View Full Version : The reason we lost today...
Is because Adelaide is a better team.
Blame team selections, not having any fit ruckman and freakish goal-kicking by them all you want. (Although remember we only kicked 6 behinds too). To put it simple, Adelaide is a better team.
(I was gonna post this into a existing topic, but there's like 5 topics detailing why we lost today so I thought I'd make one as well. )
Wahooti Fandango
7 Jun 2009, 19:57
I think we are pretty evenly matched.
Totally agree - great post.
AndyLesPaul
7 Jun 2009, 20:01
umpiring, fluke goal and not selecting any sort of back up ruckman costed us
Umpires favoured us, for the most part.
We also got fluke goals.
Christian Bock is NOT ready.
I think we are pretty evenly matched.
I didn't ask for your opinion :( :mad:
Exactly.
Adelaide are at a greater skill level, have more mature bodies and are more advanced as a unit.
We're heading in that direction.
Ben the Gooner
7 Jun 2009, 20:02
Bullshit. We led them for three quarters, and were the better team on general run of play for those three quarters.
Reimers and Prismall were clearly under-done and didn't contribute in that last quarter.
That will go down alongside the North game as a game we should have won, but didn't.
Wahooti Fandango
7 Jun 2009, 20:04
Adelaide are going through a good patch and will come back to the field. They are no better than us over the long run.
On June 7 2009 the Adelaide Crows were a better side than the Essendon Bombers and hence won the match by 16 points.
Who we didn't have, what we should have done, who we should have played....it's all irrelevant now!
Wahooti Fandango
7 Jun 2009, 20:08
On June 7 2009 the Adelaide Crows were a better side than the Essendon Bombers and hence won the match by 16 points.
Who we didn't have, what we should have done, who we should have played....it's all irrelevant now!
No debating that, but I think over the length of the whole season we will finish equal or ahead.
Bullshit. We led them for three quarters, and were the better team on general run of play for those three quarters.
Reimers and Prismall were clearly under-done and didn't contribute in that last quarter.
That will go down alongside the North game as a game we should have won, but didn't.
Sadly Ben, football is a 4 quarter game. I don't think the players know this judging by our performances this season though.
And who do we play instead of them? Jetta? Yeah maybe, but he isn't exactly known for his 4 quarter performances either. I can't think of anyone else though.
Ben the Gooner
7 Jun 2009, 20:14
Sadly Ben, football is a 4 quarter game. I don't think the players know this judging by our performances this season though.
And who do we play instead of them? Jetta? Yeah maybe, but he isn't exactly known for his 4 quarter performances either. I can't think of anyone else though.
And two of the underdone selections only played three of them.
I'd have played Jetta and Prismall personally. Prismall could have been carried without too much loss, given Goodwin's injury, but having to carry Reimers as well hurt.
A few tackles in the forward 50 in the early stages of the game might have given us a lead of more than 15 points.
I'm the most disappointed I've been after a loss since the North game.
reincarnated
7 Jun 2009, 20:20
Bullshit. We led them for three quarters, and were the better team on general run of play for those three quarters.
Reimers and Prismall were clearly under-done and didn't contribute in that last quarter.
That will go down alongside the North game as a game we should have won, but didn't.
Forward line - Didn't function with 3 tall forwards (Though we kicked 18 goals, it was 4 goals between 3 key forwards).
Forward line Pressure - Wasn't the best
Run out of our forward line - We couldn't stop it
Defense - One defender short
It comes down to team selection, which wasn't good.
Adelaide have a great record in milestone games for their players. They play above them selves for these games, for their club champions. This was one of those occasions. However, they never beat us in Melbourne until last year. Now they've done it two years running. I really hate being at matches when these teams from interstate comes and beats us in our home ground. Really gets to me.
And two of the underdone selections only played three of them.
I'd have played Jetta and Prismall personally. Prismall could have been carried without too much loss, given Goodwin's injury, but having to carry Reimers as well hurt.
A few tackles in the forward 50 in the early stages of the game might have given us a lead of more than 15 points.
I'm the most disappointed I've been after a loss since the North game.
And that one change would have won the game? I'm sorry Ben but I just can't believe Jetta's tackling pressure can influence the whole match in such a way we win.
I would have thought the Brisbane game would be more disappointing. Considering we could blame a bit more on ourselves.
kelvin_sheedy
7 Jun 2009, 20:25
Daniher + Jetta would have given us extra flexibility.
Pears to Tippet at quarter time - Daniher or Hooker to Walker.
Jetta would have released Davey a bit more and had the Crows defence thinking. They just waltzed it out of there as they please. Remember Jetta's first game against Adelaide.
Reason we lost - couldn't run out the game due to selections + injuries and their accuracy. Nothing more, nothing less.
Daytripper
7 Jun 2009, 20:30
Reason 1 :
Missed Fletcher desperately today.
a) he could have covered Tippett or Walker
b) this then gives Hooker a chance to give Ryder a chop out in the ruck
Reason 2
Winderlich has been so impoortant to this side. We missed an added runner and without him there was extra pressure on the likes of Dyson, Zaka, Prismall etc
Reason 3
The loss of Hille really hurts against teams like Adelaide with 2-3 big men. Craig picked the right team and they destroyed us from the clearances in the second half particularly whe Ryder wasn't on the ground.
