Power lacking in intensity

[ClintEastwood]

I believe Port Adelaide are far too lacking in physical intensity at the moment. The thing which has made Port great over the years,
has always been its hardness. Hard at the ball, hard at the man. Tackle, apply pressure, don't give them an easy possession.

It's almost as if the skills of the game came second - that if you were hard enough out there, and constantly put on pressure to force
the ball forward, it would eventually head through the goals.

We didn't come out hard enough in the Brisbane game. As far as I am concerned, the coach should have the players worked up to fever-pitch by the time they run out on the ground. They should have steam coming out their ears, and be ready to murder the
opposition. Every player should know that, at least for the first
10 minutes, nothing short of 100% ferocious effort will be tolerated.

If they tone it down a little after that, that's fine - but the tone of the match has been set. I can't understand why a Williams would
not have his players doing this. It leaves some serious questions in my mind.

What do you think?

 

[ClintEastwood]

Oy!!

10 views - no danger of SOMEONE ELSE posting their opinion, is there!! ;-)

 

[Port01]

nope

not aggressive enough to post my opinion.

 

[Portia]

Guerra, Hardwick, Wilson, Carr. Count how many played last week. Ask the one thats not doing it why.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Porthos
Guerra, Hardwick, Wilson, Carr. Count how many played last week. Ask the one thats not doing it why.

The Power have never been an overly aggresive side. It was only really when Carr came in and started to niggle and annoy a few blokes that we then started to intimidate the opposition a bit. Carr isnt doing this this year. Hardwick is being his usuall arseholey self and we need Guerra on the ground inspiring us instead of sitting on his arse on the bench. Other than those 4 we really lack aggresive options...Chris Hall is hard and tough but other than him there is noone else on our list that can play as a bit of an aggressor. We really need to recruit one or two young toughnuts in the next season or two

 

[Satay Mat]

I think it is good we are not a "tough" side. I think in today's football it might win you one or two games a year. Skill will outplay "tough" more often than not.

I also think it is a myth about Port being historically a tough side.

Historically, Vistorian sides ahve tended to be tougher than SA sides (mainly due to climate I think). Fos made Port successful by getting them to play like Victorians...tough, uncompromnising, perhaps sacrificing skill....although we still had some very skillful players). This was great in the SANFL for a while, but in the AFL, with the skillful players we have, simply "going in tough" will not suffice. You need to be able to absorb physical pressure and then push through it and play your natural game.

anyway....

MC

 

[ClintEastwood]

Toughness

I think you need to be both tough, AND skillful in the AFL.

Have a look at the Bombers in 2000 - toughest side, most skillful.

Brisbane 2001 - toughest, most skillful.

 

[rubberman]

You need both toughness and skill in the AFL. You have to Know when you need to be tough, and when you need to be skillful. When we remember to use it when its neccessary we are a good team.

 

[Portia]

The premiership team is always the toughest and the most skillful. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were perceived as such before they won.

 

[PAfolwr]

I don't think we have too much of a problem in that area apart from in the forward line when Wanganeen is not there.
Poulton and Wanganeen are no slouches either.
As someone else mentioned on another thread, sometimes it seems that they are more worried about what their opponent is doing then go at the ball full pelt.
When that happens you will more then likely come off second best and appear silly ( or soft I suppose).

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
I don't think we have too much of a problem in that area apart from in the forward line when Wanganeen is not there.
Poulton and Wanganeen are no slouches either.
As someone else mentioned on another thread, sometimes it seems that they are more worried about what their opponent is doing then go at the ball full pelt.
When that happens you will more then likely come off second best and appear silly ( or soft I suppose).

I agree we have had a few players this year looking at what's coming instead of making the ball the no 1 objective......they need to put their body on the line in the effort to get the ball.

With that other players will lift in confidence and back players up........we have the players that are capable of that but some are not applying themselves enough so far this year.

So far this year I believe we have only had 3-4 players in this category.....Primus, Tredrea, Hardwick and Francou.......

time for a few others to step up.......

 

[PAfolwr]

What I meant by worrying about the other player is more of making sure that they are playing accountable football.
ie worrying about what their opponent will do or where he will be if he gets the ball.
We are trying to play ultra accountable football.
Once we have the ball we are so worried about turning it over that we don't give our forwards a chance to do what they are best at.
What good is Lade in the forward line if by the time the ball gets there the place is congested.
Chad Cornes has to run to twenty or thirty meters from the ball carrier before he gets it kicked to him.Usually on the wing by the time he gets there.
Once we straighten our game like we did in late 2000 and early 2001 and start winning more convincingly, then as Porthos said the perception will change. Winners are grinners.
I don't think we have a problem with physical intensity as such.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Of course we do

It was Brisbane's intensity more than anything, which saw them pile on 5 goals in the first 15 mins. Harder at the ball and man.