Remove this Banner Ad

Harvey's Wallbangers

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Joined
May 17, 2005
Posts
2,267
Reaction score
428
Location
fremantle
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fremantle
Harvey's Wallbangers

Harvey's Wallbangers

Mark Stevens | May 21, 2008 12:00am
Have your say!Add your comments or read what others are saying

* Email article
* Share Add to Digg Add to del.icio.us Post to NewsVine Post to Facebook What are these?
* Printer friendly
* Text size+-

YOU could call it the horrendous hat-trick.

Fremantle claimed an unwanted slice of history on Sunday when it blew an 18-point three-quarter time lead against the Western Bulldogs.

The Dockers became the first team since Essendon in 1980 to lose three successive games after leading at the last change.

Yes, you read it right. The last time it happened, Barry Davis was coaching at Windy Hill and Kevin Sheedy was still at Richmond, as a skills coach in his first year off the field.

The Bombers' sad run started in Round 13, when they lost to the Tigers by 10 points after leading by five at the last break.

In Round 14, they squandered a 20-point lead against the Saints at Waverley to lose by five.

At Victoria Park a week later, a 15-point buffer turned into a four-point heart-breaker against the Pies.

It had not happened again until Mark Harvey's Dockers came along.

The gap is understandable given that, through league history, 85 per cent of teams leading at the last change have saluted.

Despite the unpredictable nature of the modern game, if you're behind, you generally stay there.

But Fremantle is bucking the theory. On Sunday, the 18-point lead became a three-point loss.

Against Melbourne at the MCG, they led by 32 points at three-quarter time and lost by six.

In Round 6, they gave up a 25-point lead at the last break against Geelong to lose by one. If it loses after being in front at the last change against the Blues this weekend, Fremantle will be only the second side to do it four times in a row.

St Kilda holds the record, managing the feat in Rounds 8-11, 1940.

For so long, Fremantle has been the "big tease". On Sunday, we witnessed the "big freeze".

From the 13-minute mark of the final term, when Matthew Pavlich drilled a goal to put the Dockers' lead back at 18 points, Freo did not have one forward-50 entry.

In that time, the Dogs had 11. If Brad Johnson had not been off target the Dockers would have lost by three goals, not three points.

Unbelievably, Fremantle had one stat forward of the centre in the final 12 minutes. It came with six minutes to go when Pavlich managed a dribbling kick off the ground.

We're talking not one single effective stat within 90m of goal.

Fremantle spent a lot of time going sideways, trapped across half-back.

It was as if no one down the ground was brave enough to present for fear of making the mistake that slammed the lid shut on the club's season.

The Dogs had the luxury of a settled group of players in the middle-age bracket.

Three years ago, they would have stumbled and made shaky decisions. In the final 10 minutes, they barely made a blunder.

That is what sets the good sides apart. It is why Richmond is still struggling to play out games in tight finishes. The Tigers are two to three years behind the Dogs.

The Tigers should have beaten the Dogs and St Kilda. If the siren had blown 20 minutes into the final term, they would have won both.

On a "What If Ladder" compiled by Champion Data, under the parameter of stopping the clock 20 minutes into the final term of every game, the Tigers would be in the top eight with a 4-4 record.

The Dogs, the new masters of the tight finish after storming home against Adelaide, Richmond and Fremantle, would have a 5-3 record and be fifth.

If Harvey had been able to smash the big red button 20 minutes into the last term each week, his side would have a respectable 3-5 record.

Pavlich remains convinced the Dockers' problem is not above the shoulders. You have to be choking.
 
From the 13-minute mark of the final term, when Matthew Pavlich drilled a goal to put the Dockers' lead back at 18 points, Freo did not have one forward-50 entry.

wow
 
Yup I sit on the 50m line and didnt see a single bit of play for what I thought was 15mins, seems it was a bit longer than that.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

What was going through your head in those final 20 minutes?

Was just wonderning why the players in the backline wouldnt kick it long to a contest, the ball would have most likely come to ground then its 50/50. After the first 5mins of not seeing the ball it was pretty obvious we werent going to win the game.
 
Was just wonderning why the players in the backline wouldnt kick it long to a contest, the ball would have most likely come to ground then its 50/50. After the first 5mins of not seeing the ball it was pretty obvious we werent going to win the game.

