Review Good/Bad/Ugly v Richmond (R2 2018)

[Betts are off]

We weren’t the better team.

On the day no, but I still think we were the better team for the vast majority of that season. Obviously that means SFA when it’s all said and done

 

[chazwazza]

7.8 50 to 7.7 49


chazwazza

What’s your point GC?

 

[Sanders]

On the day no, but I still think we were the better team for the vast majority of that season. Obviously that means SFA when it’s all said and done

Sure if you paid no attention to their season, and particularly the last 1/3rd then I can see how you’d think that.

They were the form team coming into finals and they swept all before them including us

 

[John Who]

Ultimately that is the situation that we're in though. Nothing other than winning the big one can redeem. Nothing done now will fix that.

That's precisely why we should be selective with our praise at this point. It's not earned.

As far as blaming the fans goes- the no performance necessary at our club starts with those that think that bestowing unearned praise is somehow virtuous. It's every bit a part of it.

It's good to see you have the passion, but the passion is misdirected somewhat due to an illogic that I can see from your repeated responses. Your logic goes something like this "you can't be a great coach/player unless you win a premiership".
The reality is that there are plenty of great players/coach that doesn't play in a winning GF. Some might never even had the chance to play in one! Look back to our 97 and 98 years. We've beaten teams that were well regarded in Saint Kilda and North, and just because they lost on the big day, it doesn't take away the fact that we've beaten champion teams and we just happened to play better on those days.
I guess I'm saying "yes it does, when the team wins I'm happy", when you're saying "nothing matters unless we win a GF".

 

[Freewayflyer]

To throw my two cents worth in, and I say this having not seen a second of a replay of the grand final. It is hard to fathom that the coaching group couldn’t see that if Richmond created enough pressure on the ball carrier, particularly around the stoppages, forcing us to kick high and long repeatedly to marking targets of Tex, Jenkins and Otten it played perfectly in to their hands. Even with McGovern in at times last year we still got cut up badly when teams could force this.

I thought it was a pretty obvious pattern last year, and was essentially the ‘blueprint’ of how to beat us. You never really know what is happening in the coaches box but taking till round 2 this year to see a response to that pattern seems quite slow to me.

 

[CrowBloke]

1) Or, we could simply assess people on their results when it matters 2) rather than frothing over their minor round performances.
3) This is precisely why we never change anything.

Have you noticed that multiple posters have objected to your line of thought on this?
BREAKING NEWS:
Even if we win the next 3 flags, the 2017 GF is lost. That cannot be changed. Winning in 2018 would not be "redemption" for 2017 or make up for the last 20 years, Walsh's death, the Tippett fiasco or the exodus of talent from the club etc etc. All it would mean is that we've won the 2018 flag and proved that we're a consistent, competitive force in the AFL, as if the last 3 seasons aren't proof enough.
What counts is the present, which shapes the future by learning from mistakes and doing things better.
1) in this thread (check the title) we're assessing people (Coaches/players) on the Round 2 result, which was excellent. If you want to go on about the 2017 GF, bump that thread and whine away. Winning on Thursday night mattered, for many reasons. 1-1 is so much better than 0-2 and will give the kids in our side immense self-belief and confidence in the team processes.
2) Why wouldnh't we cheer and express satisfaction about their win over Richmond?
3) Utter rubbish.
Here are some changes you haven't noticed, among many:
--- We beat the side that beat us last time, in spite of current injuries and (theoretically) lesser personnel, proving that the 2017 loss had a lot to do with mental state and intent.
--- we played a smart, high-possession game, which controlled the tempo of the game. Nice change.
--- JJ finally used his body well, took some good contested marks and played to team patterns (eg when he lead out, taking Rance with him, creating space for Tex to take that one-handed mark)
--- 22 points up at 3/4 time, they played better/harder to increase the lead, even after Richmond got it back to 2 kicks. The week before, pretty much the same side faded. Another nice change.
There are many more, but this is essay enough for one post.
"We never change anything" is exaggerated nonsense.

 

[Vhaluus]

Sure if you paid no attention to their season, and particularly the last 1/3rd then I can see how you’d think that.

