Autopsy What just happened? A draw???

[jackcass]

Thought Pert was finishing up at seasons end?

That's what was said at the announcement.

 

[DaVe86]

Totally agree the crows were always going to come at us but Blair has made those errors many times over the years. If a spillage from the handball he should have made had resulted in the same outcome then so be it. But he should never have given away a htb free in that situation.

You're not wrong. We can pinpoint so many little things in that last quarter. That was definitely one.

As was the hail-mary shot on goal from Fasolo (anytime we turned the ball over, they killed us), the non-contest from Reid in the dying second, Maynard's brain fade. Moore's miss.

Blair played an ok game. Nothing special, but if he did that every week he'd hold his spot. But yes, that holding the ball was unforgiveable.

 

[TheSierBear]

You mean 10m closer like to where Darcy Moore was leading instead Darcy had to come back inboard and the pie that it was aimed at was Blair who was in a 2v1 Kelly in front of him.

When Langdon first gets it there are even numbers there with 2 lose crows covering boundary side by the time he kicks it the numbers are even when kelly marks it in that contested area there is 1 extra crow.

The umpire gives langdon only 4 seconds to move it on is this standard? Seems very quick.

Why did langdon not wait for play on call as it would of been deemed a point.

Secondly his kick was to an outnumbered Blair why do we think Blair is a ******* marking option, Darcy had actually led to the boundary line (where langdon should of kicked it) Darcy had to stop prop and comeback inboard with now 2 crows impeding him.

Dopple was wrong as usual. The choice to where he kicked it and who he aimed it at was ******* dumb.


View attachment 397974 View attachment 397975

Looking at that, we were poorly set up structurally. The smallest player on the ground, Blair, should be replaced by Grundy or Moore, not really Langdon's fault. If he kicks it further to the left we may or may not hold on but you'd flame him for kicking it directly to Blair. Hell you'd just flame him for his man bun, the fact he's from Toorak, or just because you don't like his choice of cologne. You are becoming repetitive, boring and predictable.

 

[bradrowe#32]

Or it would have given them a free kick and shot on goal for insufficient intent.

He could have walked into play and waited until the Adelaide player approached him and then taken the ball back through the goals. Can't ping him for that.

 

[jackcass]

He kicked it to an area where the crows were set up. They had more numbers even if a pie managed to get there the ball would fall into dangerous space and not within coohee of the boundary to kill the play.

Yes the team was not set up great but he had time to select the best option and that was what he chose, basically bomb it into the crows zone.

Outside that he didnt cost us the game as we had a bloody 50 point lead erroded which is a team effort including the coaching group to not make moves to arrest it.

Happy for you to post a freeze frame of the moment he kicked highlighting exactly where the Crows weren't set up and where we had a free player.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Langdon should have kicked it into the man on the mark, causing a rebound back through the point posts!!!!

 

[jackcass]

With all due respect, I think you've missed the point. Who cares if we drew. In our 125 year history we have never lost a game after being 50 points up.
If the margin was close throughout the entire game, then yes it's a great effort.
But not when your 50 points up! Sorry.
BTW, I like bucks. I am one of the minority that wants him to stay.

While I appreciate the history, in modern footy a 30 or 40 or 50 point margin doesn't offer the same levels of security it once did.

 

[Apex36]

Some of the ranting at Buckley post-game was peak 2017 on this board.

We butchered the ball in the second half. We turned it over in dangerous spots and opened ourselves up for Adelaide's sling shot footy.

Despite the mounting pressure, we kicked back in the fourth term. Crisp doesn't hit the post, we're 27 points up and home. Reid doesn't hit the post, we're home. Darcy kicks the set shot, we're home.

Adelaide may not have been at their best, but they're a bloody good football side with a number of weapons.

The coach put together a pretty good plan. We shut out their key mids. The defensive match-ups were pretty much spot on.

This group, like we've seen all year, is just not quite ready to execute consistently.

Christ, look out when it is. Look out when we fill a couple of holes on the list. Look out when Moore, JDG, Grundy, Treloar, Adams, Maynard, Hoskin Elliot, Elliot, Scharenberg and a few others have another summer together and begin to work it all out consistently.

Waiting is the hardest part.

The biggest issue I had in the last in regards to Buckley was the refusal to switch from a zone defence to man on man to negate being opened up on the rebound. Adelaide made that switch when we kicked 3 straight and completely shut down our run and speed through transition, but we stupidly persisted with our zone which was being terribly broken down until the final few minutes.

