Analysis Crows' slow starts --- why?

[CrowBloke]

It's been well-documented by the footy media that the Crows have had only 2 winning first quarters out of 9 games, with by far the worst against North Melbourne in Round 7 (I still have nightmares about that!).

Even so, the Crows are 7-2 win-loss, so:
--- does it matter all that much if the Crows lose first quarters, if they win the game?
--- is it something that needs to be addressed and fixed before the Finals (provided we make them)?

I just watched the Betts/Cameron presser from today, where Betts attributed it to my particular bugbear, namely MINDSET. I believe it's mindset/attitude and preparation ie by each individual and regarding the conditions
(https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/crows-woes-are-between-the-ears.1166108/).
Betts also speculated that teams were hunting the Crows because of their position on the ladder and status as the #1 team for contested possession. So, we've become a kind of measuring stick for teams that want to prove themselves, which is totally understandable. For any team to BE the best, they have to beat the best. The opposition have been coming out fired up to mix it with the top team (so far, rounds 5-9 inclusive).

I've been wondering if it might not have do with Don Pyke himself. He's a very laid back, calm and self-possessed bloke --- one article described him as "phlegmatic" (ie "a person having an unemotional and stolidly calm disposition."). Maybe that's why the Crows begin slowly. It's a reflection of their own coach's attitude to his work.
Waddaya reckon?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Intensity highest at the start of games. We're not great in high intensity football.

As the game slows and there's less heat on the ball carrier we come into our own. Good structures, superior fitness.

Finals are high intensity throughout which is why there's still a question mark over us. How are we tracking? We'll find out in 2 weeks.

 

[CrowBloke]

How are we tracking? We'll find out in 2 weeks.

Yep --- Freo and the Cats away will tell us alot.

 

[DD#23]

I think we push the keep calm, concentrate and execute direction a little too hard, especially in the first quarters.

I think the Richmond game was a good example of how we should be coming out, both teams looked sharp and fired up and we were trading blows early - you've got time to settle and get on top with the ice-cold and calculated game plan later.

just about every other game this year we've been caught asleep at the wheel and given up at least the first two goals, sometimes more, and that won't fly against the top flight in finals. They're hard enough to win without giving up a two goal head start.

I'm on board with the preparation being about calm, execution, playing your role, etc but I reckon the last 5 minutes before they go down the race could be dedicated to bit of a rev-up.

 

[Interloperer]

Because last year they couldn't finish games strongly, and because the Crows can only adjust their strategy with the subtlety of a truck gear change, the problem is now that they can't start strongly.

It matters if the benefit from a strong finish is less than the net point deficit at quarter time. Which has happened once so far (Nobody can tell me the start against Melbourne wasn't a strong one compared to the final 3 quarters.)

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

It's almost if we are trying to hold teams for their initial burst in the first quarter as we work out their approach... whilst Pyke takes in the opposition game plan, then adjusts at the break for a huge counter strike in the 2nd quarter & beyond.

The issue is not getting more than a few goals behind at quarter time, because if we conceed more than a 5 goal break like against the Roos, it makes it difficult to catch up. As Spackler mentioned, this is more likely to be the scenario in finals like Sydney did to us last year.

Think we need a better defensive mechanism to stop a big run on of opposition goals... because if we can do this, we know we are likely to get the better of them in other parts of the game once we have reset.

 

[Vhaluus]

It's almost if we are trying to hold teams for their initial burst in the first quarter as we work out their approach... whilst Pyke takes in the opposition game plan, then adjusts at the break for a huge counter strike in the 2nd quarter & beyond.

The issue is not getting more than a few goals behind at quarter time, because if we conceed more than a 5 goal break like against the Roos, it makes it difficult to catch up. As Spackler mentioned, this is more likely to be the scenario in finals like Sydney did to us last year.

Think we need a better defensive mechanism to stop a big run on of opposition goals... because if we can do this, we know we are likely to get the better of them in other parts of the game once we have reset.

If that was really what we're doing we should throw 2 players behind the ball for the first half of the first quarter until we work them out.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

If that was really what we're doing we should throw 2 players behind the ball for the first half of the first quarter until we work them out.

Given our poor starts, I would be looking to go defensive early til we are settled.

