Review Freo Embarrassed By the Blue Baggers

[arsesmart]

It’s all well and good to blame him. But it should never have gotten to that point. The midfield rotation got destroyed, just like it did against Port but luckily the defence held. Hughes just get the brunt of it. At that point of the game, the umpires were poised to make anything happen. Could’ve been deliberate.
So many passengers or players that needed to step up. That second quarter should’ve have the players’ alarm bells ringing. 17 INSIDE 50 against. Carlton did that. That’s pathetic. The defence can only handle so much! The centre clearances were so easy. We loss stoppages all over the ground. We have them no respect whilst they were primed and pumped. Silvagni on Fyfe changes the game IMO.
Scrambling in the second then even up by 15, still weren’t composed and scrambling with 5 minutes to go. Not sure whether the coaches wanted to defend but there’s always a quarter where we go backwards and just do stupid decisions. What’s wrong with just continuing on from the first and open up play.
Small forwards were lively in the first, used them well. In the second? Mostly in the defensive trying to hold the shape.
What bothers me is that there’s 4 v 4 mids each stoppage. It’s either lack of coaching or inexperience but all our mids get attracted to the first to it mentality, that only one of the opposition goes in to force a scramble and bang the spread happens. Why? Carlton did the basics, the predictable yet effective. Curnow is a limited basic midfielder. Yet he did it to aplomb. Used his body well, was an inside bull. These days have me missing Suban. That sort of work those guys stand up. We miss that prescense of a role player, an inside player sacrificing their game for the better of the team. And you know who we have on the list that can do that? Bailey Banfield.
Often we re complicating the stoppages and players have no clue. Tucker’s role bothers me. Is he inside or is he a winger? Doesn’t do enough for mine. Needs to be subbed out and let Bailey or Brayshaw in to change it up.

For this week, need to go back to the basics. Spread, no over commit. Eagles rely on the opposition to scramble only for it to go over the back for easy goals.

It's not necessarily a case of blaming him for the loss, but that one moment, so lacking in composure so easily controlled, is symptomatic of and critical to not being able to defend a 15 point lead deep into the last quarter. I reckon composure, either way, is contagious and everybody out there can smell it, teammates and opposition.

It's also why if Fyfe, as huge as he already is in the contested stuff, could get a bit more one-touch play in those sort of pressure games it would be massive for the team.

 

[WilloTree]

Absolutely, the more mature and better-compiled list copes better with injuries. However, some injuries hurt more than others, especially in key areas and/or if any depth is absorbed by multiple injuries.

Collingwood just got pummeled by North and just got over the line against the Doggies the week before, so the injuries have taken their toll. I also think Stephenson as a player type and formwise had helped their resilience to injuries too.

I think that of key forwards in general. Hence the WC's form went down the toilet last year when Kennedy and Darling were not playing. A forward who consistently produces in clutch moments helps a team ride out the vagaries that naturally occur in a cut throat competition like the AFL. I also think a ruck who can will their way through multiple contests also lifts a teams form a cog or two as well, whether back to competitive or above.

The game was over at quarter time.. or should have been. No one was talking injuries then.

Player development is part of the reason we are where we are. But, we didn't lose to Carton because of injuries.

 

[fnerd]

Ethan Hughes, that’s how. That panic kick out instead of rushing the behind started the momentum after we’d kicked which should have been a match winning lead.

Many other mistakes by all players obv, but that was huge

Yerrp like you say there were others and some very lacklustre efforts by quite a lot players but that was without doubt the momentum changer/game right there.

As It was still very soon after sonny kicked that goal Carlton still believed... especially as the shot was quite a tough one(kudos to Simpson),he rushes that and we chew up another minute or 2 on the clock Carlton lose faith and the games done.

Without doubt one of our most dumbest footballers (and that’s saying something)and the last person who we wanted the ball with at that particular moment.

