AFL Autopsy RND 7: Beaten by the Cats

Remove this Banner Ad

outersanctum said:
The last point I will make is how disappointed I am in McGrath. He is a fine player.. he is very solid.. but geez when you get that #1 pick.. you need more than a solid half back flanker.. we really really really needed to nail a gun and we didn't. Andy goes missing far too often when the pressure is on. Such a shame.
Click to expand...

Just one of those drafts; McCluggage hasn't been crash hot and is mostly an outside player, Taranto can rack it up but has very questionable use. Setterfield was an early Pick 1 chance and is with us and looks solid, but not a superstar.
 
ant555 said:
Geelong position so well. Maybe it is their size but the never all rush in. They back themselves to win contested footy while always having a 5 and 10 meter outlet players. Part of why we look a bit average in defense was we had to be in at the contest to try and win it but when they got the footy out they had numbers on the outside.
Click to expand...

We've had this issue for a long time, when we do win the contested ball it's usually due to an outnumber so we don't get it to the outside very effectively.

This is where genuine wingers who know how to hold their space make such a big difference, along with midfielders that know how to do more than see-ball, get-ball and just swarm the footy like auskickers.
 
owen87 said:
We've had this issue for a long time, when we do win the contested ball it's usually due to an outnumber so we don't get it to the outside very effectively.

This is where genuine wingers who know how to hold their space make such a big difference, along with midfielders that know how to do more than see-ball, get-ball and just swarm the footy like auskickers.
Click to expand...
Have been selling the last line for a long while :)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

We were toe to toe with them for the next 3 quarters, it's just that the 1st quarter cost us and we were never really able to cut into that margin which stayed for the entire game. Gotta start games better than that.

I think it's still growth because the old Essendon would have did what North/Eagles did and capitulated right after, even more so if they only had a 5 day break.
 
MiguelM said:
Listening to the radio it seemed many of Geel goals scored from turnovers. Anyone got a stat on that?

Teams are not going coast to coast like they were last year.

Scott was asked about the across goal turnovers (BZT in particular) and said he encourages players to take the game on and those errors will be less over time. Love that he back the players.

IMO, turnovers are completely fixable, it is just execution/confidence but the intent is good if it comes off.
Click to expand...

10 of their goals were generated from Turnover. 5 of those were in their Forward 50 and another 2 were in their forward half.
 
Call Me Cake said:
We were toe to toe with them for the next 3 quarters, it's just that the 1st quarter cost us and we were never really able to cut into that margin which stayed for the entire game. Gotta start games better than that.

I think it's still growth because the old Essendon would have did what North/Eagles did and capitulated right after, even more so if they only had a 5 day break.
Click to expand...

Have to be careful to not read into the
"went toe to toe with them" type stuff.

When they wanted to win the ball and score they did.
It was instantaneous the moment Danger went in, they kicked it up a gear and we had zero answers, not even mild ability to delay them.

Probably says that our top gear is equal to about their 3rd gear.
Pies did a similar thing in that they made us run at such a high clip the team blew up.

Also Geelong, more than any other team show us two things about our side.
We are not strong/big enough in so many areas of the ground.
And
We lack players with a game winning physical talent to take over a game aside from Stringer.

For as good as Martin, Merrett and Parish are they have some nice skills in their ability to kick (Martin/Zach) or gather a ball (Parish).
But they don't have an athletic trait that they can use to win a contest.
We need to start getting a few of these types into the team, even if it's just aerobic beasts that can break teams with their running.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mercurial89 said:
When they wanted to win the ball and score they did.
It was instantaneous the moment Danger went in, they kicked it up a gear and we had zero answers, not even mild ability to delay them.
Click to expand...
I need to watch a replay but I think this is in the first quarter when we had no bigger bodies in the centre bounce right? The ball was coming out of there way too easily, and once it was out it would go straight to their forward line and their marking monsters piling on the goals.

It took us way too long to respond, but Setterfield and Stringer (and Perkins) all went into the midfield at points after that and neutralised the contest a bit. Didn't see that slingshot stuff for the rest of the game and I don't think it was because Chris decided to go easy on Brad.
 
