the midfield he added that grunt we have been missing since Josh Carr went. Probably more Primus type grunt than Carr.
It certainly seemed to lift the intensity of tackles from our other players around him.
Ford Fairlane
2 Apr 2006, 22:57
Thomson proved he can mix it at this level. He just needs game time to pick up the pace. And he needs to put on 7kg at least. Choco has to understand that our midfielders generally aren't super quick so they need muscle to physically command the ball. Like Carr and James. They don't all have to be marathon runners.
The running game plan will work as long as they don't overhandle and not everyone runs to receive. Some have to get in and block. They did it for a while in the game and they practice it at training. But it takes discipline to keep doing it in the game.
I thought White was terrific. Even kicked a tough set shot when we really needed it. Held his marks well. Can't remember him doing much wrong. If we want to compare him to tredders, perhaps he could try imposing himself on ground contests more. Really hope he keeps it up. Tredrea's time off could be a big plus yet.
I thought players like Ebert, even Pearce, looked like they knew what they were doing. Ebert played on confidently on a few occasions, took a couple of forward 50 marks he normally would have dropped.
Almost seems like our younger players are trying to fill the gaps the veterans are creating.
Toots Hibbert
3 Apr 2006, 00:58
Ditto the positives that others have noted. Plus I liked Motlops physicality. He was prepared to run and chase, got to a couple of contests in time to spoil a mark due to running hard. One brilliant tackle in the middle where he slammed the North player down hard.
Both Ebert and White took a number of clean grabs instead of juggling like they often do. Hopefully a sign of greater poise.
Adam Thomson will have learnt a lot and did some useful work. Showed he's got some good skills by foot as well as by hand.
Ford Fairlane
3 Apr 2006, 08:56
At least reality has bitten early and we know that it's time to roll up the sleeves and do the hard yards of rebuilding (yep, we have to use that word) the midfield at least. So there are no more false expectations. It's also good that cliches are not unlawful ... ;)
And maybe a lesson has been learned about blooding young players into a successful team environment, and not waiting til after lost drop has been bled dry. But that's a long term upside.
Malibu#27
3 Apr 2006, 09:42
Adam Thomson will have learnt a lot and did some useful work. Showed he's got some good skills by foot as well as by hand.
He must get lots of gametime in the middle. By hand he appears to be a fraction ahead of the rest - and when he gets held he gets his arms free, and he has handball smarts to the pointwhere once or twice the player he got it to almost wasnt expecting it. Kicking he still needs to work on - not so much the execution - but the decision to use it.
EDIT - one thing I forgot to mention.... at numerous ball ins (at my end ofthe ground at least) Thomson was sitting front and centre ... alone (young and probably not respected by opposition), yet our ruckmen did not give the ball to him - instead it was directed to a congestion of players ... why ?
Damon worked really hard - not unlike Tredrea, you could see him lead and lead again in the one play, get ignored and then dart back 30-50m before finally being in the contest.
My one fear is that he will not be the same player with Warren around and there will be great onus on the two and the coaches to get their system right to synergise not negate their combined influence on games.
Damon White was goood to very good - as was mentioned on radio on the night - why the hell didn't our players use him up in the second half when he presented.
... but the negative:
Its well and good to trot out the "company line" that the Kangaroos were getting numbers behind so we didnt want to turn it over - but heres a newsflash - we were turning over the ball anyway - and we were 50 M closer to their goals when we did it. Anyway that whole excuse is BS - they were holding it up even when players were free up forward..... the only reason the Kangas ever got players back was we would give them time when we held it up. Clubs dont get players back against us for no reason - they get them back because we start holding up the ball and giving them time. Them getting back is a result of us holding it up, its not the reason we're holding it up.
How 'bout we put two becons up forward (Tredrea/Lade) ensure we have good crumbers playing at their feet .... and when we get the ball across half back we drop it on either of their heads.
PJ Power
3 Apr 2006, 09:55
He must get lots of gametime in the middle. By hand he appears to be a fraction ahead of the rest - and when he gets held he gets his arms free, and he has handball smarts to the pointwhere once or twice the player he got it to almost wasnt expecting it. Kicking he still needs to work on - not so much the execution - but the decision to use it.
EDIT - one thing I forgot to mention.... at numerous ball ins (at my end ofthe ground at least) Thomson was sitting front and centre ... alone (young and probably not respected by opposition), yet our ruckmen did not give the ball to him - instead it was directed to a congestion of players ... why ?