Reason 4
I have never seen a team (Adelaide) kick so accuratly from near impossible positions in my life. It was almost beyond a joke.
Not too disappointed with the loss. Got a few key players a good hit out and they will be better for the run. We will struggle against big bodied sides who pick 2 or 3 rucks.
The next 3 weeks are really vital. Melbourne, Carlton and Collingwood are all winnable and we have proven that we are better sides than them. The break comes at a good time for guys like Ryder, Lovett, Pears, Dyson & Hooker who need a spell given the responsibility they've been carrying.
We'll be okay.
SirJimi05
7 Jun 2009, 21:03
Can the MODS merge all of this ridiculous Game review threads together?
The search function cant even be blamed for this when you can see 2 or 3 identical threads on the 1st page already.
HighettBomber
7 Jun 2009, 21:50
Our forward line always functions better with Davey and Jetta in there. Out defensive pressure is better and they are our most dangerous crumbers. Hooker was left on Tippett too long and Lucas was terrible when he went back. Pears should have gone to him much earlier. Daniher would have given us more options.
Adelaide were too good though. We made a lot more unforced errors than them, they are very clean, well drilled and run hard.
lemon chicken
7 Jun 2009, 21:59
... beacuse we arent as good as some of our supporters think we are. We played pretty well at times but lost to a side that kicked 21.4. It doesnt happen every week but its still better than getting beat by 10 goals. Adelaide are a better side than most people give them credit for and their coach cops a lot of unworthy criticism.
AndyLesPaul
7 Jun 2009, 22:31
They are the most overated ****ing side in the league mate. Who have they beaten this year?????????? i can't believe we lost to these pieces of scum
Oh god.
Firstly, that last sentence sort of contradicts itself.
Secondly, stop flogging Adelaide, their forwardline is amazingly underrated, and their defence, is quite renowned.
Go back to redcardville, please.
lemon chicken
7 Jun 2009, 22:32
They are the most overated ****ing side in the league mate. Who have they beaten this year?????????? i can't believe we lost to these pieces of scum
Essendon, Hawthorn, Carlton, Melbourne, Fremantle and Collingwood. They have good young players and are heading in the right direction.
And that one change would have won the game? I'm sorry Ben but I just can't believe Jetta's tackling pressure can influence the whole match in such a way we win.
I would have thought the Brisbane game would be more disappointing. Considering we could blame a bit more on ourselves.
Jetta's would have added forward pressure for one.
Daniher and even Atkinson could have helped counter Adelaide's height.
Adelaide were good and outplayed us today but I don;t think the selections did us any favours.
AlwaysRight
7 Jun 2009, 23:26
We've really got to sort out our issues in the ruck.
We can forget finals if we dont.
Reasons:
- agree with the post saying Prismall and Reimers were underdone/lacked match practise (made poor match situation decisions)
- has been said a million times already but obviously lack of decent back up ruckman, which had a domino effect which meant paddy was too tired by the end, and we were undermanned when hooker or lucas rucked.
- lack of experience in defence (ability to shut down dominating forwards ie. Tippet when firing)
- lack of lead up forwards targets across half forwards.
- lack of hard defensive running, barring a few instances. allowed them to switch play numerous times and were able to find lose players on the wing countless times.
- not sure if the stats will back it up, but thought their centre clearance work was more effective than ours
- poor decision making. lacked poise, composure and class, mostly coming out of defense. due to inexperience, no options because players aren't working hard enough up field or around the player (talk and shepherds the very basic stuff your taught in junior football but i saw a few times today we didnt do), and basically the pressure that adelaide put on.
SirJimi05
8 Jun 2009, 02:41
Reason 1 :
Missed Fletcher desperately today.
a) he could have covered Tippett or Walker
b) this then gives Hooker a chance to give Ryder a chop out in the ruck
Reason 2
Winderlich has been so impoortant to this side. We missed an added runner and without him there was extra pressure on the likes of Dyson, Zaka, Prismall etc
Reason 3
The loss of Hille really hurts against teams like Adelaide with 2-3 big men. Craig picked the right team and they destroyed us from the clearances in the second half particularly whe Ryder wasn't on the ground.
Reason 4
I have never seen a team (Adelaide) kick so accuratly from near impossible positions in my life. It was almost beyond a joke.
Not too disappointed with the loss. Got a few key players a good hit out and they will be better for the run. We will struggle against big bodied sides who pick 2 or 3 rucks.
The next 3 weeks are really vital. Melbourne, Carlton and Collingwood are all winnable and we have proven that we are better sides than them. The break comes at a good time for guys like Ryder, Lovett, Pears, Dyson & Hooker who need a spell given the responsibility they've been carrying.
We'll be okay.
I must admit that i don't agree with a lot of your posts but i think you are absolutely spot on with everything you say here. Couldn't have put it any better myself.
The doom and gloom merchants shouldn't be too dis heartened.
We will be fine and will get stronger in the coming games. This i am sure of.
AndyLesPaul
8 Jun 2009, 10:12
After recollecting on the match, I remember at least 2 occasions where we had a decent shot at goal, and instead we decided to pass it off, which resulted in no score.
