Autopsy Post game analysis

[ksardog]

We did turn Ben Johnson into a halfway reasonable kick though which imo was close to a modern miracle

sorry, I don't know why i always think mid 20's picks are first round I'm going to edit

Dont back down, we got varcoe for lamumba, varcoe was pick 15 in his draft year. So in a roundabout way, u were right.

 

[TradeDraft]

I thought Grundy was 100% better than the last time I saw him at Adelaide Oval where Jacobs monstered him - Jacobs still had him around the ground but at the taps Grundy was really using his bulk to good effect, but he lacked the tap work that the equally bulky Goldstein and Mumford also use well against Jacobs. I personally think he'd be a great support ruck if he can start taking more marks, but you need a genuine first ruck

Grundy is 20 years old so No Wonder that Jacobs Bulk was too much for Grundy. 6 years is Big Difference in Body Development and Especially for a Ruckman

 

[ksardog]

Here is a damning stat.

We rebounded from defence 41 times for 0 scoring shots while Adelaide rebounded 18 times for 8 scoring shots.

That must be that excellent transition of the ball buckley wants. Working well isnt it.

 

[ksardog]

Grundy is 20 years old so No Wonder that Jacobs Bulk was too much for Grundy. 6 years is Big Difference in Body Development and Especially for a Ruckman

Thats why gualt had to play to giv him back up and also provide another marking option forward against the crows.
Poor selection again

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

It's well within the bounds of respect to describe an opinion as idiotic and like I said you led off by gifting me with your sarcastic little reply (which has now been put in context at my end - see below) in the first place, so if you don't like it then you know where you can stick it, to be perfectly blunt about it. If you're going to come at someone then at least remember age-old adage: "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

Is this the post you speak of?
"Just like they took the foot off the pedal last week?
In the first three quarters, they were only good coz we were shit?"
If you're going to play the 'you started it' card perhaps "two wrongs don't make a right" should apply? How about "turn the other cheek"?

Anyhow, this will go around circles. I guess I'll have to set the missus straight next time she kicks off at me for describing her high opinion of Travis Varcoe as being idiotic, to say the least.

So now you're trying to pigeonhole me based on one post as if somehow what I'm saying has no merit at all - seriously did you watch either game? it was pretty obvious that both teams put the cue in the rack at a certain point in the game (possibly for different reasons) and I watched every single minute of both matches. Twice.

If I was trying to pigeonhole you, I'd label you immediately as one of the 'some in here'. 'Dunno if you are one' is telling you that I really don't know if you are one of them.' In short, I don't remember reading many of your posts. Yes I watched both games and I gave you what I thought could have been the reasons for Adelaide's fade/inability to go for the throat and run over us in the last. In sum, 1) they were cooked or 2) in trying to blow us away, certain elements of their game started to break down. Alternatives to the 'cue in the rack' observation. Doesn't excuse us for 3 quarters of rubbish and doesn't fill me with hope for the rest of the season. As for us against Brisbane, we were cooked and found something in the last 7 or so minutes to stem the bleeding.

Rely on stats all you want - but they blew probably 5 or 6 golden opportunities at least in the first three quarters that I can recall and many of those "rushed" behinds mentioned by the "expert" analyst running the match centre chat stemmed from inaccurate shots on goal or poor decision making that were forced through near or on the goal line. You can't in all honesty say that they took advantage of their chances as they should have when they had complete control of the game - the problem at our end though was that we weren't even getting any chances.

Match centre "expert" analyst? I sense a hint of dismissal there. Perhaps that analyst is reading this discussion and calling us "expert analysts." Decision making is part of the game, obviously. Our poor decision making and execution may have cost us more forward entries. In both teams' cases, it's shit footy. Wouldn't mind a stat on how many forward entries they had on the back of our unforced errors.
There should not have been a need for a second GF in 2010. Kicks went too deep and either got picked off or punched through. Missed a few sitters. Shit footy. Doesn't detract from St Kilda's second half effort though.

