Patrick Smith - The Australian

[Prodigal Sons]

Has anyone else read the article by Patrick Smith in The Australian newspaer ? (check it out on the newspapers website - under sport)

This bloke is a flog - his work with KB on SEN is testament to that.

It's insightful journalism at it's cutting edge best - NOT ! Says there are "ten commandments" to beating Geelong and that we were 'exposed' against Port a few weeks ago - a game we were leading with 30 seconds to go !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here are some of the gems;

1/ Must man up on gary ablett as he is our chief playmaker (geez that's gold)
2/ Cameron Ling goes forward and kicks goals so keep an eye on him (geez - had'nt noticed that myself)
3/ Joel Corey is a good player so watch him closely (very insightful)
4/ Geelong like to play the corridor so try and stop them from doing it (patrick - can we have some of what you're smoking)


He did put a disclaimer at the bottom of the story to say that Bartel and Ling (he forgot Selwood) did'nt play in that game. Just a minor point he might have considered before scrolling this garbage on the toilet paper and submitting to the editor.

Patrick - you might well be proven to be a tactical genius if Geelong get "opened up" in the next few weeks and beaten like a red headed step-child, however I think it's more likely that most of us will continue to consider you to be one of the greatest tools of the modern footy journalist era's.

 

[PoidaCat]

Do you support Geelong...your club isn't listed put it in.

 

[a.f.k.a.y.o.p.]

Do you support Geelong...your club isn't listed put it in.

This article has been quoted in anther thread.
intensley.

 

[Prodigal Sons]

Do you support Geelong...your club isn't listed put it in.

Yes my friend - a long suffering and in-frequent posting member who witnessed first hand the atrocities of '89 '92 '94 and '95

I'll try and work out how to update my details. I hope this allows you a better nights sleep Poida.

 

[Rosso]

Explain to me how a bloke who is paid to write and talk about footy constantly refers to Jimmy as "Bartels". Fair enough if he was playing his 5th or 6th game but FFS Smythey, get it right.

 

[And_ROOS]

Its funny how he mentions Ling and the Port game, yet Ling wasnt in the Port game and i have the feeling that if he was we would have won it.

Funny that

 

[JUBJUB]

Its funny how he mentions Ling and the Port game, yet Ling wasnt in the Port game and i have the feeling that if he was we would have won it.

Funny that

Packet of Chips isn't the smartest journo around

 

[Kegs44]

What a tool haha, he is possibly the slowest man alive if he is just realising such points atm. And if we have been worked out by Port, the 2nd team who beat us only by 5 points without 3 of a best onballers on the park, and with the last kick of the game, i am fairly content we will perform well in the finals series

 

[CF]

even Caro and Sheahan scoff at Patricks cloumns. He is a flog I agree. All the port game showed was that our midfield is severley weakened without Bartel, Ling & Selwood (naturally) and that Bombers selections to replace these players were not that great. Shaun Burgoyne had 30 disposals and kicked 3 goals that day. I don't think he will be so successful with Ling wearing him like a second skin.

 

[WE Are Geelong]

Even on the strength of just one article you could mount the argument P. Smith has no feel for the game.

3 of our 4 best stoppage players out against Port. Port thrive at the stoppages...this is their number 1 asset. Port are the second best team in the league so home ground or not I will cop losing by less than a kick when we had nothing to play for except history with those three guys missing. Who thinks about history though when you are busting a gut in the last quarter of an AFL match against the second side with their top 4 at stake?

As for the rest...watch Jnr...watch Corey...incredulous to even see it make it to print. Doesnt somebody edit these blokes? Like someone with an idea about footy for instance.

 

[G_Money]

I actually thought the article was alright, and you are being a bit simplistic in your dismissal of it. For example, you say that Smith said:

'Cameron Ling goes forward and kicks goals so keep an eye on him (geez - had'nt noticed that myself)'

What Smith actually said is that the player who Cameron Ling is playing on (tagging) should stay away from the stoppages in our forward 50, to keep Ling away from goals. Seems like a sound tactical move that a coach could drill into his onballers.

You then simplify Smith by quoting him as saying:

'Geelong like to play the corridor so try and stop them from doing it'

What he actually said was that Port were disciplined with their rucks. They had Lade set up around CHF and Brogan at CHB. That meant that when we were coming out of the back line, we had to go wide to avoid Lade, and then our forwards couldn't lead straight up the ground because Brogan was in the way.

