Autopsy Round 12, 2020 vs Geelong

[afl2004]

Lions, saints and then cats are our losses come against the teams we played in the 04 final series but just in reverse order

Concidence?????

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

this was 100% a coaching loss imo

Players doing dumb s**t have to take their whack, but there was too much poor coaching.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Terry Wallace said he used to love playing teams the week after they played a blockbuster game that they won.

He thinks teams are vulnerable then because everywhere they go they are reminded of the game they played, not the one coming up. Mentally they are off their game.

He put a lot of Port's performance down to that factor, on top of how well Geelong prepared.

 

[sog35]

this was 100% a coaching loss imo

Nah, the players need a clip for this performance as well. They fumbled, tackled poorly, didn't work together in the important moments. They've set a clear benchmark with how they can perform contest to contest and were nowhere near it last night.

That's not to say the coaches / game style didn't contribute to a pretty shocking night either.

 

[FutureShock]

It infuriates me that after so many years and various assistant coaches we still have no system going forward aside from bombing the ball in Dixon's general direction and hoping either he clunks it or we manage to scramble a goal from our smalls. Why are our talls always so close together? Why don't they make space for eachother? Why don't they lead? And lead and lead? As far as I'm aware, Bassett and Schofield aren't idiots...why does this never change? Seeing us hit up a leading forward or find a forward in space is an absolute rarity for us. We make it so easy for good defences.

 

[TeeKray]

Throwing up Ken Hinkley to coach against Chris Scott is like pitting a pre school kid against a NASA engineer in a maths quiz.

 

[Coobk001]

Terry Wallace said he used to love playing teams the week after they played a blockbuster game that they won.

He thinks teams are vulnerable then because everywhere they go they are reminded of the game they played, not the one coming up. Mentally they are off their game.

He put a lot of Port's performance down to that factor, on top of how well Geelong prepared.

Problem is everyone is building the Richmond game up like it was something amazing, and hard to back up from. I think thats a crock of s**t personally, and a cop out excuse.

If we want to draw a long bow like that then in hindsight, it may well have been that Richmond lack depth and copping them with so many key players out, gave us a false sense of where we are at.

Additionally we had to play out of our skins for the whole game to win that, and even after being completely dominant we were actually behind at 3 qtr time.


As much as people want to draw that long bow thats its not ability but just an 'off-night', it could just as easily be drawn the other way to just say as above that we just arent as good as some got sucked into thinking we were.


Let's also not forget the Cats had an equally big game the week before against the 2nd placed Saints, they not only then backed up with a 4 day break, but they demolished the 2nd and 1st place teams in consecutive weeks.

 

[PowerBaz]

Terry Wallace said he used to love playing teams the week after they played a blockbuster game that they won.

He thinks teams are vulnerable then because everywhere they go they are reminded of the game they played, not the one coming up. Mentally they are off their game.

He put a lot of Port's performance down to that factor, on top of how well Geelong prepared.

Ill go with Keating - ‘The loss we had to have’ !


Not a bad time for it really, looking for positives.

 

[PepeSilvia]

Clurey was given a bath but he was given zero chance because almost every Geelong forward entry was made under zero pressure in transition or after Geelong had gotten over the back of our press.

Hawkins is either marking on the lead or muscling his defender out all day. Our entire defensive strategy is based on pressuring the kick in so it's high, slow and impossible for tall forwards to get into a rhythm with. When we don't pressure that ball movement, you see what happened in the Brisbane and Geelong games.

I agree with all of that, apart from the idea that Hawkins definitely would've out marked us easily on the lead. He only took one mark on the lead (from which he kicked his third goal) when Clurey took front position, lost touch with Hawkins and panicked, turned his head to find him, then watched Hawkins sprint right past him on a short lead. The lead from Hawkins was good, the kick from Duncan was good, but the defensive work from Clurey was also poor.

That's the thing about being a defender (or just an AFL footballer in general), sometimes it's going to be hard. There are going to be games where the midfield/high defenders get it wrong and the kick coming in isn't under as much pressure as we'd like. That doesn't excuse Clurey's poor defensive positioning.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Problem is everyone is building the Richmond game up like it was something amazing, and hard to back up from. I think thats a crock of sh*t personally, and a cop out excuse.

