Review Player Review v Kangaroos

[Leviathan Pie]

Good yarn, OP

 

[Pie eyed]

Fantastic write up Lenny.
Can't agree more about Elliot.
Kid has talent.

 

[Frankie23]

Varcoe, been one of our most reliable player IMO. Our worst two periods of footy, first quarter against Geelong and first half against North, his pressure and application was still first rate. Then games such as the GC one he has capitalised and cashed in on his work rate.

An astute pick up, so happy for him.

 

[BEEG]

People get all over Blair and White never see anything about Toovey

Brown, Langdon were very average Langdon hadn't had a great 3 weeks

 

[Linda Lovelace]

The most pleasing performance was Fasolo's. We need him to get rid of the weaknesses in his game because his clean, penetrating disposal is vital in a team severely lacking it.

Also, the output of Jack Crisp continues to impress. That Beams trade is starting to look pretty good, especially if Greenwood can get back to his 2014 form.

Still, for all the positives of the win, that first half showed that we are unfortunately capable of serving up some shit that only teams like Melbourne are capable of. This wasn't just North Melbourne destroying us, but a North missing 3 of its 5 best players in Swallow, Wells and Dal Santo. That's no excuse for them collapsing, but it is somewhat worrying that they ever looked so dominant over us considering those outs.

 

[tommyv49]

Varcoe, been one of our most reliable player IMO. Our worst two periods of footy, first quarter against Geelong and first half against North, his pressure and application was still first rate. Then games such as the GC one he has capitalised and cashed in on his work rate.

An astute pick up, so happy for him.

I always saw him as a soft outside player at geelong, but he has really impressed me with his contested game especially one on one contests I don't remember seeing him losing one all year. I think his disposal has been overrated a bit but is a very good decision maker when the pressure is on and has shown versatility to play across every line.
Would be top 10 in the bnf. Never been a fan but he's really impressing me. IMO been the best out of the harryo, Clarke and varcoe trade.

 

[Lefthanded]

Thanks for some great write ups!

Not much I can add except hope De Goey also learns from that failed tackle on Dumont (Dumont showed his strength there and is only 9 months older than JDG)

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Love your posts lenny20 .

 

[Vankri]

Great summary lenny20.

However I don't believe in the 'tale of two halves'. A bit like didaksrightfoot said in the post-game thread, I believe this was actually very similar in terms of our performance to the Geelong and Richmond games. We didn't play that much worse in the first half than we did in the first half against Geelong and the 30min period against Richmond in the first, and we didn't play that much better in the second half than we we've shown this year either. We kicked straighter though, it was 13.4 at some point and I simply can't remember when we last kicked so accurately.

In terms of tactical analysis, I think we're left with the same queries and things to work on as our last few games. You would need to hear it straight from Bucks or our defence coach to truly understand how we instruct the non-tagging defenders to act (tagging defenders would be Frost and Brown who stay on their man wherever they go on the ground, and a small defender e.g. Toovey on Thomas) but we get caught on the rebound with our strategy to man up to the closest man vs trying to keep the exact same match ups all over the ground. We take time to man up, and teams are using the 'flood' against us, adding numbers to the half forward line so there is always an extra player against us. North did this really well by pushing numbers towards their forward 50 – exactly as Geelong did – and we failed to get over this strategy because to do so you need to kick well out of defence and you need to have strong marking options in the centre, we had neither for a while during the game (Goldsack particularly poor in kicking, and Grundy/Witts beaten by Goldstein in the marking game).

We turned the tide at some point during the game though, because NM sent their extra man back in the 3rd because we were just looking too dangerous out there. In the end, despite all the tactical analysis we can do, this is what it comes down to: you either play catch up trying to follow the other teams' structural changes, or you back your own men to be dangerous enough to force the opposition to adapt. We're a defensive minded team and we are playing an ineffective ruck duo (if you're looking for evidence of this, at various points during the game Witts or Grundy in the forward line were matched with a medium/small player...), so we are prone to let the other team dictate the terms and it's cost us a burst of goals in a short periods for several games now.

