Review Bad and Ugly vs GC

[NSolis]

Keays 3 coaches votes. Looking at the votes, it's possible he either got 3 from 1 coach & 0 from another, or 2 from 1 1 from another, but I reckon it's pretty likely to be the 2/1 option.

Either way, they thought he was our best. Because he was. Not saying him in the guts should be a permanent thing by any means, but plenty of premiership winning mids carried liabilities in their game.

It's worth remembering that last year one of Berry & Crouch played every game (and they both played 7 together) for 66% centre bounce attendances. Removing that from the rotation and effectively replacing it with Dawson changes the dynamic. There's more size, there's more outside class/ball use & better spread from the stoppage.

That has a material impact on how Keays's style meshes within that midfield group. I think it's worth giving it a run with Dawson in there to see if it works. I think it will.

The coaching group is already there, I think. Last two weeks he's been running with the best opposition mid, attending stoppages with them and then trying to expose them defensively by moving forward (with some success too). Those two games he's attended more than 50% of CBAs, which he'd only done once previously for the year, against Collingwood when he was running with Daicos.

I think he'll be our main tagger going forward and will attend quite a few stoppages, unless he's running with a Saad type.

 

[PeterSalt]

The problem wasn't that the umpires made one mistake, it's that they didn't make two mistakes?

The other problem is the umpires usually call the player on the mark back first, if they they think that they've overstepped the mark, not call an immediate 50m penalty

End of the day we're not the first club to cop a few shitty decisions

My biggest gripe is that it was turning into a really interesting finish, and that free destroyed the remaining minutes of the game

 

[Mutineer]

 

[Skippos]

The coaching group is already there, I think. Last two weeks he's been running with the best opposition mid, attending stoppages with them and then trying to expose them defensively by moving forward (with some success too). Those two games he's attended more than 50% of CBAs, which he'd only done once previously for the year, against Collingwood when he was running with Daicos.

I think he'll be our main tagger going forward and will attend quite a few stoppages, unless he's running with a Saad type.

Yeah, I think you're right. The two-way stuff is really the kicker here. Issue with the implementation on Saturday night was that he was running with Rowell too much if the plan was to expose him; Rowell's cut his teeth as the defensively accountable midfielder his whole AFL career, has the capability to gut run better than most mids, and has never been remotely damaging or influential outside the contest.

There's a good shot when Keays had the mark inside 50 he gave off, I forget who to, in the last quarter, where Keays went hard forward, and Rowell followed him equally as hard. With how the counter-attack was going, Rowell ended up having to choose to stick on his man or abort and cover the ball carrier. He had to do the latter; it was the right call. But the result was Keays taking that mark in a dangerous spot. The camera caught Rowell melting down about it; he was absolutely furious his man got that mark (but it was entirely unavoidable).

The point isn't to pump up Rowell (well, kind of - it's good what he does!) but to bemoan that it was Rowell. Anderson's the guy who gets you outside the contest. Anderson's the guy who's got a pretty sub-par tank and can be a little defensively lazy. Anderson's the guy who if Keays made his man, may well let Keays repeatedly find space inside 50 (as opposed to Rowell, who tracked him pretty well whenever they were matched up). And Anderson's the guy who if Keays was on all night, would have found it much harder getting that space on the outside to hurt, and probably would have had to spend time following Keays instead of looking for it.

 

[CrowBloke]

For mine Dew rope-a-doped the Crows. The Suns kept all their petrol tickets on board and then spent them at the right time. They did the same against the Dogs who jumped them early.

The GWS Coach admitted he did much the same thing in Round One, which game had a similar pattern and result.

Also Dew dismantled Rankine via constant niggling from Long.

Rankine had his worst game for us; nearly invisible all game.

Also Suns got the rub of the green with some umpiring decisions.

It was as close to blatant bias against the Crows as I've ever seen (think: 2017 GF).

 

[CrowBloke]

But is that an advantage or a disadvantage?..
Players spending a whole week away from home sleeping in a hotel?..
More advantage in that than staying home and playing on your home ground you reckon?

I know the questions were for FR0GGY but I think GCS were smart to have stayed there, if only because they were used to the heat/humidity by the time the Crows got there on a 6-day turnaround.
The other factors you mentioned (hotel vs. home, home ground advantage) were the same for both teams but GCS would have been acclimatised and 2 games in a row there would have suited them better'n us.