They were the form team coming into finals and they swept all before them including us

Disagree, we were the form team but we were hit with some key injuries at the worst time whereas they had basically a clean bill of health for their best 22.

 

[CrowBloke]

I thought it was a pretty obvious pattern last year, and was essentially the ‘blueprint’ of how to beat us.

The blueprint? Again?
A blueprint is an exact plan which, when followed, creates a desired result as planned ie usually what they intended to build. When followed as planned, a blueprint is faultless. Don't you see that if there was a "blueprint" we'd have lost so many more games to the teams that used it? We only lost 6 games and while their were some common causes (eg hard tag on Sloane, losing contested possession count), the opposition won for many different reasons.
What NM and Melb. did in Rounds 7 and 8 were completely different. NM played to the ground and the gale that was blowing. That day the Crows played dumb, schoolboy-level, windy-wet-weather footy. Geelong beat us at the Cattery where their winning record is ridiculously good. Why didn't they just roll out "the blueprint" to beat us at home later and in the PF?
What counted on Thursday night was how much better the Crows played than against Essendon the week before. It was coincidence our opponent was Richmond --- no matter who we played, we had to play better, and win.

 

[Rotayjay]

The Hardwick thing and Fog getting reported are the Vic boys club having a sook. They want to give us a whack for beating Richmond when we were supposed to implode and give them more media fodder to feast on. They can get f*****

Quoted for emphasis. We stuck it up them good and proper, and now it's time to have a good season, win a premiership and really show them.

 

[Golumless]

Disagree, we were the form team but we were hit with some key injuries at the worst time whereas they had basically a clean bill of health for their best 22.

Not really we lost a few games in the lead up to finals. We equally were given the privilege to do that.

 

[Freewayflyer]

The blueprint? Again?
A blueprint is an exact plan which, when followed, creates a desired result as planned ie usually what they intended to build. When followed as planned, a blueprint is faultless. Don't you see that if there was a "blueprint" we'd have lost so many more games to the teams that used it? We only lost 6 games and while their were some common causes (eg hard tag on Sloane, losing contested possession count), the opposition won for many different reasons.
What NM and Melb. did in Rounds 7 and 8 were completely different. NM played to the ground and the gale that was blowing. That day the Crows played dumb, schoolboy-level, windy-wet-weather footy. Geelong beat us at the Cattery where their winning record is ridiculously good. Why didn't they just roll out "the blueprint" to beat us at home later and in the PF?
What counted on Thursday night was how much better the Crows played than against Essendon the week before. It was coincidence our opponent was Richmond --- no matter who we played, we had to play better, and win.

You’ve taken my use of the word blueprint literally, I used the word in the way it is thrown around in AFL circles.

And no, it is not as simple as just rolling it out and beating us. You need a midfield who can sustain pressure, a backline that holds structure and then capitilises on the rushed entry and a forward line who converts. Just because there is a tactic that could win you the game doesn’t mean you can necessarily execute it.

You say what counted was how much better we played than against Essendon but there is always a reason. If you go back to the Essendon match and Betts trying or having to take hanger after hanger I believe it is because our mids just bombed away. Against Richmond we possessed the footy more, don’t play in to the hands of Rance and co. with long high balls so much and different result. There are other elements also e.g how well our defence held up on Thursday night but doesn’t really matter how well they hold up if we just bomb away once we get the footy back.

I don’t care what you call it but if there is high pressure on the ball carrier and we bomb away we don’t score frequently enough. It ain’t something new.

 

[CrowBloke]

Ch 9 Footy Show twits are whingeing that an AFL coach shouldn't have to walk through the crowd after the game (re Hardwick and Crows fan).
I thought there was a way he could go out undercover, takes a minute longer?
Can anyone confirm please?

 

[Southerntakeover]

I care.
If the players had enacted the game plan and not been so disunited the GF result might have been different.
Having lost that match, what's Pyke supposed to do? Give up, and whinge about losing the GF like you are 6 months later?
No.
To his credit he formulated a plan to beat Richmond on Thursday night which included toughness, winning the contested ball and high possession execution, none of which the players used on GF day.
We lost the 2017 GF. Get over it, since no amount of bleating will change the result.

