Strategy Things are starting to get interesting.

[bigman]

Western Bulldogs are one of our bogey teams. For a team that has spent considerable time at the base of the table since our entry we have always found it difficult to beat them even in our halycon days on the mid to late 1990's.

This week is no certainty. I remember last year when Dickson and Campbell played well above their ability and helped take us to the cleaners.

 

[Changaneen]

Glenno ... on paper, what you say seems correct. Looking deeper though, 1] Port have a poor record at Etihad, and to play a finalist from last year away at Etihad for your first game ... no gimme! 2] To then play the Crows in a Showdown is like a finals match, regardless of form, any side can win ... tough match! 3] Then to backup against an angry North ... Arguably one that got away! 4] The manner in which we beat Brisbane, who missed out on finals last year by one kick ... significant! 5] West Coast were looking sinister in their first three outings, unanimously being touted potential top-4. Playing them in Perth alway a tough gig regardless ... Huge win! To say that Port has had no "real test" is just crazy!

Having said all of the above, the games against Geelong, Hawthorn, Freo, and even Collingwood, will be hugely significant. Not even a one-eyed Port supporter surely expects Port to win them all. Conversely, even a one-eyed Port hater, would (or should) automatically dismiss Port because of a loss to any of these! Win or lose, it will come down to the manner in which they play.

Ps ... I am a mad Port lover, but I am also not a Crows hater! I feel a strong Port and a strong Crows, is good for Adelaide, and good for football! I immensely dislike the small minded supporters on both sides that continually find the need to validate their own side, by denigrating the other! That being said there is always a place for light hearted banter, but that should always be tempered by respect! When the Crows play, I do want them to win if I pick them in my footytips, otherwise I am largely ambivalent to their results ... that is, unless the Crows losing improves Port's position on the ladder. A view I have for all teams, and expect their supporters to have for Port. Otherwise, all the best for the season, and as they say in the classics, may the best team win!

My eyes bled after reading that tripe.

 

[Wood_Duck]

I think this happens every year.

Reality is that from 2009 we are 6-25 against top four teams. That includes 2009 (1-7) and 2012 (1-4) which were our 'good' seasons.

Of course it is difficult to beat the top teams. But the reality is that we're miles off being a contender and have been for a long time.

We consistently get seduced by our performances against mid-table clubs and bottom clubs. We win a fair share of our home games. Always convince ourselves that we are only a couple of wins or a bit of bad luck away from contending.

Totally agree. We are unlikely to be competitive with the top teams this year, I think that's a given. We are still a young fairly inexperienced team. Under normal circumstances you would assume we were a team on the rise. Do we have everything else in place to improve to the level required, that is the question.

PS. I am far from being seduced.

 

[Mattrox]

Looking over the team that played......

We had 8 under 50 gamers Jaensch hit 50 so isn't counted.

Crouch 3
Hartigan 6

Kerridge 17
Shaw 19

Laird 21
Brown 29

Lynch 30
Jenkins 31

This is heartening. Let's get games into these players.



Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

 

[Bailey01]

Need to get games into Hartigan and Shaw asap cos they are going to be important defenders in the future.

 

[Vader]

Need to get games into Hartigan and Shaw asap cos they are going to be important defenders in the future.

The jury is still out on Shaw, because of his dodgy disposal (which wasn't too bad on Sunday) and his fragile body. Hartigan looks like being around for a long time to come.

 

[TheRoo32]

How I would like to see us line up round 9 against Collingwood. (assuming all of Otten, Crouch and Tex are back.)

B: Brown, Hartigan, Otten
HB: Jaencsh, Talia, Smith
C:Sloane, Dangerfield, B Crouch
HF: Lynch, Jenkins, Wright
F: Betts, Walker, Kerridge
R: Jacobs, Thompson, Douglas

IC: Grigg, Pods, Mackay, M Crouch, Laird, Lyons, Rutten

With four of the interchange getting selected dependant on match ups.

 

[Wood_Duck]

How I would like to see us line up round 9 against Collingwood. (assuming all of Otten, Crouch and Tex are back.)

