Autopsy Autopsy vs Swans

[Quivorir]

We need to find the under 9's coach the taught Turner to tackle, and bring him to the club.

 

[lockheed]

Jack goes half forward for rest of year

It's a good idea, but who would you displace?

 

[Groin guru]

It's his job to get the message across. He had 3 breaks to drum it home. It didn't change all game. I would have liked to see him change the structure and leave Brown one out for a while to see if Sydney still kept number back? Anything would have been better than watching us kick it to Sydney numbers or their loose.

How do you know he wasn't? When under pressure players often go back to their fail safe and that tends to be getting it in long. I'm sure the players are told to get it in as quickly as possible but the problem is that's subjective. We just didn't work hard enough to help out and work for one another.

One out with brown? Lol. Reid would have stood right in front of him knowing full well that's where we were going to go. Going one out we'd need to clear the 50 and get brown to drag them away from the contest. Even then the sydney coaches aren't dumb. They would just zone off knowing full well we were going to bomb it in deep. The players just didn't work hard enough. Pure and simple. Look at last week compared to this week. Look at the tackle and possession numbers. A lot of standing around.

Scott has his flaws but the players let him down yesterday.

 

[Horace]

2/16 without Waite
27/39 with since 2015


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Missed him big time yesterday. Any chance we had was lost last Monday at the MRP.

 

[B4Bear]

So conflicted.

Instead of going to the game, my wife and I went and saw 'My Fair Lady'. Now if you know the story of Pygmalion, it boils down to the fact that despite claims to the contrary, you can 'put lipstick on a pig'.

So what did I do? I tipped North, put lipstick on the pig, and got covered in mud.

Ah well, who do we play next?

 

[Horace]

Goldy had 41 hitouts, 11 disposals, 2 marks, 2 tackles & 2 goals

His two combined opponents had 38 hit outs, 14 disposals, 2 marks, 0 tackles and 0 goals.

Goldy was not the issue today. He allowed us to free up another running player, which is an even greater indictment on today's game.

I'm not critical of Goldy. My view was that Preuss would have got the job done in the rucking role, while Goldy might have been a better forward option than moving Lachie forward and replacing him with Durdin. I had no problem with Sam coming in to replace Waite, because we need him to develop, but rather than move Lachie forward, I would have left a settled defence alone and used Sam up forward.

 

[ferball]

OK, you are right. It pretty much been a rule forever. I am not a fan of the overzealous umpiring when they pay the free when the ball takes a sideways bounce after a 20 or 30 meter kick. I did get it wrong in my previous post though.

the right angle bounce for a deliberate is the one part of the rule I really don't like. The other is the one where deliberate get payed but the player is obviously targetting a teammate and just misses.

I think s**t kicks that miss teammates by miles - even under pressure - then go out should be deliberate, even if they aren't, just to force players to kick straighter.

 

[Roosurgence]

How do you know he wasn't? When under pressure players often go back to their fail safe and that tends to be getting it in long. I'm sure the players are told to get it in as quickly as possible but the problem is that's subjective. We just didn't work hard enough to help out and work for one another.

One out with brown? Lol. Reid would have stood right in front of him knowing full well that's where we were going to go. Going one out we'd need to clear the 50 and get brown to drag them away from the contest. Even then the sydney coaches aren't dumb. They would just zone off knowing full well we were going to bomb it in deep. The players just didn't work hard enough. Pure and simple. Look at last week compared to this week. Look at the tackle and possession numbers. A lot of standing around.

Scott has his flaws but the players let him down yesterday.

Anything would have been better than continuing with a structure that was playing into Sydney's hands.

It's the coaches job to get the message across. If his message was to bomb it to the Sydney spare then he gets an A+ because we executed it to perfection.

He made a personnel change when clearly it was the structure and not the personnel that was failing. I still would have cleared the 50 and directed the other forwards to play higher and try and run it in. At least it might have made Longmire think about his defensive set up.

All Longmire did yesterday was sit back and watch us play into their hands. Once he set the match day plan he wasn't challenged at all to do anything, he could have taken the day off.

We had nothing to lose, game was gone. At least try something even if it fails spectacularly.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Absolutely smashed in the midfield.

And in previous games Garner, Waite, Hrovat were getting 20 touches. Makes a huge difference to ball movement when the half forwards are up and about.

 

[utility]

What probably annoyed me the most was how defensively inept we were when the ball was on the ground in Sydney's forward line. They scored way too many goals from quick snaps from 20-40 metres out.

 

[Mav]

What probably annoyed me the most was how defensively inept we were when the ball was on the ground in Sydney's forward line. They scored way too many goals from quick snaps from 20-40 metres out.

