Review R1: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly vs. Collingwood

[GreyCrow]

I haven't watched one second of SANFL in the last few years but the vibe I got from here was that he was very raw. Don't recall anyone hyping him up, at least not our lord and savior bigman.

I was/am one who thought he would struggle to find a spot in the AFL side and was a token

But he did get a game and I am happy for him to get more to find his feet

Sometimes you just have to go on potential rather than '' numbers in the SANFL ''

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Just watched it. What was going on at the near wing in the 1st qtr? Counted about 5 or so out on the full with little pressure.

A lot has said about the likes of Milera and co. so won't go through the popular ones

Thought Murray had his best game by far since his knee injury. Jumping for intercept marks all over the place and was more assured with his decision making. Was very offence minded. We really need him to reach his potential with Keane and Worrell.

I expected to see worse from Bond, but think he's unfairly treated on this board. He's played 13 games. Had two turn overs by foot and they resulted in goals. One of those was about 1 inch from being a very good kick to Soligo off the outside of his boot that would have opened up play. Was beaten a few times on the lead, but Elliot would be one of the hardest match ups in the comp. I like his confidence and willingness to take the game on and search for more attacking options. I don't think his disposal is a concern (yet) given his experience level. I've got faith he'll be a decent player.

Berry was an interesting one. Had an alright game but I don't think he showed anything new. Knows how to get a break away clearance and has probably improved in this area, but lacks some class by foot. Until he improves his kicking I wouldn't have him as a midfield lock. He's good depth at this stage. Peatling also isn't amazing by foot, but he has better skills than berry imo.

Still think Butts doesn't fit this kicking heavy game plan. He's too slow with the ball. He's important depth, but it's the first one out when Keane is back. Time to invest in a young key back (not using a first rounder) with more polish by foot.

McAndrew surprised given his poor outing against freo. I still think some of these so called taps to advantage are just pure chance, but he definitely has more craft in these contents than ROB. Couple of good handballs and looks like it isn't the first time he's ever held a football.

Pedlar a bit quiet, but his skills look a lot better then recent times. I think like cook, he's a player we need to persist with as he's a pure footballer.

T Murray looked way out of his depth in all facets of the game. Annoying that we need to use a spot right now,but I get it.

It seems like we carried a bunch of players who were managed almost like a pre season game (Soligo, Michalanney, Ah Chee, Peatling). I'm still shocked that this didn't cost us the game. All of these players bar Ah chee seemed to click more as the game went on thankfully. Very much needed coming up against the dogs.

Not sure who comes out for rankine. Think it will be one of Berry or Peatling. I'm all for the removal of laird, but can't see it happening. Think we persist with bond.

I raised this in another thread a few days ago ago, but surely ROB is a better option than T Murray as second ruck.

I’m glad we’ve replaced ROB as #1 but he would have to be streets ahead as second banana if we insist on playing a dedicated second fiddle

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The one thing I do find wierd about us in these scenarios is we're rather resistent to rotating Dawson to half back when we're struggling to get the ball moving from the backlines.

A lot of our attacks in Q3, especially early, were built around centre clearances and forcing turnovers across the middle of the ground

Our D50 to F50 transition improved a bit in the second half maybe...? But seemed a problem for much of the night despite Milera and Worrell having good games. We relied on a couple of 50m penalties to get us going in Q4 when Collingwood were challenging.

The commentators mentioned something like of our 14 D50 exits in Q2, only one ended up in our F50 which is deplorable

Despite the great result I'm sure we're looking at our ball movement this week

 

[Carn The Texan]

Just watched it. What was going on at the near wing in the 1st qtr? Counted about 5 or so out on the full with little pressure.

I think we had 5 OOBOTF in that same spot in the first and then another in the same spot (aka opposite side of the ground) in the 2nd. I am willing to put that down to it being our first competitive hitout in a while and just getting used to the ground dimensions again. But it was really weird and probably cost us a goal or two in the first.

 

[Carn The Texan]

A lot of our attacks in Q3, especially early, were built around centre clearances and forcing turnovers across the middle of the ground

Our D50 to F50 transition improved a bit in the second half maybe...? But seemed a problem for much of the night despite Milera and Worrell having good games. We relied on a couple of 50m penalties to get us going in Q4 when Collingwood were challenging.