If we want to draw a long bow like that then in hindsight, it may well have been that Richmond lack depth and copping them with so many key players out, gave us a false sense of where we are at.

Additionally we had to play out of our skins for the whole game to win that, and even after being completely dominant we were actually behind at 3 qtr time.


As much as people want to draw that long boe, is could easily be drawn the other way to just say as above that we just arent as good as some got sucked into thinking we were.


Let's also not forget the Cats had an equally big game the week before against the 2nd placed Saints, they not only then backed up with a 4 day break, but they demolished the 2nd and 1st place teams in consecutive weeks.

You keep saying "we" but what horse is Terry Wallace riding in this race? He has no affiliation with either team.

It's just a view he has and has expressed many times in the past and he used to at least partially explain Port's performance. He even used it as a factor when the Bulldogs handed Essendon their only defeat in 2000. As he said there's no way we are as bad as we played last night.

The Cats had a big game yes, but as Wallace said they're locked down in the hub without the external distractions Port has moving freely about Adelaide.

Anyway it's just an opinion from a very experienced football person that was worth sharing.

 

[Harlott]

The thing is, if you want to be one of the big boy contenders then you have to demonstrate you can beat other contenders in consecutive weeks. If you can’t do it in the minor round, how is it believable your going to do it in the finals.

 

[Jojay]

The thing is, if you want to be one of the big boy contenders then you have to demonstrate you can beat other contenders in consecutive weeks. If you can’t do it in the minor round, how is it believable your going to do it in the finals.

Hang on, it's happened infinitum where one team has beaten the other in the minor rounds only to lose to them in the finals.

If I recall correctly, we had a famous 'last kick of the day' victory at the Cattery in 2007... and we all know how that turned out.

 

[Forzaport]

In a way, this game was a repeat of our North game last year where Brown kicked 10 and snuffed out our season. There's time to recover but geez this team has a very bad habit of luring us into a false sense of security.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Did we lose because we lacked intensity, or did we lose through poor coaching and system? It's an interesting question, and somewhat of a chicken and egg conundrum. A poor game plan can make players look lethargic and slow, but likewise a lethargic and slow team can make a genius game plan look like crap.

Contested possession is a good indicator of effort. There is a little bit of strategy to winning contested possession, in terms of having numbers at the ball and positioning around the ball. But its mostly effort and ability. Yesterday we lost the contested possession by 23.

Since 2013, when we have lost the contested possession count our win rate is 34%. As we did yesterday, when we lose the contested possession count by 20 or more our win rate is 8%. You don't win games of football when you get thumped in contested possession that badly. It doesn't matter how good your ball movement is, or how sound your defensive structures are.

I think this game is entirely down to effort and intensity. We didn't show up, we got destroyed in the contest, we got destroyed on the scoreboard. It's as simple as that.

Although Ken Hinkley is ultimately responsible for getting our players in a state to play with intensity (and as a result is responsible for our performance), blaming the loss on being out coached is unjustified here. This is on the players and their own personal drive to win.

 

[klem22]

This game was beautifully coached by Scott, hinkley has no imagination coming into these sorts of games and Scott was light years ahead of him. I was only able to watch after half time and did so for about twenty minutes before i left the building. It was clear to see Scott moved the ball around creating one on one situations where Port was soundly beaten. This style of game neutralized ports pack attack and running game and completely exposed Ports lack of height down back. Well done to the Geelong team for completely outsmarting Hinkley and co which at times is not hard to do. Im hoping Schofield and monty are watching and learning as i dont think Kern is able to do.
The other thing that stood out to me was our players looked completely flat, maybe????? its the hard slog that has done this.
But all in all its a huge wake up call especially for us supporters that we are most certainly not favorites for the flag in any way shape or form.

PS WAKE UP KERN just WAKE UP!

 

[Harlott]

Hang on, it's happened infinitum where one team has beaten the other in the minor rounds only to lose to them in the finals.