I believe it happened in the first quarter with Lonergan, and with Stanton later in the match.
Now that's just annoying.
yodellinhank
8 Jun 2009, 10:23
The two main things that frustrated the hell out of me were:
1 DD's non selection.
The only bloke who looked like kicking a goal for us played out the majority of the last quarter and in the ruck. Welcome back Scotty.
2 No hard tag on Edwards
Seriously, was this a spirit of the game thing? He absolutely murdered us at stoppages and it appeared to me that nothing was done about it. This was even noticed by my girlfriend, who has been to probably around 15 games in her life.
bOmBeR_BoY1
8 Jun 2009, 10:25
21.4
Tyson Edwards 300th game
No recognised back-up ruckman (they had two)
Prismall & Reimers - both had their brief moments, but both clearly underdone and fortunate to be playing, we won't see the best from these two until 2010
Defensive mismatches right throughout the game that gifted the Crows some easy ones
Our inability to really ram home a significant scoreboard advantage in a fairly dominant first quarter
Neagle - love him, but needs a break, not contributing anywhere near enough in recent weeks... not just possession or goalwise either, that doesn't overly concern me - it's the tackling, pressure & presence (or lack of) that is the most telling & frustrating.
Now for the positive outlook... we should get a couple back prior to our next game against Melbourne. Another home game and on the Friday Night stage. I'm not sure whether the week off is going to do us a favour or not, but I'm thinking the boys will really come out to play in that game and really want to atone for a disappointing final quarter yesterday. The Demons will be no pushovers, and anybody thinking this is an easy game is delusional. If we play well, we will win. If we don't, we'll have a struggle.
bomberz08
8 Jun 2009, 10:43
Bullshit. We led them for three quarters, and were the better team on general run of play for those three quarters.
Reimers and Prismall were clearly under-done and didn't contribute in that last quarter.
That will go down alongside the North game as a game we should have won, but didn't.
Totally agree with you, we led them for 3 quarters, we should have won, but we need to constantly play 4 quarters.
The Donners
8 Jun 2009, 11:02
Bullshit. We led them for three quarters, and were the better team on general run of play for those three quarters.
Reimers and Prismall were clearly under-done and didn't contribute in that last quarter.
That will go down alongside the North game as a game we should have won, but didn't.
Agreed.
We were absolutely killed in the ruck, why Hooker wasn't moved into the ruck instead of Lucas is beyond me. Some very poor decision making from coaches yesterday.
When Ryder was benched in the last quarter, if that was a regulation benching then that was a disgraceful decision. The game was in the balance, he was benched and the Crows kicked away, it's not rocket science. Surely there'd be planning before the game as to what times during a game Ryder would be benched. Yes, he was benched with tightness but that shouldn't have changed the overall plan.
Bullshit. We led them for three quarters, and were the better team on general run of play for those three quarters.
Reimers and Prismall were clearly under-done and didn't contribute in that last quarter.
That will go down alongside the North game as a game we should have won, but didn't.
Agree.
Knights has to wear this one. Poor selections and out coached on the day.
The Donners
8 Jun 2009, 11:05
21.4
Tyson Edwards 300th game
No recognised back-up ruckman (they had two)
They have the worst ruck combination in the competition and they killed us.
Prismall & Reimers - both had their brief moments, but both clearly underdone and fortunate to be playing, we won't see the best from these two until 2010
Defensive mismatches right throughout the game that gifted the Crows some easy ones
Our inability to really ram home a significant scoreboard advantage in a fairly dominant first quarter
Neagle - love him, but needs a break, not contributing anywhere near enough in recent weeks... not just possession or goalwise either, that doesn't overly concern me - it's the tackling, pressure & presence (or lack of) that is the most telling & frustrating.
Now for the positive outlook... we should get a couple back prior to our next game against Melbourne. Another home game and on the Friday Night stage. I'm not sure whether the week off is going to do us a favour or not, but I'm thinking the boys will really come out to play in that game and really want to atone for a disappointing final quarter yesterday. The Demons will be no pushovers, and anybody thinking this is an easy game is delusional. If we play well, we will win. If we don't, we'll have a struggle.
Bringing players back into the team has really been hurting us. We can't run out games as we had done i.e. v Collingwood.
kelvin_sheedy
8 Jun 2009, 11:06
Agree.
Knights has to wear this one. Poor selections and out coached on the day.
Don't forget the North one also.... :D
Ben the Gooner
8 Jun 2009, 11:25
Don't forget the North one also.... :D
I'm doing my best.;)
In the long term, the games that Reimers and Prismall played yesterday will help us, as we saw how McVeigh and Skipworth improved after poor return games last week, but we didn't really have four points to throw away to that end.
If we'd beaten North, and were sitting 6-4 coming into the game, maybe we could have taken the risk, but 5-5 and outside the eight was really not the position to gamble with.
Another thing which is probably more suited to another thread: has Knights lost faith in Bendigo as a place to regain match fitness?
The Donners
8 Jun 2009, 11:30
Has Knights lost faith in Bendigo as a place to regain match fitness?
Certainly looks that way BtG!