As I said I don't buy the idea that there was 'big difference' between the first and second halves, but between our poorest period an our best in the game to me the main difference to me was that the midfield lifted and there were already signs of this at the end of the first (lift in the midfield came mostly from Swan, Sidebottom, Pendles and Crisp). We perhaps were a little more intense and got more numbers to the ball in the second half, but not enough to say that we were lacking effort in the first.

But this is all just cold analysis, the reality is this come-back win should do a world of good to the playing group. As Bucks said post-game, the players showed belief. I tend to think confidence is a very underrated part of the game, as it is for a lot of team sports as it's hard to gauge: confidence in yourself, and confidence in your teammates (that they will kick it to you well, they will mark it well if you kick it to them, etc.). This is a major part of a young team's development, understanding each other, our limitations and our potential. It's pleasing that the boys look like a really good and tight group at the moment, body language, smiles and team song at the end were wonderful to see.

Not going to go into too much detail on individual players since the OP was so comprehensive, but will note a few things:

--- The match winners:

Elliott - A true match winning performance, again kicked a bag, but very good that they all came from different types of play. Also performed really well when sent on the wing to get into the game as nothing was coming forward properly and took some good intercept marks (good move by coaches).

Sidebottom - Instrumental to get us back into the game when he spent more time in the middle. Absolute top class output: 22 kicks from 31 disposals, 65% DE, 9 marks, 3 clearances, 3 tackles, 1 goal.

--- The great contributors:

Fasolo - In our top 3 at half time, one of the few that was applying pressure and being clean when the game went against us. You could see from the VFL games since he got dropped that he was more focused and playing with more intensity. Strong tackling and marking game and multiple score involvements.

Crisp - I do not understand how there were queries about his kicking before he came to us, it's one of his strongest weapons. Very penetrating and long, and very good at goal kicking. Best DE% of our midfielders as well with 79%, in addition to tackling very strongly finishing with a game high 11 tackles. I don't see his ceiling as being the top echelon of midfielders in our team when we actually are challenging, but he can be a very good player for us long term.

Varcoe - In our top 3 players at half time as well. Just really involved, running heaps and clean when we needed it. He would have gone the bracket above if he had maintain this level, but dropped a bit after that.

Swan - He kept trying at the start but wasn't finding space and was butchering a bit (finished the game with a game high 6 clangers). Better after, and interesting that he's playing better as a forward than when he's at centre bounce.

Williams - Contributed a lot, he stood his ground defensively and doing his best to get us out of trouble with his new-found footy smarts, but had little support around him to do so. We were lacking physicality and speed around the contest so he got sent to the middle for a while interestingly (for Crisp I believe who was spotted down back), and was actually influential there.

Blair - 9 tackles, went at 92% DE (not saying DE is gospel but didn't butcher it), and most importantly was repeatedly involved in our goals:
- He's the one who picked up the ball and linked with Adams before the latter kicked towards Cloke who scored his first
- He's the one who took the intercept mark from Waite to deliver a kick to Witts who handballed to Crisp for his goal
- He's the one who kicked the ball forward for Elliott to pick up and kick his second
- He kicked the sealer from a difficult set shot.

--- The solid performers:

Pendlebury - Playing injured, he was slower and more timid than usual for most of the game, but did some important things after. Funny how good a bad Pendles game is.

Adams - Solid but a bit untidy still.

Cloke - Again really good and important in the CHF role. Don't understand why there wasn't a score review on his kick from the boundary.

White - Been good now the last two games and a half. Managed to take 6 marks and kick a crucial difficult goal against the tide.

Grundy & Witts - Overall they were beaten by an exceptional Goldstein, but to their credit they never stopped trying and managed to minimised Goldstein's dominance at the hit outs in the 3rd quarter with some good tap work. Really didn't contain him when he was linking the play for NM with strong marks though, without providing enough the other way. They also both kicked one goal, which is something without being enough.

De Goey - Ballsy move to have him play almost exclusively in the middle at centre bounce. He's so good at the clearance work, great read and great hands. His ceiling would be very high because there aren't that many players with his sense of anticipation in the competition.

