Game Day Good, Bad, and Deplorable vs Geepires (Geelong & the Umpires)

[TheLeftFist8]

I think you'll also find if we had kicked a bit straighter we would have won by a margin closer to how the game appeared.
They got a few easy ones v a first gamer when we were possibly suffering a bit of fatigue from the game in Darwin. We dominated them in all reality IMO.

I don't want to shout but so many people just parrot absolute rubbish when IT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED ALREADY!!!

Harry Taylor's goals:

1) On his own after the Dangerflop turnover...not one Crows defender was back (thinking we were going forward), Keath was clearly the fastest sprinter and got to closest to Taylor but the time he marked it. Was he actually on Taylor? Let's say he was but I don't think anyone would rightly hold him accountable for that goal.

2) 1v1 against ANDY OTTEN...outmarks him easy as Otten stumbles in front position.

3) 1v1 against ANDY OTTEN...dubious holding free against Otten IMO, unlucky here.

4) Taylor on Keath, Keath caught in no mans land half trying to help Talia stop Hawkins with the ball at ground level after a Keath spoil but Taylor drifted off behind him and goal side and received the Hawkins handball. Poor positioning in that split second...either had to commit 100% to helping Talia or 100% to sticking to Taylor. This is Keath's error but wasn't in an easy position.

5) 1v1 against Keath in the goal square. Perfectly waited kick from Duncan to Taylor over the back who held position well. Tough position for Keath but in the future would expect him to push back harder and effect a spoil given his height.

So for Taylor's 5 goals:

Basic analysis says we can credit:

Umpire 1 (maybe 2),
Otten 2 (maybe 1)...one may have been unlucky, one was the worst of the 5 Taylor goals as was weak in the contest)
Keath 2 (neither were easily stopped but a current A grade defender may have stopped them).

So I find it absolutely laughable that people are blinded by surnames, games played, good blokes rule, and preconceived bias to say Keath was destroyed by Taylor! If Keath was, then Otten was equally destroyed.

 

[Betts are off]

Both games against them the score has flatteted the losing side

Correct, both games were essentially over at half time

 

[Betts are off]

I don't want to shout but so many people just parrot absolute rubbish when IT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED ALREADY!!!

Harry Taylor's goals:

1) On his own after the Dangerflop turnover...not one Crows defender was back (thinking we were going forward), Keath was clearly the fastest sprinter and got to closest to Taylor but the time he marked it. Was he actually on Taylor? Let's say he was but I don't think anyone would rightly hold him accountable for that goal.

2) 1v1 against ANDY OTTEN...outmarks him easy as Otten stumbles in front position.

3) 1v1 against ANDY OTTEN...dubious holding free against Otten IMO, unlucky here.

4) Taylor on Keath, Keath caught in no mans land half trying to help Talia stop Hawkins with the ball at ground level after a Keath spoil but Taylor drifted off behind him and goal side and received the Hawkins handball. Poor positioning in that split second...either had to commit 100% to helping Talia or 100% to sticking to Taylor. This is Keath's error but wasn't in an easy position.

5) 1v1 against Keath in the goal square. Perfectly waited kick from Duncan to Taylor over the back who held position well. Tough position for Keath but in the future would expect him to push back harder and effect a spoil given his height.

So for Taylor's 5 goals:

Basic analysis says we can credit:

Umpire 1 (maybe 2),
Otten 2 (maybe 1)...one may have been unlucky, one was the worst of the 5 Taylor goals as was weak in the contest)
Keath 2 (neither were easily stopped but a current A grade defender may have stopped them).

So I find it absolutely laughable that people are blinded by surnames, games played, good blokes rule, and preconceived bias to say Keath was destroyed by Taylor! If Keath was, then Otten was equally destroyed.

Pretty sure our midfielders were running on fumes by this stage too from the short turn around in Darwin. First time they had meaningful entries all night.

 

[Betts are off]

I don't want to shout but so many people just parrot absolute rubbish when IT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED ALREADY!!!

Harry Taylor's goals:

1) On his own after the Dangerflop turnover...not one Crows defender was back (thinking we were going forward), Keath was clearly the fastest sprinter and got to closest to Taylor but the time he marked it. Was he actually on Taylor? Let's say he was but I don't think anyone would rightly hold him accountable for that goal.

2) 1v1 against ANDY OTTEN...outmarks him easy as Otten stumbles in front position.

3) 1v1 against ANDY OTTEN...dubious holding free against Otten IMO, unlucky here.

4) Taylor on Keath, Keath caught in no mans land half trying to help Talia stop Hawkins with the ball at ground level after a Keath spoil but Taylor drifted off behind him and goal side and received the Hawkins handball. Poor positioning in that split second...either had to commit 100% to helping Talia or 100% to sticking to Taylor. This is Keath's error but wasn't in an easy position.

5) 1v1 against Keath in the goal square. Perfectly waited kick from Duncan to Taylor over the back who held position well. Tough position for Keath but in the future would expect him to push back harder and effect a spoil given his height.