He also suggested that defenders should play 3-5 meters in front of their men, because our forwards like to lead up the ground, not double back toward goals, and they get unsettled by this tactic.

He also made a number of other good points:

* Try to contain Milburn with a defensive forward. Drag him to the goal square so he can't marshall the half-back line. (Seems a good point to me)
* Slow down the tempo to stop our run and risk-taking.
* Good ruck work is essential.
* Spread our defenders to make the contests one-on-one.

Overall, I thought the article had some good insights into how we play, and how we can be beaten. Dismissing him as 'a flog' is juvenile.

And remember that Port were a lot better than us on the day, it was just some last quarter heroics that got us back into the game. We had no right to win that game, and the result flattered us, in my opinion. Ling, Bartel and Selwood will make us better, and we will have learned from the Port game, and a lot of the things that we will have learned are in the Smith article.

 

[Prodigal Sons]

I actually thought the article was alright, and you are being a bit simplistic in your dismissal of it. For example, you say that Smith said:

'Cameron Ling goes forward and kicks goals so keep an eye on him (geez - had'nt noticed that myself)'

What Smith actually said is that the player who Cameron Ling is playing on (tagging) should stay away from the stoppages in our forward 50, to keep Ling away from goals. Seems like a sound tactical move that a coach could drill into his onballers.

You then simplify Smith by quoting him as saying:

'Geelong like to play the corridor so try and stop them from doing it'

What he actually said was that Port were disciplined with their rucks. They had Lade set up around CHF and Brogan at CHB. That meant that when we were coming out of the back line, we had to go wide to avoid Lade, and then our forwards couldn't lead straight up the ground because Brogan was in the way.

He also suggested that defenders should play 3-5 meters in front of their men, because our forwards like to lead up the ground, not double back toward goals, and they get unsettled by this tactic.

He also made a number of other good points:

* Try to contain Milburn with a defensive forward. Drag him to the goal square so he can't marshall the half-back line. (Seems a good point to me)
* Slow down the tempo to stop our run and risk-taking.
* Good ruck work is essential.
* Spread our defenders to make the contests one-on-one.

Overall, I thought the article had some good insights into how we play, and how we can be beaten. Dismissing him as 'a flog' is juvenile.

And remember that Port were a lot better than us on the day, it was just some last quarter heroics that got us back into the game. We had no right to win that game, and the result flattered us, in my opinion. Ling, Bartel and Selwood will make us better, and we will have learned from the Port game, and a lot of the things that we will have learned are in the Smith article.

Two points:

Firstly - the comment about being juvenile > would pay to keep your comments to yourself in this regard. Our democracy affords us such rights as free speech - if you aint happy with it then just deal with it and pack your bags for Baghdad.

Secondly - Patrick Smith is a flog and there are many who have the same lack of respect for both him and his journalistic qualities. It's not just this article (which I accept in parts is a bit tongue in cheek) - it's the overall stupidity of this bloke and the constant need to state the obvious.

His performance (as a self confessed Essendon man) during the time of the Sheedy saga and the seld indulgent nature and abuse of air time on SEN with Kevin Bartlett is nothing short of incredulous moronic media garbage.

My point is that P Smith operating under the guise of Captain Obvious is writing what others have written for the last 5 months and yet he has the gall to suggest that a loss with 30 seconds to go (and 3 top-liners missing) he himself has exposed Geelong's major weaknesses as the finals are upon us. What were the other teams doing in the past 17 weeks (where we had one loss) ---- ohh that's right Patrick > no-one knew what Geelong's weaknesses were during this time except for yourself and Port Adelaide.

 

[WE Are Geelong]

I actually thought the article was alright, and you are being a bit simplistic in your dismissal of it. For example, you say that Smith said:

'Cameron Ling goes forward and kicks goals so keep an eye on him (geez - had'nt noticed that myself)'

What Smith actually said is that the player who Cameron Ling is playing on (tagging) should stay away from the stoppages in our forward 50, to keep Ling away from goals. Seems like a sound tactical move that a coach could drill into his onballers.

You then simplify Smith by quoting him as saying:

'Geelong like to play the corridor so try and stop them from doing it'

What he actually said was that Port were disciplined with their rucks. They had Lade set up around CHF and Brogan at CHB. That meant that when we were coming out of the back line, we had to go wide to avoid Lade, and then our forwards couldn't lead straight up the ground because Brogan was in the way.

He also suggested that defenders should play 3-5 meters in front of their men, because our forwards like to lead up the ground, not double back toward goals, and they get unsettled by this tactic.

He also made a number of other good points:

* Try to contain Milburn with a defensive forward. Drag him to the goal square so he can't marshall the half-back line. (Seems a good point to me)
* Slow down the tempo to stop our run and risk-taking.
* Good ruck work is essential.
* Spread our defenders to make the contests one-on-one.

Overall, I thought the article had some good insights into how we play, and how we can be beaten. Dismissing him as 'a flog' is juvenile.

And remember that Port were a lot better than us on the day, it was just some last quarter heroics that got us back into the game. We had no right to win that game, and the result flattered us, in my opinion. Ling, Bartel and Selwood will make us better, and we will have learned from the Port game, and a lot of the things that we will have learned are in the Smith article.

I will just do this in point form so you dont take it personally.

* Ling can often score goals on the run...so what does stoppages in the forward 50 essentially have to do with that? Also do you feel Geelong as the number 1 side in the league cant drill themselves to attack sides and cover loose players as a result in and coming out of our forward 50? Havent we been good at this all season?

*Do you think playing the two ruckmen at CHF and CHB will have the same effect at the MCG as it did at Skilled? Worked well on the day on the narrower ground...dont see it working as well the second time round for starters and on the wider grounds. Geelong play down the centre alot but arent always taking their shots at goal from the corridor.

*If you have watched how fast Geelong bring the ball down the field...let their defenders play 3-5 metres in front of our men all day. It would be lovely to watch how many uncontested marks we have for the day under those unrealistic tactical circumstances.

*If Milburn gets dragged to the goal square he will swap players with one of the other backmen. All season its been that he doesnt have to hear it from the coach...the players can make those changes on their own. This is one very simple indicator that Smith doesnt really understand what he is discussing.

*Slow down the tempo? Would this actually suit Port to do that? Let them slow down the tempo see how much they score as a result. Did they beat us by slowing down the tempo? Also how do you expect to get 'one on ones' down back for us by slowing down the tempo?

*Spread ALL our defenders to make it one on one...laughable. You could isolate one guy in defense at best...usually its Hunt for us. This is the modern game...get real. Seriously that is a no idea type comment...no offence...just being honest.

*Port were better on the day..and let them keep thinking that. We had nothing to play for and played into their strength by resting 3 of our 4 best stoppage players.

 

[bulletproof]

If a team goes into a game that worried about Geelong and how to curb them they will get absolutely annihilated. They will be running around chasing all day,

The way to beat Geelong is to win the stoppages and pump the ball forward quickly not allowing the defence to wok as team, get Mackie, Harley, Milburn and Wojcinkis one out and they will score.

Its exactly the way it was to beat the Lions in their run of three. Easier said then done, when you are up against Ottens, Bartel, Ablett and Corey. Not that it couldn’t be done by the eagles or indeed the power.

Interesing None the less

 

[hoody]

What he actually said was that Port were disciplined with their rucks. They had Lade set up around CHF and Brogan at CHB. That meant that when we were coming out of the back line, we had to go wide to avoid Lade, and then our forwards couldn't lead straight up the ground because Brogan was in the way.

This is the one that I can't comprehend.
In the scenario described, the Cats have possession of the ball.
Their two ruckmen "set up" at the CHF and CHB.
Where are their respective Geelong opponents?
They obviously haven't taken their Power opponents out wide.
So those two Cats are either standing beside them at the key posts and doing their best to help the opposition gameplan..................
Or they are on their own somewhere on the paddock while we are in possession of the ball.
Could Laidley really be that generous?
What am I missing here?

p.s. Do the Power use the bench for their ruckmen or do they just rest them out at the key position posts?

 

[The Casey Cat]

There a lot of morons in the media. NONE are as close to being as stupid as P Smith. I still remembered when he labeled Geelong racist because we commented on a player being 'colored' on some draft report in the late 80s. F###ing fool.