Frost - In 1-on-1 contests he probably only broke even in the end rather than get truly on top, but he provided a lot of help with his physicality and he used his speed well to rebound, or his 'fumbling technique' which was awkward to watch but was efficient.

Toovey - Alternated the good and bad but was good in restricting Thomas' influence.

-- The disappointments:

Langdon - Late to most aerial contests, untidy at times and undisciplined, also looked like he lacked physicality. He might need a bit of a spell, but perhaps with the BYE coming we keep him in next week and let the bye give him the break he needs.

Goldsack - Was undersized and beaten in defence and really bad on the rebound, kicking was way off. As bad as that was, it does highlight how important he's been for us this year and how good his kick ins had been until now, providing really good solutions out of defence.

Brown - Beaten in defence, bit concerning that it's now been 3 average to poor games in a row for him.

Oxley - Our player with the biggest gap between his best and his worst. Yesterday was amongst the 'worst', maybe was hampered by a knock but still not surprised to see him so inconsistent – will need to build consistency with experience, but would advocate for him to be dropped since there is strong VFL to reward at the moment.

Seedsman - I could copy and paste what I had written for the GC game. Not involved enough, too inconsistent. And this time didn't have the excuse of being too defensive as we added Tooves to cover the back for this game.

 

[TradeDraft]

Adams - Solid but a bit untidy still.

I saw Adams had some very good Kicks before the Rain Came and then he came untidy

Grundy & Witts - Overall they were beaten by an exceptional Goldstein, but to their credit they never stopped trying and managed to minimised Goldstein's dominance at the hit outs in the 3rd quarter with some good tap work. Really didn't contain him when he was linking the play for NM with strong marks though, without providing enough the other way. They also both kicked one goal, which is something without being enough.

Well Both are Young so they still working on what they can Offer around the Ground. Hopefully they learnt watching Goldstein do it

 

[Piestration]

A big positive from this game was Fas and his intent to get involved in the game. His pressure, tackling and attack on the ball was a standout. He didn't get the rewards in the stats book but it was the performance of a player that we need everyweek not just once a month. He fills a much needed role in the team so I'll be watching with interest to see if he can back it up.

 

[TradeDraft]

A big positive from this game was Fas and his intent to get involved in the game. His pressure, tackling and attack on the ball was a standout. He didn't get the rewards in the stats book but it was the performance of a player that we need everyweek not just once a month. He fills a much needed role in the team so I'll be watching with interest to see if he can back it up.

Fas showed when he in is played well. How Important of a Player he can be

 

[Pie eyed]

People get all over Blair and White never see anything about Toovey

Brown, Langdon were very average Langdon hadn't had a great 3 weeks

Never got into Blair, but admit I've been wrongly hammering White of late (which is obviously why he has improved out of sight).
Tooves rarely cops it because there are no faults in the Toovey machine.

 

[TradeDraft]

Tooves rarely cops it because there are no faults in the Toovey machine.

Toovey is not a Fantastic Kick

 

[Pie eyed]

A big positive from this game was Fas and his intent to get involved in the game. His pressure, tackling and attack on the ball was a standout. He didn't get the rewards in the stats book but it was the performance of a player that we need everyweek not just once a month. He fills a much needed role in the team so I'll be watching with interest to see if he can back it up.

I think Fas is just excited he gets to play with Elliot!!!
I would be.
Fas has the raw material to be as good as Elliot.
Imagine one in each pocket......Reid rampant in the Square........Cloke prowling the arc like a god damned ball eating T-rex......Crispy, The Seed, De goey, Lurch (Adams), Marley and Shazza......balls raining in from all over the park and our midfielders running through en masse for the crumbs?

BRB....need a tissue.

 

[Pie eyed]

Toovey is not a Fantastic Kick

He is not meant to be Dave.
He's there to stop others. Just getting a kick is a bonus.
If it hits a target, (usually does) it's a cherry on top.

 

[BoxMatrix]

I saw Adams had some very good Kicks before the Rain Came and then he came untidy

You'd want Adams to be the sort of player who is much more tidier than other players when it rains. That's how he can make a difference.