 

[TradeDraft]

Thats why gualt had to play to giv him back up and also provide another marking option forward against the crows.
Poor selection again

I thought/said the same thing before the game

 

[ClaytonM]

Thats why gualt had to play to giv him back up and also provide another marking option forward against the crows.
Poor selection again

Maybe, maybe not. You put Gault in there and we become even slower. We havd enough problem with the Crow's rebounding halfbacks. Another tall slow forward may have made us worse. I like you would have picked Gault, but with hindsight not sure it would have made us better.

 

[Scodog10]

Here is a damning stat.

We rebounded from defence 41 times for 0 scoring shots while Adelaide rebounded 18 times for 8 scoring shots.

So much for being the best team in transition league wide... We aren't just starting from a low base we're starting from no base

 

[loki04]

Here is a damning stat.

We rebounded from defence 41 times for 0 scoring shots while Adelaide rebounded 18 times for 8 scoring shots.

LOL that is shocking.

On the positive side the defence held up well considering the amount of times it went back in there!

 

[hellfire]

LOL that is shocking.

On the positive side the defence held up well considering the amount of times it went back in there!

Agree on both counts. Shocking rebound, excellent defending.

 

[loki04]

It's not losing games that bothers me. I can handle that. It's the manner in which losing occurs.

Walker toweled Frost irrespective of what Champion Data says. I saw the game clearly. The amount of times he had a 5-10m gap on him was laughable. Anthony Rocca had leg speed to if you allowed him time to "wind up". Pace is not Walker's go. He has little of it. Laterally he moves well but straight line speed he is like a slow moving glacier which is an indictment on Frost who is just a rubbish footballer. He always trails in behind his man. Has been doing it since debut. He doesn't have the mental application to play AFL footy or the smarts.

Young teams will be up and down, agreed. However, when there is no sign of them actually learning anything, there's no excuse for that. Development is an area Collingwood historically tracks well. We do develop as good as anyone. Being coached though on match days, we have one of the worst going around. Even the poor sides have something about them where you can see a plan. Our is "contested ball" and just go out there and run around trying to win that ball.

Mate Walker has great straight line speed, he is from the hill where I grew up and I watched him.

I was reasonably quick, for example at 17 I posted a 2.82 20m at school and best 100m was 11.38 times that stacks up to most afl draftees, walker had no issues burning off defenders who i had played vs that had reasonable pace.
Not sure on what times he would post but pace was never an issue, if anything I thought he lacked in turning circle but maybe not for his height on reflection.

 

[ksardog]

Maybe, maybe not. You put Gault in there and we become even slower. We havd enough problem with the Crow's rebounding halfbacks. Another tall slow forward may have made us worse. I like you would have picked Gault, but with hindsight not sure it would have made us better.

Would hav given grundy a chop out in the ruck and would of tested adelaides short backline. Cheney was their third tall defender.

If goldsack had of been told to sit in smiths back pocket the whole game, that would of stopped a lot of adelaides drive. Also allowing sloane to start off the back of the square unmanned was ridiculous.

 

[domin8tors]

Totally agree on your view of Williams and that Seedsman should be our best rebounding half back. If Willams could become an above average kick he would be a lock for AA selection imo.

My view though, is that with Williams so strong on small defenders, Sinclair as a reasonable sidekick, and with Langdon, Scharenberg and Oxley all looking like they could be reasonable mid sized defenders who can rebound competently, Toovey is not that important anymore and in fact not having him in the side solves a bit of a problem in having too many garbage kicks in defence.

Given we got a mid 20's pick for O'Brien, surely we could get that for Toovey. He's still a great defender and would attract a bit of interest for clubs who have an immediate need in that position.

I actually think that with Toovey is that he kicks the ball at Full speed. if he actually slowed down his last few steps prior to kicking at probably wouldn't be as erratic.

 

[domin8tors]

I think ideally if fit and ready our best backline / rotations should be

Williams, Brown, Toovey
Langdon, Reid, Seedsman.
Goldsack 7th option pending matchups

Langdon, reid are our best 3rd man ups
Williams, Brown and toovey are our best lockdown
Reid, seedsman our best kick
seedsman, Toovey, Williams. our quicker players
Brown our most disciplined and keeps to stuctures
Goldsack is mr fixit.