Autopsy Swans Vs Geelong Rnd 18

[Heeney2Franklin]

What, move the player that literally hadn't done anything into arguably his better role, one that we still don't have a matchup for?

Yeah, real smart.

Don't know how that is out coaching, it was just a great player lifting.

Its like Franklin kicking 70m bombs its not being outcoached, just a great player taking his side over the line.

 

[Millky95]

Scott gave a coaching lesson.

Moving Dangerfield forward is the equivalent of Longmire throwing Reid behind the ball imo

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Moving Dangerfield forward is the equivalent of Longmire throwing Reid behind the ball imo

Yep. Why were we not prepared? It won the game for them.

 

[Millky95]

Yep. Why were we not prepared? It won the game for them.

Tbh, I think it was less Dangerfield and more their ball movement. He got hit lace out each time, only contested contest he "won" was the dubious free kick he got. McCartin beat him a few times but we obviously wanted McCartin on Hawkins.

I think any half decent lead up player (Brown, Reid, Rohan etc) would have easily kicked those 3 goals as well. Those inside 50s were spectacular

 

[Kiama Chris]

We lost that game rather than Geelong winning it, Papley misses man.

Still have no right to be as competitive as we are.

Three Dangerfield leads exactly the same led to three goals. Two on Melican, swapped Fox onto him but also couldn't keep up. We had the rest of their team done but Danger pulled it out for them after 2.5 qtrs of not much.
Not getting the reward q2 was crook but the guys kept their heads up and fought it out.

 

[Kiama Chris]

One that I was pretty buoyant about early (as were you) and am glad he is becoming the player I thought he might!
Had all the signs and was obvious he was better than the likes of Stoddart.

Will become one of my favourite players.

Effervescent

 

[TheMase]

Didn’t Dangerfield play up forward most of the game? 87% of his ball was in the forward half, only 3 disposals away from their attacking 50m arc

The midfield pressure dropped off which allowed their midfield to execute their inside 50 kicks better which led to marks and then goals. Earlier in the game those kicks were pressured, were slower and scrambled forward and allowed our defenders to position.

 

[bedford]

Didn’t Dangerfield play up forward most of the game? 87% of his ball was in the forward half, only 3 disposals away from their attacking 50m arc

The midfield pressure dropped off which allowed their midfield to execute their inside 50 kicks better which led to marks and then goals. Earlier in the game those kicks were pressured, were slower and scrambled forward and allowed our defenders to position.

I'm sure i saw Mills on him , thoughts

 

[TheMase]

I'm sure i saw Mills on him , thoughts

Yep earlier in the game he was

 

[bedford]

With all the praise about yesterday once again 3 times in the last quarter we only had 1 player against 4 or 5 in our 50 when we went forward . Who's fault is this and please don't say young players. The buck stops with the coaches. I just hope when Buddy is back we leave him at home , let's see if they run off him , i bet they don't !

 

[The King!]

With all the praise about yesterday once again 3 times in the last quarter we only had 1 player against 4 or 5 in our 50 when we went forward . Who's fault is this and please don't say young players. The buck stops with the coaches. I just hope when Buddy is back we leave him at home , let's see if they run off him , i bet they don't !

Problem is only Papley can out mark an opponent up forward

 

[MarkP]

Problem is only Papley can out mark an opponent up forward

That Hawkins fella did ok....oic, players on our side....

 

[The King!]

That Hawkins fella did ok....oic, players on our side....

I thought hawkins got beaten by McCartin too

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I thought hawkins got beaten by McCartin too

He did easily.

 

[bungee]

This struck a chord with me. Rhys-Jones used to possess that same strange quality (Diesel too). I think it comes from having a high footy IQ, understanding the play including taking that split second necessary to make a wise decision. Way, way short of both of course but the signs remain positive.

Thought he was terrific yesterday, though I reckon his timing was slightly off after the head knock with Bell.

A trait of many great players, Judd, Goodes, Ablett (both)... To execute one skilled move even while planning the next. Dawson has some serious talent and a big heart to match it.

 

[bungee]

Yep. Why were we not prepared? It won the game for them.

Because that lazy Rampe was sitting on his butt doing sweet f-all.

No seriously, I don't think it was Scott out-coaching so much as Geelong showing their flexibility. Goodes was probably the closest we've had to a Dangerfield type in a long time. He's an exceptional player forward or in the midfield. Fox was probably the only defender we had with the speed to go with Dangerfield's brute strength and his incredible burst speed off the line. Rampe might have been better strength-wise but we really needed someone to block the hole. As teams often did with Goodes. At one point Blakey was in a position to get across to block the hole but he was either too knackered (most likely, as all our players were in the last quarter) or not that keen to get smashed up (less likely). Dangerfield cleverly lead away from Hawkins every time, splitting our defenders to make it hard for them to come across and affect the contest. The service inside 50 to Dangerfield was textbook too. Geelong have some serious class there. Our mids needed to put more pressure on the ball carrier and win the ball in the midfield while Danger was forward.