 

[CrowBloke]

I can only assume a lot of posters here are young and don't remember that even in the Blight years we had some shocking losses in years we won premierships.

Probably the most shocking: in 1998 we were thumped (8 goals) by Melbourne in that first final.
Melbourne Coach Daniher was asked who he thought would win the 1998 GF.
He smiled and said something like "Well, we beat them by 8 goals and NM are on an 11-game winning streak, so NM".
Also, we had the meanest defence that year and the highest %, although we were 5th at the end of the Minor Rounds. Helluva Flag!

 

[MsTopG]

The GWS Coach admitted he did much the same thing in Round One, which game had a similar pattern and result.

Rankine had his worst game for us; nearly invisible all game.

It was as close to blatant bias against the Crows as I've ever seen (think: 2017 GF).

Nicks should have pulled Rankine off for a quarter to settle him down. He could have moved him into the midfield or wing. Get him into the game and get his confidence back. Then move him back forward.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Nicks should have pulled Rankine off for a quarter to settle him down. He could have moved him into the midfield or wing. Get him into the game and get his confidence back. Then move him back forward.

Rankine was rattled. It would have been a good move.

 

[CrowBloke]

Nicks should have pulled Rankine off for a quarter to settle him down. He could have moved him into the midfield or wing. Get him into the game and get his confidence back. Then move him back forward.

Yes, but that would've taken initiative and a little risk-taking. Nicks has neither.

 

[MsTopG]

Yes, but that would've taken initiative and a little risk-taking. Nicks has neither.

Normally if you ask the right questions in an interview you can tell how someone can perform well under pressure and whether they can change course. I just wonder what questions were asked. A good coach is someone that knows what to do when things are turning to s**t which they invariably will at some point, not someone that only knows what to do when things are smooth sailing.

 

[moogerfooger]

I know the questions were for FR0GGY but I think GCS were smart to have stayed there, if only because they were used to the heat/humidity by the time the Crows got there on a 6-day turnaround.
The other factors you mentioned (hotel vs. home, home ground advantage) were the same for both teams but GCS would have been acclimatised and 2 games in a row there would have suited them better'n us.

Not to mention the conditions for a night game up there not dissimilar to Carrara.

Still, a poor loss is a poor loss, although I think we'll do better away when we finally get some away games in Melbourne.

 

[Redleg Crow]

Agree .....you can't teach what Pedlar has .....and I don't see that same "X" factor in Rachelle

I do, just not in the middle - Rachele has the X factor around goal but I think Pedler is just… special

 

[MsTopG]

I do, just not in the middle - Rachele has the X factor around goal but I think Pedler is just… special

Pedlar is like a smaller more skilled Dangerfield. I think he's better than Danger was at the same amount of games.

 

[skam85]

I can only assume a lot of posters here are young and don't remember that even in the Blight years we had some shocking losses in years we won premierships. Or that in 2017 when we were minor premiers we won our first six games then were down 0.0 to 10.4 at quarter time against North in Tasmania. We always needed to win a handful of away games to make finals this year and we're not winning enough of them.

For a developing side the away wins are always the last thing to come.

that game against Richmond at AAMI where Blight left the coaches box early and walked around the boundary before the game was over. and Richmond were baaaaaad back then

 

[CrowBloke]

I see that Numinous has disagreed with:

Yes, but that would've taken initiative and a little risk-taking. Nicks has neither.

I should've explained that better, apologies; I meant during games, not regarding Selection (which is actually often bewildering) nor pre-game strategic planning eg assigning Keays to blanket or subdue Daicos.

During games, Nicks is slow to act/react, make moves, try something different or even outrageous, especially when the opposition gets a run-on of 3+ goals.
One could argue that Murray to Ruck on Saturday was something, I suppose, but it was ridiculous (taking our best defender out of defence when it's raining goals against us, to get demolished by their ruckman).

 

[CrowBloke]

Pedlar is like a smaller more skilled Dangerfield. I think he's better than Danger was at the same amount of games.

Yes.
Dangerfield was always a hard nut, but threw himself into contests head first, dangerously (for himself). It used to worry me. I thought Danger was a serious head/neck injury waiting to happen.
Fwiw, and I know this is hearsay, back in 2014 I said to my sister (crazy-mad Crow fan) that Dangerfield would win a Brownlow --- not a tough prediction, I know . I hoped it would be with the Crows.
Pedlar oozes X-factor but goes about it very calmly; has great composure and footy nous.