B: Brown, Hartigan, Otten
HB: Jaencsh, Talia, Smith
C:Sloane, Dangerfield, B Crouch
HF: Lynch, Jenkins, Wright
F: Betts, Walker, Kerridge
R: Jacobs, Thompson, Douglas

IC: Grigg, Pods, Mackay, M Crouch, Laird, Lyons, Rutten

With four of the interchange getting selected dependant on match ups.

Brad Crouch will be no where near back.

 

[beartoo]

How I would like to see us line up round 9 against Collingwood. (assuming all of Otten, Crouch and Tex are back.)

B: Brown, Hartigan, Otten
HB: Jaencsh, Talia, Smith
C:Sloane, Dangerfield, B Crouch
HF: Lynch, Jenkins, Wright
F: Betts, Walker, Kerridge
R: Jacobs, Thompson, Douglas

IC: Grigg, Pods, Mackay, M Crouch, Laird, Lyons, Rutten

With four of the interchange getting selected dependant on match ups.

Rutten has to take Cloke.

 

[Mckaye17]

My round 9 team...

B: Brown - Rutten - Hartigan
HB: Smith - Talia - Smith
C: Sloane - Dangerfield - M.Crouch
HF: Lynch - Jenkins - Petrenko
F: Betts - Walker - Otten/Wright
R: Jacobs - Thompson - Kerridge (Tag Swan or Pendles)
Int: Douglas - Otten/Wright - Laird - Mackay - Grigg - Lyons

I think we need to try stretch them wherever possible. If Grundy and Witts are their ruckmen then obviously they'll rest forward so we need that height, so play Rutten, Talia and Hartigan as the main defenders and Otten as the swingman. Not sure if Reid will be back by then for the pies but it'll be a test if they play Cloke, White, Grundy, Witts and Reid for us.

 

[Mckaye17]

Oh also give Laird or Wright a defensive forward role on Fasolo, he's killing it at the moment similar to Smith and Jaensch for us.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I think this happens every year.

Reality is that from 2009 we are 6-25 against top four teams. That includes 2009 (1-7) and 2012 (1-4) which were our 'good' seasons.

Of course it is difficult to beat the top teams. But the reality is that we're miles off being a contender and have been for a long time.

We consistently get seduced by our performances against mid-table clubs and bottom clubs. We win a fair share of our home games. Always convince ourselves that we are only a couple of wins or a bit of bad luck away from contending.

How damning is that statistic.

Here's another that will make you weak at the knees:

Since 1998

Finals record against top 4 teams: 1-8

Finals record against teams ranked above us: 0-9

Feel sick yet?

 

[sbenno]

How damning is that statistic.

Here's another that will make you weak at the knees:

Since 1998

Finals record against top 4 teams: 1-8

Finals record against teams ranked above us: 0-9

Feel sick yet?

I don't think that would be much better for any side, except those who finished 1 or 2. Might look good for Brisbane, Geelong and Hawthorn, but not too many others I wouldn't have thought.

I would think still better than Richmond, Carlton, Melbourne, Freo, or North.

Bit of a catch 22 though. If you have a good record against top 4 sides, you're probably first or second anyway. I wouldn't have thought too many clubs that finish 5-8 have a good record against top 4 clubs, because if they did, they'd probably be top 4.

Also, you would expect a poor record against higher ranked teams - they're ranked higher because they have played better.

Still, room for improvement.

 

[marshallfender]

I don't think that would be much better for any side, except those who finished 1 or 2. Might look good for Brisbane, Geelong and Hawthorn, but not too many others I wouldn't have thought.

I would think still better than Richmond, Carlton, Melbourne, Freo, or North.

Bit of a catch 22 though. If you have a good record against top 4 sides, you're probably first or second anyway. I wouldn't have thought too many clubs that finish 5-8 have a good record against top 4 clubs, because if they did, they'd probably be top 4.

Also, you would expect a poor record against higher ranked teams - they're ranked higher because they have played better.

Still, room for improvement.

What a great post
Some posters on here just cant seem to look forward.......