 

[TradeDraft]

You'd want Adams to be the sort of player who is much more tidier than other players when it rains. That's how he can make a difference.

Well - IF he did not try and do too much he probably would of. I remember him being good vs Essendon in the Wet

 

[Quicky]

Great summary lenny20.

However I don't believe in the 'tale of two halves'. A bit like didaksrightfoot said in the post-game thread, I believe this was actually very similar in terms of our performance to the Geelong and Richmond games. We didn't play that much worse in the first half than we did in the first half against Geelong and the 30min period against Richmond in the first, and we didn't play that much better in the second half than we we've shown this year either. We kicked straighter though, it was 13.4 at some point and I simply can't remember when we last kicked so accurately.

In terms of tactical analysis, I think we're left with the same queries and things to work on as our last few games. You would need to hear it straight from Bucks or our defence coach to truly understand how we instruct the non-tagging defenders to act (tagging defenders would be Frost and Brown who stay on their man wherever they go on the ground, and a small defender e.g. Toovey on Thomas) but we get caught on the rebound with our strategy to man up to the closest man vs trying to keep the exact same match ups all over the ground. We take time to man up, and teams are using the 'flood' against us, adding numbers to the half forward line so there is always an extra player against us. North did this really well by pushing numbers towards their forward 50 – exactly as Geelong did – and we failed to get over this strategy because to do so you need to kick well out of defence and you need to have strong marking options in the centre, we had neither for a while during the game (Goldsack particularly poor in kicking, and Grundy/Witts beaten by Goldstein in the marking game).

We turned the tide at some point during the game though, because NM sent their extra man back in the 3rd because we were just looking too dangerous out there. In the end, despite all the tactical analysis we can do, this is what it comes down to: you either play catch up trying to follow the other teams' structural changes, or you back your own men to be dangerous enough to force the opposition to adapt. We're a defensive minded team and we are playing an ineffective ruck duo (if you're looking for evidence of this, at various points during the game Witts or Grundy in the forward line were matched with a medium/small player...), so we are prone to let the other team dictate the terms and it's cost us a burst of goals in a short periods for several games now.

As I said I don't buy the idea that there was 'big difference' between the first and second halves, but between our poorest period an our best in the game to me the main difference to me was that the midfield lifted and there were already signs of this at the end of the first (lift in the midfield came mostly from Swan, Sidebottom, Pendles and Crisp). We perhaps were a little more intense and got more numbers to the ball in the second half, but not enough to say that we were lacking effort in the first.

But this is all just cold analysis, the reality is this come-back win should do a world of good to the playing group. As Bucks said post-game, the players showed belief. I tend to think confidence is a very underrated part of the game, as it is for a lot of team sports as it's hard to gauge: confidence in yourself, and confidence in your teammates (that they will kick it to you well, they will mark it well if you kick it to them, etc.). This is a major part of a young team's development, understanding each other, our limitations and our potential. It's pleasing that the boys look like a really good and tight group at the moment, body language, smiles and team song at the end were wonderful to see.

Not going to go into too much detail on individual players since the OP was so comprehensive, but will note a few things:

--- The match winners:

Elliott - A true match winning performance, again kicked a bag, but very good that they all came from different types of play. Also performed really well when sent on the wing to get into the game as nothing was coming forward properly and took some good intercept marks (good move by coaches).

Sidebottom - Instrumental to get us back into the game when he spent more time in the middle. Absolute top class output: 22 kicks from 31 disposals, 65% DE, 9 marks, 3 clearances, 3 tackles, 1 goal.

--- The great contributors:

Fasolo - In our top 3 at half time, one of the few that was applying pressure and being clean when the game went against us. You could see from the VFL games since he got dropped that he was more focused and playing with more intensity. Strong tackling and marking game and multiple score involvements.

Crisp - I do not understand how there were queries about his kicking before he came to us, it's one of his strongest weapons. Very penetrating and long, and very good at goal kicking. Best DE% of our midfielders as well with 79%, in addition to tackling very strongly finishing with a game high 11 tackles. I don't see his ceiling as being the top echelon of midfielders in our team when we actually are challenging, but he can be a very good player for us long term.