 

[DD#23]

It's almost if we are trying to hold teams for their initial burst in the first quarter as we work out their approach... whilst Pyke takes in the opposition game plan, then adjusts at the break for a huge counter strike in the 2nd quarter & beyond.

The issue is not getting more than a few goals behind at quarter time, because if we conceed more than a 5 goal break like against the Roos, it makes it difficult to catch up. As Spackler mentioned, this is more likely to be the scenario in finals like Sydney did to us last year.

Think we need a better defensive mechanism to stop a big run on of opposition goals... because if we can do this, we know we are likely to get the better of them in other parts of the game once we have reset.

I agree with the sentiment, but I'd argue we're not trying to hold teams, we're letting them run free.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I agree with the sentiment, but I'd argue we're not trying to hold teams, we're letting them run free.

Yeah, we need to do a better job of holding them until we have settled after the initial heat of the game. Need to change up our strategy.

 

[CrowBloke]

1) It's almost if we are trying to hold teams for their initial burst in the first quarter as we work out their approach...
2) whilst Pyke takes in the opposition game plan, then adjusts at the break for a huge counter strike in the 2nd quarter & beyond.

1) I think Hartigan alluded to that in his presser from yesterday. Maybe Betts, not sure ie they're trying to absorb the fired-up intensity of teams at the start until that subsides after which the Crows skills, spread and rebound take effect.
Could be!
2) If this is true, Pyke reacted very slowly, the players even slower. Betts said in the same presser "We've been reacting, instead of acting".
The Western side of Bellerive Oval was sheltered slightly by the stands and it was the side to which NM kicked out in the second quarter. They had a field day in the first quarter when the Crows kicked out to well-prepared NM talls. Full credit to NM for their intensity and wind-affected smarts.

 

[BRL121]

I'm not too fussed by slow starts, as long as they don't result in a goal rush by the oppo. It's best to control an overenthusiastic oppo first, staying in touch, before steamrolling them later and demoralising them in the premiership quarter, Hawthorn-like.

I'm not too fussed by the Tasmanian implosion, but outraged by the Melbourne result. What the hell happened there? We were going according to my textbook, and then not only stopped inexplicably, but did not whimper after that. This was completely unacceptable and requires serious analysis.

 

[CrowBloke]

we should throw 2 players behind the ball for the first half of the first quarter until we work them out.

Maybe ONE would do?
Tom Lynch has fitness and legspeed, height, marking power and the ability to get the ball low. He'd be my choice to play behind the ball at the start.

 

[Alwaysacrow]

Interesting thoughts. I posted in another thread that when i was at the Melbourne game that I thought the Crows warm up compared to Melbourne was very lame. Melbourne looked totally switched on whereas the Crows were just going through the motions. One thing I've been thinking as well is that at the beginnings of games, no matter the opponent it's always contested footy which I don't think we're very good at despite the stats
then later on as the contested stuff turns into a more open game our outside players/game is usually better than most other teams. Perhaps with the introduction of Greenwood hopefully starting in the middle in the 1st quarter if we can stem the tide in the 1st quarter & a half so we don't get blown away early we should be able to open it up later on without having to play catch up. That's my theory anyway.

 

[jackster83]

I put a lot of it down to Jacobs. He has been the one constant in our centre square set ups for the last 3 or so years it's been happening (Sloane, Brad Crouch, Douglas, etc have either missed games or started elsewhere at times). He always seems to get smashed early (showdown this year where Ryder had 22-4 hit outs and the 2015 EF against Minson the most obvious examples) but gets better as the game goes on.

 

[CrowBloke]

I'm not too fussed by the Tasmanian implosion, but outraged by the Melbourne result. What the hell happened there?

VERY good question. 28 points up mid-second quarter then Melbourne go on a 9-goal rampage either side of halftime.
I did not see any Crows response after the first 2 or 3 Melbourne goals, or the first 2 after halftime. The latter 2 had alarm bells going off in my head and I was mystified that it continued.
NO response = poor coaching and/or onfield leadership, well, in that period.

 

[CrowBloke]

at the beginnings of games, no matter the opponent it's always contested footy which I don't think we're very good at despite the stats

Good comments.
Ken McGoodwin agrees with you, above.

 

[DD#23]

Yeah, we need to do a better job of holding them until we have settled after the initial heat of the game. Need to change up our strategy.

