Port v Brisbane review

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


One day I'll explain where my info comes from and all will be crystal clear.

Nicole Cornes???


Not you as well!!!!

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Jars458


errr

He didn't play against the Crows

I think you meant the Eagles

Just helping out

no problem.......yesterday was a little irrational after the disappointing result..........

Cheers.....

 

[Wishinman]

Port had nothing to gain by winning Yesterday, apart from grabbing the attention of the whole leauge and really becoming the hunted.

Could have give Brisbane some real ammunition for the finals had we beaten them...Now we can can look forward to playing Brisbane in the finals with no one giving us a chance, which at this stage, is the only way we will be able to beat them.

The positives to come out of yesterdays game, is that maybe, we have learnt where we need to improve. I really think we need to look at our tackling....Brisbane killed us in this area.
Too many times, they broke weak tackles laid by some of our players, whereas none of our players were able to break any of their tackles, which Roger James tried numerous times, only to cause costly turnovers.

We also need to learn how to kick to a leading forward. Brisbane showed just how hard it is for a defender to spoil a kick that is put out in front of a leading player.
Too many times we kicked to a stationary Lade, Cornes or Tredrea, only to have 2 or 3 Brisbane players come over the top. Our forward line is too congested, and the kicks are always to a pack....There is no method.
We should try positioning these talls on the boundary, with their only objection to thump the ball into the corridor, where a quick Burgoyne, Wanganeen or M. Stevens is directed to run to. If they are pressured, handball back to the boundary, where the talls are still standing, hopefully unattended cos the opposition have run to the loose ball. This is only a suggestion that could mix it up a bit, confusing the opposition, but i am sure the coaching staff can come up with better forward set plays than just bombing it in and hoping that one of our talls can beat a flying pack of 6 for a mark.

 

[rubberman]

They were simply to good for us. Now we know what we have to beat.As others have stated too much overuse of the ball by handballing where a kick was needed. Some players were unsited most of the game, as well as most of the year, maybe time to give the boys who want to play a chance.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Wishinman
Port had nothing to gain by winning Yesterday, apart from grabbing the attention of the whole leauge and really becoming the hunted.

Could have give Brisbane some real ammunition for the finals had we beaten them...Now we can can look forward to playing Brisbane in the finals with no one giving us a chance, which at this stage, is the only way we will be able to beat them.

On the other hand, if we'd beaten them, we would've been given a chance in the finals, and it wouldn't be a question of `the only way we will be able to beat them.' because we would have beaten them.

We also need to learn how to kick to a leading forward. Brisbane showed just how hard it is for a defender to spoil a kick that is put out in front of a leading player.

Too many times we kicked to a stationary Lade, Cornes or Tredrea, only to have 2 or 3 Brisbane players come over the top. Our forward line is too congested, and the kicks are always to a pack....There is no method.

A lot of this was caused by our marking game, as I mentioned in another thread - we practically never took a mark forward of centre without a Brisbane player grabbing our player after the mark has been paid, and then hanging on for an excessive amount of time. As such, by then the opposition midfield has flooded back, and our key forwards are clogged up. Unlike the skilled West Coast, Brisbane aren't ashamed to have two defenders looking after Tredrea when we go forward.

We should try positioning these talls on the boundary, with their only objection to thump the ball into the corridor, where a quick Burgoyne, Wanganeen or M. Stevens is directed to run to. If they are pressured, handball back to the boundary, where the talls are still standing, hopefully unattended cos the opposition have run to the loose ball. This is only a suggestion that could mix it up a bit, confusing the opposition, but i am sure the coaching staff can come up with better forward set plays than just bombing it in and hoping that one of our talls can beat a flying pack of 6 for a mark.

I don't see this as a practical long term solution.

Lade marks on 50 on the flank. What now? His odds of getting a goal from there are incredibly low. His running midfielders all have other players with them.

Lade taps on the flank - their more numerous defenders, hell just one loose man in defence, have the numbers and rebound easily as no mark is taken.

To be playing like a Port Adelaide of old, we need to play on in midfield and mark up forward, not the reverse. At the moment we're trying to mark in both, which has flaws if you use that strategy all of the time, as various teams have shown - slow Port down, you cripple our attack - and marking + `sensible' chip kicks do that.

Right now, we seem to have forgotten how to play on properly - this skill has been missing from our gameplan all year, including the Wizard Cup.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by Jars458


Nicole Cornes???


Not you as well!!!!

Is this defamatory? I think not. Could anyone enlighten us?

Probably not.

Don't hold back.

What is the rumour?

 

[cjwalkley]

Originally posted by Porthos


Unlike the skilled West Coast, Brisbane aren't ashamed to have two defenders looking after Tredrea when we go forward.

If you guys could find another forward that could pose a threat maybe that wouldn't happen.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by cjwalkley

Originally posted by Porthos


Unlike the skilled West Coast, Brisbane aren't ashamed to have two defenders looking after Tredrea when we go forward.

If you guys could find another forward that could pose a threat maybe that wouldn't happen.

I didn't realize that my post had a `Please reply and state the obvious' tag on it. Yeah if we had more real forward options, we'd be better off....same as Richmond - they have one real forward, and a ruckman that can kick a few...not quite the same thing.

As I've said in other posts this week on this board, Cornes would make a good third forward, but we need a genuine second.

 

[cjwalkley]

What's the story with Lade? Is he a ruckman being used forward or will he be a legitimate forward threat?

I might be a bit harsh on Cornes, but he gets continually towelled up by Bolton, who is a flanker that won't get a regular senior game. I can't see where he would even be a viable third forward, as he gets our 6th best defender each time.

 

[Portia]

I think its one of those phenomena....we had a bloke called Nathan Steinberner who would do the job on Ronnie Burns every time......but that was it. Can't kick, can't mark, can't get the ball, but if you need Ronnie Burns shut down, he's your man.

Lade is a ruckman that gets pushed forward for goals. I don't think he'll every be a true forward threat....because he's not too crash hot below the waist, the ball needs to come in pretty high, or him to be on a good long lead, for him to have a good chance to mark it. His kick is good and long though.

Cornes is a very good contested mark in most games, but he has to be, because he's hardly ever clear of his opponent in the forward line. He'd probably be better in defence.