Buckley seems to have this 'stay the course' type attitude, and it's one of his biggest failings as a coach. If I could identify that a change in defensive structure was needed with 10 minutes remaining after we'd re-established our lead and then given away a quick goal on transition just watching on TV, then I have no doubt Buckley could see what was happening live and knew that a man on man structure would slow the game down and make it tougher for them to score.

The difference between the coaching of the two teams was stark in those final 10 minutes. One coach made a reactionary move to tighten up their defence when the opposition got a run on and the game was in the balance. The other decided to back in their structures until it was too late.

The Scout on ebw pointed this flaw in our coach out a couple of weeks ago, and yesterday it stood out like crazy. Yeah, if x player had converted a goal we would have won, but it shouldn't have come to that in the first place, and wouldn't have if we'd tightened up and slowed the game down like Adelaide did to us in that final 10 minutes.

 

[swiftdog]

And yet, in the final 10 minutes of play (real-time) Collingwood had 2 scoring shots to Adelaide's 1 (which came after the siren).

 

[loki04]

This is where I reckon teams and players need to be a bit smarter.

Personally, I'm not overly critical of Langdon. We should've had all our numbers at that contest because it was the only place it was realistically going to go. You don't want to go too close to the boundary because it might go out on the full.

But when Langdon was holding the ball, if he had just stood there then another second or two would've ticked, and it would've been called a point. That means we get a kick out and reset.

That's a big call to make, especially because it brings the margin back within a kick. But if we have a runner out there yelling "10 seconds"...then Langdon could've done that pretty easy and soaked up the time.

I don't think any player in his circumstance would have thought to do it, especially not knowing how long is on the clock. But it would've been a great strategy.

Better to risk it going out of bounds kicking it to your 203cm KPF who is on the move, then to the smallest player on the ground in a 2v1 who isn't moving.

It was a bad choice.

In the end it was only one of many things that go wrong to blow a 50 point lead in a half.

 

[loki04]

The biggest issue I had in the last in regards to Buckley was the refusal to switch from a zone defence to man on man to negate being opened up on the rebound. Adelaide made that switch when we kicked 3 straight and completely shut down our run and speed through transition, but we stupidly persisted with our zone which was being terribly broken down until the final few minutes.

Buckley seems to have this 'stay the course' type attitude, and it's one of his biggest failings as a coach. If I could identify that a change in defensive structure was needed with 10 minutes remaining after we'd re-established our lead and then given away a quick goal on transition just watching on TV, then I have no doubt Buckley could see what was happening live and knew that a man on man structure would slow the game down and make it tougher for them to score.

The difference between the coaching of the two teams was stark in those final 10 minutes. One coach made a reactionary move to tighten up their defence when the opposition got a run on and the game was in the balance. The other decided to back in their structures until it was too late.

The Scout on ebw pointed this flaw in our coach out a couple of weeks ago, and yesterday it stood out like crazy. Yeah, if x player had converted a goal we would have won, but it shouldn't have come to that in the first place, and wouldn't have if we'd tightened up and slowed the game down like Adelaide did to us in that final 10 minutes.

We left the corridor wide open for much of the last quarter. Rarley was there a pie guarding it, often Crows had one in the circle and 1 at their CHF waiting for that turnover from defence, all our players where pressed up at our CHF line.

 

[Apex36]

And yet, in the final 10 minutes of play (real-time) Collingwood had 2 scoring shots to Adelaide's 1 (which came after the siren).

Was referring to 10 minutes on the clock, not the final 10 minutes of play including stoppage time. In that period Adelaide had 5 scoring shots to our 3, 4 of them being goals.

 

[Vankri]

You mean 10m closer like to where Darcy Moore was leading instead Darcy had to come back inboard and the pie that it was aimed at was Blair who was in a 2v1 Kelly in front of him.

When Langdon first gets it there are even numbers there with 2 lose crows covering boundary side by the time he kicks it the numbers are even when kelly marks it in that contested area there is 1 extra crow.

The umpire gives langdon only 4 seconds to move it on is this standard? Seems very quick.

Why did langdon not wait for play on call as it would of been deemed a point.

Secondly his kick was to an outnumbered Blair why do we think Blair is a ******* marking option, Darcy had actually led to the boundary line (where langdon should of kicked it) Darcy had to stop prop and comeback inboard with now 2 crows impeding him.

Dopple was wrong as usual. The choice to where he kicked it and who he aimed it at was ******* dumb.


View attachment 397974 View attachment 397975

His kick shouldn't not be directed at anyone in particular but to a pack of players and that spot was his best option. He also kicked it high to allow anyone in the vicinity to make a run for it. Moore misread the ball, Blair was behind (and shouldn't be there, Grundy or Reid should have been there so we have two talls on the pack), De Goey forgot that he now is 192cm tall and Sidey and Wells for all their experience didn't realise their job was to create a messy pack to spoil the ball.

It's a collective failure on the behalf of those forward of the ball, absolutely nothing to do with the defender who applied a great tackle and milked the clock to play a percentage kick.

Blair's mistake on the other hand is hard to forgive. He had evaded one tackler but instead of going the percentage he tried to fend off a second. Really not the right thinking. I swear even Dangerfield or Martin wouldn't have tried to take on the second tackler, I have no idea why it's Blair's instinct to do so.

Maynard' brain fade, Fasolo's easy turnover and De Goey and Moore's misses are also in the mix of individual reasons we didn't get the win. But let's be honest the game was lost in the third quarter because we didn't think outside the box to stop the crows so ultimately it's not Blair or any one player's fault we didn't get the win, that fault rests on our defensive structures in the third quarter.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

I respect your point of view. Two things to consider. Reid is not what he was. He's slower then he was 2 years ago. I'm not sure if Rance, Scarlett, Southby or Jack Regan would have made any dfference. We were getting torched on the turnover and most marks taken in their inside 50 were lace out pin point-the way Adelaide love to play. This was on the back of our inability to make the right choices going forward, allowing them to make easy forward entries. BUt it was worth a try. We were playing 7 in defence for most of the game

I don't care what he was 2 yrs ago.. how much pre season he's done.. I'm talking about 10 yrs of experience to throw down back for a half or a quarter of football.

 

[loki04]

Looking at that, we were poorly set up structurally. The smallest player on the ground, Blair, should be replaced by Grundy or Moore, not really Langdon's fault. If he kicks it further to the left we may or may not hold on but you'd flame him for kicking it directly to Blair. Hell you'd just flame him for his man bun, the fact he's from Toorak, or just because you don't like his choice of cologne. You are becoming repetitive, boring and predictable.

Can you not see Darcy on the lead in that? he is the one going towards the boundary line you know the 203cm forward! Not only that but wells is running in that direction anticipating a kick to Darcy you see it in the still frame.

He actually runs past Blair, who is the one standing there in a 2v1. So no if he had kicked it to "Darcy" towards the boundary line I wouldn't of flamed him as he made the best choice possible.

If he had kicked it directly to Blair, *which is what he actually did this is not a hypothetical* and you know the whole point, yeah I'd flame him like I am??

You are right on one thing that hair do is a shocker.

 

[Tazzaye]

Did Bucks put any spares in the backline in the last qtr?

 

[jackcass]

I laughed watching Keith a bloke who played only a couple games out body Reid on multiple occasions, Reid should have dominated.

Keath may well have only played 2 games but he's 25 and a mature body. Rather than laugh at Reid getting out-bodied, maybe wonder why the kicks to him were rarely to his advantage. He sets up for a contest with a clear need for the footy to be delivered to a certain side and it invariably goes to the other side or out in front where it again becomes a 50/50.

 

[loki04]

His kick shouldn't not be directed at anyone in particular but to a pack of players and that spot was his best option. He also kicked it high to allow anyone in the vicinity to make a run for it. Moore misread the ball, Blair was behind (and shouldn't be there, Grundy or Reid should have been there so we have two talls on the pack), De Goey forgot that he now is 192cm tall and Sidey and Wells for all their experience didn't realise their job was to create a messy pack to spoil the ball.

It's a collective failure on the behalf of those forward of the ball, absolutely nothing to do with the defender who applied a great tackle and milked the clock to play a percentage kick.

Blairs mistake on the other hand is hard to forgive. He had evaded one tackler but instead of going the percentage he tried to fend off a second. Really not the right thinking. I swear even Dangerfield or Martin wouldn't have tried to take on the second tackler, I have no idea why it's Blair's instinct to do so.

Maynard' brain fade, Fasolo's easy turnover and De Goey and Moore's misses are also in the mix of individual reasons we didn't get the win. But let's be honest the game was lost in the third quarter because we didn't think outside the box to stop the crows so ultimately it's not Blair or any one player's fault we didn't get the win, that fault rests on our defensive structures in the third quarter.

You are kidding yourself, Moore was leading to the boundary he had front position and the run of it, all Langdon had to do was put it in front of him to the space near the line. He didn't "misread" it as he was making an option *prior* to the kick!