If I recall correctly, we had a famous 'last kick of the day' victory at the Cattery in 2007... and we all know how that turned out.

What? I’m talking about winning against a Richmond like last week and then following up defeating a Geelong which we didn’t do. That’s what you’re going to have to do come finals time. Back up a win in a cutthroat final by then winning the following week if you’re a serious contender.

 

[Hammer#8]

One thing I don't think gets mentioned enough is that sitting 9-3 is all well and good, but we don't act and carry ourselves like we're really in it to win the flag.

We downplay our position and instead of thinking we belong where we should be, regard ourselves as ahead of schedule and a loss here and there is ok and that we're a young, developing side.

The last time I felt we fancied ourselves as a flag favourite was early 2015. We treated losses with more disappointment and below expectation, but every season since then we've painted ourselves with the loser humble brushstroke and that someones gotta lose mentality.

A Scott coached Geelong always come across as arrogant and spiteful of the opposition, which seem to translate to consistent PFs.

Our nice guy, loser image has to stop. We could still finish top but I don't think the leaders and Hinkley have the nastiness factor to have a crack, and instead meekly bow out because we've surpassed expectations.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Terry Wallace said he used to love playing teams the week after they played a blockbuster game that they won.

He thinks teams are vulnerable then because everywhere they go they are reminded of the game they played, not the one coming up. Mentally they are off their game.

He put a lot of Port's performance down to that factor, on top of how well Geelong prepared.

It certainly makes sense on the face of it. But we can test the Terry Wallace Theory out. I'm going to classify a blockbuster game as between two top 6 teams. Obviously rivalry games also fit into this category, but I have omitted them for ease.

I'm going to look at all home and away games from 2013 onwards, and only look at games after round 5. 2013 is an arbitrary starting point, but I'm using round 5 because by that point the ladder should be fairly representative of team performance.

In this time span, there have been 84 games between two top 6 teams (not in round 22 and not drawn). Of the 84 winning teams from those games, 64 of them have gone on to win the next game. So the winning rate is 76% after winning a blockbuster. Pretty high.

Also in this time span, there have been 569 games where either of the two teams have been in the top 6 (not in round 22 and not drawn). Of those games, 489 times the top 6 team has won. Of those 489 times, 330 times the winning team has gone on to with the next game, for a 67% winning rate.

So if you are in the top 6, you are more likely to win the next game after playing a blockbuster as opposed to not playing a blockbuster. It's the exact opposite of the Terry Wallace Theory.

 

[PA88]

One thing I don't think gets mentioned enough is that sitting 9-3 is all well and good, but we don't act and carry ourselves like we're really in it to win the flag.

We downplay our position and instead of thinking we belong where we should be, regard ourselves as ahead of schedule and a loss here and there is ok and that we're a young, developing side.

The last time I felt we fancied ourselves as a flag favourite was early 2015. We treated losses with more disappointment and below expectation, but every season since then we've painted ourselves with the loser humble brushstroke and that someones gotta lose mentality.

A Scott coached Geelong always come across as arrogant and spiteful of the opposition, which seem to translate to consistent PFs.

Our nice guy, loser image has to stop. We could still finish top but I don't think the leaders and Hinkley have the nastiness factor to have a crack, and instead meekly bow out because we've surpassed expectations.

Which comes through subtly in his press conferences after losses.

 

[WHOME]

Has Dixon ever stood up in a big moment - ever? He had a chance at Kardinia Park but took too long, he had a chance in a final against WCE but got the yips, he choked late against Carlton before being saved by some R Gray magic. Almost had a mental breakdown upon arrival at the interchange area. Only last week he had the chance to bury Richmond early but failed at what he's paid very well to do. I like Charlie, I really do, but he's the most frustrating PA player I think I've ever seen. If we're relying on him to win us finals we're kidding ourselves, he'll continue to break our hearts.

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Ford Fairlane]

It certainly makes sense on the face of it. But we can test the Terry Wallace Theory out. I'm going to classify a blockbuster game as between two top 6 teams. Obviously rivalry games also fit into this category, but I have omitted them for ease.

