66 inside 50's

[Hulk_Hawkins]

This tells me that we are winning the ball up field but either our delivery into the fwd 50 is sh1thouse atm, or our fwds are not doing their job and bringing the ball to the ground for our small fwds. I reckon it is both! The delivery after 1/2 time was atrocious, how many times did we get the ball from the wing and just blast it in to the fwd 50. Inspector Gadget (Dustbin Fletcher) had a field day all he had to do was line up those elastic band arms of his and punch the ball from KK. Our fwds had 0 chance, and when the spoil was made there was not a Geelong crumber in sight. I know we criticise the 'chipping around' mentality that some teams play, but in todays footy you need to keep possession, why not short pass back to the centre then chip to CHF or HFF, keep possession and wait for the fast lead from KK or Chappy etc into space and we have a scoring opportunity. Doesn't sound like rocket science does it? If the long kicking game isn't working change it! but you can't give up the ball as easy as we did on Friday and expect to win games. It won't happen.

 

[LongBomb]

I thought we were not protecting the ball carrier enough.
Not enough shepards and very poor disposal to put the recipient under pressure.

Blokes were under intense pressure, hence the appalling delivery into the forward line.

 

[Sammy D]

Delivery was bad, but if we are bombing long to the goalsquare we should be going long to Ottens or Playfair not Kent.

Also how often do Gaz & Chappy crumb from a situation that isnt a stoppage, seriously think about it. If we are bombing long to the square Chappy & Ablett are always up providing leads away from the goalsquare. I assume that this is their instructions. So why are we bombing it long to the square if we have no one crumbing it for starters? Even if Ottens isnt fit, chuck him in the square and he will at least contest, very rarely he will be beaten/outmarked 1 on 1 in that situation as 80% of the time he will at least bring it to ground and have someone running at his feet.

Just my opinion

 

[tusk]

I also question the amount of midfield rotation that our small forwards and Ottens are doing.

One minute we have a forward line as it is on paper then 5 minutes later Ottens is at full back Ablett and Chappy are up the ground leaving H & KK alone with half a dozen defenders standing around them.

Bomber is to reactive and is constantly tinkering.

 

[Hulk_Hawkins]

I also question the amount of midfield rotation that our small forwards and Ottens are doing.

One minute we have a forward line as it is on paper then 5 minutes later Ottens is at full back Ablett and Chappy are up the ground leaving H & KK alone with half a dozen defenders standing around them.

Bomber is to reactive and is constantly tinkering.

Agreed, what we need to do is find a system that works and stick with it.

 

[Tweak Talent]

I thought it was poor delivery into the forward

too many times there were balls dropping short or over the head of the leading forward.

 

[malvern]

Delivery was bad, but if we are bombing long to the goalsquare we should be going long to Ottens or Playfair not Kent.

Also how often do Gaz & Chappy crumb from a situation that isnt a stoppage, seriously think about it. If we are bombing long to the square Chappy & Ablett are always up providing leads away from the goalsquare. I assume that this is their instructions. So why are we bombing it long to the square if we have no one crumbing it for starters? Even if Ottens isnt fit, chuck him in the square and he will at least contest, very rarely he will be beaten/outmarked 1 on 1 in that situation as 80% of the time he will at least bring it to ground and have someone running at his feet.

Just my opinion

Yes! Why did we keep kicking to Fletcher?? If Fletcher was on Kingsley and not on a lead why would you kick to him???? Kent is rarely going to beat Fletcher in a one on one contest so why keep doing it?

If KK was drawing Fletcher, get Otto in the goal square and if you can't get KK on a lead kick to Otto and if he can't take the mark have someone crumbing front and square. But no, no that is too simple - lets repeatedly kick it to Kent, one on one with Fletcher.

It just doesn't make sense and was increadibly frustrating to watch.

It just didn't seem like we had any forward structure at all and if we did no one bothered to tell the midfield.

And why did Kent draw Fletcher right into Mooney's back? Was a useless piece of play and yet another inside 50 opportunity wasted.

Yes, the delivery was poor on occaisions but with 66 times inside 50 we should have had a far better return.