So for Taylor's 5 goals:

Basic analysis says we can credit:

Umpire 1 (maybe 2),
Otten 2 (maybe 1)...one may have been unlucky, one was the worst of the 5 Taylor goals as was weak in the contest)
Keath 2 (neither were easily stopped but a current A grade defender may have stopped them).

So I find it absolutely laughable that people are blinded by surnames, games played, good blokes rule, and preconceived bias to say Keath was destroyed by Taylor! If Keath was, then Otten was equally destroyed.

Pretty sure our midfielders were running on fumes by this stage too from the short turn around in Darwin. First time they had meaningful entries all night.

 

[VictorianCrow85]

I don't want to shout but so many people just parrot absolute rubbish when IT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED ALREADY!!!

Harry Taylor's goals:

1) On his own after the Dangerflop turnover...not one Crows defender was back (thinking we were going forward), Keath was clearly the fastest sprinter and got to closest to Taylor but the time he marked it. Was he actually on Taylor? Let's say he was but I don't think anyone would rightly hold him accountable for that goal.

2) 1v1 against ANDY OTTEN...outmarks him easy as Otten stumbles in front position.

3) 1v1 against ANDY OTTEN...dubious holding free against Otten IMO, unlucky here.

4) Taylor on Keath, Keath caught in no mans land half trying to help Talia stop Hawkins with the ball at ground level after a Keath spoil but Taylor drifted off behind him and goal side and received the Hawkins handball. Poor positioning in that split second...either had to commit 100% to helping Talia or 100% to sticking to Taylor. This is Keath's error but wasn't in an easy position.

5) 1v1 against Keath in the goal square. Perfectly waited kick from Duncan to Taylor over the back who held position well. Tough position for Keath but in the future would expect him to push back harder and effect a spoil given his height.

So for Taylor's 5 goals:

Basic analysis says we can credit:

Umpire 1 (maybe 2),
Otten 2 (maybe 1)...one may have been unlucky, one was the worst of the 5 Taylor goals as was weak in the contest)
Keath 2 (neither were easily stopped but a current A grade defender may have stopped them).

So I find it absolutely laughable that people are blinded by surnames, games played, good blokes rule, and preconceived bias to say Keath was destroyed by Taylor! If Keath was, then Otten was equally destroyed.

You could also highlight the likely goal Keath saved when they were coming down the center in the 4th where he tapped it back away from Taylor when it looked like he was a little out of position due to the turnover and fast transition, showed a lot of footy smarts the way it was done.

 

[TheLeftFist8]

You could also highlight the likely certain goal Keath saved when they were coming down the center in the 4th where he tapped it back away from Taylor when it looked like he was nearly out of position, showed a lot of footy smarts the way it was done.

Absolutely, and a few other great spoils as well.

People are so scared of inexperience and cannot conceive of a player being good enough until after the fact.

By finals Keath, if selected every week, will have 6 games under his belt.

By 6 games into his career Greenwood was regarded by most of us as an indispensable member of the team.

Elite talent is elite talent...both Greenwood and Keath have it, and it's time to play them.

 

[jaytex]

Very worried after this match.

Adelaide's best is the best in the league. Rounds 1-6 this year, away vs WCE last year, plenty of other examples.

Adelaide has a record of failing to deliver intensity when it counts. In our previous 3 games vs Geelong we didn't produce it, and suffered embarrassing losses. Same in R23 last year vs WCE. Same in the 2nd final vs Sydney - the 1st quarter of that game was humiliating.

1. Slick football at times
2. Bulldozed when it counts

In this game, we had:
- Joel Selwood unwell & not at his best
- Dangerfield injured & not at his best
- Sloane not tagged

Result: 47 clearances to 27. +20!! We won the clearances by 20, and the match by 21. That is highly unlikely to happen again in the finals.

After the game we heard comments from the players and coaches which suggested they are believing their own hype. You don't end up top of the ladder by chance. We know our best can match it with anyone.

No. We beat a Geelong team whose two best players were not at their best, and who didn't play their obvious strategic card in tagging Sloane, and we won the match almost entirely from the advantage we got in that area.

Last Friday's win over Geelong proved nothing.

If we meet again in finals, Geelong will provide a much stronger challenge. Let's see how we respond to that before getting carried away that anything is different to last year.

Remember:
1. Adelaide always disappoints
2. If ever Adelaide does not disappoint, it is only to setup a greater disappointment at a later time

you don't get invited to many dinner parties, do you?

 

[dracochapel]

If you cant get excited by Friday's game then ..... well I dont know why you bother

And if you subscribe to only celebrating when you win a flag then we've had 2 good years out of 25. Depressing.

 

[fabs33]

In my opinion if there was a side that was left with something to prove after Friday night's game it was Geelong. They need to prove that they're not reliant on two players alone being at their very best to win. As a coach, losing the clearances 27 to 47 is definitely not something you would want to see just because a couple of your players had an off-night.

 

[TheLeftFist8]

And if you subscribe to only celebrating when you win a flag then we've had 2 good years out of 25. Depressing.

We've had plenty of good years no doubt but "the good is the enemy of the best".

 

[TheRoo32]

They are in the Crows match replay thread.

Can't find the link?