The commentators mentioned something like of our 14 D50 exits in Q2, only one ended up in our F50 which is deplorable

Despite the great result I'm sure we're looking at our ball movement this week

Without watching the replay i feel like a lot of these linkup failures in the 2nd were just due to direct turnovers. Some really hasty / nervous / inexperienced play on show and other times just low skill stuff.

It's part of the reason why the teams that have already played in opening round get an advantage.

 

[FR0GGY]

I think we had 5 OOBOTF in that same spot in the first and then another in the same spot (aka opposite side of the ground) in the 2nd. I am willing to put that down to it being our first competitive hitout in a while and just getting used to the ground dimensions again. But it was really weird and probably cost us a goal or two in the first.

isn't the MCG extra wide?

 

[jirkago1975]

Laird was poor on the weekend and a momentum killer but it’s also the rest of the players giving him and easy option to kick to. If we don’t spread quick enough, the opposition team will cause a turnover.

I found myself asking if he was becoming the new Jake Kelly at times in the 2nd Q.

Kelly's first reaction was always to stop. Then he'd look backwards, and sideways. Only when the umpire called play-on would he actually look forward to see if anyone was open. Laird is fast going down the same track.

 

[Carn The Texan]

isn't the MCG extra wide?

yep im struggling to explain it. my only theory would be that being less circular and more oval means the boundaries at AO run straighter whereas at the MCG it turns back more sharply towards the goal, so you have to ensure you angle your kicks more towards goal once you're inside 50. see attached comparison (MCG is the base ground, AO is mustard line, Kardinia in this example is the blue line). so while the wings are much wider, the boundary line is actually heading back to goal at a much more acute angle around that point where we kept kicking it OOB.

i'm not even sure i'm making any sense so i hope somebody else can understand what i mean

 

[Mutineer]

I raised this in another thread a few days ago ago, but surely ROB is a better option than T Murray as second ruck.

I’m glad we’ve replaced ROB as #1 but he would have to be streets ahead as second banana if we insist on playing a dedicated second fiddle

Toby is a Key Forward/Chop out ruck and ideal for giving McAndrew a rest at times, generally when the oppo's ruck is also having a rest on the bench. I think ROB only plays now if McAndrew gets injured or loses form or perhaps needs a rest. Murray is way more dangerous up forward than ROB if one of our KPF's gets an injury.

 

[Carn The Texan]

yep im struggling to explain it. my only theory would be that being less circular and more oval means the boundaries at AO run straighter whereas at the MCG it turns back more sharply towards the goal, so you have to ensure you angle your kicks more towards goal once you're inside 50. see attached comparison (MCG is the base ground, AO is mustard line, Kardinia in this example is the blue line). so while the wings are much wider, the boundary line is actually heading back to goal at a much more acute angle around that point where we kept kicking it OOB.

i'm not even sure i'm making any sense so i hope somebody else can understand what i mean
View attachment 2552998

i would really like to be able to overlay the AO dimensions over the MCG dimensions, but with the two tethered not at the centre bounce point like in the diagram above but tethered at the exact centre wing point on the boundary line because that boundary line is the frame of reference players have for their ground positioning as they run down the wing. I think this then would show that for a player running down the wing any kick to a player inside the 50m line on the boundary needs to be something like 5 metres closer to the middle of the ground than expected on the MCG vs on AO.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

A lot of our attacks in Q3, especially early, were built around centre clearances and forcing turnovers across the middle of the ground

Our D50 to F50 transition improved a bit in the second half maybe...? But seemed a problem for much of the night despite Milera and Worrell having good games. We relied on a couple of 50m penalties to get us going in Q4 when Collingwood were challenging.

The commentators mentioned something like of our 14 D50 exits in Q2, only one ended up in our F50 which is deplorable

Despite the great result I'm sure we're looking at our ball movement this week

This is why Keane is such a big out. I was more pissed about that injury than Curtin's.

 

[davos44]

I raised this in another thread a few days ago ago, but surely ROB is a better option than T Murray as second ruck.

I’m glad we’ve replaced ROB as #1 but he would have to be streets ahead as second banana if we insist on playing a dedicated second fiddle

100% agree, ROB's around the ground work was always decent. He drops back in the defensive hole and takes a few good marks here and there.

