Autopsy Devastating loss to the Giants by 1

Remove this Banner Ad

Will never happen but I would Beg Isaac Heeney to seek offers from other Clubs. We should offer $200k pa to help his new Club take him on. We might get a late second rounder. Bonus territory.


you want to pay some salary for heeney to go for real?
 
you want to pay some salary for heeney to go for real?

Not worth what we are rumoured to pay him. Had another appalling miss yesterday. I don't want an expensive hff who cannot kick goals.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Not worth what we are rumoured to pay him. Had another appalling miss yesterday. I don't want an expensive hff who cannot kick goals.


I get some frustration with Heeney but cmon

let's say he is on 900k, if you said we will pay 200k a year if you take him to a club for a second rounder , all 17 will want him on that deal , that's how crazy it would be
 
We dominated contested etc because GWS are pretty woeful and we also put the ball im dispute so often, as do they.

Good effort to win it sure, but what does a good *en effort get you as Terry Wallace said
We see where no effort gets us after Geelong. Honestly, my expectations changed 180 degrees after seeing that game. I was expecting to see a team struggle for the rest of the season, but the fact that Horse was able to get us back to basics so quickly has calmed me.

What are you're expectations this year? I'm asking this honestly. I've had to change mine, I've gone back to wanted to see individual players play well and effort from the whole team. I'm not particularly fussed about the team until we fix some fundemental issues, because there's no way we win a final the way we're playing atm.
 
I get some frustration with Heeney but cmon

let's say he is on 900k, if you said we will pay 200k a year if you take him to a club for a second rounder , all 17 will want him on that deal , that's how crazy it would be

More fool them. Paying top quids for an erratic hff is madness. Not in the same ball park as The GRohan but has similar traits in big games. We'd save $700k pa.

Fwiw, I'd happily flick Rowbottom for a low 2nd rounder. After Clarke he is the worst kick in the Club. Probably save a few sercestices there as well
 
Make the GF with a healthy list - "we were lucky and the coach sucks"

Have a rough trot with experienced key position players missing - "we're s**t and the coach sucks"

And yet selected Reid who limped through the warm up lap.

Coach cannot be relied on anymore. His behaviour on the bench is completely out of character.
 
I don't know why people get so catty about our best players being older.

Pendles, Sidebottom, Mihocek, Elliot, Hoskin-Elliot, Crisp, Adams, and Mitchell all 29 and over.

We have Lloyd, Cunningham, Parker, Franklin.

We have a young midfield, yes Parker and Mills aren't young, but I challenge anyone to find a premiership team with a 21 (Gulden), 21 (Warner), and a 22 (Rowbottom) in the coalface.
And people want to add Sheldrick (myself included).

I'm not even defending the loss, but I can see why Horse is protecting the players intent in presser, he realises that they are going to make a load of errors and drop games. One of the reasons why Collingwood are so good under the pump is their OLDER decision makes, Pendles, Sidebottom, and Elliot have all been amazing in clutch situations.
 
Getting 17 goals scored against and most there entrees they scored

Imo that’s not defending the ground running 2 ways

Performance average let’s be honest
In the first game this round Port Adelaide had 49 inside 50s and 21 shots (excluding rushed behinds) from those inside 50s.

Compared to the giants 19 shots from 48 inside 50s (3 rushed behinds. They kicking 17 goals and 2 behinds).

If the Giants kicked that accurately every game they would've beaten the lions, Essendon, Carlton, and West Coast.

It ain't about 17 goals, it's about how many scoring shots they get. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with 19 scoring shots for a bottom 4 side, BUT I think saying 17 goals Ina bit disingenuous. If they only kicked 14.5 would we be happy with the defence? Think it's a bit silly to give a defence a mark based on accuracy.
 
Kane Cornes has (unsurprisingly) put the boot in.

But he does have one fair point - we bombed to Buddy 13 times. Next most used target was Logan at 4. Papley, Hayward, Heeney, Sheldrick basically never got targeted. McLean was either off the ground or rucking.

We had become hard to play against. Now, with our weak defence and predictable attack, we’re the opposite.