Varcoe - In our top 3 players at half time as well. Just really involved, running heaps and clean when we needed it. He would have gone the bracket above if he had maintain this level, but dropped a bit after that.

Swan - He kept trying at the start but wasn't finding space and was butchering a bit (finished the game with a game high 6 clangers). Better after, and interesting that he's playing better as a forward than when he's at centre bounce.

Williams - Contributed a lot, he stood his ground defensively and doing his best to get us out of trouble with his new-found footy smarts, but had little support around him to do so. We were lacking physicality and speed around the contest so he got sent to the middle for a while interestingly (for Crisp I believe who was spotted down back), and was actually influential there.

Blair - 9 tackles, went at 92% DE (not saying DE is gospel but didn't butcher it), and most importantly was repeatedly involved in our goals:
- He's the one who picked up the ball and linked with Adams before the latter kicked towards Cloke who scored his first
- He's the one who took the intercept mark from Waite to deliver a kick to Witts who handballed to Crisp for his goal
- He's the one who kicked the ball forward for Elliott to pick up and kick his second
- He kicked the sealer from a difficult set shot.

--- The solid performers:

Pendlebury - Playing injured, he was slower and more timid than usual for most of the game, but did some important things after. Funny how good a bad Pendles game is.

Adams - Solid but a bit untidy still.

Cloke - Again really good and important in the CHF role. Don't understand why there wasn't a score review on his kick from the boundary.

White - Been good now the last two games and a half. Managed to take 6 marks and kick a crucial difficult goal against the tide.

Grundy & Witts - Overall they were beaten by an exceptional Goldstein, but to their credit they never stopped trying and managed to minimised Goldstein's dominance at the hit outs in the 3rd quarter with some good tap work. Really didn't contain him when he was linking the play for NM with strong marks though, without providing enough the other way. They also both kicked one goal, which is something without being enough.

De Goey - Ballsy move to have him play almost exclusively in the middle at centre bounce. He's so good at the clearance work, great read and great hands. His ceiling would be very high because there aren't that many players with his sense of anticipation in the competition.

Frost - In 1-on-1 contests he probably only broke even in the end rather than get truly on top, but he provided a lot of help with his physicality and he used his speed well to rebound, or his 'fumbling technique' which was awkward to watch but was efficient.

Toovey - Alternated the good and bad but was good in restricting Thomas' influence.

-- The disappointments:

Langdon - Late to most aerial contests, untidy at times and undisciplined, also looked like he lacked physicality. He might need a bit of a spell, but perhaps with the BYE coming we keep him in next week and let the bye give him the break he needs.

Goldsack - Was undersized and beaten in defence and really bad on the rebound, kicking was way off. As bad as that was, it does highlight how important he's been for us this year and how good his kick ins had been until now, providing really good solutions out of defence.

Brown - Beaten in defence, bit concerning that it's now been 3 average to poor games in a row for him.

Oxley - Our player with the biggest gap between his best and his worst. Yesterday was amongst the 'worst', maybe was hampered by a knock but still not surprised to see him so inconsistent – will need to build consistency with experience, but would advocate for him to be dropped since there is strong VFL to reward at the moment.

Seedsman - I could copy and paste what I had written for the GC game. Not involved enough, too inconsistent. And this time didn't have the excuse of being too defensive as we added Tooves to cover the back for this game.

Really interesting write up Vankri and interesting take on the 'tale of two halves'. How do you explain the turn around? Is it luck? Did North drop off? I attributed it to more toughness and cleanliness in the 50/50 ball (distinct from effort which was always top notch). And momentum. I think the switch to man on man footy helped here a lot. Agree with the majority of what you wrote and really enjoyed the read!

 

[Vankri]

Really interesting write up Vankri and interesting take on the 'tale of two halves'. How do you explain the turn around? Is it luck? Did North drop off? I attributed it to more toughness and cleanliness in the 50/50 ball (distinct from effort which was always top notch). And momentum. I think the switch to man on man footy helped here a lot. Agree with the majority of what you wrote and really enjoyed the read!