ROB has the fitness to get to every around the ground contest but should only take centre bounces against their 2nd fiddle, Darcy or Lobb?

 

[CrowBloke]

Nicks will change a winning side this week methinks.

Unless there's no spot for Izak??

Fair enough; I wasn't clear . I was referring to the second change apart from the obvious necessity.
In his presser, Nicks said Rankine will come straight back in.

 

[Golumless]

A lot of our attacks in Q3, especially early, were built around centre clearances and forcing turnovers across the middle of the ground

Our D50 to F50 transition improved a bit in the second half maybe...? But seemed a problem for much of the night despite Milera and Worrell having good games. We relied on a couple of 50m penalties to get us going in Q4 when Collingwood were challenging.

The commentators mentioned something like of our 14 D50 exits in Q2, only one ended up in our F50 which is deplorable

Despite the great result I'm sure we're looking at our ball movement this week

The whole game D50-F50 numbers are bad. It's something like 15.7% D50-F50 chains when the league average last year is 21%

In saying that, it may have been the numbers are ok if you take out the 2nd quarter.

 

[Golumless]

A lot of our attacks in Q3, especially early, were built around centre clearances and forcing turnovers across the middle of the ground

Our D50 to F50 transition improved a bit in the second half maybe...? But seemed a problem for much of the night despite Milera and Worrell having good games. We relied on a couple of 50m penalties to get us going in Q4 when Collingwood were challenging.

The commentators mentioned something like of our 14 D50 exits in Q2, only one ended up in our F50 which is deplorable

Despite the great result I'm sure we're looking at our ball movement this week

The whole game D50-F50 numbers are bad. It's something like 15.7% D50-F50 chains when the league average last year is 21%

It may have been the numbers are ok if you take out the 2nd quarter. However, Nicks has to find a running game just to keep ball movement from becoming one-note.

 

[FR0GGY]

yep im struggling to explain it. my only theory would be that being less circular and more oval means the boundaries at AO run straighter whereas at the MCG it turns back more sharply towards the goal, so you have to ensure you angle your kicks more towards goal once you're inside 50. see attached comparison (MCG is the base ground, AO is mustard line, Kardinia in this example is the blue line). so while the wings are much wider, the boundary line is actually heading back to goal at a much more acute angle around that point where we kept kicking it OOB.

i'm not even sure i'm making any sense so i hope somebody else can understand what i mean
View attachment 2552998

Nah I understand, it makes some sense, however I think it’s more just an anomaly.

 

[StonesThrow]

A lot of our attacks in Q3, especially early, were built around centre clearances and forcing turnovers across the middle of the ground

Our D50 to F50 transition improved a bit in the second half maybe...? But seemed a problem for much of the night despite Milera and Worrell having good games. We relied on a couple of 50m penalties to get us going in Q4 when Collingwood were challenging.

The commentators mentioned something like of our 14 D50 exits in Q2, only one ended up in our F50 which is deplorable

Despite the great result I'm sure we're looking at our ball movement this week

Good point. I thought our d50 exit strategy was pretty bad and like you said it was most of the night. Slow switches or sideways kicks that allow defenders to set up. No real handball receives to a running player to open things up. Putting it in the hands of laird too often who can't take risky options. Even if you eventually spot up a target in the middle, they've got numbers back by then.

Collingwood don't have a defence so I think we didn't get exposed by this.

Doesn't seem like a strategy that will stand up in finals when there is more pressure on the likes of of laird, Murray, butts and Worrell who I wouldn't say are classy under pressure with the ball.

 

[StonesThrow]

I raised this in another thread a few days ago ago, but surely ROB is a better option than T Murray as second ruck.

I’m glad we’ve replaced ROB as #1 but he would have to be streets ahead as second banana if we insist on playing a dedicated second fiddle

Not a bad idea if we're purely selecting a second ruck just to give McAndrew a break. I guess you're not exposing Murray to AFL level then.

 

[Ian Dunross]

I raised this in another thread a few days ago ago, but surely ROB is a better option than T Murray as second ruck.

I’m glad we’ve replaced ROB as #1 but he would have to be streets ahead as second banana if we insist on playing a dedicated second fiddle

T Murray ahead of O'Brien for mine. Murray can at least do a job up forward whereas ROB is ruck or bench and he's useless with ball in hand and around the ground.