 

[GrommoT]

Can't find the link?

grandtheftbat01 has been adding new links to one post:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/crows-match-replays.1167013/#post-50609090

 

[BRL121]

Geelong DID tag Sloane no matter what they claim otherwise. We surprised them by starting Sloane in the middle at the start, which we hadn't done the last two games. So Pyke outcoached Scott there. Scott thought it would be easy pickings by starting Danger and Selwood in the middle at the start. That was his specific reasoning that they wanted those two there at the start of the game. He thought those two were going to be better than our midfield. Once Sloane was there, they had to put Blicavs on him, and he wasn't good enough. By the time they brought on the lesser Selwood, Sloane had the rhythm of the game going and Selwood was ineffective. So they had to put Blicavs back onto him. That didn't work too well for them.

Indeed! Scott said on 360 that they tagged Sloane for the first half (or attempted to), but gave that the flick for the second half when they were obviously being thrashed.

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

You reckon?

Not fine, but they weren't out to get us as some think.

It was certainly over umpired.

 

[Rotayjay]

I was just at an autograph barbie and there was a Q&A with Mark Bickley (the compere), Sloane and Talia. Someone of course asked about the ham prank and Tals said Harry Taylor kept it in his sock. There was no suggestion that the story was a made up at all.

 

[John Who]

Not fine, but they weren't out to get us as some think.

It was certainly over umpired.

I don't want to keep harping on the umpires, but they were deadset bias and you know it.
"over umpiring" = increased numbers of 50/50 calls
"bias umpiring" = 50/50 calls in favor of one side, and the definite calls to the other side are deemed as 50/50 (which often are missed).

That recent Geelong game was the equivalent of the bias of the Dogs game last year when one umpire gave it 17 free kicks to 1 or something ridiculous. It wasn't just noticed only by Crows fans, but pretty much by ANY football fan in general.
Although after several days of "cool down", I think it was kind of a blessing in disguise to have the umpires gone rogue on us. Why? Because obviously Dangerfield was playing injured, and him not playing to his true potential was probably equally offset by the poor umpiring standards. So on reflection, the scoreboard was probably a fair indication of where the 2 teams are currently at, which coincidentally is where the AFL ladder standings reflect also.

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

I don't want to keep harping on the umpires, but they were deadset bias and you know it.
"over umpiring" = increased numbers of 50/50 calls
"bias umpiring" = 50/50 calls in favor of one side, and the definite calls to the other side are deemed as 50/50 (which often are missed).

That recent Geelong game was the equivalent of the bias of the Dogs game last year when one umpire gave it 17 free kicks to 1 or something ridiculous. It wasn't just noticed only by Crows fans, but pretty much by ANY football fan in general.
Although after several days of "cool down", I think it was kind of a blessing in disguise to have the umpires gone rogue on us. Why? Because obviously Dangerfield was playing injured, and him not playing to his true potential was probably equally offset by the poor umpiring standards. So on reflection, the scoreboard was probably a fair indication of where the 2 teams are currently at, which coincidentally is where the AFL ladder standings reflect also.

Rewatch the game and take note of the so called 50/50 calls paid to them that you think should have gone to us.

There were probably 3 or 4 howlers, but most of them were there. Niggly calls that frustrate the hell out of us, but still there.

I had forgotten about that 17-1, Panell was his name. Now that was dodgy.

 

[ShadeyP]

Very Tardy so Very Short .

The Good : Our Mongrel

The Bad : Those 3 little fluro Mongrels

The Ugly : Still got a Mongrel .

 

[dracochapel]

I was just at an autograph barbie and there was a Q&A with Mark Bickley (the compere), Sloane and Talia. Someone of course asked about the ham prank and Tals said Harry Taylor kept it in his sock. There was no suggestion that the story was a made up at all.

might need to start checking for ham

 

[dogs105]

might need to start checking for ham

Chewy on your boot

 

[Rear Admiral]

I don't want to keep harping on the umpires, but they were deadset bias and you know it.

Thankyou. What's said above describes it better than I could.

In many different games there have been instances of bad umpiring where the umpires just made some bad judgement calls, purely by mistake. I can accept this as nobody's perfect, and umpires have an incredibly tough job. But in the game against Geelong, I think it went further than that. I truly believe their was actual bias/cheating involved, not simply errors of judgement.

 

[Golumless]

Sorry for upsetting you.

This board is bi-polar. We over-react to wins and to losses.

I think we are reading too much into this win. It was a good win, but not a great win. It should come with a caveat just like the week before vs Melbourne.

Job done. Nothing proven.

I disagree. That's a win that can change the entire culture of a club. This is not through the margin, but through the intent of our squad, for 3 quarters we played the one of the most, if not the most aggressive football any team has played this season (and definitely the most aggressive football we have ever played). We bullied a contender into submission with us only running out of gas in the last (And some dodgy umpiring) being their saving grace. If we bring that aggression for finals then the premiership is just about ours, but it's up to the boys to bring it now and make it something more than a one off.

Geelong have recently been more suspectable then most of the top 4 to going to water when the heat is on as well so pinning this on Dangerwood being underdone is sweeping under the carpet a very systematic issue they have.