And didn't fricking miss when they did snap!

 

[Roosurgence]

And didn't fricking miss when they did snap!

That's because our defensive set up was atrocious.

We had them covered in the air. All we had to do was clog the defensive 50 and limit the space for them to move in.

Why do you think Longmire played Reid as the spare for a lot of the game? Because he knew their was space in their 50 for their smalls to do the damage.

Yesterday was a cluster * on the ground and in the box.

Structurally we were poor and as equally poor in execution and effort.

 

[Gasometer]

It's a good idea, but who would you displace?

Anderson

 

[Dirty_11]

Good-

Turner- only bloke that looked motivated to bring pressure
Taz- solid on buddy all day, considering the supply that went it blanketed him
Cunners- huge load to carry when it's basically 1v3. Kennedy and co would have had 50 each if it wasn't for him
Gibbo- busted a nut all day

The ugly-
Browny, found out again against a number 1 key defender.
Mason wood- really really struggled


Our structure - just dumb. Cut your nose to spite your face s**t. Need a second ruck forward but move our chb forward and bring in an extra key defender

There wasn't too many times BBB was 1x1.

 

[lockheed]

Anderson

I was going to replace Anderson with Mountford, but your plan's good!

 

[adas]

positives: I was at my mother-in-laws for mothers day so couldn't make it to the game

negatives: I was at my mother-in-laws

 

[Horace]

OK, you are right. It pretty much been a rule forever. I am not a fan of the overzealous umpiring when they pay the free when the ball takes a sideways bounce after a 20 or 30 meter kick. I did get it wrong in my previous post though.

The rule was never anywhere near as harsh as it is now. In the 1950's, John Beckwith, a hall of famer at Melbourne and a back pocket player, was renowned for his ability to kick the ball down the boundary line, bouncing within play and then going over the line. He was never pinged and not so long ago - well maybe 30 years ago or more - commentators regularly used the expression, "he does a Beckwith" when players employed that tactic.

John Beckwith would be unable to use that tactic under today's rules, yet it was just as much a skill in those days, as pinpointing a pass to a teammate.

 

[Skarrz]

Anderson is a massive massive letdown

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Anderson is a massive massive letdown

Decidedly average.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Decidedly average.

I thought he gave us some spark in the last quarter.

I haven't written him off yet, but I am expecting steady improvement.

 

[Kimbo]

Not our day. Smashed inside, fumbly and poorly skilled when we did get a bit of run going. Brown had a shocker but was double teamed all day, Wood was putrid. LMac s**t. Ziebell underwhelming, Dumont likewise. Durdin some ok things, some pretty terrible things.
Thought the defence did ok considering. One of JMac/Atley has to go - I'd drop both.

Turner was great, thought EVW was pretty solid, Tarrant did ok on Buddy, Cunnington and Higgins kept having a crack. Not the end of the world, I didn't expect to win this week. We need Garner back ASAP.

Good post, though I'm not convinced on Cunnington. To argue with you on it I'd have to watch a replay though, and like that's ever going to happen.

Agree on Garner. With he and Waite back in, we have more aggression up forward. Kayne can't provide that alone.

 

[Kimbo]

I can't believe we still have it in our head that Brown is a number 1 forward. He needs an impact player otherwise he is cactus.

Other than Waite, who would we have played as "number 1 forward"?

 

[Kimbo]

Need to resist the urge in bringing Spitta back (as much as I love him) - we need to get 15 more games into Dumont/Clarke etc to see if they're up to it and get a level of consistency in their performance.

Then, we need to pray we get Josh Kelly.

Last week: With Kelly, we're a top four contender.
This week: With Kelly, we might be saved from regular embarrassment.

 

[Kimbo]

Sad that Hansen was our most likely forward then. I thought it should have ended at quarter time... not because I don't rate Lachie but it was clear we weren't close to being on top in the middle. I'd have put him back right then.

It would have been robbing Peter to pay Paul, but yeah, I thought the same. I know we're grooming Durdin as a back, but I wonder if paying him forward might not have paid dividends.

Then again, midfield performance = it wouldn't have mattered one way or the other.

 

[Caracas]

Sydney were very good yesterday, make no mistake. Their domination in the guts led to North losing their shape and structure. This resulted in our forwards being flat footed when we tried to move the ball into our attacking half. One thing I was happy with was that we persisted with playing our "brand" (I hate that word, yet, here we are). We kept trying to move the ball quickly by hand. All said, Sydney were great, kudos to them. They scored four goals from situations where we defended the high ball well, seemed to have locked things up but they persisted and won the ball back and scored. That was the most frustrating part for me - that and the 2 ridiculous backward bounces near our goal line that directly resulted in goals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk