We're in the right geographical place at the moment to have Blighty around aren't we?
Blighty would tell Rhyce to tear up his entire coaching philosophy and start all over again.
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.
We're in the right geographical place at the moment to have Blighty around aren't we?
View attachment PaltrySkeletalFishingcat-mobile.mp4Apparently Floggard didn't like it.
Luke McDonald's “stupid” COVID sledge draws criticism from ex-Bomber
“I always thought a good sledge is one with a little bit of wit."www.sen.com.au
He'd know about it given that he is a very special kind of 'wit'.
Then that may not be the right course of action.Blighty would tell Rhyce to tear up his entire coaching philosophy and start all over again.
Did he enjoy Sam Wright's sledge?Apparently Floggard didn't like it.
Luke McDonald's “stupid” COVID sledge draws criticism from ex-Bomber
“I always thought a good sledge is one with a little bit of wit."www.sen.com.au
He'd know about it given that he is a very special kind of 'wit'.
Yeah I agree.All good points, Ferbs, and I don’t necessarily disagree with any of it. My point is that it’s a bit rich from a coach to bring those blokes in then 6 months later claim we need a rebuild.
They didn't comment on no free kick being paid to CT after the Sheil bump though.Even so, just having some momentum when taking possession of the ball makes it much more difficult to be tackled. So many times our blokes handball to the current position of the player. Cunnington usually puts the ball out in front to allow the receiver to run onto the ball. Now I’m no footballer, but that is what the coaches taught us when I was playing as well.
Referring to another post you made - that tackle on Cam Zurhaar, where he was headlocked and slung while not having the ball - not paid a freeand no comment from the commentators. State of the game is in shambles.
EDIT: Fixed an error as pointed out by others below.
One of the most insipid North loses to * for a long time. Just no fight or shinboner spirit.
Positives.
Simpkin, Goldstein, Dumont and McDonald.
Another game into Mahoney, Scott, Thomas and Taylor.
Josh Walker has been a great pickup.
Negatives.
1. Campbell. Good guy. Not a good footballer.
2. Hall. 23 touches but everytime we need to hit a target forward of centre, he just can't.
3. Brown. Just so out of form. That last dropped mark with no one around him summed up his season. Would trade for a first rounder to end up with 3 first round picks.
4. No plan B. Why didn't he throw Tarrant or Walker forward when we need the game to be won? or even Brown in the ruck and Goldy up forward?
5. Why is Marley Williams in the side? Can't hit a target to save his life.
6. Ahern has lost all his spark.
7. I know Hayden is young but would you want to carry him into a big final with his backline kicking? Has a go but doesn't know his limitations.
8. Thomas. I feel like he will be a 10-12 player for most of his career. Needs to develop his tank.
9. Atley, McMillian and Pittard. Have a go but would they get a go at any other club?
10. fu** the *
Poor disposal has a much greater influence on our game. I think we should be more concerned about that. There was nothing wrong with the umpiring last night. We had more than enough chances to win it. We just stuffed it up.DuckYepost: 65822209 said:yes. Umpires have too much influence in the result of a game. More so in the shorter quarters as a couple of goals due to bad decisions are hard to make up.
De
Decent shout. Shall we start up the bring back Brad thread? He's only working at the AFL, surely he could be coaxed out of retirement. What's Cam Joyce up to? Maybe we could get the band back together?
Shiel cops two weeks
Match Review: Saint sent to Tribunal, two games for Bomber
St Kilda's Ben Long must face the Tribunal for his hit on Docker Sean Darcy while Essendon's Dylan Shiel is out of Brownlow contentionwww.afl.com.au
Daryl Henderson may have sorted us out.I reckon Farren Ray off half back and Hrovat at Campbell’s feet up forward might just sort us out.
Daryl Henderson may have sorted us out.
I was thinking it might be good if there were a carnival late this year/early next year to showcase the talent, followed immediately by the draft.The absolute worst year to have early draft picks
Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
We're in the right geographical place at the moment to have Blighty around aren't we?
Horrific vision played on the Sunday Footy Show and how woeful our defensive set up was last night
Presented by none other than Lordo...
North players didn’t seem to make any option easy when their team-mate had the ball - no leads, no spread. Exits from the backline were almost always a kick to a contest, or worse, a second option handball to a bloke already in more trouble than the Kelly gang. When there was a chance, I’m sure some of our blokes looked to the forward line and saw absolutely nobody in a position to kick it to - forcing them to second guess the best option, and that was usually worse than the first.
I can’t get over the fact that our blokes see a team-mate take a mark and they all put their hands on their hips and kind of wander around like they are sending the message to kick it to somebody else. They just don’t give an option, a pressure release or anything.
Tonight we didn't have much overlapping run, and were forced to kick to a contest too many times.