 

[Stripey PJs]

p.s. Do the Power use the bench for their ruckmen or do they just rest them out at the key position posts?

The latter. Lade'll play around 80%+, Brogan a little less.

OT. How dominant would Ottens' season have been given similar game time? We've seen what he's accomplished in the past few weeks after spending more time on the field, his influence on the game's upgraded to A. He's only a few HOs shy of Lade's average, a greater % are to advantage (IMO), and his ground work, second/third efforts and tackling is first rate. Otto's also reaped more from his forays forward than Lade, despite spending less time up there. I'd love to see him regularly playing a further 25-30% (development of Blake aside) but I doubt his body'd sustain it.

 

[Selwood07]

There a lot of morons in the media. NONE are as close to being as stupid as P Smith. I still remembered when he labeled Geelong racist because we commented on a player being 'colored' on some draft report in the late 80s. F###ing fool.

He is one of the most arrogant, egotistical journalists adorning our press. Some remarks are warranted but hardly original - he is inclined to rake up sh*t from the past about players and clubs if you listen to him with KB and is often condescending to his host. I'm sure Smith himself has never played - not that it precludes him from commenting - but he picks up KB on minor matters where the prickly KB is right. Smith will not concede or budge and if we win by a big margin there will be no retraction - it will be that the Roos failed to heed his advice. If we lose he will gloat. I've heard it dozens of times. I have heard him swear that his info on a particular player is 100% correct and on a couple of occasions, knowing that he is wrong, could only laugh at his conceit. Hopefully we'll be laughing on Sunday.

 

[bigdroppunt]

Phatprick smith is a rubbish jurno for shame on all of you for reading he's dribble.

 

[G_Money]

Wow, I'm surprised at the angst my post has generated. I'll just reiterate that I thought Patrick Smith's article did make some interesting points, and that I don't agree with dismissing him as 'a flog' just because he suggested that we can be beaten.

Two points:

Firstly - the comment about being juvenile > would pay to keep your comments to yourself in this regard. Our democracy affords us such rights as free speech - if you aint happy with it then just deal with it and pack your bags for Baghdad.

Okay, let me get this straight:

1) 'Our democracy affords us such rights as free speech' but it 'would pay to keep your comments to yourself in this regard'. Impressive reasoning. Very consistent.

2) You don't like having it pointed out that your comments were juvenile. Your argument is that I should 'pack [my] bags for Baghdad'. Well, that's me convinced.

My point is that P Smith operating under the guise of Captain Obvious is writing what others have written for the last 5 months and yet he has the gall to suggest that a loss with 30 seconds to go (and 3 top-liners missing) he himself has exposed Geelong's major weaknesses as the finals are upon us. What were the other teams doing in the past 17 weeks (where we had one loss) ---- ohh that's right Patrick > no-one knew what Geelong's weaknesses were during this time except for yourself and Port Adelaide.

The fact that we were in front with 30 seconds to go means NOTHING. We played rubbish that day. Port should have beaten us by more. And, like it or not, Port did expose us, particularly for toughness at the ball. Getting back Ling, Bartel and Selwood will make a BIG difference around the stoppages, but we will have to play smarter than we did against Port.

You think Smith was playing 'Captain Obvious', and I agree that some of his points were no brainers (e.g. tag Gazza, try to contain Joel Corey). Some other tactical points I thought were pretty good, and hadn't really thought about too much (particularly the one about how to use your ruckmen, and how to structure your forward line).

I'll leave it there, before I trample on your democratic rights any further by stating my opinion.

Secondly - Patrick Smith is a flog and there are many who have the same lack of respect for both him and his journalistic qualities. It's not just this article (which I accept in parts is a bit tongue in cheek) - it's the overall stupidity of this bloke and the constant need to state the obvious.

I don't think Patrick Smith is a great footy journalist (in fact, I think the footy media in general is of a very poor quality, which is a surprise given the amount of money there is in the game. You would think they would be able to unearth a few genuinely insightful people to write and broadcast about football, not just the gossip columnists we currently get).

But to just say 'Patrick Smith is a flog' and then pretty much automatically dismiss everything he says seems to me the wrong approach. I think that in the original article Smith made a couple of good points. Just like I think Robert Walls, Caroline Wilson, Sam Newman and all the other poor-quality journalists in football can make the occasional good point. You read everything, sift out the garbage and learn fromthe occasional insights.

