Autopsy AAMI Community Series - Game 1, 2021: Carlton v St.Kilda

[plugger66]

We lost a lot of the clearances again. I thought Crouch would help that a lot more. Why do you think our defence looked so rudderless yesterday?

Hopefully Bytel gets a move on, his clean centre break clearance got him blocked for the rest of the times he attended but he has such clean skills and footy nous. I can see him jumping Crouch in a couple of years.

We had 50 clearances to 35. What are you about? That’s a smashing.

 

[LJC05]

I’ve been a Longy supporter but jeez he does some dumb things. His awareness with the ball seems to have gotten worse. Looking at his numbers on paper aren’t too bad, but it’s the eye-test that is worrying.

Like a few have said, he’s no lock for Round 1, given Webster seems healthy and has the ability to play bot the smaller types Long plays on and a few of the medium-bigger types as well.

A couple of quick overall thoughts:

• King, while he has put on more size would benefit a bit more from trying to get out and lead, opposed to grappling with blokes. May have been a product of the delivery inside 50 and the overall plan to get the ball to ground for the Small’s but if he can find space for a lead or do the Riewoldt of leading up then running back hard he might find his scores a bit easier
• A few times there was a Gresh to Hill back to Gresh type plays that were very exciting. Both dynamic types especially the way Gresh can extract it, dash 10m and find Hill to give a handball
• Seb Ross should really benefit from not being the #1 or #2 mid option now. I’ve been a harsh critic but last night he just seemed to play a bit freer and thought he played well
• Crouch didn’t get a lot of it but was generally in the right spots and I think these two pre season games have been more about him feeling out how we set up, etc and how he can work
• Bytel just keeps improving. Wish he played more but he definitely has something. Hoping he can get an opportunity as well as developing another area of the ground he can play so it makes him hard to not pick him

 

[Ads734]

Interesting. And how does that happen without rule changes? It doesn’t because coaches won’t let it happen.

I’m not disputing potential rule changes. Personally I think finding a way to encourage scoring over 100 points would be a better solution. I just don’t like rules that restrict player movement. Ie zones/restrictions on the mark etc. One of the few differentiating things about aussie rules is the freedom to be where ever you want when ever you want

 

[Longmembrey]

3rd quarter I reckon we were match-simming some intense heat for the back 6.

If we won the ball, we would bomb long to the wing and be outnumbered, and let it come back in. Only time all night we took that option, couldn't have been by accident.

Fair point. We had guys loose for the switch being ignored for constant long bombs down the wing. Looked weird, but what you said makes sense.

 

[plugger66]

How many times does a player on the mark ever smother a kick unless the player with the ball gets too close ...... practically never

That’s correct because they kick down the line because the player on the mark isn’t on the mark. He is inboard. Last night they could kick around the player on the mark and actually go inboard. As pointed out by jb hills goals was a perfect example of that. Normally the man on the mark would be inboard so that play just wouldn’t work.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

At the game last night, the player on the mark was spotted on the boundary and the play moved inside numerous times.

Worked well. Cut the stoppages right down. Will be interesting to see in season proper conditions.

If the player on the mark is on the boundary that means the player with the ball is over the boundary and he would go inwards anyway or backwards

Again the player on mark even if moving aint going to stop an inwards kick ..... likely the only reason he goes down the line is because his team mates in the middle corridor are covered not because the dude on the mark has a 10m leap on him and will smother the ball

 

[plugger66]

I’m not disputing potential rule changes. Personally I think finding a way to encourage scoring over 100 points would be a better solution. I just don’t like rules that restrict player movement. Ie zones/restrictions on the mark etc. One of the few differentiating things about aussie rules is the freedom to be where ever you want when ever you want

We stood that way on the mark for many years until early 2000’s. Encouraging scoring doesn’t work because of uneven fixture and indoor and outdoor footy.

 

[Joffaboy]

We had 50 clearances to 35. What are you about? That’s a smashing.

I think gringo went to a different game to the rest of us.

How are we going with mature agers from the SANFL?
Wilkie
Highmore
Hunter.

Hunter was very good for a replacement ruck. He halved the ruck at training v Paddy but actually was effective around the ground.
Would have a got a game before Longer and Hickey.

 

[plugger66]

If the player on the mark is on the boundary that means the player with the ball is over the boundary and he would go inwards anyway or backwards

Again the player on mark even if moving aint going to stop an inwards kick ..... likely the only reason he goes down the line is because his team mates in the middle corridor are covered not because the dude on the mark has a 10m leap on him and will smother the ball

Then why do they do it? I can assure you it stops even the best kickers. You obviously didn’t see the highlights before the game last night. I suggest you look at that and you may understand the difference.

 

[jwikked]

Sorry its a sh*t rule but it was offset last night by the umpires calling play on very quickly even when the player with the ball hadnt moved off his line ....... this I like

Have to admit, I liked the way they did that.
Most of the time the player on the mark wasn’t even lined up between the goals and the player kicking the ball, wasn’t that a feature of the rule?

 

[Sarcoidevo]

That’s correct because they kick down the line because the player on the mark isn’t on the mark. He is inboard. Last night they could kick around the player on the mark and actually go inboard. As pointed out by jb hills goals was a perfect example of that. Normally the man on the mark would be inboard so that play just wouldn’t work.

Have you ever thought the inwards play wouldnt work because the attacking teams players are covered in those areas and its risky kicking it inboards due to turnover danger??

 

[plugger66]

Have you ever thought the inwards play wouldnt work because the attacking teams players are covered in those areas and its risky kicking it inboards due to turnover danger??

They did it more last night. Have you ever thought why do teams practice that Manning on the mark if it has no effect? What is actually wrong with the rule?

 

[Longmembrey]

I think the biggest thing that stood out for me tonight is that teams that can be accurate by foot over that 15-20m kick and can get runners from behind the ball are going to be at a massive advantage.

the standing still on the mark rule literally opens up the run from behind the ball as the stopped player loses all momentum against a guy at almost full pace.

don’t think it’s any surprise to see guys with big tanks like hill and Sinclair get plenty of footy in thus vein and butlers tank will see him get on the end of a lot of footy again.

You can already see teams are setting up a "sweeper" about 20 meters behind man on mark to counter the run past handball. Still opens it up a bit though.

 

[Joffaboy]

3rd quarter I reckon we were match-simming some intense heat for the back 6.

If we won the ball, we would bomb long to the wing and be outnumbered, and let it come back in. Only time all night we took that option, couldn't have been by accident.

Behind the goals at the Coventry end, you could see we looked to kick to congestion on the wings, Coff and Doogs did it numerous times.
As you say, free players on the fat side, didn't go there.
Seemed to go down a gear until they got within 6 points and then started running it again.
Was a praccy after all.

 

[Ricmel]

Why? It is directly in relation to last nights game.

Because most come here to read opinions on the game. People who want to read opinions on the rule change go the the thread dedicated to it on the main page.

 

[Stewart66]

Hilly was outstanding in 3 quarters. Was a bit quiet in the third.

So great to be back at the footy, even better to watch the brown bag supporters lose their minds.

Won’t add to the obvious highlights (Sincs, Snags, LoneDog, ball movement, Bytel’s cameo) but the glaring issue last night was our stoppage work in defence.

I counted at least 6 Carlton goals that came from ball ups where a Blues player waltzed through congestion & kicked a goal. It’s probably something that is addressed with Paddy or Roma rucking and better positioning but bloody hell it was frustrating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree hence why the positive it was a practice game the line coaches will get lot out of it...although it
was‘nt ruck issue more awful , lazy work by small defenders in their accountability.

 

[Longmembrey]

Lots of promising signs.

Ratts is great, but I’m concerned we’re going to waste Battle’s career by putting him on a wing. Aside from the Essendon game, it pretty much hasn’t worked and he looks infinitely better as a forward. Versatility isn’t always an advantage for players and I think he suffers from a perceived need to utilise him up the ground.

Spot on. Personally I would settle him as a lock down KPD. Can start by replacing Frawley (same height). Has shown he can do it previously. We have better options on the wing, and plenty of forwards. Our weakness is KPD depth.

 

[George]

Looking forward to seeing if tonight's game brings about the same results.

As for us even though it's two practice games winning can only ever be a good thing and we will continue building confidence.

Interested to see how Carlisle does in today's practice game against the Blues amongst a few others.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

They did it more last night. Have you ever thought why do teams practice that Manning on the mark if it has no effect? What is actually wrong with the rule?

The 50m penalty for even the slightest movement even backwards which would have no effect on jack ....... christ you cant even jump up and down on the spot anymore

 

[Saintos The ITK]

One major flaw Ross needs to work on, which he actually recognised and admitted to last pre season is the fact he just kicks blindly apart from short passes nearly 100% of the time. Even the goal he kicked last night was a speculative kick into the ether.

 

[Longmembrey]

It was made to look good last night because the umps were hot on calling play on quickly (which I think is great) so the player on the mark was only stuck for a few seconds

Quite a few players took the decision to stand still to the side of where the mark should have been so the theory that doing that stops inward kicking is laughable cause it didnt

This theory of a player being able to move around on a mark and therefore being able to stop a 30-40m 45 degree inward kick is a furphy as players dont have super speed or leaping powers to do it

Disagree, I think the biggest effect is that now you can't do the defensive handover where the man on the mark can run off chasing a potential receiver while a team mate takes his spot on the mark.

 

[plugger66]

The 50m penalty for even the slightest movement even backwards which would have no effect on jack ....... christ you cant even jump up and down on the spot anymore

Well you can jump up and down on the spot so that’s wrong. Secondly the 50 metres isn’t the rule. The rule is stand still on the mark. What is wrong with that rule? Like any rule you are then penalised for not obeying the rule but the penalty isn’t the actual rule.

 

[Joffaboy]

Because most come here to read opinions on the game. People who want to read opinions on the rule change go the the thread dedicated to it on the main page.

It is opinion of the rule change in relation to last nights game. Don't read it if you don't like them. Who are you to tell people what to post. You aren't a mod

 

[FQFjt]

This is the most depth a St Kilda side has had for 25 years.

We might be a bit short on for superstar marquee players, but there are basically no weak links anymore.

Watching the combo of Gresham, Hill, Hunter, Sinclair weave the ball through the traffic is pure art.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Biggest negative of the night was trying to figure out which Hunter people were referring to. We need to make a decision people.

It kind of bugs me when they refer to "Steel, Gresham , Crouch , Sinclair and Hunter ( Clark ).
If they said Jack, Jade, Brad , Jack and Hunter at least its consistent, though you can see the problem with that.