So following The Other Dean and his pre- motivational post to hang tough and find the positive, I'll put in my two cents beginning on that theme:
1. McDonald as a tagger is a step forward - further to the excellent post by Pykie some time ago that we have too many ordinary HFB flankers, finding a constructive role for one of them on another line is a big plus
I watched the game with no sound on last night.....couldn’t listen to JB fellate another side all night again. Take a long hard look at yourself JB, you are undoing all the good work you did and sound like a f*n flog.
Crikey, you watched that twice on replay. Not sure whether to dips my lid to ya, or check the yellow pages for a shrink on your behalf.Yep.
And yep.
As far as the tale of last night goes - no leads, no spread, no overlap run.
Instead of jumping on here and reading through everyone's undoubtedly calm and balanced reactions to the loss, I decided to take the less painful approach of watching the replay to try to understand why there was so little of the aforementioned run and spread, and so much of that kicking down the line crap. I actually watched the replay twice. The first time to analyse the above and take a really close look at our I50's, the second time to track every one of Hall's possessions. (Stay tuned!) But yeah, no-one can begin to fathom the pain I put myself through last night. Three sittings of the game, back-to-back. I am officially scarred.
Anyway, here's some thoughts on what I saw....
And let me preface the below by saying that it was ****ing slippery conditions last night. People should keep that in mind. Both teams fumbled. Sure, they handled the conditions a little better than us and were more precise in their execution but, ffs, some people need to lower their expectations on skill levels and clean use around contested ground balls on a greasy as **** night like that.
As usual, nothing of a structural nature in footy happens in isolation. Everything bleeds into other things. Including the mental state of the players. In the case of last night's game, assuming they weren't acting on Shaw's instructions (man, I hope not), I reckon there were a few things that led to our abject lack of creativity. In a nutshell, my thinking is that what we saw was basically the product of an overly defensive mindset. We were sh*t-scared of their speed and didn't want to be opened up, so we naturally gravitated towards the safety of the line.
Confidence would have taken a bit of a hit coming off three losses, and the fear of being opened up against a quick side like * most probably led to players being less creative, taking safer options, and being less willing to run off their opponents for fear of getting caught out on the slingshot. (Particularly with a defensively-minded coach in charge.) Easier to contain the counter-attacks if they're not launched from the corridor. And every time we headed boundary-ward, a perfect storm of slow, safe ball movement, slippery conditions, players not working hard enough to provide options, and * doing a good job of hemming us in and guarding the corridor, all led to what we saw unfold last night.
Of course, for the most part it worked for us on the defensive end of things. They didn't really get off the chain a whole lot. As Rick18 mentioned in his typically excellent summary, it was the sporadic lapses that really hurt us. And it wasn't just one player in particular, all the defenders had their moments where they let their concentration slip and it cost us. To *'s credit, they took their opportunities.
But yeah, it's on the offensive side of the ledger where we sucked the most. Just too predictable, and that included our I50's.
Just for interest's sake, here's our top few I50-ers for the night....
Hall - 7
Simpkin - 6
Brown - 5
Higgins - 4
Goldy - 4
Dumont - 4
All of the above, and others - Pittard, Polec, Tarrant, and more - were guilty of unimaginative, long-bomb I50 entries, kicked to contested, pack situations. As a zillion people have pointed out, more often than not these entries involved a kick being dropped on Brown's head. They weren't necessarily rushed entries either. In many cases it was a considered decision where the player in question had time and space.
But again, in defense of those that were responsible for some of the incredibly dull and predictable I50's we saw, there consistently seemed to be very few other options available to them. No-one leading into the corridor, no-one leading to the ball carrier. No-one running past for the sneaky handball for a long goal. Just a distinct lack of work off the ball to create options. I can understand that reticence in the back half, but there has to be more movement when we're on the attack with the ball just outside 50.
As has been said ad infinitum, we need another tall marking target. But with Larkey still out, and Campbell not providing much, it was incredibly disappointing to see such an uncreative approach to ball use going inside 50. When a player (Atley) did finally lower their eyes and someone got on their bike to provide an open, leading option (Scott), we goaled. Clearly, Campbell isn't the person to be giving Browny a chop out. I thought the logic behind his selection was reasonably sound, but it didn't work out. Couldn't clunk them. He brought the ball to ground on occasion, but at other times - bizarrely - he was pushed off the ball with ridiculous ease. A couple of times he and Browny just got in each other's way. Experiment didn't work.
But of course, regardless, here's the greatest flaw in the plan - bringing the ball to ground is only really useful if you have a handful of talented crumbers ready to feast on that sh*t. (Spoiler alert - we don't.) On multiple occasions we brought the ball to the ground only for it to whisked back out by the more-adept-at-ground-level * defenders. Despite our defensive mindset on the night, our Forward line defensive pressure was almost non-existent. We just lacked any semblance of Forward structure both when the ball was coming in, and when it was going back out again.