But Then to make things worse he got caught in no mans land for the very next crucial play when he failed to impact the contest going for the spoil , instead of staying down and guarding the goal square where daisy just ran through unopposed for the easiest of crumbing goals.

As I said a very very dumb footballer

 

[rgauci]

Weird being at the game and watching it live with no commentary I thought Hughes was quite good. Cerra was all at sea, beaten 1 on 1 by SPS in a marking contest, and not rebounding nearly enough while playing quite loose. I felt like Cerra was our worst. Hughes has a brain fade but the midfield were not working hard enough to give him an out. No one had worked to the fat side and when he ran into that space, there was no-one to kick too. That’s work rate from our midfield. No easy get out option. So he kicks for distance trying for the boundary line. Had he not kicked it out, it would of been picked up by a Carlton player and kicked through anyway. That kick from the boundary was an amazing goal and Carlton got a few in a row that in theory, with a wet slippery ball should never have gone through.

 

[arsesmart]

The game was over at quarter time.. or should have been. No one was talking injuries then.

Player development is part of the reason we are where we are. But, we didn't lose to Carton because of injuries.

In one sense there's only the fact that we lost and that's all that matters in any real way.

However, stepping back from that stark reality and looking at it from a holistic perspective on the implications for the season ahead, considering the role injuries played offers some clarity. Essentially, what might be the signs for what could make Freo better.

Trying to boil it down to an all or nothing with injuries is an oversimplification.

Obviously, there were a number of factors were at play in the loss, if I was in the footy department at Freo I'd definitely only be looking at the things that were in my control/influence. Who's the best available for next week.

In the context of a season, it takes some time to adjust to losing someone that had become as key to our game as Lobb, after losing Pearce (who has shown the smarts and influence to take control of the situation like the ones that were happening in both the second and last quarters) and more experienced talls like Taberner and Hogan who could've provided get out options as well as maybe stretched the Blues defence a bit more to make it more complicated to set up a wall. Any or all may or may not have changed the result yesterday (who's to say), but it's hard to argue that they wouldn't make Freo significantly better, mature and experienced team (to the tune of 5 points maybe).

 

[Midnite65]

The second quarter was what cost us be giving them back belief, clearly some of the players mentally relaxed after dominating the first quarter. Sure Carlton may have made some adjustments but to let them get 17 inside 50's in a row was the result of our mids and forwards not creating a contest or manning up enough.

 

[arsesmart]

Weird being at the game and watching it live with no commentary I thought Hughes was quite good. Cerra was all at sea, beaten 1 on 1 by SPS in a marking contest, and not rebounding nearly enough while playing quite loose. I felt like Cerra was our worst. Hughes has a brain fade but the midfield were not working hard enough to give him an out. No one had worked to the fat side and when he ran into that space, there was no-one to kick too. That’s work rate from our midfield. No easy get out option. So he kicks for distance trying for the boundary line. Had he not kicked it out, it would of been picked up by a Carlton player and kicked through anyway. That kick from the boundary was an amazing goal and Carlton got a few in a row that in theory, with a wet slippery ball should never have gone through.

Wouldn't having no one to kick to make the sanctuary of the goal line an even more clear and present option though? I'd imagine it is being covered pretty thoroughly in the video review - "Rushing a behind is a good option sometimes".

 

[apuchar]

BuT ThEy TrIeD

Like in little league?

 

[Freoforever86]

Some pretty questionable kicking by Ryan too, who’s usually such a careful accurate user.

Choosing to go up the middle to Cox was never on
A switch to Walters which was intercepted luckily a point
Then another switch to Hamling which missed him and went out of bounds

Ah well

 

[hoss]

Obviously more mature and experienced. Love that excuse, try waking up and realizing we were s**t and you love defending it.

That's the thing. I never defended it. You took offence that I mentioned the facts. Obviously doesn't fit your agenda. Read a few threads and you'll find I have not been defending the performance. Just asking you why you mention Carlton having Cripps out and Curnow down and pretend we were at full strength. Doesn't make sense to me.

