Review Good bad n ugly against Richmond - Rd 11, 2021

[Vader]

How many of those games did he play when he was either the 2nd or 3rd tall?
It’s only recently we’ve chose to go with a setup that will actually help him.

He's still the 3rd tall, behind Tex & TT.

 

[FR0GGY]

He's still the 3rd tall, behind Tex & TT.

Yes and one of those is taking the lynch role.
It’s been way too crowded up until now.

 

[Betts are off]

I think it has more to do with your small sample size, than anything else, with 1 single game (5 goals vs Weagles in 2019) distorting the comparison.

I would also argue that his 17 goals from the other 20 games is an indication that he was dropped due to a lack of consistency, rather than rewarding consistent selection with consistent performance.

It's chicken & egg stuff (yes, the egg came first). Is his good form being rewarded with consistent selection, or is his good form the result of consistent selection? I see no evidence at all to suggest the latter.

Happy to leave it at that then, because I believe the former, but don’t need to turn this 40 post hypothetical to try and prove it to someone who staunchly believes the opposite

 

[Golumless]

Yes and one of those is taking the lynch role.
It’s been way too crowded up until now.

Well none of them has...

If anything, it's been McHenry/Rowe/Murphy who took over that part. We look more deadly as a result.

 

[FR0GGY]

Well none of them has...

If anything, it's been McHenry/Rowe/Murphy who took over that part. We look more deadly as a result.

Tex has been up the ground plenty.

 

[Golumless]

Tex has been up the ground plenty.

Yup. He was doing that a lot when Lynch was in the side as well.

 

[Vader]

Tex has been up the ground plenty.

No more/less than he usually does, no more/less than he was before Lynch's injury.

It's a credit to Tex's work rate that he gets so much ball up the ground, and still manages to kick as many goals as he does. Fog needs to take a leaf out of Tex's playbook, and start working harder to get himself more involved with the game.

 

[cleanhands]

No more/less than he usually does, no more/less than he was before Lynch's injury.

It's a credit to Tex's work rate that he gets so much ball up the ground, and still manages to kick as many goals as he does. Fog needs to take a leaf out of Tex's playbook, and start working harder to get himself more involved with the game.

Off topic
Did you get to see you home in Texas in the real estate section of Adelaide now , thought of you

 

[Sanders]

I'm happy to give Fogarty a pass for this game.

phew!

 

[RoweyThePainter]

Port went 134 years without winning an AFL premiership.

I think dawn of time preceded 1870. Norwood and South will attest. As will the Adelaide Football Club est 1860.

 

[RoweyThePainter]

To get an A, he would need to kick 5+ goals, and contribute directly to at least 1 more; or kick 3, and make significant contributions to the team ways other than directly kicking goals (i.e. doing a lot more than the absolute minimum in terms of work rate & defensive efforts).

For him to have only 6 disposals, contributing nothing defensively, with a poor work rate, with the opposition regularly playing through his direct opponent due to his poor efforts... 3 goals & contributing to 1 other (albeit Rowe not kicking straight) is the absolute minimum.

In fairness too, we cant have 3 or even 4 forwards "pass" in a 5 goal loss. Can we? McHenry, Walker unanimous passes. Thilthorpe probably. Forgarty probably.

 

[CrowBloke]

No more/less than he usually does, no more/less than he was before Lynch's injury.
It's a credit to Tex's work rate that he gets so much ball up the ground, and still manages to kick as many goals as he does. Fog needs to take a leaf out of Tex's playbook, and start working harder to get himself more involved with the game.

This, I can agree with wholeheartedly.
Even when Tex is not getting a bag (either from injury, or poor delivery from the mids) his workrate and goal assists are a model for all of the Crows' forwards.

 

[Crow till I die]

To get an A, he would need to kick 5+ goals, and contribute directly to at least 1 more; or kick 3, and make significant contributions to the team ways other than directly kicking goals (i.e. doing a lot more than the absolute minimum in terms of work rate & defensive efforts).

For him to have only 6 disposals, contributing nothing defensively, with a poor work rate, with the opposition regularly playing through his direct opponent due to his poor efforts... 3 goals & contributing to 1 other (albeit Rowe not kicking straight) is the absolute minimum.