I'm going to look at all home and away games from 2013 onwards, and only look at games after round 5. 2013 is an arbitrary starting point, but I'm using round 5 because by that point the ladder should be fairly representative of team performance.

In this time span, there have been 84 games between two top 6 teams (not in round 22 and not drawn). Of the 84 winning teams from those games, 64 of them have gone on to win the next game. So the winning rate is 76% after winning a blockbuster. Pretty high.

Also in this time span, there have been 569 games where either of the two teams have been in the top 6 (not in round 22 and not drawn). Of those games, 489 times the top 6 team has won. Of those 489 times, 330 times the winning team has gone on to with the next game, for a 67% winning rate.

So if you are in the top 6, you are more likely to win the next game after playing a blockbuster as opposed to not playing a blockbuster. It's the exact opposite of the Terry Wallace Theory.

That's a lot of research on a Terry Wallace theory

To be fair he didn't say they lost more but as a coach he always thought the winner of a blockbuster was vulnerable the next week. Whether every top 6 game is a blockbuster is debatable.

Like most sports mythology it probably has some basis in fact, the theory of a post-big game letdown isn't unique to Wallace.

Interestingly, the 2000 game between Carlton and Essendon was played between the top 2 in front of 91,000 in the lead up to the 2000 finals with the added spice of Carlton having beaten top side Essendon in the 1999 Prelim Final by 1 point. It truly was a blockbuster.

Not only did Essendon lose the next week, but Carlton lost to Port with Peter Burgoyne's heroics headlining the 5 point win.

 

[Dalfino]

I totally agree it was a massive loss in coaching terms, but you knew from the minute the ball was bounced that we hadn't shown up.

Too many players slipping, too many kicks smothered, too many poor handballs to feet or nothing at all, broken tackles, fumbles, soft efforts covering Geelong's spread and stoppage dominance and I genuinely can't name a single player who put up at least a passable performance. Shithouse all around.

We were never even in the game. I'm willing to write it off as a week we just didn't turn up to rather than delete our season entirely, but it's still not ******* good enough either way. The players and coaches need a good spray after that and if we can return to the effort we showed against Richmond we'll go okay for the rest of the year. Judging by the last 8 years however there's not much evidence to say we will learn from this.

 

[RossFC]

Has Dixon ever stood up in a big moment - ever? He had a chance at Kardinia Park but took too long, he had a chance in a final against WCE but got the yips, he choked late against Carlton before being saved by some R Gray magic. Almost had a mental breakdown upon arrival at the interchange area. Only last week he had the chance to bury Richmond early but failed at what he's paid very well to do. I like Charlie, I really do, but he's the most frustrating PA player I think I've ever seen. If we're relying on him to win us finals we're kidding ourselves, he'll continue to break our hearts.

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Dixon kicked 6 against West Coast, who could end up being the top side in 2 games time.

Also Dixon was BOG vs Carlton, without his huge effort during the whole game, we lose.

 

[Dalfino]

Has Dixon ever stood up in a big moment - ever? He had a chance at Kardinia Park but took too long, he had a chance in a final against WCE but got the yips, he choked late against Carlton before being saved by some R Gray magic. Almost had a mental breakdown upon arrival at the interchange area. Only last week he had the chance to bury Richmond early but failed at what he's paid very well to do. I like Charlie, I really do, but he's the most frustrating PA player I think I've ever seen. If we're relying on him to win us finals we're kidding ourselves, he'll continue to break our hearts.

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

The issue is that Dixon is simultaneously the reason we are even in some games and also the reason we fall short. I'd look at others who don't show up entirely before Dixon.

 

[Jojay]

What? I’m talking about winning against a Richmond like last week and then following up defeating a Geelong which we didn’t do. That’s what you’re going to have to do come finals time. Back up a win in a cutthroat final by then winning the following week if you’re a serious contender.

Fair enough. I misinterpreted your post. Still don't think last night's loss is a deal breaker. All teams have a few stinkers throughout a season.