And as for him being Captain Obvious, don't forget that he is writing in the Australian - not an AFL paper. He would have very clear instructions to not be too intimidating. For a not-very-serious AFL follower reading that article, they would at least be able to say 'Oh yeah, I agree that they should tag Gary Ablett.

What were the other teams doing in the past 17 weeks (where we had one loss) ---- ohh that's right Patrick > no-one knew what Geelong's weaknesses were during this time except for yourself and Port Adelaide.

That's kind of the point. For the previous 15 weeks, we didn't lose. Port were the only side that were able to expose us for most of the game. Patrick Smith wrote an article about how he thought they did it. His article was descriptive, he didn't claim tht he came up with Port's game plan.

 

[G_Money]

I will just do this in point form so you dont take it personally.

* Ling can often score goals on the run...so what does stoppages in the forward 50 essentially have to do with that? Also do you feel Geelong as the number 1 side in the league cant drill themselves to attack sides and cover loose players as a result in and coming out of our forward 50? Havent we been good at this all season?

I agree, you won't necessarily completely dull Ling's influence, but we all remember last season when he got into the habit of collecting useless stats across the back line. I think the point is a valid one: Ling is a good player (and dangerous around goal). Keep him away from the action as much as possible, particularly when he could turn it into a goal scoring opportunity.

*Do you think playing the two ruckmen at CHF and CHB will have the same effect at the MCG as it did at Skilled? Worked well on the day on the narrower ground...dont see it working as well the second time round for starters and on the wider grounds. Geelong play down the centre alot but arent always taking their shots at goal from the corridor.

Probably not as good a tactic at the MCG, but still an interesting point. It's all well and good to say 'clog the corridor against Geelong'. Smith's article described one of the tactics Port used to do it.

Also, you say that you 'dont see it working as well the second time round '. That's the point. It did work last time. It's something that teams will try again, and we need to learn from it.

You also note that 'Geelong play down the centre alot but arent always taking their shots at goal from the corridor'. The reason you play through the corridor is so that last kick inside 50 has options. If you kick from true CHF, you can go right, left or straight to a leading option. If you come down the flanks, you are stuck on that side of the ground, unless you work the ball tediously around the 50. Putting the ruck at CHB means that the forwards look up and the space in front is blocked, and that backs look up and they can't get an easy kick to CHF. It's not an unbreachable wall, but it is a useful tactic to stop teams from dominating the corridor.

*If you have watched how fast Geelong bring the ball down the field...let their defenders play 3-5 metres in front of our men all day. It would be lovely to watch how many uncontested marks we have for the day under those unrealistic tactical circumstances.

I agree, but it only works if we get the ball down the field quickly. A combination of being good at the stoppages, controlling the tempo of the game and flooding the corridor can make that more difficult. If one of our players has the ball 70 meters from goal and looks up at forwards who are not moving because their opponents are blocking the space in front of them, it is much harder to create goals.

*If Milburn gets dragged to the goal square he will swap players with one of the other backmen. All season its been that he doesnt have to hear it from the coach...the players can make those changes on their own. This is one very simple indicator that Smith doesnt really understand what he is discussing.

It works if it works. Milburn was horrible against Port (as was Scarlett). Those two guys play a clear role in the team. Stop them from playing that role, and we lose drive out of the backline. Maybe they both just had a bad day, but maybe Port were smart about how their opponents played.

*Slow down the tempo? Would this actually suit Port to do that? Let them slow down the tempo see how much they score as a result. Did they beat us by slowing down the tempo? Also how do you expect to get 'one on ones' down back for us by slowing down the tempo?

Seemed to work for Port. They did control the ball when they had it, particularly in the centre square. I was re-watching the Brisbane game last night, and at one stage Voss made a comment that Geelong looked awful when we held the ball up. Teams will have noticed that, and will try to curtail our run.

*Spread ALL our defenders to make it one on one...laughable. You could isolate one guy in defense at best...usually its Hunt for us. This is the modern game...get real. Seriously that is a no idea type comment...no offence...just being honest.