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Even in 2009 and 2012 though our record against top four sides was woeful.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I
Bit of a catch 22 though. If you have a good record against top 4 sides, you're probably first or second anyway.

We've finished top 2 three times in the last 9 seasons. Not top four... top TWO. For a grand total of one finals win against other top four sides.

Have any of those other sides you mentioned finished top two even once, let alone three times?

What a great post
Some posters on here just cant seem to look forward.......

Some posters on here are delusional.

 

[Mattrox]

Even in 2009 and 2012 though our record against top four sides was woeful.

In 2012 our draw was easy, we should have been 4th or 5th.

It's normal to lose to higher ranked sides. That's because by definition it is harder to win vs top 4 sides. It's why they are top 4.

For example, this year Hawthorn haven't beaten anyone above them on the ladder either. And by year's end that will probably still be the case.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Have any of those other sides you mentioned finished top two even once, let alone three times?

Which ones do you believe have a better record than us over the last decade?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

And that's what we're saying.

Even in 2009 and 2012 when we thought during the finals series that we were GF chances we were actually well behind the top four teams.

Those seasons have been used by us as evidence not to make any significant changes.

 

[sbenno]

I'm not saying we don't have a problem - we do, but if we compared that stat with every other club, there would be a small handful who had a favourable record, and the rest would be similar to ours. It was made out like we were a big outlier, but I doubt that we are.

The club needs cultural change to really move forward, but those stats don't really aid the argument.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I'm not saying we don't have a problem - we do, but if we compared that stat with every other club, there would be a small handful who had a favourable record, and the rest would be similar to ours. It was made out like we were a big outlier, but I doubt that we are.

The club needs cultural change to really move forward, but those stats don't really aid the argument.

But the clubs with poor records against top four clubs over a prolonged period (like us) are the ones rebuilding.

Are we? Bringing in Podsiadly and Betts says no.

 

[sbenno]

Well there's 2 kind of issues there. Firstly the stat annoyed me because Pete was making a point about our "flat track bully" status, but that's not what his data said. A better way of presenting it would have been to just pick the years we finished top 4. I agree that we do have a problem performing in big games.

Whether or not we're rebuilding depends on whether to you subscribe to the premiership window theory, and I haven't really made up my mind about that yet. If you had asked me in 2012 whether port were coming into a "premiership window" I would have said no, but I think they could be a real contender this year. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Melbourne and Carlton seem to be perpetually rebuilding, and Hawthorn and Geelong are ever green. I doubt the value of rebuilding as a concept.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Ah ok, I thought you were referring to our 6-25 record that I'd mentioned

 

[sbenno]

Ah ok, I thought you were referring to our 6-25 record that I'd mentioned

Well, I sort of am. The thing is, over a long enough time scale you would expect all teams to have poor records against top 4 sides. On any given year, you're more likely not to be in the top 4 than you are to be in it, which means any given team is far more likely to have a losing record against top 4 sides than a winning one, unless they spend more time in the top 4 than not.

The only time a record against top 4 sides means anything is when you're actually in the top 4 (which you did mention), because that's the only time when you could reasonably expect anything approaching 50-50.

If you're not in the top 4, but have a good record against the top 4, then (almost by definition) that means you've got a poor(er) record against sides which have finished lower on the ladder. I think North Melbourne last year had a favourable record against top 4 sides, but lost far too many games against inferior sides. From memory, Geelong may be a similar case.

Personally, I think we should worry about getting in to the top 4 first, and worry about how we fare against top 4 sides when we get there.

EDIT: Just reading back over your original post, I think there's merit to what you say, that how our good record against lower ranked sides has distracted us from our poor record against the top 4, specifically in 2009 and 2012. I don't really know how we should address that, but I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and write off all our current group by "rebuilding" - if we've got the personnel to reach the top 4, then we've got the personnel with the capacity to win the flag, but some tinkering is definitely required to get us over the line against the Hawthorns and Geelongs of the competition.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Which ones do you believe have a better record than us over the last decade?

That was my point - they've rarely finished top two. Our record in finals belies where we've finished on the table.

To finish top two three times in nine years and not contest one grand final is an embarrassment.