 

[MsTopG]

I

I see that Numinous has disagreed with:

I should've explained that better, apologies; I meant during games, not regarding Selection (which is actually often bewildering) nor pre-game strategic planning eg assigning Keays to blanket or subdue Daicos.

During games, Nicks is slow to act/react, make moves, try something different or even outrageous, especially when the opposition gets a run-on of 3+ goals.
One could argue that Murray to Ruck on Saturday was something, I suppose, but it was ridiculous (taking our best defender out of defence when it's raining goals against us, to get demolished by their ruckman).

Watched the highlights back a couple of times and it seemed to me that Murray had a real off night. His worst for sometime, I don't know if he was under the weather or suffering from the heat but he seemed stuffed and lagging behind which is not him. Combine that with Doedee going off which put more strain on Murray and Butts. Butts didn't really have his best night either and combining that with Hinge being mismatched on Luko led to our worst performance by our defence for the year. Laird went totally missing as well so maybe he is still carrying something. I think we should have rested/dropped Sholl and played Hinge on a wing. Then we could have played Worrell and when Doedee went down we could have moved Hinge back and put Soligo on the wing.

 

[cleanhands]

I

Watched the highlights back a couple of times and it seemed to me that Murray had a real off night. His worst for sometime, I don't know if he was under the weather or suffering from the heat but he seemed stuffed and lagging behind which is not him. Combine that with Doedee going off which put more strain on Murray and Butts. Butts didn't really have his best night either and combining that with Hinge being mismatched on Luko led to our worst performance by our defence for the year. Laird went totally missing as well so maybe he is still carrying something. I think we should have rested/dropped Sholl and played Hinge on a wing. Then we could have played Worrell and when Diedee went down we could have moved Hinge back and put Soligo on the wing.

Murray was back there when we were getting bombarded, so it made little difference at the time

 

[Dangarman]

Yes.
Dangerfield was always a hard nut, but threw himself into contests head first, dangerously (for himself). It used to worry me. I thought Danger was a serious head/neck injury waiting to happen.
Fwiw, and I know this is hearsay, back in 2014 I said to my sister (crazy-mad Crow fan) that Dangerfield would win a Brownlow --- not a tough prediction, I know . I hoped it would be with the Crows.
Pedlar oozes X-factor but goes about it very calmly; has great composure and footy nous.

My call was that Dangerfield would never win a Brownlow while Sloane and Thommo were taking votes off him.

In 2012, that trio picked up 59 votes between them. The same year the Collingwood trio of Pendles, Swan and Beams also got 59 in total.
The maximum number of votes to a club in a season is 132 - that's 3-2-1 every game - so that's nearly half the available votes.

Danger never got more than 23 votes at Adelaide, then went 35 and 33 after moving to Geelong.

 

[Southerntakeover]

My call was that Dangerfield would never win a Brownlow while Sloane and Thommo were taking votes off him.

In 2012, that trio picked up 59 votes between them. The same year the Collingwood trio of Pendles, Swan and Beams also got 59 in total.
The maximum number of votes to a club in a season is 132 - that's 3-2-1 every game - so that's nearly half the available votes.

Danger never got more than 23 votes at Adelaide, then went 35 and 33 after moving to Geelong.

He massively increased his output in those years from his Adelaide form.

 

[rabidcrow]

But is that an advantage or a disadvantage?..

Players spending a whole week away from home sleeping in a hotel?..

More advantage in that than staying home and playing on your home ground you reckon?

Theres pros and cons to everything..

Laird getting 1 touch in the 3rd quarter as our main midfield ball winner was probably the bigger issue!


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[NSolis]

Pedlar is like a smaller more skilled Dangerfield. I think he's better than Danger was at the same amount of games.

Think this comparison is a bit unfair to Dangerfield as a kid honestly. Danger's 2009 was probably comparable to Pedlar's 2023 stat and performance wise, but he started that year at 18, while Pedlar is now 21. The year Dangerfield turned 22 he came 6th in the Brownlow and runner up in our BnF. That would be quite an upward trajectory for Pedlar. Pedlar is very impressive though, and needs to be graded on a curve a bit because injuries derailed the start of his career so much.