Thoughts On The West Coast Game

[KUNG FU]

I doubt he'd be effective as a permanent forward though. He's like Hunter for the Weagles, when in need for goals he just pops up and delivers.

Yeah, I acknowledged that argument, but surely its worth putting him up there for a little more often. One game, 3 quarters in the forward line. Thats all I ask. His conversion rate is so much better than any of our forwards this year. He's kicked 14 goals from 13 games, playing no more than a half of footy in the forward line all year.

 

[KUNG FU]

I should also mention, he's kicked 14.3 this year. Much higher conversion rate than other other Crow.

 

[slappy]

I should also mention, he's kicked 14.3 this year. Much higher conversion rate than other other Crow.

Thats a good point but like Welsh he has to be the 3rd tall or he is unlikely to be very effective.

Also for those who think Bode is our saviour, you might be interested to know that only twice in his career has he managed more than 10 goals in a season ... and people hang sh.t on Welsh!

 

[Dandy_GO]

Also for those who think Bode is our saviour, you might be interested to know that only twice in his career has he managed more than 10 goals in a season ... and people hang sh.t on Welsh!

goalkicking isn't the reason why we need Bode in the side.

 

[slappy]

goalkicking isn't the reason why we need Bode in the side.

i would have thought its very much high on the list for a small forward. i dont know abut you but i was amazed at how poor his goal ouptut was.

 

[SkinFeeling]

Listened to the game on the internet and was glad I didnt end up watching it on TV. From what the commentators on MMM were saying, it sounded horrible...
What I really want to know is when was the last time Macca kicked a goal. The Crows are certainly missing some of those on the run 'magic' Macca goals

 

[bus24]

...
What I really want to know is when was the last time Macca kicked a goal. The Crows are certainly missing some of those on the run 'magic' Macca goals

He was very close. Got a wicked bounce, would've been a brilliant, inspirational goal too.

 

[Dandy_GO]

i would have thought its very much high on the list for a small forward. i dont know abut you but i was amazed at how poor his goal ouptut was.

Last year his forward pressure was statistically the best in the whole competition. More forward 50 tackles than anyone, not to mention a surprisingly huge number of 1%ers, clearances etc. We need him up forward to keep the ball in there. The longer the ball stays in our forward 50, the more likely we are to score goals. Right now, it goes in there and if our players don't mark it, more often than not it flies straight back out. Bode is key to keeping it in there.
He may not be a huge goalscorer, but his goalkicking ability isn't why we're missing him.

 

[slappy]

Last year his forward pressure was statistically the best in the whole competition. More forward 50 tackles than anyone, not to mention a surprisingly huge number of 1%ers, clearances etc. We need him up forward to keep the ball in there. The longer the ball stays in our forward 50, the more likely we are to score goals. Right now, it goes in there and if our players don't mark it, more often than not it flies straight back out. Bode is key to keeping it in there.
He may not be a huge goalscorer, but his goalkicking ability isn't why we're missing him.

yep i agree he is very good in that regard but the lack of goals worries me. also as our new midfield takes shape and a guy like edwards spends less time there, do you think bode is a better forward crumbing option for the next few years than edwards could be?

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

With a fit list, and a gun forward, I think we could win it next year, definitely.

Goodwin, McLeod and Edwards are still very much guns. Roo wil be again.

Burton and Bassett are still excellent.

When Macca and Goody start slowing down, we'll be rooted.

But with a gun forward, I believe our window wouldn't quite be shut.

This why I wouldn't be selling the farm for PAV. In 2008,

Goody - 31
Edwards - 32
Roo - 33. If anything, I think this year could be his last. Pains me to say it but the signs aren't good.
Macca - 32.
Torney - 31
Bassett - 31.
Burton - 30 - Also showing serious signs of wear and tear.

Even if we did get him, we would only have 1 more year ( and even then it's still an outside chance ) at a crack at a premiership. So do we ( yet again ) sell our future for only 1 chance, and an outside one at that.

IMO once bitten, twice shy. Considering the age of our ageing stars, it would take more than just Pav to be a genuine premiership threat.

Would be the ultimate irony if we trade our future to finally get a 1st tier key forward when the best midfield we will have in a longtime is in serious decline.

No quick fixes for us. The rebuild maybe slow but let's hope we do it right this time.

 

[- PC -]

Would be the ultimate irony if we trade our future to finally get a 1st tier key forward when the best midfield we will have in a longtime is in serious decline.

No quick fixes for us. The rebuild maybe slow but let's hope we do it right this time.

2 points. Well 3.. the 1st point is this ''kind of thinking'' frustrates me a lot.

We all acknowledge we were/are blessed with a once in a generation midfield...so why do we seek another? Dont we think Knights, Van Berlo , Thompson etc are gong to be any good? Certainly they may not reach the same heights as the previous 4 Horsemen..but gee I reckon they will go allright

Rebuild? Do we pull the whole engine apart and run it in slowly or do we replace those parts that are creaking and maintain a steady pace?

We are already rebuilding and this is why we have games like we did on Saturday.

 

[kulak]

Another theory I have is the existence of the Stevens Cycle:
1) Starts in defence, plays rubbish.
2) Once the game is lost gets moved up forward and kicks a couple
3) Next week he starts up forward, plays rubbish
4) Second half gets moved down back and looks ok
5) Go back to 1)

Good call

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

2 points. Well 3.. the 1st point is this ''kind of thinking'' frustrates me a lot.

We all acknowledge we were/are blessed with a once in a generation midfield...so why do we seek another? Dont we think Knights, Van Berlo , Thompson etc are gong to be any good? Certainly they may not reach the same heights as the previous 4 Horsemen..but gee I reckon they will go allright

Rebuild? Do we pull the whole engine apart and run it in slowly or do we replace those parts that are creaking and maintain a steady pace?

We are already rebuilding and this is why we have games like we did on Saturday.

In typical Bigfooty fashion, I would love to argue with you just for the sake of it. But I can't. You make some very good points. A midfield consisting of Goodwin ( for 2 more years ), Thompson, Shirley, Reilly, Knights and VB would win more battles than they lose. They are not up in the Judd, Kerr, Cousins league but neither were Sydneys midfield in 2005.

 

[since82eags]

Sorry to stick my nose in but could Fev come into the Crows and improve the forward line? Give great cover for existing injuries and put pressure on McGregor, Bock and Welsh.

 

[kulak]

I am trying to work out why we lost.

From my memory of seeing stats after the TV coverage:

• we won the hard-ball gets;
• we won the centre breaks;
• we had more inside 50's;
• we won the clearances; and
• I think we had more contested possessions.

...by small margins I think, but...we clearly weren't 'outworked' in contested situations.

So why did we lose?

• we did have a lot less uncontested possessions.

My feeling is that West Coast were better at moving the ball in an uncontested fashion than us. We always seemed to have to fight our way up the ground, and still be outnumbered inside our F50.

I didn't see the first 1.5 quarters. In the 2.5 quarters I did see, I saw 5 Crow goals. Two lucky ones in a minute in the 3rd, two consolations late in the 4th, and one other I don't recall.

We got a lot of the ball, and looked toothless. So often it seemed the ball went inside F50, to a one on three, and rebounded out faster than it went in.

In the absence of gun forwards, I can only think of one possible solution; if the opposition floods our F50 with defenders, we match most of them up. At least that way we get a ground-level contest, and our gun midfielders can score some goals from there. (Copyright M. Blight.)

However, it seems that we often try to work with only 4 forwards, which is tough for them when none is exactly Coleman material.

On a more broad note, so far this year we have lost to 4 of the top 5 teams. The other one we play next week.

 

[Mad Dog]

I am trying to work out why we lost.

From my memory of seeing stats after the TV coverage:

• we won the hard-ball gets;
• we won the centre breaks;
• we had more inside 50's;
• we won the clearances; and
• I think we had more contested possessions.

...by small margins I think, but...we clearly weren't 'outworked' in contested situations.

So why did we lose?

• .

• 
  
  it's all very well to get the ball..........the trick is to use it accurately and efficiently.
  
  Our skills are what let us down yesterday.....which is something i never thought possible from a Neil Craig coached side that gets the balls out in November.
  
  Any side will look slow, uncommitted, old, and tired if they keep coughing up the ball and getting burned on the rebound.
  
  We are a better side than we displayed yesterday.......we just need to hit targets

 

[since82eags]

Hit targets under pressure not when you are hunting the opposition down and you'll get somewhere

 

[- PC -]

[*]we did have a lot less uncontested possessions.[/LIST]My feeling is that West Coast were better at moving the ball in an uncontested fashion than us. We always seemed to have to fight our way up the ground, and still be outnumbered inside our F50.

This was my observation as well.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

it's all very well to get the ball..........the trick is to use it accurately and efficiently.

Our skills are what let us down yesterday.....which is something i never thought possible from a Neil Craig coached side that gets the balls out in November.

Any side will look slow, uncommitted, old, and tired if they keep coughing up the ball and getting burned on the rebound.

We are a better side than we displayed yesterday.......we just need to hit targets

That's the answer in a nutshell.

Our ball use was the worse than I can remember for a while. Unfortunately sometimes you have a bad day.

Players don't lose skill overnight, so confident we should get back to a decent skill level from this week.

 

[kulak]

That's the answer in a nutshell.

Our ball use was the worse than I can remember for a while. Unfortunately sometimes you have a bad day.

Players don't lose skill overnight, so confident we should get back to a decent skill level from this week.

But West Coast had a much higher ratio of possessions as uncontested. Maybe our skills looked worse because we were constantly under pressure?

As compared to the previous game where we beat North Melbourne - I recall in that game that we had a lot more uncontested possessions than them.

Maybe the difference is not so much our skills (though that may play some part), but more our ability to create time and space?

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Someone care to explain why Cox was on his own for at least 5 minutes with 10 minutes to go? And they didn't use him.

That summed up the whole day for me.

 

[blackus]

If Bock/McGregor could kick straight from set shots, we would've been close.

If Welsh could kick a banan from eight metres out, we would've been in front.

If Thompson kicked straight running into goal, we would've won.

We looked absolutely terrible, yet we were still in it.

Also, Bock to CHB was a move that should have been made as soon as Bassett went down.

And if WC had not hit the post 6 times (?). Both sides missed goal opportunities - in the end WCs pressure skills and ball handling was just a bit better. You guys will bounce back. The Saints gave WC a touch up at Subi just a week ago and it probably jolted our boys back into gear.

 

[King Elvis]

And if WC had not hit the post 6 times (?). Both sides missed goal opportunities - in the end WCs pressure skills and ball handling was just a bit better. You guys will bounce back. The Saints gave WC a touch up at Subi just a week ago and it probably jolted our boys back into gear.

No doubt you were better, but how many of your posters were from set shots? And how many of your snaps went through?

If our forwards cannot kick goals from a set shot 30 metres out, we'll never win.

We don't take enough contested marks to be able to piss away set shots.

 

[blackus]

No doubt you were better, but how many of your posters were from set shots? And how many of your snaps went through?

If our forwards cannot kick goals from a set shot 30 metres out, we'll never win.

We don't take enough contested marks to be able to piss away set shots.

yeah thats a fair point. Believe me though, being a WC supporter the biggest frustration of the last decade (probably since Sumich was at his best) has been our misfiring forward line. Especially given the quality of the midfield supplying it over the last few years. It gives us a bit of hope seeing LaCras kick some clever snaps and a guy like Cones provide a marking option. No doubt both the crows & WC could do with a Fev up front to capitalise on the good midfield supply both teams offer.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

But West Coast had a much higher ratio of possessions as uncontested. Maybe our skills looked worse because we were constantly under pressure?

As compared to the previous game where we beat North Melbourne - I recall in that game that we had a lot more uncontested possessions than them.

Maybe the difference is not so much our skills (though that may play some part), but more our ability to create time and space?

Our skill use was deplorable even when we were not under pressure.

Weagles had more uncontested possessions because they ran harder to position.