I think there are two main questions in there: 1) What made the difference between our bad and our good periods against North? And 2) Why is it that in general we have these gap between the good and bad periods?

With 1), what I saw being at the game was that we had a decent start. Then just like the Geelong and Richmond games, we have these periods where teams keep coming at us relentlessly and we concede goal after goal (and if North hadn't recorded 3 behinds in that period the game would have been gone before HT). I don't think there was a massive difference in our intensity between the periods. To me what I saw from the end of the 2nd quarter onwards is a midfield starting to to its job: block the relentless drive of the ball to our defensive 50 (with good guarding of space and real tackles that stick, not the crappy ones) and instead kick it to our I50. We were carrying Pendles and Swan in our midfield for that bad period, particularly Pendles and both lifted afterwards. I think that and Elliott being super dangerous from all angles and all opportunities was the main difference, but of course it's always a mix of things so yeah, luck, North dropping off, getting 50/50s our way also helped.

With 2) it's so hard to tell from our perspective because we don't know exactly what the players are instructed to do, so it's hard to differentiate between the plan and the execution to know what goes right and wrong. I don't think we switch from a zone to manning up during games, that would be really strange and anyway the 'zone' is a loose concept in Aussie Rules because in the end when a team is in defensive mode, everyone has to man up to avoid easy marks. It seems to me that we don't 'tag' players outside of KPFs (like a lot of teams do, nothing revolutionary) and we seem to rely on players talking to each other to match up properly depending on the situation. You can see it at the grounds when we transition from offence to defence there's always a bit of confusion going on as to who should match up on who. I think this comes from the fact that we play a pressure game, so we try to bring numbers to the ball and hence abandon match ups to bring the pressure to the ball carrier and if the tackle doesn't stick or if we lose the contest, then we get cut up going the other way because the opposition has loose men everywhere. The Scott brothers knew that and they added extra players to as half forwards, to get us to lose our structures.

I guess ultimately we rely on tackling and contested possession to win games, that's our style of play and we've improved tremendously in CPs this year (last year all we heard in pressers after defeats from Bucks was that we were poor in the contested ball), so we need to ensure we're being good at it with effective tackles and winning the contests otherwise it leaves too much free space for the opposition.

Part of the solution to this should come naturally with players gaining experience and being smarter with what they do when things go against us (and smarter in not going with 2 or 3 players on the ball carrier if it's not going to get us in advantage). It will also improve with Grundy and/or Witts' development as we seem to concede these flow of goals against us when we're getting easily beaten at stoppages. Having players with composure and better kicking skills would help also, because it would help dictate the tempo of the game when it starts going against us and help in giving us time to organise our structures rather than having to rush everything all the time.

It will be really interesting to see how we fare against teams playing a pressure contested game also (Freo, Port) so we can gauge how close/far we are from being the best team in the league at this particular game. I think we'll be in danger against GWS in two weeks because from what I've seen of them they love to use their speed and get on the rebound as quickly as possible, which should make sure we get one of these flow-of-goals against us period in the game.

 

[Piestration]

I think Fas is just excited he gets to play with .......Cloke prowling the arc like a god damned ball eating T-rex......Crispy, The Seed, De goey, Lurch (Adams), Marley and Shazza......balls raining in from all over the park and our midfielders running through en masse for the crumbs?
BRB....need a tissue.

 

[ottoman]

Having an attitude readjusted Faz and Elliott both in the same team is the stuff dreams are made of.

 

[BEEG]

Never got into Blair, but admit I've been wrongly hammering White of late (which is obviously why he has improved out of sight).
Tooves rarely cops it because there are no faults in the Toovey machine.

Wow you don't rate kicking?

 

[Snoop Dog]

Match review
Jekyll and Hyde. That first half, simply horrendous. We were okay at the stoppages but we were completely outstripped at the 50/50 ball and killed on the outside. And when we lost it, we failed to have a defender win a won vs won, with the notable exception of Toovey. Our key defenders were shown up big time against a middle of the pack key forward triplet. Goldsack, Brown and Langdon in particular have plenty to answer. When they had the opportunity to stop the bleeding, they failed. Where they failed, Norths inaccuracy in front of goal prevailed and gave us a sniff.

