View Full Version : My Take Vs The Saints
quotemokc
17 May 2009, 19:56
Now this is my review of the game, I ain't gonna bag us because we lost because it was a solid effort from us but they were too strong.
I'm sure everyone will agree that our 1st quarter potentially cost us our chances of winning. At the start we were probably getting the feel of how the Saints played and we were blown away early at their competiveness.
Our 2nd quarter was probably our best quarter except for that late Saints goal.
Our 3rd quarter wasn't bad but everytime we got close we couldn't string another goal together.
Our 4th quarter wasn't bad but we failed to capitalise at the crucial times and we made a few mistakes.(Tiredness)
Positives
Our defense fared reasonably well considering the amount of ball coming in.
Neagle has shown us his capabilities but he didn't have much of an impact late on.
Our risk taking.
Our goal accuracy was good in the first half but fell away in the second.
We kept persisting with our style of play and it payed off on numerous occasions.
Negatives
I'm not sure if this is our fault, but everytime we kicked long into our 50 to a target he was always surrounded by 2 or more Saints.
We weren't very accountable on numerous occasions with them having dominant numbers numerous time when going forward.
Our 1st quarter
Stanton didn't have much of an impact. (Was he tagged out?)
Other than that there weren't that many negatives, Saint Kilda were just the better team.
Reports
Alwyn Davey was reported. I feel he will get off but still be penalised in some way. In my opinion he shouldn't off been reported, all he did was jump into a player and his back hit them in the head. Should be fine anyway.
Changes Vs Richmond
I will be quite dissapointed if we lose to them.
Outs
Bachar Houli, He got alot of the ball but made way too many clangers for my liking.
Cale Hooker, He did ok and is developing well but may be taken out for Hurley or Daniher.
David Myers, Was not bad but he could have contributed more.
Ins
McVeigh(maybe),Hurley,Daniher,Jetta
These views of this report are from a television point of view. (As I am in Perth)
AndyLesPaul
17 May 2009, 19:59
houli and Hooker? no way
danzan22
17 May 2009, 20:00
Hooker did well i thought, kept Riedwolt to 3 goals and made him work hard for them, pushed him out wide to the flanks and managed to get a fist in quite a few times.
Drummer_19
17 May 2009, 20:00
No way I would take Hooker out, very clean with his disposal as well as being able to spoil.
quotemokc
17 May 2009, 20:03
I'm not saying Hooker is bad I'm just saying he might be replaced with Daniher or Hurley because they can fill the same roll and need game time aswell.
Ryder_Hooker
17 May 2009, 20:14
Nah I wouldnt take Hooker out just yet. Although Houli's disposal tonight was woeful.
HULK HOGAN
17 May 2009, 20:15
I'm not saying Hooker is bad I'm just saying he might be replaced with Daniher or Hurley because they can fill the same roll and need game time aswell.
They wont drop him cause the others need game time, hes earning his spot for the moment.
rioli brownlow
17 May 2009, 20:26
Hooker did well i thought, kept Riedwolt to 3 goals and made him work hard for them, pushed him out wide to the flanks and managed to get a fist in quite a few times.
and 1 of them was from a very stupid act(again) from nlm giving him 50. from 25 out he might of missed
hateitorlovett13
17 May 2009, 20:29
Hooker was great tonight. I'm going to put it out there and say that we potentially have the best backline in future years. Pears, Hooker, Hurley, Daniher, even Ryder can all play KP defence, with guys like Dempsey etc (you know who they are) providing great run.
The thing I most like about Hooker is that he takes on the game at every single opportunity. Sure, he will get caught sometimes, but more often than not he doesn't, and he never panicks either.
I thought it was a great team effort after quarter time from nearly every player. Our backline looks absolutely brilliant, our midfield was mainly good (although we tended to fumble and miss our handball targets a bit early on) and our forward line also worked pretty well. Lloyd could have easily had 2-3 more goals if the umpiring wasn't ****ing atrocious towards him. I swear to God he has a reputation as a diver so the umpires pay 1/4 free kicks to him, even though the one they pay is less deserving than the previous or following one.
Not to harp on about the umps too much, our delivery into the forward 50 was pretty poor, and something we will only improve on as we get more experience in the team. Surprised with Davey's generally poor kicking tonight- nevertheless, he was great.
Very promising signs Bombers, never been so proud of the boys in my life.
hateitorlovett13
17 May 2009, 20:34
and 1 of them was from a very stupid act(again) from nlm giving him 50. from 25 out he might of missed
He was no more than 20m out straight in front, and realistically was not going to miss that. I liked NLM's game, thought he ****ed up maybe once- absolutely nothing compared to some of the stuff other guys did.
Said it before and I'll say it again: Lovett Murray adds physicality and aggression to an otherwise small bodied team. Very important to us and he won't be getting dropped for a while- for good reason.
You're really clutching at straws if you're having that much of a go at NLM for that. Give the bloke a break, try to find some goddamn positives out the match coz it isn't that ****ing hard.
bacon buster
17 May 2009, 20:57
hooker was outstanding on riewoldt tonight i thought. probably had the best of him in the majority of one on ones as well.
i don't think i've seen an essendon player do a better job on riewoldt, ever, and that includes fletcher.
agreed 100% Bacon Buster and nicely said. In the recent years we would have been absolutely destroyed by an opposition player if they put in the yards that Reiwoldt did tonight. Really like Hookers aggressive spoils as well, and how about the massive handball that he did in the last to setup a piece of play, he certainly plays with some real energy. Hurley a blue chip kick could play forward given some of the defensive options we are developing.