ROB should only get game time if McAndrew needs a break or there's an injury

 

[Redline]

Great win, just about a case of all played well apart from Laird The best part was we responded in the last quarter

I had Collingwood only in the mix for 9th or 10th so I don't want to get to excited. We will know more Friday night.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Laird was poor on the weekend and a momentum killer but it’s also the rest of the players giving him and easy option to kick to. If we don’t spread quick enough, the opposition team will cause a turnover.

Laird does this ridiculous thing where he takes a mark, then stands and "threatens" to give off a handball that is never on offer, then 3 seconds go past then he jogs back from the mark and kicks it down the line, meanwhile all the defenders have positioned themselves behind the ball and any opportunity to open up the ground is lost. Every time. Take the mark, get back off the mark and release the ball.

I think he's become a net liability - certainly from a rebound POV, although maybe he does good spread and defensive actions I don't notice.

 

[Vader]

yep im struggling to explain it. my only theory would be that being less circular and more oval means the boundaries at AO run straighter whereas at the MCG it turns back more sharply towards the goal, so you have to ensure you angle your kicks more towards goal once you're inside 50. see attached comparison (MCG is the base ground, AO is mustard line, Kardinia in this example is the blue line). so while the wings are much wider, the boundary line is actually heading back to goal at a much more acute angle around that point where we kept kicking it OOB.

i'm not even sure i'm making any sense so i hope somebody else can understand what i mean
View attachment 2552998

Mathematically, the term you're looking for is the eccentricity of an ellipse. Adelaide Oval has a higher eccentricity, as the length of the semi-major axis (i.e. the length of the ground) is much greater than the semi-minor axis (width). The MCG is almost round, and has a lower eccentricity.

Kardinia Park is the shape of a potato, not a geometrical ellipse - so the mathematical formulae really don't apply. The problem with the pockets at Potato Park is not that the boundary slopes in steeply. The problem is that the boundary line is almost completely flat until ~20m from the point posts, at which point it starts to curve away from the goals. This flatness means that there is almost no angle whatsoever to work with when kicking at the goals from these pockets. There is no real mathematical way of describing what is not a regularly shaped geometric object.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Tex classy on the left in Q4, laces out McAndrew

McAndrew the poor bastard was completely spent by that stage.. after he dropped the sitter he fell to the ground and could barely get up to make a contest for the spilt footy..

He looks like a supremely fit bloke (although I wouldn't mind seeing him add a little bit more muscle mass) but he needs to get AFL match fit. There’s fit and then there’s AFL match fit.

It’ll happen though.. just gotta be patient.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

A lot of our attacks in Q3, especially early, were built around centre clearances and forcing turnovers across the middle of the ground

Our D50 to F50 transition improved a bit in the second half maybe...? But seemed a problem for much of the night despite Milera and Worrell having good games. We relied on a couple of 50m penalties to get us going in Q4 when Collingwood were challenging.

The commentators mentioned something like of our 14 D50 exits in Q2, only one ended up in our F50 which is deplorable

Despite the great result I'm sure we're looking at our ball movement this week

From our back 7 of last year, right now we have replaced Keane and Hinge with Butts and Bond, leaving us with basically, in order of contribution to our attacking game:

3x lockdowns (Murray, Butts, Bond)
a two way player who is defend first (Max)
an accumulator with no damage (Laird)
a metres gained rebounder with no precision in ball use (Worrell)
a proper rebounder (Milera)

All good footballers in their own right - I thought much more of Bond's game than most on here - but it's unbalanced. Garry Lyon hit the nail on the head in commentary when he said "who are the ball users here?"

I think it would look better - at least until we get Keane back (query whether Hinge is still one of the first 7) - with a Cook or Nank in place of Bond or Laird.

 

[Velvet George]

McAndrew the poor bastard was completely spent by that stage.. after he dropped the sitter he fell to the ground and could barely get up to make a contest for the spilt footy..

He looks like a supremely fit bloke (although I wouldn't mind seeing him add a little bit more muscle mass) but he needs to get AFL match fit. There’s fit and then there’s AFL match fit.

It’ll happen though.. just gotta be patient.

Yep, he was ****ed