Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
EUFA EURO 2024 - Group Stage ⚽ EPL 24/25 starts Aug 17
If you isolated all the games that he's played in the forward half , which is relatively few, you'd find he's been very good Nathan.He has loads, just does SFA most weeks like he probably will for the next month
Just dropping by to say i saw the worrell incident where he busted his arm on replay (was at the game but up the other end of the ground) and what i noticed were the lions players in the general.area coming up to check on him and give him a pat on the back which was classy and a good look. I will see myself out now.
If you don't look/act like the standard KPF (think Hawkins, Brown, Fev, Carey - leads, strength, ego), they'll always be harder on you. Buddy got hassled early on until he became dominant and even then people were negging him because of his lack of contested marking. Jack Riewoldt, the media darling these days, also had similar because he was really effective but didn't look like a classic KPF (at least until Richmond as a whole got better).been saying for a while hipwood and daniher get criticised differently than other key forwards
you can see why daniher doesnt want to engage with media at all
Though likely snuck under the radar a little more in terms of attention from the opposition. That said, he took his chances, including the massive pressure goal late in the 4th.Showed more yesterday than any of our forwards have all year.
Gobsmacked that neither coach could find a vote for either Bez or HA
Well, that’s probably right for Joe. Never see his lips move.Thoughts, Mr Ripper?
Andrews was awesome.Gobsmacked that neither coach could find a vote for either Bez or HA
From an albeit community level umpire (major league) the easiest free kick to pay is a hold…anywhere.The other thing that annoys me is that minor infringements pre and during marking contests get paid but your gun midfielders around a stoppage are fair game. You restrain someone by grabbing off the contest is a free is it not.
Andrews was awesome.
I saw a narrative put up that Himmelberg played Harris fairly well and hurt him on occasions.
If you look at the times Himmelberg managed to get it Harris made the decision to cover for others and help out.
Harris isn't getting his due kudos in the media. Now that Moore stinks it up fairly regularly they've decided that Weitering is the best KPD going around so the AA is all his barring injury or a total loss in form.
He chews a fair bit of gum by the look.Well, that’s probably right for Joe. Never see his lips move.
He seems to have rinsed his hair before every game as well.He chews a fair bit of gum by the look.
I feel like as a sport not necessarily just the Lions to be fair is that the standards are pretty low. You regularly hear stories over the years of players going to local ovals away from the club to practice their goalkicking - sans with no one on the mark lol - to only training in the mornings when games at their earliest are approx 2pm and then night games going to 10:30pm and yet you never hear clubs training at that time. It really is surprising how little clubs do to replicate what game conditions actually are.From clips I see from training, we don't practice set shots with anyone standing the mark. There's the first problem: not training as you play.
Let’s shuffle the assistant coaches first, shall we.Clearly the coach needs to be sacked for not training them to mark the ball properly.
It really does illustrate what a loss Coleman has been.I think my thoughts about the game echo many others' here... Pretty good effort for most of the game from most of the players, with some poor execution thrown in which cost us goals back the other way.
Outside of that, from a strategic perspective, I was incredibly disappointed by our lack of willingness to change angles and really utilise the width of the ground. After my general enthusiasm about our ball movement against Melbourne and the Gold Coast, it basically completely evaporated against Adelaide.
I included in my comments a reference to Adelaide Oval being narrower than other grounds, but that need not preclude us from trying to switch to the open side AT ALL. I think the one time we did it was in the last quarter, it was a bit of a Cam Rayner chaos ball in general play, it was a good option at the time in my opinion, but it seemed as though nobody else was ready for it and I think we barely escaped without conceding ourselves.
So this meant that basically 100% of our ball movement was in straight lines towards goal. Yes, many of those marks were uncontested, but there's only so many times you can get away with that, and then you're forced to go long down the line. Fortunately our talls ahead of the ball competed well enough that this didn't hurt us too much; we only conceded 6 contested marks and 10 intercept marks for the whole game.
But it just meant we just became very one-dimensional, and really limited our ability to score. I've referred a couple of times to what I consider the 4 primary avenues to goal. If, like us yesterday, you aren't prepared to shift the ball laterally, you eliminate one of those methods of scoring. If you aren't prepared to move the ball quickly, which we didn't, even when we went direct, we eliminate another method of scoring.
I understand (to an extent) the rationale behind not wanting to play this way: we don't want to expose ourselves on a fast turnover if we cough the ball up. But guess what? We coughed the ball up and got exposed on fast turnovers anyway! We conceded 90, which is well above AFL average (82.78), and Adelaide still generated shots at goal from 55% of their inside 50's, which again is well above AFL average (46.9%).
So if this not evidence enough that this whole concept of "defending with the football" is a flawed concept, I don't know what is, and I fear that if the message isn't getting through yet, it may never. Geelong learnt this lesson courtesy of a Preliminary Final flogging in 2021 - on that score we are still 2 and a half years behind the cutting edge.
So that leaves only 2 paths to goal: winning clearances and forward pressure. We lost clearances, and were well beaten at centre bounces, yet still managed to score 7-5 (47) from this score source while conceding only 3-6 (24). So from a scoreboard perspective, our clearance game held up well, but it's a high intensity method, requiring sustained effort. This means it is therefore prone to random fluctuations, often in line with midfield personnel changes, as we saw with the runs of goals from both teams during the 2nd half last night.
Scoring from forward pressure is similarly a high intensity method. The metric I've started looking at is comparing our forward 50 tackles to the amount of times we went inside 50 and failed to get a shot at goal (i.e. Adelaide rebounded). Last night we laid 10 tackles inside 50 and let the ball out 28 times. That's a ratio of 35.7% compared with an AFL average of 39.8%. Meanwhile at the other end Adelaide went 13 from 21, an exceptional 61.9%. That's a huge difference in the game, and doesn't even include the times we gave the ball back to them under no pressure due to our skill errors in the back half.
So as I highlighted after the Melbourne game, I'm concerned that we are having to work harder, not smarter, in the way we set up scoring opportunities. We still managed to generate shots at goal on 49.1% of our inside 50's, which is above AFL average, and our 2nd best result for the year. I genuinely believe the sky is the limit with regards to the levels we could achieve if we were more prepared to take the game on with our ball movement from turnovers. We are 16th in this regard, scoring only 39.9 points per game from turnovers (57 points per 100 turnovers). Sydney lead in this regard with 62.3 per game (88 points per 100 turnovers). Yes, we may open ourselves up if we lose the ball, but we got opened up yesterday anyway. So as I see it we have little to lose in this regard.
Be brave. Pin yer ears back.
I think my thoughts about the game echo many others' here... Pretty good effort for most of the game from most of the players, with some poor execution thrown in which cost us goals back the other way.
Outside of that, from a strategic perspective, I was incredibly disappointed by our lack of willingness to change angles and really utilise the width of the ground. After my general enthusiasm about our ball movement against Melbourne and the Gold Coast, it basically completely evaporated against Adelaide.
I included in my comments a reference to Adelaide Oval being narrower than other grounds, but that need not preclude us from trying to switch to the open side AT ALL. I think the one time we did it was in the last quarter, it was a bit of a Cam Rayner chaos ball in general play, it was a good option at the time in my opinion, but it seemed as though nobody else was ready for it and I think we barely escaped without conceding ourselves.
So this meant that basically 100% of our ball movement was in straight lines towards goal. Yes, many of those marks were uncontested, but there's only so many times you can get away with that, and then you're forced to go long down the line. Fortunately our talls ahead of the ball competed well enough that this didn't hurt us too much; we only conceded 6 contested marks and 10 intercept marks for the whole game.
But it just meant we just became very one-dimensional, and really limited our ability to score. I've referred a couple of times to what I consider the 4 primary avenues to goal. If, like us yesterday, you aren't prepared to shift the ball laterally, you eliminate one of those methods of scoring. If you aren't prepared to move the ball quickly, which we didn't, even when we went direct, we eliminate another method of scoring.
I understand (to an extent) the rationale behind not wanting to play this way: we don't want to expose ourselves on a fast turnover if we cough the ball up. But guess what? We coughed the ball up and got exposed on fast turnovers anyway! We conceded 90, which is well above AFL average (82.78), and Adelaide still generated shots at goal from 55% of their inside 50's, which again is well above AFL average (46.9%).
So if this not evidence enough that this whole concept of "defending with the football" is a flawed concept, I don't know what is, and I fear that if the message isn't getting through yet, it may never. Geelong learnt this lesson courtesy of a Preliminary Final flogging in 2021 - on that score we are still 2 and a half years behind the cutting edge.
So that leaves only 2 paths to goal: winning clearances and forward pressure. We lost clearances, and were well beaten at centre bounces, yet still managed to score 7-5 (47) from this score source while conceding only 3-6 (24). So from a scoreboard perspective, our clearance game held up well, but it's a high intensity method, requiring sustained effort. This means it is therefore prone to random fluctuations, often in line with midfield personnel changes, as we saw with the runs of goals from both teams during the 2nd half last night.
Scoring from forward pressure is similarly a high intensity method. The metric I've started looking at is comparing our forward 50 tackles to the amount of times we went inside 50 and failed to get a shot at goal (i.e. Adelaide rebounded). Last night we laid 10 tackles inside 50 and let the ball out 28 times. That's a ratio of 35.7% compared with an AFL average of 39.8%. Meanwhile at the other end Adelaide went 13 from 21, an exceptional 61.9%. That's a huge difference in the game, and doesn't even include the times we gave the ball back to them under no pressure due to our skill errors in the back half.
So as I highlighted after the Melbourne game, I'm concerned that we are having to work harder, not smarter, in the way we set up scoring opportunities. We still managed to generate shots at goal on 49.1% of our inside 50's, which is above AFL average, and our 2nd best result for the year. I genuinely believe the sky is the limit with regards to the levels we could achieve if we were more prepared to take the game on with our ball movement from turnovers. We are 16th in this regard, scoring only 39.9 points per game from turnovers (57 points per 100 turnovers). Sydney lead in this regard with 62.3 per game (88 points per 100 turnovers). Yes, we may open ourselves up if we lose the ball, but we got opened up yesterday anyway. So as I see it we have little to lose in this regard.
Be brave. Pin yer ears back.
your always right
So you tell your wife that she is always right and she disagrees or you tell her that you yourself are always right and she disagrees?So I tell my wife but she disagrees.
Hope the kid is alright and recovers well.Just dropping by to say i saw the worrell incident where he busted his arm on replay (was at the game but up the other end of the ground) and what i noticed were the lions players in the general.area coming up to check on him and give him a pat on the back which was classy and a good look. I will see myself out now.
Was that the one where Tex pushed him in the back to get him off the ball?I liked Jacks game and am a massive advocate for him but was pretty disappointed with his weak effort late against Walker which enabled him to put it on the boot and get it to Rankin to goal late in the goal square. Other than that, Jack is tracking really well for mine.
Love your posts and I have learned a lot from reading them.So that leaves only 2 paths to goal: winning clearances and forward pressure. We lost clearances, and were well beaten at centre bounces, yet still managed to score 7-5 (47) from this score source while conceding only 3-6 (24). So from a scoreboard perspective, our clearance game held up well, but it's a high intensity method, requiring sustained effort. This means it is therefore prone to random fluctuations, often in line with midfield personnel changes, as we saw with the runs of goals from both teams during the 2nd half last night.
I don't think Harris should be named as fullback in the AA side, that should be the blokes who are playing that fullback lock down role each week, so for me guys like Weitering or May (possibly Taylor but has missed a few weeks with injuries). Payne does the role for us every week, against the oppositions best KPF and this is important for team structure as it allows Harris to intercept and Lester not to be exposed on genuine tall KPF.Andrews was awesome.
I saw a narrative put up that Himmelberg played Harris fairly well and hurt him on occasions.
If you look at the times Himmelberg managed to get it Harris made the decision to cover for others and help out.
Harris isn't getting his due kudos in the media. Now that Moore stinks it up fairly regularly they've decided that Weitering is the best KPD going around so the AA is all his barring injury or a total loss in form.
Hard to tell, and to be honest the two go hand in glove to an extent. For example, we take 17 contested marks and 24 intercept marks against Adelaide. So you can say "our defence outplayed the Adelaide forward line", but how much of that is caused by our midfield applying pressure on the incoming kick to not allow their forwards to get an easy mark on a lead? And how much is caused by our midfield blocking up space on a slow play to prevent these leads happening?Love your posts and I have learned a lot from reading them.
Regarding the above stats on clearances vs scores from clearances - if we are losing clearances and not getting heavily scored against, is this suggesting our defensive run has improved dramatically. Or that our defense outplayed the Adelaide forward line. Likely a combination of both?
Depends on the forward though.The other thing that annoys me is that minor infringements pre and during marking contests get paid but your gun midfielders around a stoppage are fair game. You restrain someone by grabbing off the contest is a free is it not.