Pears is also very good body on body despite not having the total strength to match Kositzke at times, he just knows how to position himself and when/not to make contact, he is very very competitive and doesn't panic.
Kudos to Dodoro and Keene for their recent work.
stay true
18 May 2009, 01:49
Hooker is staying in.:thumbsu:
Now this is my review of the game, I ain't gonna bag us because we lost because it was a solid effort from us but they were too strong.
I'm sure everyone will agree that our 1st quarter potentially cost us our chances of winning. At the start we were probably getting the feel of how the Saints played and we were blown away early at their competiveness
Yes the first quarter cost us. I think the reason was we went the handball too much and did not trust ourselves to hit short targets by foot. Knights must have had a word to them at 1/4 time as they came out in the second quarter and started to kick forward to shorter targets rather than handball to stationary targets.
We got blown away by creating pressure on ourselves with too many handballs. When you turn it over by hand the ball rebounds at a quick rate.
Our 2nd quarter was probably our best quarter except for that late Saints goal.
Our 3rd quarter wasn't bad but everytime we got close we couldn't string another goal together.
Was pretty even footy against a good side.
Our 4th quarter wasn't bad but we failed to capitalise at the crucial times and we made a few mistakes.(Tiredness)
True. Missed a couple of gettable goals that could have made it interesting.
Positives
Our defense fared reasonably well considering the amount of ball coming in.
Neagle has shown us his capabilities but he didn't have much of an impact late on.
Our risk taking.
Our goal accuracy was good in the first half but fell away in the second.
We kept persisting with our style of play and it payed off on numerous occasions.
Another posative was they where asked to adjust their play a fraction at quarter time and they came out and did that. They started to look for targets by foot rather than stringing 5 or 6 handballs together.
Negatives
I'm not sure if this is our fault, but everytime we kicked long into our 50 to a target he was always surrounded by 2 or more Saints.
We weren't very accountable on numerous occasions with them having dominant numbers numerous time when going forward.
Our 1st quarter
Stanton didn't have much of an impact. (Was he tagged out?)
Other than that there weren't that many negatives, Saint Kilda were just the better team.
The reason why they had a two on one in our forward line a lot was simply becasue they played one player behind the ball. We have to be a fraction smarter coming inside 50 and make sure if we are going long that we actually kick it over the contest. You can not simply keep hammering the ball long to a spot 30 to 40 meters out directly in front in modern footy.
Stanton did not have an impact becasue he had a blond no38 in his back pocket all night. Lesson to be learnt for Stants when you are being tagged try not to let your tagger have over 20 possessions. Should not be hard to find him as he is standing next to you for 90% of the game.
A copule of other negatives.
Zone kick ins. We need to tighten the zone around the 50 meter mark. Too many times we give up the short kick into the pocket and then the next kick to the 50 as well. They can not let that happen. Once the kickin goes short they have to work their arse off to make sure there are no loose option at the 50 line.
Now i am not singling out Gus as the only culprite but a couple of times he ran out to set up the zone on the right side but their where no Saints players within 50 meters of him. Why he had to push out so wide (within 15 meters of the boundry) i will never know as the ball was never coming his way. He had to actually push the zone across and pick up someone if they ran across to that side. I suspect that is how we let so many players get easy kicks on the second kick in. Our zone is set up too wide on one side and they are actually zoning space rather than zoning the opposition.
Secondly. The reason the Saints had a lot of run through the middle at times is from our lazy footy. Too many players who do not work hard enough back the other way. They let their man get a 3 or 4 meter break and then jog behind them. Now i know you as a midfielder you can not always be on your man but there have been 10 to 20 times in a game where we could have covered some of the opposition run if we had of put in a fraction more effort.
Sadly for uss a few of the main offenders are also the blokes who win a lot of footy for us. They need to find that 5% more on their defensive side and we can be a very good side.
hateitorlovett13
18 May 2009, 11:48
Secondly. The reason the Saints had a lot of run through the middle at times is from our lazy footy. Too many players who do not work hard enough back the other way. They let their man get a 3 or 4 meter break and then jog behind them. Now i know you as a midfielder you can not always be on your man but there have been 10 to 20 times in a game where we could have covered some of the opposition run if we had of put in a fraction more effort.
Sadly for uss a few of the main offenders are also the blokes who win a lot of footy for us. They need to find that 5% more on their defensive side and we can be a very good side.
Too right. I'll never understand how Luke Ball managed to run off Winders in the first quarter and kick a goal.
I'm not sure if this is our fault, but everytime we kicked long into our 50 to a target he was always surrounded by 2 or more Saints.
That's Saints game plan. Pressure on the ball handler, force a long kick and have a spare man back (usually Gilbert, sometimes Goddard) They stuck to their game plan and it worked. We tried to run it and kick over this, which I thought we did quite well for the match. We just didn't take advantages of our shots on goal.
houli and Hooker? no way
If we are getting an ace mid back someone will have to make room and Houli was probably our worst mid. I love the kid to death but someone will have to make room, likewise with Hooker if Hurley comes back.
FandangoDingo
18 May 2009, 20:18
hooker was outstanding on riewoldt tonight i thought. probably had the best of him in the majority of one on ones as well.
i don't think i've seen an essendon player do a better job on riewoldt, ever, and that includes fletcher.
Agreed. Hooker has done everything that's been asked of him, and then some. I would be astonished if he was dropped this week or anytime soon. There are other players with far more cause to be nervous than Hooker. He's been a revelation! Great poise!! Really, really good "get" Bombers! :thumbsu: :thumbsu: Keep playing him!!