How soon can Essendon detach themselves from Bendigo? Sooner the better imho.
Ben the Gooner
8 Jun 2009, 11:35
The contract expires at the end of the year, and I think we have to end it.
Even if we align ourselves with Frankston or another stand alone team miles from Essendon (are there any others, besides Port Melbourne?), we need a reserves team which is mildly competitive at worst.
How are, for example, Leroy Jetta or David Myers supposed to earn their spots playing in a forwardline which has 30 entries a game?
Reason 1 :
Missed Fletcher desperately today.
a) he could have covered Tippett or Walker
b) this then gives Hooker a chance to give Ryder a chop out in the ruck
Reason 2
Winderlich has been so impoortant to this side. We missed an added runner and without him there was extra pressure on the likes of Dyson, Zaka, Prismall etc
Reason 3
The loss of Hille really hurts against teams like Adelaide with 2-3 big men. Craig picked the right team and they destroyed us from the clearances in the second half particularly whe Ryder wasn't on the ground.
Reason 4
I have never seen a team (Adelaide) kick so accuratly from near impossible positions in my life. It was almost beyond a joke.
Not too disappointed with the loss. Got a few key players a good hit out and they will be better for the run. We will struggle against big bodied sides who pick 2 or 3 rucks.
The next 3 weeks are really vital. Melbourne, Carlton and Collingwood are all winnable and we have proven that we are better sides than them. The break comes at a good time for guys like Ryder, Lovett, Pears, Dyson & Hooker who need a spell given the responsibility they've been carrying.
We'll be okay.
Agree with everything you have said and I'm not that upset with the loss. Our injuries to key players is really starting to take its toll on Ryder, Watson, Lovett and Stanton. The break couldn't have come at a better time.
Yesterday was a case of Fletcher playing and we would've won.
Agree.
Knights has to wear this one. Poor selections and out coached on the day.
Hopefully now that you have added your name to this line of thought Ant, we can start to see some serious thought and debate...
Knights might be a great development coach but he is bloody awful come match day. Regularly gets outcoached and appears lost most of the time. Not making the move on SJ last week is EXACTLY the same as not making the move on Tippett and Edwards this week. You just can't let guys towel you up and do nothing... does he go to sleep in the box or has he got ADD and can't concentrate that long???
As to the selections.. we had that many underdone players we were always going to go down to one of the fittest teams in the AFL. You can't keep bringing in 2-3 players who can't run out 4 qtrs.
Serious questions need serious answers and Essendon needs to have a strong look at where we are going. It appears yet another season falls by the wayside and again it is injuries, bad decisions and lack of leadership. Same stories just different years.
Big Blow Hard
8 Jun 2009, 21:04
Reason 1 :
Missed Fletcher desperately today.
a) he could have covered Tippett or Walker
b) this then gives Hooker a chance to give Ryder a chop out in the ruck
Reason 2
Winderlich has been so impoortant to this side. We missed an added runner and without him there was extra pressure on the likes of Dyson, Zaka, Prismall etc
Reason 3
The loss of Hille really hurts against teams like Adelaide with 2-3 big men. Craig picked the right team and they destroyed us from the clearances in the second half particularly whe Ryder wasn't on the ground.
Reason 4
I have never seen a team (Adelaide) kick so accuratly from near impossible positions in my life. It was almost beyond a joke.
Not too disappointed with the loss. Got a few key players a good hit out and they will be better for the run. We will struggle against big bodied sides who pick 2 or 3 rucks.
The next 3 weeks are really vital. Melbourne, Carlton and Collingwood are all winnable and we have proven that we are better sides than them. The break comes at a good time for guys like Ryder, Lovett, Pears, Dyson & Hooker who need a spell given the responsibility they've been carrying.
We'll be okay.
I agree these games are vital. But the fact is if we go into any of these games with the same ruck issues (which we will, and worse if if Ryder does not get cleared). The need to use Hooker as a relief ruckman leaves us even more exposed without Fletch in the side. I am not sure where Fletch is injury wise, but Melbourne game aside, at this stage, there is no way we cxan beat Carlton or Coillingwood who are in better touch than us quite comfortably now. We have struggled to put Melbourne away in the past couple of years also, so don't expect that game to be a gimme.
obviously Knights and his guys are alot more qualified to find the solutions than we are, but this ruck crisis is HUGE, Our backline is being effected by it now also. Even if Patty is cleared, he CANNOT do it on his own, we clearly were at our worst when he had to take a well earned break. and our forward line is somewhat of a concern also.
I know I sound all doom and gloom there, but I know our guys will play out of there skins and hearts to cover the shortcoming. I just hope it's enough.
Boucks09
8 Jun 2009, 22:32
Great post Daytripper I agree with all your points :thumbsu:
Geez people settle down on all the comments RE Knights, his game day coaching and selections.
Adelaide kicked 21.4! We had no Fletcher in defense and were forced to play Lucas down there in his first game back in a month whilst Hooker (who is a kid with 10 games) helped out Ryder (who has played 6 full games in the ruck EVER) in the ruck.