What if talia only got 5 touches in a game but held jeremy cameron scoreless. The next week he had 7 touches and kept harry mckay to 1 goal. Then the week after had 6 touches and stopped kennedy from kicking more than 1 goal...

 

[Vader]

In fairness too, we cant have 3 or even 4 forwards "pass" in a 5 goal loss. Can we? McHenry, Walker unanimous passes. Thilthorpe probably. Forgarty probably.

Why not? Most of our losses are primarily attributable to failures in the midfield. Inaccuracy in front of goal didn't help (Rowe the biggest offender, but not the only one), but getting smashed in the midfield in the 2nd and 3rd quarters is the main reason why we lost the game.

On SM-T510 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Interloperer]

Why not? Most of our losses are primarily attributable to failures in the midfield. Inaccuracy in front of goal didn't help (Rowe the biggest offender, but not the only one), but getting smashed in the midfield in the 2nd and 3rd quarters is the main reason why we lost the game.

On SM-T510 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Was Rowe that inaccurate. I know he had one bad miss.

But I seem to recall a bigger issue with him being unable to pick up the ball. (edit: This was also something I remember from when I was very young during a Stephen Rowe "comeback" game)

 

[Vader]

Was Rowe that inaccurate. I know he had one bad miss.

But I seem to recall a bigger issue with him being unable to pick up the ball. (edit: This was also something I remember from when I was very young during a Stephen Rowe "comeback" game)

I remember him having 3 or 4 shots (or what should have been shots), which didn't go through. He should have had 4 or 5 goals for the game, but only finished with 1. He's normally pretty good in front of goal, so this was an uncharacteristically bad game for him.

 

[rocket18]

Depends on how you process the information available to you. If you look at what he does when given continuity it would suggest a lot of incompetence by the selection committee of yesteryear in understanding what he needs to develop.

His statistical history would suggest he provides the team more then twice the scoring output as a young KPF when he was afforded as little as 4 games in continuity Vs when he is when given the yoyo treatment (1.66 goals /game vs 0.8 goals / game).

What would it suggest if he had say 8 game stretches? Or 12, or lets go crazy 22.

Only Vader (OK maybe a few other club apologists) would require any more information to state our selection committee were/still are incompetent.

FFS they gave Frampton (a 24y.o with 7 years in the AFL system) 5 games at the start of the year with far less talent.

They have screwed up so much yet somehow they didn't screw up with Fogartys development. A young key forward his yoyo selection has been a debacle.

 

[Geoffa32]

Doedee on AA this morning mentioned the coaching instruction last week was different during the game.


First and last they played the brand of Footy they know works. Richmond just too good in the end.

Second and mainly third instruction was different.


Hearing that, and maybe he has been "scripted" in what to say, it does appear we are using games this year to test things.

Could also be ensuring draft position....


Third quarter was definitely a different method of play. Seemed more technical, slower and more confusion among the players.

Fourth back to using the corridor, better link up through HB and attack the goal mouth. Until Jack's mark we controlled the game again. Richmond then lifted.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Doedee on AA this morning mentioned the coaching instruction last week was different during the game.


First and last they played the brand of Footy they know works. Richmond just too good in the end.

Second and mainly third instruction was different.


Hearing that, and maybe he has been "scripted" in what to say, it does appear we are using games this year to test things.

Could also be ensuring draft position....


Third quarter was definitely a different method of play. Seemed more technical, slower and more confusion among the players.

Fourth back to using the corridor, better link up through HB and attack the goal mouth. Until Jack's mark we controlled the game again. Richmond then lifted.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

So we tanked after a good start?

 

[RoweyThePainter]

Doedee on AA this morning mentioned the coaching instruction last week was different during the game.


First and last they played the brand of Footy they know works. Richmond just too good in the end.

Second and mainly third instruction was different.


Hearing that, and maybe he has been "scripted" in what to say, it does appear we are using games this year to test things.

Could also be ensuring draft position....


Third quarter was definitely a different method of play. Seemed more technical, slower and more confusion among the players.

Fourth back to using the corridor, better link up through HB and attack the goal mouth. Until Jack's mark we controlled the game again. Richmond then lifted.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Assuming they abandoned that innovative "lower your eyes" tactic from Melb game. Back to hacking kicks blindly forward. Comfort in familiarity