Wells also thought the ball was heading there (to where Darcy was leading towards the boundary) that's why in the *still* he is moving to where Darcy is leading.
The right option and the percentage kick is to the 203cm player who is leading to where the ball can be best killed if he doesn't mark it.

Kicking to a pack where the target player is the smallest guy on the field with 2 players on him 1 being Kelly, who if you haven't watched the crows this year has proven quite adept at taking marks (hence he got the job on Elliott).
Also it wasn't a pack until the kick was made the players obviously ran to where the ball went which was to Blair in a 2v1.

 

[jackcass]

But even in first half he dropped marks.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Against an opponent he's giving height and weight to. Did well to at least neutralise those contests.

 

[loki04]

Keath may well have only played 2 games but he's 25 and a mature body. Rather than laugh at Reid getting out-bodied, maybe wonder why the kicks to him were rarely to his advantage. He sets up for a contest with a clear need for the footy to be delivered to a certain side and it invariably goes to the other side or out in front where it again becomes a 50/50.

Not only that but the amount of frees that weren't paid from Keith holding one of Reid's arms was ridiculous.

 

[Tazzaye]

Did Bucks put any spares in the backline in the last qtr?

 

[Anzacday]

Why all the focus on Blair/Langdon?
There's other incidents...
Billy gets a free kick when hit in the head going for the mark.
Crouch gets pinged for holding the ball, (umpire said he got his boot to it and he didn't).
Goldy doesn't drop a chest mark.
De Goey gets a free for holding the man.
That's just in the last two minutes!!
I went to the game not knowing what to expect; gee I was happy with what we did in the first half though.
Emotions after a draw are intriguing - I left the game feeling like we lost, but we didn't.
A bit like the Crows player in the goal square, (Jacobs?) jumping up and down when McGovern kicked the goal - then reality sank in.

Edit: Treloar could've been pinged for a throw and who know what might've happened?

 

[loki04]

His kick shouldn't not be directed at anyone in particular but to a pack of players and that spot was his best option. He also kicked it high to allow anyone in the vicinity to make a run for it. Moore misread the ball, Blair was behind (and shouldn't be there, Grundy or Reid should have been there so we have two talls on the pack), De Goey forgot that he now is 192cm tall and Sidey and Wells for all their experience didn't realise their job was to create a messy pack to spoil the ball.

It's a collective failure on the behalf of those forward of the ball, absolutely nothing to do with the defender who applied a great tackle and milked the clock to play a percentage kick.

Blair's mistake on the other hand is hard to forgive. He had evaded one tackler but instead of going the percentage he tried to fend off a second. Really not the right thinking. I swear even Dangerfield or Martin wouldn't have tried to take on the second tackler, I have no idea why it's Blair's instinct to do so.

Maynard' brain fade, Fasolo's easy turnover and De Goey and Moore's misses are also in the mix of individual reasons we didn't get the win. But let's be honest the game was lost in the third quarter because we didn't think outside the box to stop the crows so ultimately it's not Blair or any one player's fault we didn't get the win, that fault rests on our defensive structures in the third quarter.

Milked the clock? he got the free ran back and was given 4 seconds...he didn't milk shit. Literally 4 seconds pass from when Langdon runs back to when he is asked to move it on. He was one of 3 tacklers as well you guys make it sound like he did it all on his own some heroic effort.

It was only one mistake in the context of the game but it was a mistake.

 

[LeighBrownlow]

Lets face it mate. They stole a draw. We should have won well, but didn't. Them's the breaks.
Had 6 more scoring shots & hit the post 3 times. They will be saying their hail Mary's tonight. But good on em. they hung in there & got something out of the game. They are a better team than us & we were a better team on the day.

Agree with what you say, we definitely should have won and played great footy for a large portion of the game. All I'm saying is it doesn't change much in the big picture - the same problems still exist, but yesterday were masked by a dominant midfield performance

 

[swiftdog]

Was referring to 10 minutes on the clock, not the final 10 minutes of play including stoppage time. In that period Adelaide had 5 scoring shots to our 3, 4 of them being goals.

Ahh fair enough, I was at the ground so wasn't sure on game timing. I can see your point I think it's still a guessing game though. The same structure saw 3 goals in quick succession to us so I can see why he decided to stay the course in this instance. There was still a long time between the Otten and McGovern goals so I think the rot was stopped eventually. Ultimately Moore and earlier on Crisp had chances to probably ice the game but them's the breaks.