I hate it when I agree with Cornes.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I don't know why people get so catty about our best players being older.

Pendles, Sidebottom, Mihocek, Elliot, Hoskin-Elliot, Crisp, Adams, and Mitchell all 29 and over.

We have Lloyd, Cunningham, Parker, Franklin.

We have a young midfield, yes Parker and Mills aren't young, but I challenge anyone to find a premiership team with a 21 (Gulden), 21 (Warner), and a 22 (Rowbottom) in the coalface.
And people want to add Sheldrick (myself included).

I'm not even defending the loss, but I can see why Horse is protecting the players intent in presser, he realises that they are going to make a load of errors and drop games. One of the reasons why Collingwood are so good under the pump is their OLDER decision makes, Pendles, Sidebottom, and Elliot have all been amazing in clutch situations.


Dees had Oliver Petracca Brayshaw all under 25 and under 100 games

our midfield deserved to be in the grand final last year and is good enough to contend again imo
 
I know Horse praised our effort but I don't think it was there. 3rd quarter it was but first half we would have been smacked by the best teams.

Greene is a gun but shows how we should be playing. Need to impose ourselves.

A lot of lessons to be learnt from that loss.
We're you at the game? I'm doing my best not to sound aggressive over the keyboard, but I'm asking this seriously. I haven't seen it on the screen, but I feel like that's the big difference I've seen from myself and posters on here.

We were definitely trying, just getting sucked up the ground, not holding our width, letting the ball get flicked out.
 
it's simple we led by 4 goals late

they shit the bed , break it down how you want , age profiles , injury, effort

It was a junk loss against a crap side

all they can do is move on, but trying to spin it is a waste of time

is that a melt? so be it , the side is under performing
 
Kane Cornes has (unsurprisingly) put the boot in.

But he does have one fair point - we bombed to Buddy 13 times. Next most used target was Logan at 4. Papley, Hayward, Heeney, Sheldrick basically never got targeted. McLean was either off the ground or rucking.

We had become hard to play against. Now, with our weak defence and predictable attack, we’re the opposite.

I hate it when I agree with Cornes.
Yeah, this is one of my main issues with the team at the moment and why I will stick to my guns about wanting Franklin out of the 50. I just think for the future of this club we can't kick to him that often.
 
it's simple we led by 4 goals late

they s**t the bed , break it down how you want , age profiles , injury, effort

It was a junk loss against a crap side

all they can do is move on, but trying to spin it is a waste of time

is that a melt? so be it , the side is under performing
I was just defending the age and intent of the team.
Not trying to spin it anyway, it felt inevitable in the last quarter, we lost all confidence and went for Hail Marys. We're a scared team atm, and it's frustrating to see.
 
Wait what?

Grandfinal game had
Oliver - 24
Petracca - 25
Brayshaw - 25

All of them were north of 100 games at this point.

Same midfield that got trounced by West Coast and Languished at the bottom of the ladder for 2 years.


start of the year they were all under 100


Ok well i will wait a year and few more games , no excuses once they all pass 100 i guess
 
I was just defending the age and intent of the team.
Not trying to spin it anyway, it felt inevitable in the last quarter, we lost all confidence and went for Hail Marys. We're a scared team atm, and it's frustrating to see.


wasn't having a go at you or anyone in particular
 
Kane Cornes has (unsurprisingly) put the boot in.

But he does have one fair point - we bombed to Buddy 13 times. Next most used target was Logan at 4. Papley, Hayward, Heeney, Sheldrick basically never got targeted. McLean was either off the ground or rucking.

We had become hard to play against. Now, with our weak defence and predictable attack, we’re the opposite.

I hate it when I agree with Cornes.

I think it's a pretty thin analysis personally.

The ball goes to Franklin more often than anyone else because he reads the game better than anyone and always gets in the most dangerous spot.

There is an irony in Cornes saying we are too Buddy conscious and then saying he is one of the reasons we lost yesterday.

If we kicked a couple that we missed, and they missed a couple that they kicked he would be saying what a great game he played.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top