It's funny but with the Dockers you just seem to "know" how they are going to go based off some things. Some games in the first 5 mins you just know they didn't turn up and the game is over. The last few weeks it's been "wow they've turned up" only for them to fade in the last quarter.

I'm pretty sure it is a fitness issue what we are seeing at the moment. My question is how the hell did it come up? I can think of a few reasons, Palmer in the middle is still getting used to the AFL fitness required, he has to be forgiven. Bell is getting older and his fitness has been on the decline for a few years now, he's forgiven. It is the other midfielders coming in for the injuries probably not quite up to the level, and the other youngsters. Probably not quite up to it yet.

Still, even last year I have seen the dockers look more off their feet than I have before, I guess maybe because our list is aging maybe this is what I'm seeing I don't know. I just remember a few years ago when Larcombe? was around we seemed really fit and used to run a few teams off their feet. I just hope whoever is in control of fitness improves or we sack him.
 
Goes back to the team rules thread...when there's no option if you're going to ____ things up, do it 50-60m further away froim your goal on the defensive side...

As much as Peake ____ed it up by kicking it out on the full he had the right idea. Kick it long to a contest on the boundary line, the ball will most likely go ovet the line then you have a ruck contest on the 50m line. Then with Sandis height we can at least get the ball moving forward. Thats the play I would have gone for but what would I know.
 
Don't forget we have finished every game with less than 4 fit players on interchange except for the Eagles game. As Harvey said, it's not an excuse but it is a fact.
 
Don't forget we have finished every game with less than 4 fit players on interchange except for the Eagles game. As Harvey said, it's not an excuse but it is a fact.

If Harvey is stating that at any press conference then he is using it as an excuse.
 
About time we started making history...

I guess we're slowly getting better. We've only had one game where we didn't show up to play at all. It used to be more like 1 out of every 3.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

It's funny but with the Dockers you just seem to "know" how they are going to go based off some things. Some games in the first 5 mins you just know they didn't turn up and the game is over. The last few weeks it's been "wow they've turned up" only for them to fade in the last quarter.

Dockers have always been a bit fragile in the last. If we're within striking distance at 3/4 time, i reckon if we conceed the first goal of the last quarter we have about a 99% chance of losing the game. If we're in front and conceed a couple of early goals we'll lose too.

I'm pretty sure it is a fitness issue what we are seeing at the moment. My question is how the hell did it come up? I can think of a few reasons, Palmer in the middle is still getting used to the AFL fitness required, he has to be forgiven.

I was listening to the radio on the way home and some cretin was bagging Harvey for having Palmer start a quarter in attack. Palmer is a fricken first year player, and can't be expected to spend the entire game on the ball. Even the elite midfielders can't do it.
 
Yup it was the only way to go once it was obvious they couldnt run it out.

They could run it out they just weren't willing to put in the effort. Palmer showed what was required, took the handball in the back pocket, ran hard for 25m across the ground, then a 40m kick outside the defensive 50 to switch the play. Unfortunately he picked out a dogs player perfectly, five more metres on the kick and we would've been away (Bradley IIRC).

If more players had been willing to put the leg work in and then kick longer out of defense (rather than all the sideways handballs) we would've been much better off. Not saying we would've won, it would've helped though. Some players leading to help there mates out would've been nice as well. In one instance we were kicking out of the back pocket and i counted four Freo players walking through the centre square with their backs to the kicker. Pathetic.
 
Don't forget we have finished every game with less than 4 fit players on interchange except for the Eagles game. As Harvey said, it's not an excuse but it is a fact.

Without checking, I would say alot of those games the other team also finished with less than 4 fit players on the bench. Regardless, I don't like the way Harvey has brought up injuries.

From where I was sitting, there wasn't even much chance of a proper 50-50 contest up the ground. The Bulldogs had so many numbers and upfield the Freo players were not creating any run/space, that it seemed inevitable the ball would come back quickly. If a 50-50 contest was created, extra Bulldogs would have swarmed to it far quicker than our players and extracted the ball through weight of numbers. And Hayden/McPharlin know that if that happens they will be totally out of position as their opponents had zoned off them. I agree that after a while they might as well have just kicked it long and hoped for a boundary throw in or something ... but I can understand why it didn't happen ... they must have been thinking "surely someone will give us something to kick to".

