Review R9: The Good, Bad and the Ugly vs. Port Adelaide

[OzSparrow]

We can’t control the umpires, we can control who coaches us.

So AMacca did we:

Have 30 less disposals
Concede 62 inside 50s to 41
Win free kicks 20-19
Lose clearances 56-29 I repeat, 56-29

We won because Port aren’t very good and because we’ve got a gun forward line. That very forward line Nicks starved just after they piled on goals to get us the lead.

To be fair parking the bus like we did with 10 minutes to play enabled them to get I50s of 17 to 2 in that period. Up till then it was relatively close in I50s.
The rest I agree with as I was also scratching my head as to how we won with those appalling stat differences.
But this just proves that stats don't always tell the full story.
The one stat that ultimately proved the difference in the result was our goal efficiency of 31% to their 19%. If this was reversed we lose. Simple.

 

[Coopers]

A T sign appears at the bench with 12 minutes to go. With 7 minutes to go that becomes T bicep.

I reckon he decided to shut down the game with more than half the quarter to go after Port had just one shot on goal that quarter

What do you reckon they mean?

1. Tough it out!
2. Tough it out! NO ACTUALLY THIS TIME. WITH HNNNNG!

 

[cmndstab]

I assumed that T-bicep just stood for "phwoar, that Thilthorpe is strong innit?"

 

[OzSparrow]

I would legit swap senior coaches with Port

Be careful what you wish for!
It is a distinct possibility at the end of this year if the cards fall a certain way.
Wont happen by the way. Not a snowflakes chance in hell.

 

[Coopers]

I assumed that T-bicep just stood for "phwoar, that Thilthorpe is strong innit?"

I wonder if the symbols were a squid game reference?

 

[George CantStandYa]

To be fair parking the bus like we did with 10 minutes to play enabled them to get I50s of 17 to 2 in that period. Up till then it was relatively close in I50s.
The rest I agree with as I was also scratching my head as to how we won with those appalling stat differences.
But this just proves that stats don't always tell the full story.
The one stat that ultimately proved the difference in the result was our goal efficiency of 31% to their 19%. If this was reversed we lose. Simple.

I know we got smashed for I50s because of the change in our gameplan, that’s the end result of Nicks stupid change.

 

[George CantStandYa]

I don't have much of an issue with the decision to go more defensive when we did. It should have been a winning strategy.

The problem was in the execution, which seemed completely directionless. There was no players moved behind the ball, no setting up short marking targets to eat up time, nothing to neutralise contests and create repeat stoppages. We just... kicked it long down the line and prayed for a mark, then got torched every time in the resulting stoppage.

It wasn't just that we executed the plan poorly... it was that we didn't even seem to have a plan.

In the end, the only reason we won was because Port choked.

Nah, it was dumb.

We just scored back to back goals. We kicked 9 goals from their turnovers.

When we went defensive, it meant we curbed our strength, ie turnover scores as we moved slow instead of quick.

It also meant we created more contests, which was Ports strength along with clearances.

You couldn’t have picked a more stupid move with 10 mins to go. 1 more goal and we are 5 up, game over.

davos44 this explains the stupidity of the plan and your defence of it.

 

[Scorpus]

I don't have much of an issue with the decision to go more defensive when we did. It should have been a winning strategy.

The problem was in the execution, which seemed completely directionless. There was no players moved behind the ball, no setting up short marking targets to eat up time, nothing to neutralise contests and create repeat stoppages. We just... kicked it long down the line and prayed for a mark, then got torched every time in the resulting stoppage.

It wasn't just that we executed the plan poorly... it was that we didn't even seem to have a plan.

In the end, the only reason we won was because Port choked.

Shutting the game down didn't make sense in the context of the match where we were being dominated at stoppage.

Highly defensive plans usually rely on numbers around or behind the ball, winning contests/stoppages and gaining territory slowly. If you aren't actually winning contests, there's no way the plan works.

It would have made sense to switch to that plan if we were winning contests, or if we were much further up and it was much later in the match. Shutting the game down with 5 minutes to go, 30 points up, not a huge issue especially if it looks like Port are gaining momentum. To do so with at least 12 minutes left when we lost the midfield all day and were only 20 points up is not a good strategy

 

[skam85]

I don't have much of an issue with the decision to go more defensive when we did. It should have been a winning strategy.

The problem was in the execution, which seemed completely directionless. There was no players moved behind the ball, no setting up short marking targets to eat up time, nothing to neutralise contests and create repeat stoppages. We just... kicked it long down the line and prayed for a mark, then got torched every time in the resulting stoppage.

It wasn't just that we executed the plan poorly... it was that we didn't even seem to have a plan.

In the end, the only reason we won was because Port choked.