I can understand the calls for Daniher's inclusion but at the end of the day there are two reasons that didn't happen:
1). Lucas was chosen as he is more dangerous up forward and could pinch hit in the ruck. This was a GREAT selection that nobody else is mentioning because without him we would've been smashed. If Darcy had played WITH Lucas we would've been too top heavy and had a terrible team balance. If Darcy had played INSTEAD of Lucas I doubt he would've kicked 4 and been able to play ruck.
2). Darcy is learning a lesson Bachar Houli style. His last game against North was terrible in regards to marking up and working hard to get back on his man after moving forward (David Hale anybody?). Knights is not in the business of teaching players a lesson with a quick chat and maybe being dropped for a week. Darcy has to earn his spot back which in the long run will make him a much better player. If that means we lose a game here or there I can cop that. Discipline wins premierships. Just ask Geelong.
I agree in part that Edwards should've been tagged, and I think that Hocking did go to him at one point. However the fact is we were simply getting smashed in the hit-outs and eventually the side that has the most hit outs is going to dominate the clearances. The fact that we were in front in this area in the first half just shows what an amazing job Watson, Stanton and Lovett did in there. They were simply outstanding but did not have any help whatsover. That will come with McVeigh to go in there next match along with Winderlich.
Take a chill pill. Yeah the loss sucks - but we did play well and can take a lot from the game.
Essendon, Hawthorn, Carlton, Melbourne, Fremantle and Collingwood. They have good young players and are heading in the right direction.
Now name the teams we lost too and you would think even higher of us.
Geelong, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Brisbane and Port Adelaide.
Alot of the stuff so far in this thread is quite good, it was a great game,too bad about the result (for you) but you'll get one back sooner or later (hopefully against Carlton)
Great post Daytripper I agree with all your points :thumbsu:
Geez people settle down on all the comments RE Knights, his game day coaching and selections.
Adelaide kicked 21.4! We had no Fletcher in defense and were forced to play Lucas down there in his first game back in a month whilst Hooker (who is a kid with 10 games) helped out Ryder (who has played 6 full games in the ruck EVER) in the ruck.
I can understand the calls for Daniher's inclusion but at the end of the day there are two reasons that didn't happen:
1). Lucas was chosen as he is more dangerous up forward and could pinch hit in the ruck. This was a GREAT selection that nobody else is mentioning because without him we would've been smashed. If Darcy had played WITH Lucas we would've been too top heavy and had a terrible team balance. If Darcy had played INSTEAD of Lucas I doubt he would've kicked 4 and been able to play ruck.
2). Darcy is learning a lesson Bachar Houli style. His last game against North was terrible in regards to marking up and working hard to get back on his man after moving forward (David Hale anybody?). Knights is not in the business of teaching players a lesson with a quick chat and maybe being dropped for a week. Darcy has to earn his spot back which in the long run will make him a much better player. If that means we lose a game here or there I can cop that. Discipline wins premierships. Just ask Geelong.
I agree in part that Edwards should've been tagged, and I think that Hocking did go to him at one point. However the fact is we were simply getting smashed in the hit-outs and eventually the side that has the most hit outs is going to dominate the clearances. The fact that we were in front in this area in the first half just shows what an amazing job Watson, Stanton and Lovett did in there. They were simply outstanding but did not have any help whatsover. That will come with McVeigh to go in there next match along with Winderlich.
Take a chill pill. Yeah the loss sucks - but we did play well and can take a lot from the game.
But what happend on the day?
What you posted above is much of the theory and the start of the game, but in the end we couldnt afford Hooker away from defense, so he wasnt the back up ruckman, and Lucas had to play that role because Hooker couldnt, so we effectively lost him as a 3rd forward as well as the game went on.
We HAD to bring in a defener to replace Hooker, who was affectively taking the Bellchambers role.
When Hooker first went into the ruck, and Lucas down back was when it started getting messy down back for us. And it just snowballed.
With Hooker playing as a backup ruckman, we basically had one player, Pears, who just turned 19, as our only key defender. He played another fantastic game, but he cant do it all.
That decision not to play another defender was a disaster. No doubt. The game proved that, as the theory went out the window. To cap it off, Lucas was a disaster in the ruck, and when he went there towards the end of the 3rd was when the game swung to them, IMO.
On top of that, too many underdone players plus effectively losing Stanton in the midfield rotation after he got that corky meant confirmed we had no hope of running this one out.
I posted this in a pre-game thread - the team selected COULD NOT WIN. I posted it then, and I'll post it now. We selected a team which had very little chance of winning that game.
They played the game of their lives, but the upside for us is HUGE IMO. We have so much improvement to come it isnt funny. That was a very ordinary Essendon side which played, once which can be significantly better (with form,match hardness and personal) in the coming games.
Ben the Gooner
9 Jun 2009, 08:45
Now name the teams we lost too and you would think even higher of us.
Geelong, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Brisbane and Port Adelaide.
Alot of the stuff so far in this thread is quite good, it was a great game,too bad about the result (for you) but you'll get one back sooner or later (hopefully against Carlton)
:thumbsu:
Great post mate.
The reason we lost is because we gave away silly goals in the 3rd quarter and couldn't kill the contest. Some of the weakest goals we've conceeded all year happened in the 3rd quarter.
kelvin_sheedy
9 Jun 2009, 10:22
But what happend on the day?