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[FD2646]

That's the thing. I never defended it. You took offence that I mentioned the facts. Obviously doesn't fit your agenda. Read a few threads and you'll find I have not been defending the performance. Just asking you why you mention Carlton having Cripps out and Curnow down and pretend we were at full strength. Doesn't make sense to me.

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think both you and Mike are correct. We were shite (bar 1st quarter) and deserved to lose, but the media bs about Carlton missing players made me spew as we had more outs and essentially our outs comprised 90% of our spine, which was conveniently overlooked.

 

[beetz]

Honestly, that last 6 minutes felt like 6 days.

 

[Billy Bob65]

Commiserations on the loss.

Here are the midfield frequency stats for the game. If you haven't seen one of these posts before, this is an overall summary of how often your players were lining up as one of the 5 mids at bounces.

Overall Summary - 26 Bounces

Fyfe 24
Langdon 22 (21w, 1i)
Mundy 20
B.Hill 16 wing
Walters 12
Conca 10
Tucker 8 wing
Blakely 8 (1w)
Bewley 4 wing
Brayshaw 4
McCarthy 1 wing
Cox 1 wing

Rucks:
Darcy 23
Cox 3

Centre Clearances - per Champion Data/AFL.com.au
Fyfe 3
Mundy 2
Walters 1
Conca 1
Cox 1
Langdon 1
B.Hill 1

1st Half - 12

Fyfe 10
Langdon 10 wing
Walters 10
Conca 8
Mundy 8
B.Hill 7 wing
Tucker 5 wing
Bewley 2 wing

Darcy 10
Cox 2

Final Term - 9

Fyfe 9
Mundy 8
Blakely 8 (1w)
Langdon 7 (6w, 1i)
B.Hill 6 wing
Tucker 2 wing
Brayshaw 2
Bewley 1 wing
McCarthy 1 wing
Cox 1 wing

Darcy 9

Notes:
- Langdon's first inside start in an analysed game since Rd 11, 2018
- Most starts for Tucker in an analysed game since Rd 3
- Most starts for Brayshaw in an analysed game since Rd 7

 

[Randomizor]

Commiserations on the loss.

Here are the midfield frequency stats for the game. If you haven't seen one of these posts before, this is an overall summary of how often your players were lining up as one of the 5 mids at bounces.

Overall Summary - 26 Bounces

Fyfe 24
Langdon 22 (21w, 1i)
Mundy 20
B.Hill 16 wing
Walters 12
Conca 10
Tucker 8 wing
Blakely 8 (1w)
Bewley 4 wing
Brayshaw 4
McCarthy 1 wing
Cox 1 wing

Rucks:
Darcy 23
Cox 3

Centre Clearances - per Champion Data/AFL.com.au
Fyfe 3
Mundy 2
Walters 1
Conca 1
Cox 1
Langdon 1
B.Hill 1

1st Half - 12

Fyfe 10
Langdon 10 wing
Walters 10
Conca 8
Mundy 8
B.Hill 7 wing
Tucker 5 wing
Bewley 2 wing

Darcy 10
Cox 2

Final Term - 9

Fyfe 9
Mundy 8
Blakely 8 (1w)
Langdon 7 (6w, 1i)
B.Hill 6 wing
Tucker 2 wing
Brayshaw 2
Bewley 1 wing
McCarthy 1 wing
Cox 1 wing

Darcy 9

Notes:
- Langdon's first inside start in an analysed game since Rd 11, 2018
- Most starts for Tucker in an analysed game since Rd 3
- Most starts for Brayshaw in an analysed game since Rd 7

You’re doing the lords work

 

[lilJeffyG]

I believe that the wingman cannot be behind the centre square as Setterfield was. Wingman have to be on the wing side of the centre square don't they?