I'd rather we just try to match the heat than roll out some sort of first-quarter-only defensive formation.

I think our first quarter contested possession differential is a bigger problem than anything structural defensively - although this is a perfect opportunity to blast Campo and Clarke's midfield unit.

 

[GreyCrow]

Its a false argument to suggest teams are hunting the Crows if the issue started from the 1st game.

I do think the coach drives the energy. I wonder if the approach is more the long game rather than a high intensity blitz and burn-out strategy?

 

[DD#23]

Its a false argument to suggest teams are hunting the Crows if the issue started from the 1st game.

I do think the coach drives the energy. I wonder if the approach is more the long game rather than a high intensity blitz and burn-out strategy?

they weren't at first, but there was blood in the water after the North Melbourne game and the Demons were definitely on the hunt and you can bet Freo and Geelong will be too.

 

[Truck25]

I often think that it's not so much us struggling to get into it as it is opposition being allowed to go hard early. Don't ask me why, I can't figure it. but teams seem to burn out against us. We don't really change pace but seem to hang in and then go bang when they can't keep up. Richmond and Brissy are perfect examples of this. They come out in a mind set that almost seems manic but die off and we run over them. A Bit like a distance runner against a sprinter in a mid distance run. Some teams like Port hang in there longer (through sheer hatred in ports case). Unfortunately with North they had a massive wind assistance and channeled the spirit of Bolt and jumped to a lead too far, and against Melbourne we allowed them a second wind and they kicked very accurately and we didn't.
Maybe as mentioned here already we should go heavy on the defensive side early to weather the storm until they burn out then go hard offensively. I think that our midfield defense can go missing and it hurts us. Even Brisbane early got us out the back. A fit an firing Lever and Laird certainly covers this but when one is down we get exposed and it's not really the back 6 issue but midfield being caught too offensively minded and not helping out when the opposition gets a run on.

Edit: reading this back it seems a little disjointed but it's been a long day and I'm knackered so you'l have to decipher it

 

[1970crow]

I blame Clarke and Sauce with a smattering of Campo. Sauce is terrible at centre bounces and he's even worse early in the game. We just get torched out of there and our mids don't get close to getting there hands on it. And each of our best 3 are damn fine at getting it.

 

[skoobydoo]

I'm not too fussed by slow starts, as long as they don't result in a goal rush by the oppo. It's best to control an overenthusiastic oppo first, staying in touch, before steamrolling them later and demoralising them in the premiership quarter, Hawthorn-like.

I'm not too fussed by the Tasmanian implosion, but outraged by the Melbourne result. What the hell happened there? We were going according to my textbook, and then not only stopped inexplicably, but did not whimper after that. This was completely unacceptable and requires serious analysis.

Yes. Strong wind against us first up, which then died away, meant that we were pretty much stuffed with our 'slow start' against NM. But even then we ground away for the rest of that game. The Melb game however, at home in favourable conditions, was a deplorable a disaster of soft proportions. Inexplicable as you say.
In one, the weather took it from us, but in the other we suffered a serious lapse of character.

I have always thought we have developed a passive 'let's see how the ball bounces' attitude to large parts of our games.

 

[BRL121]

Yes. Strong wind against us first up, which then died away, meant that we were pretty much stuffed with our 'slow start' against NM. But even then we ground away for the rest of that game. The Melb game however, at home in favourable conditions, was a deplorable a disaster of soft proportions. Inexplicable as you say.
In one, the weather took it from us, but in the other we suffered a serious lapse of character.

I have always thought we have developed a passive 'let's see how the ball bounces' attitude to large parts of our games.

Yes. The thing that worries me is that I was so incensed halfway through the third that I turned off the TV for the remainder of the match. This was because I "knew" what was to follow, for some reason. I haven't behaved like this since the late Craig years, when I did it regularly. I was never wrong on those occasions: we always continued down the tubes! I seem to have an unerring sense of when we are not going to fight back.

 

[beartoo]

I reckon after the Hawks game sides since have come out determined to try to blow us off the park early then defend a lead. The wind was the big factor in the North debacle. We outscored them for the rest of the match. The Ds game is inexplicable. How could we be that bad in the late 2nd and early 3rd? It was painful to watch. Looked as though no one gave a stuff.