What you posted above is much of the theory and the start of the game, but in the end we couldnt afford Hooker away from defense, so he wasnt the back up ruckman, and Lucas had to play that role because Hooker couldnt, so we effectively lost him as a 3rd forward as well as the game went on.
We HAD to bring in a defener to replace Hooker, who was affectively taking the Bellchambers role.
When Hooker first went into the ruck, and Lucas down back was when it started getting messy down back for us. And it just snowballed.
With Hooker playing as a backup ruckman, we basically had one player, Pears, who just turned 19, as our only key defender. He played another fantastic game, but he cant do it all.
That decision not to play another defender was a disaster. No doubt. The game proved that, as the theory went out the window. To cap it off, Lucas was a disaster in the ruck, and when he went there towards the end of the 3rd was when the game swung to them, IMO.
On top of that, too many underdone players plus effectively losing Stanton in the midfield rotation after he got that corky meant confirmed we had no hope of running this one out.
I posted this in a pre-game thread - the team selected COULD NOT WIN. I posted it then, and I'll post it now. We selected a team which had very little chance of winning that game.
They played the game of their lives, but the upside for us is HUGE IMO. We have so much improvement to come it isnt funny. That was a very ordinary Essendon side which played, once which can be significantly better (with form,match hardness and personal) in the coming games.
Perfect summation. :thumbsu:
We dropped the ball on this one and it could cost us. Upside is huge and if we don't go at least 6-5 in the second half I'd be seriously peeved.
Don't forget the North one also.... :D
Well we have to agree to disagree on the how and why but at the end of the day for whatever reason yes the North game was the other winnable game that we let slip :D
If we only win 10 games then the Adelaide and North performances will be the killer ones.
Boucks09
9 Jun 2009, 12:37
But what happend on the day?
What you posted above is much of the theory and the start of the game, but in the end we couldnt afford Hooker away from defense, so he wasnt the back up ruckman, and Lucas had to play that role because Hooker couldnt, so we effectively lost him as a 3rd forward as well as the game went on.
We couldn't afford Hooker away from defense because Tippet had his break out game. That is not something you can control on game day with the side that you have selected. Nobody could've predicted that Tippett would be taking contested marks and kicking as well as he was pre game and as such we didn't think that Hooker would be so badly needed down back.
We need to give some credit to the Adelaide side here. Had Tippet played the way he had been the week before, the Lucas/Hooker rotation would've worked fine.
We HAD to bring in a defener to replace Hooker, who was affectively taking the Bellchambers role.
When Hooker first went into the ruck, and Lucas down back was when it started getting messy down back for us. And it just snowballed.
No it didn't. Lucas first went back in the 2nd quarter and we were still winning at that point (and were infact until the last quarter). We didn't bring in another player to cover Hooker because it was decided that we needed to bring in an extra midfielder to help with midfield rotations. That is where we got smashed last week.
Hooker was NEVER going to play the 'Bellchambers role' (which is spend 30% TOG). He was always going to play significantly more TOG and as such Daniher was not going to be selected simply to play 20% TOG down back to cover when Hooker went into the ruck. It would've been a wasted selection. Daniher was also not going to play forward with Lloyd, Lucas and Neagle there.
With Hooker playing as a backup ruckman, we basically had one player, Pears, who just turned 19, as our only key defender. He played another fantastic game, but he cant do it all.
We also had Lucas down there when required. It's worth noting that Adelaide only had Tippet and Walker as KPF's. As I said neither are consistent performers and are also very young. Pears murdered Walker, and the combination of Hooker/Lucas on Tippett was a decent match up...Tippett was just outstanding on the day. You are also forgetting that Dempsey got slaughtered by Knights. Nobody is complaining about the lack of small defenders that we had on the day given that Dempsey was beaten. If we had kept Knights quiet we would've won the match.
That decision not to play another defender was a disaster. No doubt. The game proved that, as the theory went out the window. To cap it off, Lucas was a disaster in the ruck, and when he went there towards the end of the 3rd was when the game swung to them, IMO.
Lucas was actually more effective in the ruck than Hooker. He won more tap outs and gave us more around the stoppages in terms of tackling pressure. Ofcourse the game turned when Ryder went out of the ruck because neither Lucas or Hooker are ruckman and were up against actual ruckman. But we had no other options. Nobody else bar Bellchambers, Laycock or Hille could've done a better job in the ruck than Lucas did IMHO. That has nothing to do with selection but is just a sad reflection on what injuries can do to a side. Just ask Hawthorn about fill in ruckman after the Sydney game.
On top of that, too many underdone players plus effectively losing Stanton in the midfield rotation after he got that corky meant confirmed we had no hope of running this one out.
I'm with you in regards to the bringing in underdone players as has been seen with my recent threads on the topic. However Knights' hand was forced regarding this following the injuries to Winderlich and Slattery. Essentially McVeigh was removed from any possible midfield role to cover Slattery and Prismall was a straight swap for Winderlich. Reimers was a swap for Jetta which is different to any discussions regarding midfield rotations.