Lore said:
I need to watch a replay but I think this is in the first quarter when we had no bigger bodies in the centre bounce right? The ball was coming out of there way too easily, and once it was out it would go straight to their forward line and their marking monsters piling on the goals.

It took us way too long to respond, but Setterfield and Stringer (and Perkins) all went into the midfield at points after that and neutralised the contest a bit. Didn't see that slingshot stuff for the rest of the game and I don't think it was because Chris decided to go easy on Brad.
Click to expand...
Stringer / Parish / Merrett and a little bit of Shiel was the early combo. When Setterfield went in with Stringer and mainly Parish it turned around. Jake got beaten a few times early on.
 
ant555 said:
Yes they where but when Setterfield went in with Stringer and Parish we started to turn it around. Two big blokes playing on big blokes.
Click to expand...
The game was well and truely cooked by then.

Geelong eased after quarter time and our catching up was merely a fact of their taking the foot off the throat. Not our great game plan this time around.
 
84859300 said:
The game was well and truely cooked by then.

Geelong eased after quarter time and our catching up was merely a fact of their taking the foot off the throat. Not our great game plan this time around.
Click to expand...
Do not totally agree but the point was more around the damage being limited if we did play that combo early. We where never really in the game but it did make a difference compared to last year when they just keep running over Merrett , Parish and Shiel all day.
 
Mercurial89 said:
Have to be careful to not read into the
"went toe to toe with them" type stuff.

When they wanted to win the ball and score they did.
It was instantaneous the moment Danger went in, they kicked it up a gear and we had zero answers, not even mild ability to delay them.

Probably says that our top gear is equal to about their 3rd gear.
Pies did a similar thing in that they made us run at such a high clip the team blew up.

Also Geelong, more than any other team show us two things about our side.
We are not strong/big enough in so many areas of the ground.
And
We lack players with a game winning physical talent to take over a game aside from Stringer.

For as good as Martin, Merrett and Parish are they have some nice skills in their ability to kick (Martin/Zach) or gather a ball (Parish).
But they don't have an athletic trait that they can use to win a contest.
We need to start getting a few of these types into the team, even if it's just aerobic beasts that can break teams with their running.
Click to expand...
that's the big knock - we don't have the superstar midfielder who can go in and sway that contest
Except Stringer. Who at his peak is a better player than Danger, but can't do it for as long.

And we don't really draft them.
Neither do Geelong really. You need to target them. There was opposition to JDG last year, but he's that type

they don't fall off trees though, so you have to develop what you have and build a system that can absorb it.
Danger has been at the cats 7 years for 1 flag and 2 GFs.
It's not the be all/end all. Does help though when your system is also good
 
citizen-erased said:
that's the big knock - we don't have the superstar midfielder who can go in and sway that contest
Except Stringer. Who at his peak is a better player than Danger, but can't do it for as long.

And we don't really draft them.
Neither do Geelong really. You need to target them. There was opposition to JDG last year, but he's that type

they don't fall off trees though, so you have to develop what you have and build a system that can absorb it.
Danger has been at the cats 7 years for 1 flag and 2 GFs.
It's not the be all/end all. Does help though when your system is also good
Click to expand...

Tsatas will be that player. eDPS is driving the hype train.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Harlequin
AFL Autopsy RND 7: Draw Against The Pies
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
395
Views
10K
outersanctum
O
Harlequin
AFL Autopsy RND 18: Essington crapped on by the Cats
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
264
Views
9K
katana
katana
Harlequin
AFL Autopsy RND3: Beaten by the Saints
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
214
Views
9K
ant555
ant555
Harlequin
AFL Toast RND 6: Win Against The Crows
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
283
Views
8K
Agronomus
A
Harlequin
AFL Toast RND 5: Win Against The Dogs
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
248
Views
8K
ant555
ant555
Harlequin
AFL Autopsy RND 4: Dons Demolished
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
361
Views
13K
ant555
ant555
Nuggs Bunny
  • Locked
MVP RND 6: Votes against Crows
2
Replies
40
Views
680
eth-dog
eth-dog

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top