That was all we needed. In the third, we were more desperate and began to win the 50/50 ball. And when we got it forward, and in sharp contrast to North, we made it count with interest. Crisp, Adams and Swan were immense through the middle generating momentum. Pendles spent time forward and his cleanliness was important. This was also true of Fasolo and Varcoe. White and Elliott began to find space forward of centre. We made the absolute most of our opportunities and countered when North finally made a run at us with some brilliance at the contest from Williams, and the team as a whole. That is the sort of win to build a team and season upon. Couldn't be more proud of these blokes after that effort.

Player review:
Swan
I thought he was fantastic tonight. I can't agree with the criticism of his first half. I felt he was one who helped stop the bleeding, finger in the dyke style. Was he clean? Probably not, but he got the ball moving forward, only to see us lose every 50/50 ball that came our way. You would hope for better but he didn't stop and was critical in the second including a late sealer when he was stronger, cleaner and better taking a strong mark in the goal square. Great season so far and long may it continue.

Sidebottom
All class. So clean. So composed. We missed him no doubt.

Pendlebury
Must agree with the OP, thing he is carrying a niggle. Was quiet in the first. In the second worked his way in both at the clearances and when moved forward had some great touches that really released the pressure valve on the side. Remember a moment on the half forward line where he won a forward entrance in the air, didn't blaze away and got the ball inside to team mate in space ultimately setting up a goal. Real important.

Elliott
Unsighted early only to give Firrito a bath in the second. Better in the air. Better at ground level. And as tenacious as ever. He was real good.

Crisp
What a find! In Hine We Trust hey! Crisps output this season comes close to making up for the lose of Beams and from a midfield balance perspective offers much more. He is a defensive and clearance beast. And offers plenty of pace and penetration on the outside. If he can get his numbers up by 5 possessions on average a game, which I believe he can, he will be won't be disgraced amongst the best mids in the competition.

Adams
He has taken a real step forward this year. He is pretty consistent. His clearances are telling and important. His ball use is cleaner. I think he will be a really good second tier midfielder for us when we make a real push for the premiership.

Varcoe
I'm super pleased with how Varcoe is going after some pretty lacklustre recruiting of recycled players in recent years. He is giving us what he gave Geelong, an outside linking player with pace, skill and tenacity. He was one who stood up in the first half when the team was garbage, which I rate highly. He had to go back at times when our half backs were offering nothing offensively and gave us something in a game not suited to outside types. One of the better outside players on the field. I'm really coming to appreciate what Varcoe adds to the team.

Williams
I'm not sure what to make of Williams game. I thought he was one of many losing their position against Harvey early and I believe may have spent some time on Nahas too but happy to be corrected here. His disposal was good under pressure which was pleasing (interested in your thoughts on this Snoop Dog ? I know it was an indicator you were looking at with Williams). But most importantly he was a hard headed bastard and really imposed himself on the contest. More than happy, ultimately, with his game.

Fasolo
What a game! Cometh the moment, cometh the man? Pehaps, but I want to see some consistency from Fasolo now. What he did was provide the model on which to build his game. Again he was one who stood up early when the majority were dishing up garbage. He was dominant in the air, clean and composed in possession and defended like he was playing for his career. Which he is. More of this please Fas!

Seedsman
I thought he was really poor. The game style didn't suit him but he needs to contribute when it isn't easy. I like what Seed offers at his best and we are crying out for someone to step up on the outside but I can't help but think he is flaky. I don't have trust in him to perform when the chips are down and I think we need to get more out of him, or get someone else in to do a better job, if we are to improve as a side.

Grundy
Given a lesson by Goldstein which I believe he will learn from. He simply can't allow his opponent to dominate so much in the air or to find so much space. Rucked okay though, got forward for a goal and didn't drop his head. My big issue is that his combo with Witts really robbed us of a runner. Still not convinced playing two rucks is the best way to structure up, although both guys ended the game with decent figures.

Cloke
I liked his work rate up the ground which really gave our half back line something to target. Wasn't particularly dangerous up forward though and dropped marks you would expect him to gobble up.