Damon White was goood to very good - as was mentioned on radio on the night - why the hell didn't our players use him up in the second half when he presented.
... but the negative:
Its well and good to trot out the "company line" that the Kangaroos were getting numbers behind so we didnt want to turn it over - but heres a newsflash - we were turning over the ball anyway - and we were 50 M closer to their goals when we did it. Anyway that whole excuse is BS - they were holding it up even when players were free up forward..... the only reason the Kangas ever got players back was we would give them time when we held it up. Clubs dont get players back against us for no reason - they get them back because we start holding up the ball and giving them time. Them getting back is a result of us holding it up, its not the reason we're holding it up.
How 'bout we put two becons up forward (Tredrea/Lade) ensure we have good crumbers playing at their feet .... and when we get the ball across half back we drop it on either of their heads.
Good points.
The Thomson comments are right - also noticed his positioning at throw-ins and whereas others like Cassisi and Ebert couldn't get hands free to release when tackled, and Peter Burgoyne just handballed the ball anywhere loosley, Adam did lay-off the ball cleanly especially in the first half.
I am really annoyed by the responses of Choco, Kane and Chad to criticism of our gamestyle - I know I will hear the old line of what they say to the public is not what they think, but to keep suggesting the opposition force us to play that way is less than half of the truth.
From I what I saw we were more proactive when it came to getting numbers behind the ball then they were - Brogan at one stage starting deep in defence, and Chad on several occasions also. The difference is our numbers behind the ball weren't prepared to run forward and carry it and they made too many mistakes and had too many moments where they thought too much about what to do with it.
We seem to double guess ourselves far too much. There was no instinct or risk in how we played for much of that game. To abuse another cliche, nothing ventured nothing gained.
In the third quarter we allowed Archer to stand by himself in our back half. Two facts remain with our gameplan.
1) Choco does not want to play man-on-man across the ground.
2) Choco instructs our players not to kick long when they have a player loose on half back.
One can only assume from here that plan B is to hold the ball. Unfortunately that didn't / doesn't work.
The players we have brought through since the end of 2004 have obviously not been educated on putting blocks and shepherds on the opposition otherwise the running game would be successful.
I thought White was terrific. Even kicked a tough set shot when we really needed it. Held his marks well. Can't remember him doing much wrong. If we want to compare him to tredders, perhaps he could try imposing himself on ground contests more. Really hope he keeps it up. Tredrea's time off could be a big plus yet.
I thought players like Ebert, even Pearce, looked like they knew what they were doing. Ebert played on confidently on a few occasions, took a couple of forward 50 marks he normally would have dropped.
Almost seems like our younger players are trying to fill the gaps the veterans are creating.
Agreed re White and Ebert. I thought it was definitely White's best game yet for the Power. He was given a big responsibility after the club showed a lot of faith in him signing him to a new two year contract extension, and the boy responded in fine fashion. Very pleasing effort.
Ebert looked pretty good as well I thought.
wharfie_1870
3 Apr 2006, 10:51
... but the negative:
Its well and good to trot out the "company line" that the Kangaroos were getting numbers behind so we didnt want to turn it over - but heres a newsflash - we were turning over the ball anyway......Twice we received free kicks at the centre bounce (once for Kanagroos having too many players in the square and the other was for some off the ball incident or some such) and both times the Kangaroos got the centre clearance :mad:
.......the only reason the Kangas ever got players back was we would give them time when we held it up. Clubs dont get players back against us for no reason - they get them back because we start holding up the ball and giving them time. Them getting back is a result of us holding it up, its not the reason we're holding it up.....Why did we hold the ball up so long at kick ins from points :confused: Doesn't anyone at the club know about the changes in the rules. The Kangaroos would bring the ball in before the goal umpire had finished waving his flag while we would wait to make sure the Kangaroos had time to man up :mad:
Why did we hold the ball up so long at kick ins from points :confused: Doesn't anyone at the club know about the changes in the rules. The Kangaroos would bring the ball in before the goal umpire had finished waving his flag while we would wait to make sure the Kangaroos had time to man up :mad:
By "we" you mean Bishop, I think. Old dog, new tricks? With that and the sideways chipping, any opposition would have absolutely loved our style of play.
*PAFC*13
3 Apr 2006, 12:41
[QUOTE]He must get lots of gametime in the middle. By hand he appears to be a fraction ahead of the rest - and when he gets held he gets his arms free, and he has handball smarts to the pointwhere once or twice the player he got it to almost wasnt expecting it. Kicking he still needs to work on - not so much the execution - but the decision to use it.