Reimers was really the only underdone player that we carried so perhaps Jetta could've played in his place but I'm not sure how that would've helped our midfield - perhaps releasing Davey? Nonetheless I can't see this as the reason we lost. We had 3 midfielders (Lovett, Stanton and Watson) who played outstanding games. Unfortunately our next batch were unable to make the same high level of contribution that we needed to win the game (e.g. Lonergan, Zaharakis, Dyson).
I posted this in a pre-game thread - the team selected COULD NOT WIN. I posted it then, and I'll post it now. We selected a team which had very little chance of winning that game.
They played the game of their lives, but the upside for us is HUGE IMO. We have so much improvement to come it isnt funny. That was a very ordinary Essendon side which played, once which can be significantly better (with form,match hardness and personal) in the coming games.
If Adelaide had not of kicked so amazingly well, we would've won the game and your pre match point would've looked very silly. It was their straight kicking that kept them in the contest and eventually broke us down. Add to that the terrific games from Edwards and Vince and they beat us. We didn't lose the game, Adelaide won. There is a massive difference there.
I'm with you on the fact that we have plenty of upside and can take heaps out of the loss. I wouldn't say it was an ordinary Essendon side that played though. It was one of the better sides on paper that we have put out this season. It was the likes of Lloyd and Dempsey who let us down not the underdone blokes like Prismall and Reimers.
See above in bold
I disagree with your points about Hooker/Lucas being good enough for Tippett. I believe Lucas playing on Tippett gave him the confidence to have his "breakout" game. Tippett took some easy marks in the second quarter on him and to put it simply Lucas was not good enough.
In regards to Adelaide winning this game and Essendon not losing it I also disagree. Half way through the third quarter Essendon had the oppotunities to kill off the game, however they let Adelaide back into it with two very soft goals, Dempseys handball in the goal square and another direct turnover resulting in one of Taylor Walkers goals.
kelvin_sheedy
9 Jun 2009, 13:54
If we only win 10 games then the Adelaide and North performances will be the killer ones.
that's what irks me big time. We could be 6-5 or even 7-4 with a bit more luck and we'll be coming good in the second half hopefully.
Instead of having our nose in front we are coming from behind.
I watched the game from Bali and may have a different perspective.
Coaching issues
1) The merry go round between Ryder, Hooker and McPhee in the ruck unbalanced us at different times. Moving Lucas into the backline when Hooker relived Ryder in the ruck killed us. Lucas managed to concede Goals 3 and 4 to Tippett ( in 5 minutes ) which increased his confidence. I have argued all year long that the relieving ruckman must rest in the forward line - It is crazy to disrupt the Backline.
2) EFC play 2 or 3 key backs each week. The philosophy seems to be that if one key back is struggling but the other KB is winning is to keep the status quo. It was obvious to blind freddy that Pears needed to moved onto Tippett in the second quarter.
Player Issues
1) Prismall and Reimers stuggled with the pace of the game but I was surprised at their POOR decision making and skill level.
2) Lloyd and Neagle had no impact on the game. Lloyd is suffering from the ( end of career ) syndrome when the differnce between a players good and bag games widen too much. Neagle was a bit unfortubate in that Bock is a good match up for Neagle.
They were our 4 worst players.
General issues
Watson was disappointing in the sense that he destroyed his tag ( doughty ) in the first half and usually when this occurs you continue to dominate.
EFC lost the game in the last 20 minutes of the 3rd quarter when the defensive intensity in the forward half dropped - allowing Adelaide an easy defensive transition.
And Adelaide kicked 9 or 10 goals from near the boundary line - which was sould destroying. EFC's goal kicking efficiency was effective but they were mainly from conventional positions.
No it didn't. Lucas first went back in the 2nd quarter and we were still winning at that point (and were infact until the last quarter). We didn't bring in another player to cover Hooker because it was decided that we needed to bring in an extra midfielder to help with midfield rotations. That is where we got smashed last week.
Hooker was NEVER going to play the 'Bellchambers role' (which is spend 30% TOG). He was always going to play significantly more TOG and as such Daniher was not going to be selected simply to play 20% TOG down back to cover when Hooker went into the ruck. It would've been a wasted selection. Daniher was also not going to play forward with Lloyd, Lucas and Neagle there.
Changed the format Boucks, as it was gonna get messy there.
Well, re Lucas going back maybe I had the quarter wrong, but it was when Lucas went onto him and he kicked 2 or 3 in a very short amount of time, was what, IMO, caused the "breakout". Players on fire become like a very fast train - very hard to stop when going.
And in relation to the Hooker/Bellchambers role - of course he was going to spend more than 30% TOG, but how much of that was where?
Ryder needs a minimum 30% chop out time, so Hooker was there for that - but the balance of the remaing 70% for Hooker had to be split between the bench and backline - leaving 30-35% time in the backline MAXIMUM - if he was going to give Ryder the chop out required. Hooker had to be rested as well - you cant expect to have a guy that big play 30% on the ball, and be able to give his all without resting more than his usual amount.
That means that the Lucas position HAD to be a defender, because basic maths will tell you Hooker was going to be missing for 70% of the time, and he was the 2nd KP defender.