Toovey
Held the defense together I felt. Quality defensive game and still super important component of the backline, plus great servent to the team.

Blair
Did what Blair does, hassles, kicked a goal late when the steam was (kinda) out of the game. Not that impressive but a good team game. On the periphery of the 22 for mine, but the selectors would suggest otherwise I guess.

Langdon
Don't get me wrong here because I am a massive fan of Langdon, but horrendous first half. He was all niggle (which I normally love) but with no substance. Directly attributable to three early goals which almost put the game beyond us. The way he played almost had a feeling of self entitlement about it, although I'm likely wrong. He offered zilch in a rebounding capacity. On the first half effort my thoughts were he needed a spell in the twos. The second half was much better and he was one of the reasons we arrested that 50/50 contest differential. He may have saved his position in the team for next week.

Goldsack
Went back, got killed by their tall forwards. Just couldn't get an effective spoil in and was a big reason the lead blew out so badly early. When Bucks pushed him forward he was equally sucky. Presented okay but just didn't have the quality to win a contest. One of the worst games he has played in a long time.

White
Unsighted to half time, I seriously questioned whether he was on the field. Was brilliant in the third and second half. Just kept presenting and pulled in some fantastic contested marks high up the field. Pretty happy over all with his game.

Witts
He was good and the equal of Grundy without the obvious defensive lapses.

Frost
Frost was okay defensively minus one or two moments where he missed a spoil. Still fumbles far too much on the ground and his snaps from deep defense back into the corridor (while they pulled off) were low percentage panicky garbage. Made up for it a touch with his sheer determination. Plenty to work with but needs to clean up some aspects of his game and suspect he will get a good talking to during the week.

De Goey
Kid is a gun pure and simple. Not much more to say other than play him in the starting team!

Brown
Given a bath for a second week in a row by his opponent which is incredibly concerning. Gave up front position far too easily and failed to get a fist on the ball when playing behind. Damn ordinary.

Oxley
I really enjoy what Oxley has brought to the team this year but I worry a bit about how he will go when the heat is really on. He laps up open games and then really struggles in tight games that provide limited space to move in. This is the next area that Oxley must prove himself, and if he can't he may struggle. Between Oxley, Seedsman and Langdon we have some real inconsistency on the outside which we need to improve on. On the plus side for Oxley is that he is still very inexperienced but he needs to continue improving to warrant a permanent spot in the side.

Real good review.

Re Williams yeah I was pleased with his game albeit when I watch the game again closely I will be looking for how far off his man he got in that first half as had a feeling he was one of those players Bucks was referring to as being 2nd to the ball. That aside his ball use was good in a high intensity game which I have been waiting to see. Also liked the times he cut through the middle. That offensive aspect is what makes Johanssen such a good player for the Dogs and he needs to give us some of that.

Agree on Swan. Didnt think he was that bad in first half.

Re the tall backs I am going to reserve judgement until I watch the tapes again but yeah I thought they got caught behind to often. I know North had great ball use through the middle and it appeared some mids werent clogging space but still Brown particularly seems to have an aversion to playing in front. I think the club love him but seriously when Reid comes back and Moore is fit you wonder about his spot. He needs to be the player that can handle the monster fwds. His best effort was his Hawkins effort but he has been beaten badly now a couple of times.

Also agree re Seedsman. He did get a knock but this kid (along with Fasolo and Williams) now need to start putting good games together consistently. Their best is v good and for us to really push up they need to deliver regularly. Bucks has said he is v good 1:1.......

Agree re DeGoey. But gee Broomhead and Kennedy are demanding spots. Going to be interesting.

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

I think Fas is just excited he gets to play with Elliot!!!
I would be.
Fas has the raw material to be as good as Elliot.
Imagine one in each pocket......Reid rampant in the Square........Cloke prowling the arc like a god damned ball eating T-rex......Crispy, The Seed, De goey, Lurch (Adams), Marley and Shazza......balls raining in from all over the park and our midfielders running through en masse for the crumbs?

BRB....need a tissue.

Shaving cut?