Moving forward we simply MUST be more creative and less predictable going inside 50.
Not sure any of the above helps much now in hindsight, but hopefully we don't see an encore performance of the same thing next week.
Tl; dr?
Don't blame you. It was a ****ing long post.
Yep.
And yep.
As far as the tale of last night goes - no leads, no spread, no overlap run.
Instead of jumping on here and reading through everyone's undoubtedly calm and balanced reactions to the loss, I decided to take the less painful approach of watching the replay to try to understand why there was so little of the aforementioned run and spread, and so much of that kicking down the line crap. I actually watched the replay twice. The first time to analyse the above and take a really close look at our I50's, the second time to track every one of Hall's possessions. (Stay tuned!) But yeah, no-one can begin to fathom the pain I put myself through last night. Three sittings of the game, back-to-back. I am officially scarred.
Anyway, here's some thoughts on what I saw....
And let me preface the below by saying that it was ****ing slippery conditions last night. People should keep that in mind. Both teams fumbled. Sure, they handled the conditions a little better than us and were more precise in their execution but, ffs, some people need to lower their expectations on skill levels and clean use around contested ground balls on a greasy as **** night like that.
As usual, nothing of a structural nature in footy happens in isolation. Everything bleeds into other things. Including the mental state of the players. In the case of last night's game, assuming they weren't acting on Shaw's instructions (man, I hope not), I reckon there were a few things that led to our abject lack of creativity. In a nutshell, my thinking is that what we saw was basically the product of an overly defensive mindset. We were sh*t-scared of their speed and didn't want to be opened up, so we naturally gravitated towards the safety of the line.
Confidence would have taken a bit of a hit coming off three losses, and the fear of being opened up against a quick side like * most probably led to players being less creative, taking safer options, and being less willing to run off their opponents for fear of getting caught out on the slingshot. (Particularly with a defensively-minded coach in charge.) Easier to contain the counter-attacks if they're not launched from the corridor. And every time we headed boundary-ward, a perfect storm of slow, safe ball movement, slippery conditions, players not working hard enough to provide options, and * doing a good job of hemming us in and guarding the corridor, all led to what we saw unfold last night.
Of course, for the most part it worked for us on the defensive end of things. They didn't really get off the chain a whole lot. As Rick18 mentioned in his typically excellent summary, it was the sporadic lapses that really hurt us. And it wasn't just one player in particular, all the defenders had their moments where they let their concentration slip and it cost us. To *'s credit, they took their opportunities.
But yeah, it's on the offensive side of the ledger where we sucked the most. Just too predictable, and that included our I50's.
Just for interest's sake, here's our top few I50-ers for the night....
Hall - 7
Simpkin - 6
Brown - 5
Higgins - 4
Goldy - 4
Dumont - 4
All of the above, and others - Pittard, Polec, Tarrant, and more - were guilty of unimaginative, long-bomb I50 entries, kicked to contested, pack situations. As a zillion people have pointed out, more often than not these entries involved a kick being dropped on Brown's head. They weren't necessarily rushed entries either. In many cases it was a considered decision where the player in question had time and space.
But again, in defense of those that were responsible for some of the incredibly dull and predictable I50's we saw, there consistently seemed to be very few other options available to them. No-one leading into the corridor, no-one leading to the ball carrier. No-one running past for the sneaky handball for a long goal. Just a distinct lack of work off the ball to create options. I can understand that reticence in the back half, but there has to be more movement when we're on the attack with the ball just outside 50.
As has been said ad infinitum, we need another tall marking target. But with Larkey still out, and Campbell not providing much, it was incredibly disappointing to see such an uncreative approach to ball use going inside 50. When a player (Atley) did finally lower their eyes and someone got on their bike to provide an open, leading option (Scott), we goaled. Clearly, Campbell isn't the person to be giving Browny a chop out. I thought the logic behind his selection was reasonably sound, but it didn't work out. Couldn't clunk them. He brought the ball to ground on occasion, but at other times - bizarrely - he was pushed off the ball with ridiculous ease. A couple of times he and Browny just got in each other's way. Experiment didn't work.
But of course, regardless, here's the greatest flaw in the plan - bringing the ball to ground is only really useful if you have a handful of talented crumbers ready to feast on that sh*t. (Spoiler alert - we don't.) On multiple occasions we brought the ball to the ground only for it to whisked back out by the more-adept-at-ground-level * defenders. Despite our defensive mindset on the night, our Forward line defensive pressure was almost non-existent. We just lacked any semblance of Forward structure both when the ball was coming in, and when it was going back out again.
Moving forward we simply MUST be more creative and less predictable going inside 50.
Not sure any of the above helps much now in hindsight, but hopefully we don't see an encore performance of the same thing next week.
Tl; dr?
Don't blame you. It was a ****ing long post.