Did you read the article? Smith wasn't talking about isolating a player in the goal square. He was talking about how the forwards should set up and lead. What Smith said was that when Port were bringing the ball inside 50, they had Westhoff deep, Tredrea 30 meters out, Motlop leading out to one side, and Ebert to the other. Pretty standard stuff really (don't all lead to the one place). But it puts pressure on our defenders because they can't rely on a 3-on-3 situation where Harley/Milburn/Corey comes across the front to spoil or take a saving mark, while the others are able to workthe ball out of defence. Our backline works well as a unit. Defenders will always have a harder time if it is one-on-one.

 

[WE Are Geelong]

I agree, you won't necessarily completely dull Ling's influence, but we all remember last season when he got into the habit of collecting useless stats across the back line. I think the point is a valid one: Ling is a good player (and dangerous around goal). Keep him away from the action as much as possible, particularly when he could turn it into a goal scoring opportunity.



Probably not as good a tactic at the MCG, but still an interesting point. It's all well and good to say 'clog the corridor against Geelong'. Smith's article described one of the tactics Port used to do it.

Also, you say that you 'dont see it working as well the second time round '. That's the point. It did work last time. It's something that teams will try again, and we need to learn from it.

You also note that 'Geelong play down the centre alot but arent always taking their shots at goal from the corridor'. The reason you play through the corridor is so that last kick inside 50 has options. If you kick from true CHF, you can go right, left or straight to a leading option. If you come down the flanks, you are stuck on that side of the ground, unless you work the ball tediously around the 50. Putting the ruck at CHB means that the forwards look up and the space in front is blocked, and that backs look up and they can't get an easy kick to CHF. It's not an unbreachable wall, but it is a useful tactic to stop teams from dominating the corridor.



I agree, but it only works if we get the ball down the field quickly. A combination of being good at the stoppages, controlling the tempo of the game and flooding the corridor can make that more difficult. If one of our players has the ball 70 meters from goal and looks up at forwards who are not moving because their opponents are blocking the space in front of them, it is much harder to create goals.



It works if it works. Milburn was horrible against Port (as was Scarlett). Those two guys play a clear role in the team. Stop them from playing that role, and we lose drive out of the backline. Maybe they both just had a bad day, but maybe Port were smart about how their opponents played.



Seemed to work for Port. They did control the ball when they had it, particularly in the centre square. I was re-watching the Brisbane game last night, and at one stage Voss made a comment that Geelong looked awful when we held the ball up. Teams will have noticed that, and will try to curtail our run.



Did you read the article? Smith wasn't talking about isolating a player in the goal square. He was talking about how the forwards should set up and lead. What Smith said was that when Port were bringing the ball inside 50, they had Westhoff deep, Tredrea 30 meters out, Motlop leading out to one side, and Ebert to the other. Pretty standard stuff really (don't all lead to the one place). But it puts pressure on our defenders because they can't rely on a 3-on-3 situation where Harley/Milburn/Corey comes across the front to spoil or take a saving mark, while the others are able to workthe ball out of defence. Our backline works well as a unit. Defenders will always have a harder time if it is one-on-one.

G_Money I appreciate that you have gone to alot of trouble to respond. I dont agree with a number of your points but thats life.

Ling has been very good at choosing when to enter the forward 50 and be that attacking goal kicking option. You cant stop him by running away from the forward 50...This has been Geelong's mantra all year...if we have the ball we are going to attack no matter what. You asked me if I read Smith's article?...the more salient question is...have you been watching the side this year?...(sort of joking).

Thanks for the football lesson on playing down the corridor...I needed it about as much as the GFC needs it at the moment given they have played down the corridor more than any side in the history of the game since they started noting those stats.

You unfortunately think the sole reason we played the way we did against Port...was because Port did this...Port did that. Plenty of tactics have worked the first time around with the cats this year. Not many have mattered. Voss said we looked terrible when we played Tempo footy...who looks good when they play Tempo footy? Name one? (Please dont be foolish and name one). We beat the Lions by 7 goals thats point 1 and werent really trying. Point 2... this is a competitive business AFL footy...you dont look good all the time even when you are winning. Unrealistic commentary from Voss who was biased no doubt and hated his side being toyed with all night. Unrealistic commentary from Smith who lacks feel for the game....unrealistic by you to expect we wont be troubled by the second side on the ladder or any other side along the way.

