Autopsy AFL 2024 Round 1 - Cats v Saints Sat March 16th 7:30pm AEDT (GMHBA)

[Hamingja]

he didn't have to kick the goal, you guys were up. Mind boggling lack of footy iq to not pass it.

Ego to be the match winner more than a lack of footy IQ. He kicked it and it is a results based world.

 

[Sttew]

he didn't have to kick the goal, you guys were up. Mind boggling lack of footy iq to not pass it.

I just watched play. The first thing Danger did after marking and getting off the ground was check what was ahead of him. He made an assessment, decided not to risk passing, an assessment that proved 100% correct. Stop being a killjoy.

And yes we were up by 1 point. A lot can happen in a minute.

 

[joe444]

Very low level footy IQ by Dangerfield at the end of the game. Despite kicking the goal, all he had to do was hit a 20m pass inside 50m to his team-mate (that was wide open) who then would have chewed up the remaining 30secs. Afl players simply don't have any idea how to use their brains the same way basketball players do who think, strategise and fight for each millisecond.

Possibly the dumbest thing I've read on here for a while.

Who was this mythical teammate?

Last two mins: Clutch Dangerfield ends Saints’ charge

The thrilling final moments between Geelong and St Kilda in round one

www.afl.com.au

 

[Sttew]

Possibly the dumbest thing I've read on here for a while.

Who was this mythical teammate?

Last two mins: Clutch Dangerfield ends Saints’ charge

The thrilling final moments between Geelong and St Kilda in round one

www.afl.com.au

A very low IQ post?

 

[joe444]

A very low IQ post?

Mind boggling.

I think he means Brad Close with 43 seconds left, but no way is Danger able to see that.

 

[PhatBoy]

That’s what this game is reduced to: criticising a player because in his run-up to kick for a goal that he ultimately nails, to seal the game, he didn’t spot out of the corner of his eye, a teammate peel away from an opponent and kick it sideways to him to take a safe option and just avoid taking the shot.

 

[FootyLad0]

That’s what this game is reduced to: criticising a player because in his run-up to kick for a goal that he ultimately nails, to seal the game, he didn’t spot out of the corner of his eye, a teammate peel away from an opponent and kick it sideways to him to take a safe option and just avoid taking the shot.

Yep, people will find any way to be negative.

He kicked the game winning goal FFS. Why would he risk a goal within his range by passing to someone that could have been cut off? He clearly looked up after marking to see if he could pass it off and decided not to.
Was a wise choice.

 

[joe444]

That’s what this game is reduced to: criticising a player because in his run-up to kick for a goal that he ultimately nails, to seal the game, he didn’t spot out of the corner of his eye, a teammate peel away from an opponent and kick it sideways to him to take a safe option and just avoid taking the shot.

A teammate who:

• had pointed at the goals 20 seconds earlier
• Danger had glanced towards just before his runup to shoot.

Seriously.

 

[FootyLad0]

That’s where the players get on the carousel. Go in and out

That doesn’t work against a flood lol

The defenders will let them push up and out of the 50 and they won’t move.
It’s a tactic that teams that generally aren’t very good use to turn the game into a shitshow where no one scores.
Which if you ask a lot of Saints fans they will agree, they got a good young team they should play exciting and attacking footy.
The slingshot is great during Home and Away but during Finals it falls apart against the best transition sides.

The rebuilding Swans did it to dynasty Richmond a few years ago during Covid to stop them from blowing them out. Ross Lyon teams have always done it.
It’s a rubbish game style.

 

[danster168]

Possibly the dumbest thing I've read on here for a while.

Who was this mythical teammate?

Last two mins: Clutch Dangerfield ends Saints’ charge

The thrilling final moments between Geelong and St Kilda in round one

www.afl.com.au

watch the replay. you tell me who it was. you can disagree all you like, but it's common sense to pass it. it's common sense footy iq. if he missed, you give the other team 30 seconds to score. why take that chance. Dumb play.

 

[FootyLad0]

watch the replay. you tell me who it was. you can disagree all you like, but it's common sense to pass it. it's common sense footy iq. if he missed, you give the other team 30 seconds to score. why take that chance. Dumb play.

I just did, @1 minute and 56 seconds Danger looks up to see if he can pass it off….then does it again at 2 minutes, 5 seconds into the video where Close was pointing at the goals for Danger to shoot.