EDIT - one thing I forgot to mention.... at numerous ball ins (at my end ofthe ground at least) Thomson was sitting front and centre ... alone (young and probably not respected by opposition), yet our ruckmen did not give the ball to him - instead it was directed to a congestion of players ... why ?
Dam right here, I noticed this aswell. If a man is free, wether he is 29 or 19 you should tap it to him.
Arsene Wenger
3 Apr 2006, 15:14
Rather than re hashing what has been said above, with which I agree with everything said re White, Thomson and Pearce.
I was bemused by our failure to utilise the new kicking in rule. I thought Kangaroos used this wonderfully well. However, we waited and it was as if we still waited for the Goal umpire to wave his flags ! Anyone else notice this...
Arsene Wenger
3 Apr 2006, 15:14
Rather than re hashing what has been said above, with which I agree with everything said re White, Thomson and Pearce.
I was bemused by our failure to utilise the new kicking in rule. I thought Kangaroos used this wonderfully well. However, we waited and it was as if we still waited for the Goal umpire to wave his flags ! Anyone else notice this...
wharfie_1870
3 Apr 2006, 15:43
.......I was bemused by our failure to utilise the new kicking in rule. I thought Kangaroos used this wonderfully well. However, we waited and it was as if we still waited for the Goal umpire to wave his flags ! Anyone else notice this...Errrr, yes. Read earlier posts ;)
Upside = It is only Round 1.
:p
Pinepower
3 Apr 2006, 16:44
Upside
Sydney only won 2 of their first 6 games last year and I believe they won the premiership.
Sometimes round 1 is very misleading.
Round 1 is only misleading when you play differently to the way you played for the preceeding season. I'm happy to be proven wrong but it wasn't too much different on Saturday night.
Yeah, this thread is about upside, not spindoctoring - we get enough of that from the club.
Powerstufff
3 Apr 2006, 17:35
In the third quarter we allowed Archer to stand by himself in our back half. Two facts remain with our gameplan.....The old fella next to me almost had a coronary at this.
PtLincolnpower
5 Apr 2006, 12:20
I think Port is up ******** creek something chronic and can not see any light at the end of the tunnel. We have lost all the most important players from our premiership season and kept ones that could have been replaced.
For example why did we keep Bishop?? and get rid of Montgomery? Both are of similar age and I have never really seen Monty have a rough match such as Bishop now consistently does.
Some of course could not have been helped and this is what has hurt us the most, this added with the lack of desire to go "all out " during trade period for a "hard nut" midfielder. We all know now that Salopek and Ebert are not going to be the ones who step up this year, unless something drastically changes. We have put our hopes into those two for too long now and we are paying the price. We get SMASHED at every stoppage, absolutely SMASHED this is compounded by the fact that we always have the advantage in the ruck
Anyway its not only Port that is up ******** creek but football in general. This crappy bloody possession game and the crows tactics of "choking" teams is a flippin joke. Why has our game evolved to this! remember the 90's when there were players had to get brave and win their possessions- if someone came off the ground with 30 touches they worked bloody hard for them. The Crows are a composite team (business) and they have brought science into footy too much, they went too far Monday night and we are the ones who must suffer. their supporters don't care because they don't know what real footy is anyway- they crows could serve up ******** on a platter and say this is winning, effective footy and the cows supporters would say "GREAT".
Upside
Sydney only won 2 of their first 6 games last year and I believe they won the premiership.
Sometimes round 1 is very misleading.
Sometimes it is sometimes it isn't.
We lost our first two in 02 anf 03 i think, it isn't if you lose but how you lose. I was happy we didn't get blown away and got close in the last when we were being outplayed for most of the night.
Handyandy
5 Apr 2006, 18:43
1) Chaplin got knocked about by Archer, and didn't shy away from the contest.
2) Pearce is a player that will work to get us back into games that we are giving up.
Others?
Positives:
-chocco gave some of the juniors a bit of game time.
-we didnt lose by a huge amount (100points+) like we often do.
-we won the rucks.
Negatives:
-chocco would have known that north would come out fighting after last years final loss but our senior players seemed totally disinterested. (k cornes the exception)
-we got smashed out of the centre. Our midfield is ********e.
-we turned the ball over heaps.
-our skills looked terrible, particularly c cornes/ p burgoyne.
-bishop is still in the 22 (god only knows why)
Any hope I had coming into this season is rapidly eroding.