See here:

New rules revealed: Nine changes for 2019

AFL introduces starting positions and revamped rules around kick-ins

m.afl.com.au

Yes, sorry you are correct. I just thought if the 12 players can be stationed anywhere inside the 50, I thought they could have been stationed anywhere in the mid part of the ground excluding the 8 in the centre square. My bad.

 

[G Mus]

Wouldn’t have minded us putting Cerra or Brayshaw to have a look at Walsh closely, might have put a rocket up them how he’s gone past them easily

 

[ilikepotatoes]

Yes, sorry you are correct. I just thought if the 12 players can be stationed anywhere inside the 50, I thought they could have been stationed anywhere in the mid part of the ground excluding the 8 in the centre square. My bad.

All good mate. Like I said, no excuse for the loss, but I find it increbibly frustrating that the AFL brings In clear rules and ignores them. Then publicly backs doing so.

 

[Taylor]

All good mate. Like I said, no excuse for the loss, but I find it increbibly frustrating that the AFL brings In clear rules and ignores them. Then publicly backs doing so.

We should have had a warning for Blakely not getting to the wing in time too, but it didn't happen.

 

[Scham]

Wow. Langdon only 1 clearance from 21 opportunities. Terrible. No wonder they haven't used him in there for over a year!

 

[TheMcManusNose]

Wow. Langdon only 1 clearance from 21 opportunities. Terrible. No wonder they haven't used him in there for over a year!

21 starts on the wing. 1 in the centre.

Hard to get a clearance when you start on the wing, you wouldn't expect anyone too unless it spills wide. Similar to B.Hill 16 wing starts 1 clearance.

 

[Alfonz]

Wow. Langdon only 1 clearance from 21 opportunities. Terrible. No wonder they haven't used him in there for over a year!

Think you've got that back to front. He was 1 from 1, with 21 times starting outside the square.

 

[Scham]

21 starts on the wing. 1 in the centre.

Hard to get a clearance when you start on the wing, you wouldn't expect anyone too unless it spills wide. Similar to B.Hill 16 wing starts 1 clearance.

Sorry, my bad.

 

[lilJeffyG]

All good mate. Like I said, no excuse for the loss, but I find it increbibly frustrating that the AFL brings In clear rules and ignores them. Then publicly backs doing so.

So where is the boundary umpire in all of this? Shouldnt they be standing on each point of the centre square, diagonally across from each other?

 

[Midnite65]

Yes, sorry you are correct. I just thought if the 12 players can be stationed anywhere inside the 50, I thought they could have been stationed anywhere in the mid part of the ground excluding the 8 in the centre square. My bad.

Once again I think the AFL have brought in a rule and not thought it through, technically the rule or law as the umpires like to call it is that you must be on the side of the centre square "when the umpire commences their walking in to bounce" which would mean that as they take 5 or 6 steps you could tear off and probably be close to getting to the back of the square by the time a clearance from the middle is won so it would negate the rule, how long before coaches start to do it. The other thing is no matter how many times they get it wrong the AFL and umpires never say they are wrong, it would not have cost us the game last weekend but the breach by Setterfield should have been a breach and free as it was the second offense of the 6:6:6 rule and they had already had 1 warning.

Just on another rule, how long before waterpeople, doctors or trainers start to deliver messages in lieu of the runner only able to go out after a goal is scored?

 

[ilikepotatoes]

Once again I think the AFL have brought in a rule and not thought it through, technically the rule or law as the umpires like to call it is that you must be on the side of the centre square "when the umpire commences their walking in to bounce" which would mean that as they take 5 or 6 steps you could tear off and probably be close to getting to the back of the square by the time a clearance from the middle is won so it would negate the rule, how long before coaches start to do it.

I would love to see that walking in to bounce part in writing (before yesterday). But you've hit the hammer on the head with those tactics, I imagine now this role has been clarified you will start seeing that. First thing I thought of when hearing about it.

I also imagine they'll penalise teams who do it, somehow.