Exhibit a.

 

[hey shorty]

Lethal reckons it was Dimma in the wrong

 

[hey shorty]

Exhibit a.

What was wrong with the comment ??

If we do as you are, and continue to look back at failures we will never win anything. It's the exact reason Collywobbles became a thing

 

[Southerntakeover]

What was wrong with the comment ??

If we do as you are, and continue to look back at failures we will never win anything. It's the exact reason Collywobbles became a thing

The club plainly didnt agree, given the much publicised pre-season.

Ignore it, rock up the next year with the same people, and hope the results last time we failed were an outlier is what we've been doing for 20 years. It doesnt work.

 

[hey shorty]

The club plainly didnt agree, given the much publicised pre-season.

Ignore it, rock up the next year with the same people, and hope the results last time we failed were an outlier is what we've been doing for 20 years. It doesnt work.

I'm sure they didn't ignore it, and to an extent nor did most supporters. Unlike them however, we have no control over what the team does this year.

The team failed on the big day for sure, but what that has to do with the last 20 years I don't know what you're getting at

 

[CrowBloke]

Exhibit a.

For what? Common sense and reasonable posting?
Re:
""We never change anything""
To your credit, you've not tried to defend that.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I'm sure they didn't ignore it, and to an extent nor did most supporters. Unlike them however, we have no control over what the team does this year.

The team failed on the big day for sure, but what that has to do with the last 20 years I don't know what you're getting at

You know exactly what I'm getting at. The culture of overpraising minor round performances and entirely ignoring big game failures pervades our club.

I mean, we've got great minds in this thread telling us it was all the players fault- who got banished? Who didnt end up in round one team who failed other than as the result of injury?

 

[Southerntakeover]

For what? Common sense and reasonable posting?
Re:
""We never change anything""
To your credit, you've not tried to defend that.

Skyscrapers don't take defensive action when a pigeon flies into them.

 

[hey shorty]

You know exactly what I'm getting at. The culture of overpraising minor round performances and entirely ignoring big game failures pervades our club.

I mean, we've got great minds in this thread telling us it was all the players fault- who got banished? Who didnt end up in round one team who failed other than as the result of injury?

Not sure anyone in the club overpraised the minor round. We belted 2 sides in 2 finals, 1 in particular who has had the wood over us for years. We went into a GF without a key member of our running brigade on the largest ground against a running side. We also had no fit player on the bench in the 2nd half.

Of course we analyse that, but we can't ignore the fact that we are a good side who chose the worst day to have our worst day.

 

[Freewayflyer]

Not sure anyone in the club overpraised the minor round. We belted 2 sides in 2 finals, 1 in particular who has had the wood over us for years. We went into a GF without a key member of our running brigade on the largest ground against a running side. We also had no fit player on the bench in the 2nd half.

Of course we analyse that, but we can't ignore the fact that we are a good side who chose the worst day to have our worst day.

All that stuff you just put down is reason I would have thought that we saw some big tactical changes at times on grand final day. I’ve never watched even a second of a replay but watching live I saw very little. Pyke rightly made changes on Thursday night and has been praised by some posters but surely it is easy to see why some posters wonder why similar changes weren’t evident on grand final day.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Skyscrapers don't take defensive action when a pigeon flies into them.

Darwin's theory suggests the stupid pigeon should die...

 

[CrowBloke]

Skyscrapers don't take defensive action when a pigeon flies into them.

LOL
... and "a nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse", or any other obscurity.
<== you were being funny, right? Mission accomplished.

No? You're a skyscraper of a poster now?
Apt.
Skyscrapers can't take defensive action when a pigeon flies into them, because they're immovable and don't think.
Try to show me or argue-with-examples where I'm wrong, mate. This is a Forum, not "do-you-know-any-sayings?".

 

[CrowBloke]

but if there is high pressure on the ball carrier and we bomb away we don’t score frequently enough. It ain’t something new.

Good post overall. I see what you meant.
That high pressure shows itself best in contested possessions before the oppo becomes "the ball carrier".