Geelong just found another gear and showed just how good they are. Horse had already made all the good coaching moves but he just ran out of options. Even then we nearly pinched the game. I just hope our players can learn plenty from the loss.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Yep earlier in the game he was

Melican was on him for his first two goals and Fox for the third.
When Danger takes off on the lead he's horribly hard to stay with. His fellow forwards cleared out the space and we had no one in the hole.
Hard to deal with.

 

[BloodySwan]

Melican was on him for his first two goals and Fox for the third.
When Danger takes off on the lead he's horribly hard to stay with. His fellow forwards cleared out the space and we had no one in the hole.
Hard to deal with.

Aliir in defence would have plugged that hole

 

[bedford]

Because that lazy Rampe was sitting on his butt doing sweet f-all.

No seriously, I don't think it was Scott out-coaching so much as Geelong showing their flexibility. Goodes was probably the closest we've had to a Dangerfield type in a long time. He's an exceptional player forward or in the midfield. Fox was probably the only defender we had with the speed to go with Dangerfield's brute strength and his incredible burst speed off the line. Rampe might have been better strength-wise but we really needed someone to block the hole. As teams often did with Goodes. At one point Blakey was in a position to get across to block the hole but he was either too knackered (most likely, as all our players were in the last quarter) or not that keen to get smashed up (less likely). Dangerfield cleverly lead away from Hawkins every time, splitting our defenders to make it hard for them to come across and affect the contest. The service inside 50 to Dangerfield was textbook too. Geelong have some serious class there. Our mids needed to put more pressure on the ball carrier and win the ball in the midfield while Danger was forward.

Geelong just found another gear and showed just how good they are. Horse had already made all the good coaching moves but he just ran out of options. Even then we nearly pinched the game. I just hope our players can learn plenty from the loss.

Seeing you've done a couple of summaries why in gods name 3 times in the last Q we had 1 v 4 inside our 50 and who's to blame ?

 

[The King!]

Yep. Why were we not prepared? It won the game for them.

Horse tried fox melican mills etc on Dangerfield

apart from throwing a brick at him it was done

great player got good delivery and took advantage

great move by Scott but an obvious one imo

 

[Kapers]

Seeing you've done a couple of summaries why in gods name 3 times in the last Q we had 1 v 4 inside our 50 and who's to blame ?

We we're trying to stop dangerfield kicking 10?

Don't know what you expect from a forward line lead by Papley or Reid.

I honestly think it was a lack of on ground leadership that stopped players keeping their structure, both our leaders, Parker and JPK, are payed to get drawn into the contest. We needed an older better forward just to maintain structure ahead of the ball and to get some of the younger blokes not to press up so much.

Imo it's still a young team, and them getting sucked into the contest is almost expected at this stage of development, game is on the line, opposition is getting domination at the contest, bigger bodies, smarter heads out playing us, as a young player you just try to help and get involved and usually forget to keep that structure that takes 100 games to learn.

 

[bedford]

We we're trying to stop dangerfield kicking 10?

Don't know what you expect from a forward line lead by Papley or Reid.

I honestly think it was a lack of on ground leadership that stopped players keeping their structure, both our leaders, Parker and JPK, are payed to get drawn into the contest. We needed an older better forward just to maintain structure ahead of the ball and to get some of the younger blokes not to press up so much.

Imo it's still a young team, and them getting sucked into the contest is almost expected at this stage of development, game is on the line, opposition is getting domination at the contest, bigger bodies, smarter heads out playing us, as a young player you just try to help and get involved and usually forget to keep that structure that takes 100 games to learn.

With all respect i was asking Bungee , as our number 1 analyst . To answer you , there was no excuse for this , that's what could have cost us the game,

 

[dosser]

We we're trying to stop dangerfield kicking 10?

Don't know what you expect from a forward line lead by Papley or Reid.

I honestly think it was a lack of on ground leadership that stopped players keeping their structure, both our leaders, Parker and JPK, are payed to get drawn into the contest. We needed an older better forward just to maintain structure ahead of the ball and to get some of the younger blokes not to press up so much.

Imo it's still a young team, and them getting sucked into the contest is almost expected at this stage of development, game is on the line, opposition is getting domination at the contest, bigger bodies, smarter heads out playing us, as a young player you just try to help and get involved and usually forget to keep that structure that takes 100 games to learn.

I think it's more about our players trying to apply a press, which means they are running up and back all game. With young players without a number of preseasons this will get exhausting and they wouldn't be able to get back into position as well later in the game.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Reminder few years back Dangerfield kicked 6 on Hodge extremely difficult to stop on the lead.

 

[Kapers]

With all respect i was asking Bungee , as our number 1 analyst . To answer you , there was no excuse for this , that's what could have cost us the game,

Fair enough, just thought I would throw my 2 cents in.

I personally hated what longmire was doing 2018-19, but with this current team I think we have to be able to differentiate between coaching errors and player errors. I honestly don't think it was Longmires plan to have no forwards ahead of the ball, but I could also be wrong.