You cant expect anyone to be able to play Key back, then back up in the ruck without having freakish ability and stamina, let alone a kid in his first real year at the level. Extremely unrealistic. Even Ryder next year, with Hille in the ruck, could do that role, he would need a fair bit of rest as well.
We also had Lucas down there when required. It's worth noting that Adelaide only had Tippet and Walker as KPF's. As I said neither are consistent performers and are also very young. Pears murdered Walker, and the combination of Hooker/Lucas on Tippett was a decent match up...Tippett was just outstanding on the day.
As you said, they had 2 KP forwards, but we had 1.3 - Pears and 30% of Hookers time if we were lucky. It just didnt add up, and hence was a big reason why it went pear shaped (no pun intended, Pears gave Walker a shellacking). It was the Hooker position which we didnt adequately cover.
You are also forgetting that Dempsey got slaughtered by Knights. Nobody is complaining about the lack of small defenders that we had on the day given that Dempsey was beaten. If we had kept Knights quiet we would've won the match.
Lucas was actually more effective in the ruck than Hooker. He won more tap outs and gave us more around the stoppages in terms of tackling pressure. Ofcourse the game turned when Ryder went out of the ruck because neither Lucas or Hooker are ruckman and were up against actual ruckman. But we had no other options. Nobody else bar Bellchambers, Laycock or Hille could've done a better job in the ruck than Lucas did IMHO. That has nothing to do with selection but is just a sad reflection on what injuries can do to a side. Just ask Hawthorn about fill in ruckman after the Sydney game.
The way I saw it Lucas was horrible in the ruck, and was very evident in that 3rd quarter. And you are right with Dempsey, he made a few bad blues I thought - playing in inboard onto his left in the 3rd while we had momentum was a very bad play, which contributed to the momentum swing. Im pretty sure it was he who gave away a gimme goal in the qoalsquare at one point as well.
I'm with you on the fact that we have plenty of upside and can take heaps out of the loss. I wouldn't say it was an ordinary Essendon side that played though. It was one of the better sides on paper that we have put out this season. It was the likes of Lloyd and Dempsey who let us down not the underdone blokes like Prismall and Reimers.
What I meant by ordinary side, was in reality, not paper. On paper it was one of our strongest, but really, we got little out of Prismall, Reimers, even Skippy and McVeigh after half time. McVeigh was good, but let the porpus get away in the last a little bit. He was instrumental in their first 2 goals at least.
But the more i think about it, you are right, Knights' hand was forced on him. Jetta and perhaps Myers were the only possibles who may have played. Nash ended up playing VFL, but he was listed as injured.
The more I think about it, I think for 2.5 quarters this was probably our best performance this season, even though we lost. We played a side who their own supporters would agree were freakish on that day. They havnt played a game like that in a long time.
Listening to the radio at the game, at one stage in the 2nd they had kicked 6 goals from 12 inside 50's. And a few of em were utter gems. That just doesnt happen often.
We were still in control of the game until the last quarter, and we can expect so much more from so many who have only played one or 2 games. The break has come at a very good time, adding to that key back positions will be bolstered immensley with Fletcher (i think for sure) and Hurley (possible) to return for Melbourne. Ruck will be a problem all season unfortunately.
I went to Windy Hill on monday, and Welsh was pretty damn good I thought. He will be a welcome inclusion, especially if he can get a bit of a fitness base.
Just woulda been real nice to snag this one.
Jonesy1987
10 Jun 2009, 12:15
TBH I think we lost this game in the first quarter, we dominated it.
We were 5 goals to 1, and then let them get 2 undeserved goals and were right back in the game before the end of the quarter. We kicked the first of the second and would have been 5 goals up, and they would have burnt a lot getting themselves back into the game.
topjars
10 Jun 2009, 18:01
When Ryder was benched in the last quarter, if that was a regulation benching then that was a disgraceful decision. The game was in the balance, he was benched and the Crows kicked away, it's not rocket science.
This did coincide with Adelaide snatching the momentum but I reckon Edwards and Adelaides "legs" got us up. Fitter? maybe, but desire to also win it for Tyson Edwards was up there too.
It was the best game of footy I've seen for years and my first visit to the Dome:thumbsu:
Thought the air raid siren was a great idea.
Jonesy1987
10 Jun 2009, 18:35
This did coincide with Adelaide snatching the momentum but I reckon Edwards and Adelaides "legs" got us up. Fitter? maybe, but desire to also win it for Tyson Edwards was up there too.
It was the best game of footy I've seen for years and my first visit to the Dome:thumbsu:
Thought the air raid siren was a great idea.
Fitness probably has a lot to with it, 5 players (Skipworth, Mcveigh, Reimers, Dempsey, Prismall) returned from injury in less than two weeks and appeared underdone
stay true
10 Jun 2009, 23:03
I didn't think we played that badly today but heres my reasons...
- Too many underdone players selected.
- Crows bigger bodies in the middle was telling in the last quarter.
- Those 2 goals we conceeded when we were 5 goals to 1 up hurt a lot too. Especially as they came almost directly from turnovers in our forward 50 when we got a bit too pretty and stuffed up when we probably should have been 7 goals to 1 up.
- Crows amazing accuracy! 18.6 is pretty impressive but 21.4 is just wow.
among others.