Fitness and lack of courage to run even though you are knackered was the problem. I remember Leigh Matthews saying Nigel Lappin was one of the most courageous players he had coached, not for being Archer-like (although I think it was around the time he played a GF with busted ribs), but based purely on his will to keep running when he was spent and normal players would stop. Aside from Palmer, I see none of our players with this attitude.
 
I love Michael Johnson to bits but how is it his name has not come up? I was in front of the whole thing and for whatever reason every time he had it or went near it the whole thing went pear shaped.He lost the plot.Maybe I am wrong and I haven't watched the replay yet but at the time this seemed glaring to me.
 
I'm pretty sure it is a fitness issue what we are seeing at the moment. My question is how the hell did it come up? I can think of a few reasons, Palmer in the middle is still getting used to the AFL fitness required, he has to be forgiven. Bell is getting older and his fitness has been on the decline for a few years now, he's forgiven. It is the other midfielders coming in for the injuries probably not quite up to the level, and the other youngsters. Probably not quite up to it yet.

Still, even last year I have seen the dockers look more off their feet than I have before, I guess maybe because our list is aging maybe this is what I'm seeing I don't know. I just remember a few years ago when Larcombe? was around we seemed really fit and used to run a few teams off their feet. I just hope whoever is in control of fitness improves or we sack him.

I think you're spot on on this one. Bell especially astounds me. He's definitely past his peak, but not by much and he's definitely one of the few players who seems to be able to put in the the hard running work in last quarter - maybe it's the clean Geraldton air.

As for the fitness coaching thing. I seem to also remember the Dockers laying the benchmark for fitness earlier this decade, over the last 2 or so seasons we've gone backwards. Didn't we sack our fitness coach at some point because it was deemed he was pushing the team too hard and it was increasing frequencies of fatigue related injury?
 
I think you're spot on on this one. Bell especially astounds me. He's definitely past his peak, but not by much and he's definitely one of the few players who seems to be able to put in the the hard running work in last quarter - maybe it's the clean Geraldton air.

As for the fitness coaching thing. I seem to also remember the Dockers laying the benchmark for fitness earlier this decade, over the last 2 or so seasons we've gone backwards. Didn't we sack our fitness coach at some point because it was deemed he was pushing the team too hard and it was increasing frequencies of fatigue related injury?

Yeah it seemed people thought we were getting more injuries (reminds me of the crows a year or two back) due to the fitness coach or something related to it. We did appear to be at the forefront a few years ago, with Connolly/Larcombe heavily rotating and bringing other things to the game. Hard to pinpoint what went wrong here, I'd just guess it's a different fitness coaching tactic going wrong or players getting on in years.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I don't think it is fitness, and I don' think that it is players not having the courage to do anything. I think they don't know what the coach wants them to do in this situation. It has looked to me like every time we have been beaten in the last quarter it is because the opposition coach has made the right moves (Akermanis to centre) and Harvey has not.
 
They could run it out they just weren't willing to put in the effort. Palmer showed what was required, took the handball in the back pocket, ran hard for 25m across the ground, then a 40m kick outside the defensive 50 to switch the play. Unfortunately he picked out a dogs player perfectly, five more metres on the kick and we would've been away (Bradley IIRC).

I think Palmer got swept up in the "just kick it!" people were yelling. Wasn't a good kick at all.
 
I think Palmer got swept up in the "just kick it!" people were yelling. Wasn't a good kick at all.

No it wasn't a good kick, but the idea was spot on. Showed he was willing to work hard to make a difference. Rather than just standing around waiting for Pav to do something he showed some initiative. Until the kick missed it's target it was the most dangerous we'd looked coming out of defence all quarter. Why the hell it was left up to a first year player to lead the way is beyond me though.
 
the people that yell 'just kick it' are the same people that 'sigh' when it lands straight in the oppositions lap...
 
the people that yell 'just kick it' are the same people that 'sigh' when it lands straight in the oppositions lap...

Spot on there kidstyler. It absalutely sh___s me when people do that. One big advantage of being at the game is that you get a better sense of the whole picture and the first thing I do when people are yelling 'just kick it' is look up the field (actually I tend to do that anyway) and often enough there's no clear option ... its just not that simple.

The right thing to yell is 'work hard' 'get in position', 'run run run', 'create space', 'work for each other' and the like ... of course when all else fails, abuse the umpires :p.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom