Review Scratch match analysis of North V Saints

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I also would like to emphasize the scratch match effect here.

I have no doubt that Noble used this as a guide to experiment whereas the Saints who added in a few more missing pieces to the puzzle really took a young team who had played zero football together to the cleaners.

It just so happened today’s opponents and possibly if we played the Dogs/Tigers would have touched us up as it was ripe for fat side footy and get it on the spread.

Ziebell at hb is a WIP. Noble would have wanted to get a good look at Tyson and Hall and Turner in key roles.
But our backline is too too heavy and I hope we see a bit more pace down there otherwise a lot of early season beltings may take place.
 
Is the backline still too heavy if the mids aren't being dominated? Reduce the speed and sheer amount of the ball coming in and I think they would look considerably better. I have concerns with the potential configurations back there, but I'm struggling to read too much into it considering just how under the pump they were due to a ridiculously reduced midfield.

I'm kinda shitty tbh. Did the midfield we fielded really need to be that diminished? Just not sure how much the coaches and players could possibly gain/learn from a game like that when the most vital cog is so misaligned.
 
But our backline is too too heavy and I hope we see a bit more pace down there otherwise a lot of early season beltings may take place.

I would much prefer Turner as a small defender and Mahoney in his role up forward
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

A regulation set shot at goal, 25-30m out, very slight angle, bread and butter for 99% of AFL small forwards, but Kayne Turner still hasn't mastered the art.
Harsh.
Other AFL small forwards aren't hitting 99 shots out of 100 for those kicks.
 
If the match committee is hellbent on making Stephenson midfielder.....then hopefully it's 60-40 / 70-30 split with most of the time spent in the forward-line. Bottom line....he's a forward.

The same with Thomas.

Most of the game was garbage, disposal efficiency wasn't up to standard but the few times we did go clean through the corridor did look good. Those few times need to be 6-7 times in the next practice game as a bench make to improve on.

I like the attacking style of play, the use of the corridor. It's definitive and from the sounds of things it's what we'll be rolling with going forward. Which means for us we'll have a game style that is identifiable and good to watch. Something we haven't had for a long time.

You know what you're gonna get it or at least try to implement......I take some solace in that for now.
 
What's kyrons thing he does to call for the ball, or let other players know where he is?

Like a yelp or cry or something. Val Keating knows what i mean
Buggered if I know.

After more than 2 years out of the midfield, positive signs today, so he can yelp all he likes if it works.

My top picks today, Taylor, Powell, Thomas, Hayden and Scott.
The futures bright
 
Perplexing that you can label a 21 year old with 9 games under his belt as a plodder.

Even more perplexing to do so right after playing well in his natural position for the first time, against senior opposition.

I counted 6 clearances today against the likes of B.Crouch & J.Steele, without Goldstein.

What a stupid bizarre statement.
I agree, I can't see how anybody could knock Hayden on yesterday's performance; first up as a centre mid, for a fair part of the game with Larkey as ruck (!) often against Crouch and still won his share of it; had some real instinctive passages with Simpkin that looked like they'd been playing for years together. People have criticised his kicking, which I must admit I didn't notice at the ground, but his clearance work was a clear positive for the day. Hopefully we won't be cursed with injuries and he can hone his craft in the VFL, but definitely worth persisting with in the role
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top