The simple answer to alot of this discussion is based on the midfield. Our defenders looked ordinary and 'divided' when the ball is coming down too fast and too often. This is the crux of the discussion right here. Our forwards look 'covered' and more ordinary when the ball isnt coming down quickly enough. Football is still a simple enough game to break it down like this.
Stop the ball coming down that way...and Port can lead all the way up the Bourke st Mall...all of them...and see where it gets them. If we move the ball forward quickly enough like we have all year...let them play 3-5 metres ahead of our forwards.

IMO you dont understand the relationship these points have to each other.

The concept of dividing defenders is based on how the ball is delivered into the forward 50. Its not about guys just leading regardless. That is a fruitless pursuit if their midfielders are under the right sort of pressure. How many times does it have to be mentioned Port thrive at the stoppages...stoppages is where you gain control of the footy and we had 3 of our best 4 out all on the one day. Having guys missing isnt a Port tactic...they just benefitted from it...and so did the way they brought the ball down the field as a result. Saying thats going to repeat itself next time is a nonsense. Trying to make out it has something to do with specifically beating Geelong...its how you beat any side....they just had the better of it on the day...by 3 seconds in the end too by the second side on the ladder and our first loss in 17 weeks....Horrifying!

I think you and Smith should set off for the Holy Grail next......but look I appreciate you have your opinion and you set it out well...I just disagree in the main. Geelong has thrived this season on bringing the ball down the field quickly and directly. If we are better serviced from the stoppages and get first use of the footy we hurt the opposition going the other way and make better opportunities for our own forwards. Setting their ruckmen up, splaying their forward leads, plugging holes in their defence and running off Ling etc etc wont mean as much if simply we get back to the way we know we can impose ourselves on a game this year in the midfield. How we do that?...well for starters we get back the NAB Rising star, a favourite for the brownlow and the best tagger in the league. That should be a start to helping solve most of the issues you mention. Dont forget we wont solve everything...it is a competitive sport after all.

 

[OldStyle2007]

Is Smith seriously suggesting that whoever Ling plays on should not go into the Cats Forward 50 ???

That is ridiculous

 

[crosby123]

No offence intended WAG, but you're a condescending jerk. I'm happy for you to have an opinion, but you're still a condescending jerk.


[This is essentially how you wrote your last post. "No offence intended... but you're a moron who knows nothing about the game... but you can still have an opinion, champ." Not an exact quote, obviously, but it reflects the sentiment pretty accurately, I think.]

 

[WE Are Geelong]

No offence intended WAG, but you're a condescending jerk. I'm happy for you to have an opinion, but you're still a condescending jerk.


[This is essentially how you wrote your last post. "No offence intended... but you're a moron who knows nothing about the game... but you can still have an opinion, champ." Not an exact quote, obviously, but it reflects the sentiment pretty accurately, I think.]

Well if you care to back it up with football commentary go for it. Am I wrong in my commentary? You tell me one way or the other. Dont like how I talk...too bad sunshine. Was I talking to you by the way? You seem to miss the part where G_money tries to give me a 101 lesson on playing footy down the corridor...wasnt that condescending of him?...or is this all my fault? Can I not respond in kind? Is that allowed?

Otherwise you just sound like another weak whining little girl. Are you that? (I know I sound really angry and cut up when I say that but seriously this is all too sensitive)

I dont just get on here and bag people like you just did little man. I do it with football commentary...every single time.

You just got on and bagged someone without a whisper about footy. I am not a condescending jerk because I relate it to footy mate. You havent related it to footy just something personal to do with your fragile emotions.

Doesnt that make you condescending...and a jerk too? Talk some footy mate...thats what we are here for. If you want to make it purely personal go to some chat site where you can pour all your emotions out for people who care about that sh1t.

I am so sorry for being forthright about football. You would almost think it was a contact sport or something.

By the Way...next time you quote me....quote my actual words and not the ones you make up for me. Kind of makes it too convenient then to say what you want...and exaggerate a point to suit your little emotions.

NB...I would enjoy just talking about football...and not personal emotional stuff..ok? If I believe something you or someone has said is dumb...I might be inclined to suggest/imply/infer that it is dumb. If you would like to reply in a football sense...great. If you want to talk purely about other emotional crap...I cant believe I am or have ever been taken seriously given the absolute rubbish I write.

Football anyone? Why gee its September...fancy that!