He checked again @ 2 mins and 15 seconds. That’s 3 times he looked to pass before his TEAMMATES told him to have a shot.

Sounds like you’re applying this logic to a player you dislike….if it was Clarry or Petracca doing this you’d be praising them for scoring.
We see through your logical fallacy mate.

 

[danster168]

I just watched play. The first thing Danger did after marking and getting off the ground was check what was ahead of him. He made an assessment, decided not to risk passing, an assessment that proved 100% correct. Stop being a killjoy.

And yes we were up by 1 point. A lot can happen in a minute.

you don't have to be Einstein to know that you need to use your 20 seconds up and then look to pass. the option was there to do the smart thing and he didn't have the IQ to do it. thankfully his kick missed the post and its a non issue. But there's no doubt on Monday morning the coaches are telling danger to use his head but at the same time saying 'nice kick'.

For Danger to think his team needed a goal is concerning. One simple 20m pass would've been just as effective.

 

[STPer18]

WOW! “Despite kicking the goal all he had to do...”. He did what he had to do - HE KICKED THE ******* GOAL

It was like shelling peas for CLUTCHick CLUTCHerfield after all. Never in doubt.

 

[PhatBoy]

watch the replay. you tell me who it was. you can disagree all you like, but it's common sense to pass it. it's common sense footy iq. if he missed, you give the other team 30 seconds to score. why take that chance. Dumb play.

Common sense to pass it when that player was marked right up until Dangerfield was three quarters of the way through his approach to his shot at goal.

 

[Sttew]

you don't have to be Einstein to know that you need to use your 20 seconds up and then look to pass. the option was there to do the smart thing and he didn't have the IQ to do it. thankfully his kick missed the post and its a non issue. But there's no doubt on Monday morning the coaches are telling danger to use his head but at the same time saying 'nice kick'.

For Danger to think his team needed a goal is concerning. One simple 20m pass would've been just as effective.

1 point up, all the momentum with Saints whose ability to play sling shot football was evident all night. And yet you are having conniptions because Danger backed himself and kicked the goal to seal the game.

You must be a hoot at parties focusing on everything that is negative.

Mate, let it go. You are embarrassing yourself keeping this stupid story going

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

watch the replay. you tell me who it was. you can disagree all you like, but it's common sense to pass it. it's common sense footy iq. if he missed, you give the other team 30 seconds to score. why take that chance. Dumb play.

Taking the range of circumstances into account: 43 seconds on the clock as it hits his boot (37 by the time the goal umpire signals), 1 point lead (even a point has a benefit, unlike if Geelong were up by 2-4 points), well into his approach by the time Close had any sort of separation (probably why the St Kilda defender let him off the chain by a few metres at that stage, he knew by then that Dangerfield was having a shot); if the player has the distance in his leg to score, I back him in there.

He'd taken his full time, he would have had to spot Close out of the corner of his eye (when his eyes should be locked in by then on where he wants the ball to go) and hit him up without stopping, otherwise it's play on. What if he miskicks, or a Saint who he has failed to spot comes in to chop it off? You make it sound like nothing possibly could have gone wrong with the option you're suggesting, when there's actually several ways it could have unstuck and St Kilda get the ball back, only then the Cats would have just a one point lead to protect, rather than almost certainly two, at the very least. And that's not even considering the 50/50 chance that a guy who'll probably finish with 350-400 career goals might actually go back and split the middle. A bad result (Dangerfield scoring a behind) means 30 seconds and change, Cats zone well and truly set-up, Saints have to go end-to-end and goal, Geelong can afford a rushed behind or missed shot and still win.

It's easy from the couch. It was the right decision and it was vindicated. Maybe the thinking would have been different if it had been Miers with the ball. There aren't too many players who can effectively make their approach for a pressure set shot from outside 50 with the game in the balance and have their eyes darting all over the place for options and - all due respect to the guy - Dangerfield isn't one of them. He's well and truly committed to taking the shot by then and his eyes aren't focused on anything but the target. He sealed the win and he was close to BOG. Get off the grass.

 

[danster168]

1 point up, all the momentum with Saints whose ability to play sling shot football was evident all night. And yet you are having conniptions because Danger backed himself and kicked the goal to seal the game.

You must be a hoot at parties focusing on everything that is negative.