I don't like that stuff personally. There was a reason why we were 22 points up. Stick to that reason.

 

[davos44]

You can spin it however you want, in boxing terms Port were on the ropes and were begging to be put out of there misery after trying to stay in touch with us all night.

Instead of putting the finishing combination together, we decided to sit back and play for a Unanimous Decision (way too early) and in doing so we nearly risked getting caught ourselves.

It was bad coaching.

Or we could gone for the knockout blow and received a huge uppercut for our trouble. If we kicked 2 goals ourselves out the back is it still bad coaching or just a better execution of the same plan?

Everyone is a genius in hindsight.

 

[Golumless]

I don't like that stuff personally. There was a reason why we were 22 points up. Stick to that reason.

Guess we should have told Port to keep Butters on the bench then.

 

[Redline]

JHF isn’t a stager is he? Can’t remember him ever being a flopper, I’d suggest the opposite he cops whacks and gets on with it?

Not so much this year but last year he constantly dropped his knees and through himself forward when tackled. He seems.to have gotten it out of his game.

 

[Apsaalooke]

Nicks: Okay fellers, 12 minutes to go. Give me some ideas
Davis: They’re killing us at stoppage, we’re torching them at turnover
Nicks: VB, Scotty?
VB/Scotty: We got nothing
Nicks: OK let’s go stoppage
Davis: But Nicksy….
Nicks: Thanks Murray I’m in charge here!

10 minutes later

Nicks: Murray, which one were we winning again?
Davis: (sigh) Turnover mate, turnover
Nicks: err sorry, I was distracted. There was a fly on my head

 

[Cromulant]

Or we could gone for the knockout blow and received a huge uppercut for our trouble. If we kicked 2 goals ourselves out the back is it still bad coaching or just a better execution of the same plan?

Everyone is a genius in hindsight.

Most could see it within a minute of it starting, including our football director.

 

[walterhobbs]

I thought we were doing pretty well until about 6.50 left when Milera decided to stuff up a sideways 15 metre kick instead of going long into the forward which should have resulted in a goal. Between he and Laird costing us 2 goals.

 

[Cromulant]

I thought we were doing pretty well until about 6.50 left when Milera decided to stuff up a sideways 15 metre kick instead of going long into the forward which should have resulted in a goal. Between he and Laird costing us 2 goals.

That was the moment where I thought we opened the door nice and wide for them.

We made a lot of silly errors during the game though. Needless 50m penalties, unnecessary skill errors

 

[beartoo]

Or we could gone for the knockout blow and received a huge uppercut for our trouble. If we kicked 2 goals ourselves out the back is it still bad coaching or just a better execution of the same plan?

Everyone is a genius in hindsight.

All good
. except that in Nicks we have a serial offender who has lost us multiple games by using the same stupid tactic.

 

[George CantStandYa]

Or we could gone for the knockout blow and received a huge uppercut for our trouble. If we kicked 2 goals ourselves out the back is it still bad coaching or just a better execution of the same plan?

Everyone is a genius in hindsight.

We did cop a huge uppercut, they just couldn’t kick straight and they were down forwards.

It’s not hindsight, there’s a reason teams don’t do what we did and the commentators made note we went too early.

We saw Mitchell do it with the Hawks against Port and lost.

It’s really staggering you’re defending this.

 

[Vader]

I wonder if the symbols were a squid game reference?

I thought they were PlayStation symbols - meaning that the players should start playing again (instead of simply parking the bus).

 

[Cromulant]

I thought they were PlayStation symbols - meaning that the players should start playing again (instead of simply parking the bus).

I would say with some certainty that it means either "keep shape" or "control"

 

[Vader]

I would say with some certainty that it means either "keep shape" or "control"

That could work too.

 

[Cromulant]

That could work too.

I've definitely heard the control one at SANFL games.

Not the only side who does it either, just different signs

 

[cmndstab]

I think that "why shut the game down when you're playing well?" can just as easily be reframed as "why take risks when you've already got the advantage?"

I do take the argument that we were getting belted at stoppages, so reverting to a repeat stoppage gameplan was a bad idea. But again, it's not clear to me that we even did that. It seems that our defensive gameplan was just to stop taking any kind of risky offensive kicks and just go down the line for the rest of the game. Which is just a terrible example of a defensive gameplan.

I can accept the argument that we shouldn't have gone defensive at that point. I don't necessarily agree, but I can see the argument. But the much bigger issue is that our defensive gameplan is awful, to the extent that we have one at all.

 

[Samcro24]

Trust the experts.

 

[FR0GGY]

I thought they were PlayStation symbols - meaning that the players should start playing again (instead of simply parking the bus).

It’s sort your shit our boys.
Because currently we are in the box working some PlayStation trades out for some of you.