Mate, let it go. You are embarrassing yourself keeping this stupid story going

you can be annoyed that i'm focussing on the negative as that's true but its almost impossible to disagree with what should he have done in that moment. whats easier, a goal from 50m or a 20m pass to an open man? Both win the game. These are professional athletes and they should be making better decisions.

No doubt the coaches will remind him on Monday morning.

 

[danster168]

Taking the range of circumstances into account: 43 seconds on the clock as it hits his boot (37 by the time the goal umpire signals), 1 point lead (even a point has a benefit, unlike if Geelong were up by 2-4 points), well into his approach by the time Close had any sort of separation (probably why the St Kilda defender let him off the chain by a few metres at that stage, he knew by then that Dangerfield was having a shot); if the player has the distance in his leg to score, I back him in there.

He'd taken his full time, he would have had to spot Close out of the corner of his eye (when his eyes should be locked in by then on where he wants the ball to go) and hit him up without stopping, otherwise it's play on. What if he miskicks, or a Saint who he has failed to spot comes in to chop it off? You make it sound like nothing possibly could have gone wrong with the option you're suggesting, when there's actually several ways it could have unstuck and St Kilda get the ball back, only then the Cats would have just a one point lead to protect, rather than almost certainly two, at the very least. And that's not even considering the 50/50 chance that a guy who'll probably finish with 350-400 career goals might actually go back and split the middle. A bad result (Dangerfield scoring a behind) means 30 seconds and change, Cats zone well and truly set-up, Saints have to go end-to-end and goal, Geelong can afford a rushed behind or missed shot and still win.

It's easy from the couch. It was the right decision and it was vindicated. Maybe the thinking would have been different if it had been Miers with the ball. There aren't too many players who can effectively make their approach for a pressure set shot from outside 50 with the game in the balance and have their eyes darting all over the place for options and - all due respect to the guy - Dangerfield isn't one of them. He's well and truly committed to taking the shot by then and his eyes aren't focused on anything but the target. He sealed the win and he was close to BOG. Get off the grass.

Thanks for taking the time to actual analyse the situation. Close should've been the front of his mind. His eyes should've been ready for any player open. Close was wide open.

You can deflect and talk about how he was BOG but it doesn't take away from that poor decision. Especially with his history of poor goal kicking.

why give saints 30s to score and potentially lose the game when you don't have to.

 

[Generalissimo]

Because short kicks inside 50 had worked against St Kilda's flood so well up until then.

 

[Catastrophe!]

Thanks for taking the time to actual analyse the situation. Close should've been the front of his mind. His eyes should've been ready for any player open. Close was wide open.

You can deflect and talk about how he was BOG but it doesn't take away from that poor decision. Especially with his history of poor goal kicking.

why give saints 30s to score and potentially lose the game when you don't have to.

Mate just shut up and listen to someone else for once in your life. You're not right about everything.

 

[STPer18]

The captain.

 

[PhatBoy]

you can be annoyed that i'm focussing on the negative as that's true but its almost impossible to disagree with what should he have done in that moment. whats easier, a goal from 50m or a 20m pass to an open man? Both win the game. These are professional athletes and they should be making better decisions.

No doubt the coaches will remind him on Monday morning.

When you’re halfway through you’re run into a shot:

The shot at goal. You can’t pull a kick to someone sideways that you didn’t even know was there and pretending like you can and that it’s easy is the boast of a w***er.

 

[PhatBoy]

Thanks for taking the time to actual analyse the situation. Close should've been the front of his mind. His eyes should've been ready for any player open. Close was wide open.

You can deflect and talk about how he was BOG but it doesn't take away from that poor decision. Especially with his history of poor goal kicking.

why give saints 30s to score and potentially lose the game when you don't have to.

Close wasn’t wide open. Close was in contact with his direct opponent the entire way through the process up until Dangerfield was roughly 3-4 steps from his actual foot making contact with the ball.

 

[STPer18]

Why pass when you can dob them from 65m late in the game like Captain Patrick?

 

[Sttew]

you can be annoyed that i'm focussing on the negative as that's true but its almost impossible to disagree with what should he have done in that moment. whats easier, a goal from 50m or a 20m pass to an open man? Both win the game. These are professional athletes and they should be making better decisions.

No doubt the coaches will remind him on Monday morning.

I wouldn’t be annoyed IF Dangerfield had missed the goal, but he kicked the sealer. Cats got the 4 points. I’m happy and I’d be confident Chris Scott is relieved. The Saints were formidable and were on a roll