Why i think we lost, ill make it short and simple!

[FadeAway]

I was at the game yesterday and couldnt believe the difference after the 1st quarter! I have read a lot of comments about people wanting to trade half the team, which is a bit harsh. In saying that, the performance yesterday was totally unacaptable!!!

When you play the dogs you cannot afford to stop, hesitate and chip the ball around because this allows them to get numbers back into their defence and flood. In result, when you kick it into 50, you turn the ball over and they run it out, it happened all day yesterday!

I dont care what anyone says, footy can be a simple game if you want it to be, the players have to be more accountable back them selves and run the lines and kick long to give the forwards first crack at the contest!

Yesterday they where bombing it into 50 without looking where to do!!

Thoughts?

 

[MarkT]

The 22 that played don’t have enough collective or individual ability. Our list is not good enough. Not enough pace, not enough hardness and not enough skill. That’s how simple it is.

 

[FadeAway]

The 22 that played don’t have enough collective or individual ability. Our list is not good enough. Not enough pace, not enough hardness and not enough skill. That’s how simple it is.

You make some interesting points, they showed their ability in the first half of the season, we seem to stuggle against sides that push numbers back hard on us

 

[Jabso]

That's probably it MarkT but I think the list could of gone alot further. They played to like 20% of their capacity.

The whole team got sucked in by the Bulldogs run. As soon as they started getting away in the 2nd quarter we went 1 on 1 which mean we will get burned due to our lack of pace. Instead of hunting in packs we were too worried about our men. How many times did someone win the ball and noone went to the pack to receive or shephard? We needed to stop playing so defensively and focus on running and creating space. R.Shaw was the only one who had any idea in that respect.

Bulldogs match up on us way too well. People go on about our midfield being our weakness, but we have fragile small defenders. We don't have a shutdown small defender who is reliable. Lonie can do a terrific job and has improved in leaps and bounds IMO but he is way too fragile a defender to leave on anyone who will play deep forward. Lockyer cannot play on a quick goalsneak who spends most his time in the f50 and is quite frankly not up to it. People forget that before his knee recos he was pretty zippy which with his solid little frame gave him an advantage. He is just not up to todays football which is quick and you need to have not just neat skills but damaging skills. Lockyer can be damaging but takes the cheap option time after time. H.Shaw is ok one on one but it takes away his run and precision. Besides I think we'll be seeing him in the middle.

I think playing Rusling was a mistake as was Richards but theres too much ifs and maybes. Rusling even when playing well was a result of excellent forward structure and T.Cloke would of been a much better option. Alot more rotations to keep bulldogs players on their toes would of been welcome.

Apart from inaccuracy Tarrant doesn't deserve too much criticism. He was a key factor of our 1st quarter.

Swan may have been affected by a car crash he was involved in but he was disapointing, the fact he had to be moved, along with Holland down back shows our lack of small defenders.

O'Bree is ok but is not up to being our #1 inside midfielder. He was probably our best midfielder still.

As for the Bulldogs, it's hard to see them playing any better. Every player had an impact. I haven't seen a better game against us for a long long time. This is not a knock at them saying "we played crap, they played their best, what are ya gonna do?", they were simply up for the game of their lives. Too bad we didn't match them.

I think there was too much focus on tagging and hardness. They would go hard at the man but not at the ball which lead to many free kicks (I think the umpiring was terrible but I digress) which were perhaps there and many hard ball gets won by bulldogs players because we were too focused on sending a message.

It's hard to judge Malthouses match day performance on a day like this when just about everyone played crap. To be honest I don't know if he is the man for us I couldn't see him performing any great miracles but then again I can't see another coach doing better. I'd give him another year to see if he can build on this by making the finals again AND also more importantly, turning the team over with younger players (especially midfielders) taking more important spots.

 

[MarkT]

You make some interesting points, they showed their ability in the first half of the season, we seem to stuggle against sides that push numbers back hard on us

The way I see it we had a big pre season and we were fitter than most sides. Adelaide probably got us for fitness in round 1 but we selected poorly and did ourselves no favours. Who showed this ability in the first half of the season? Out defence again stood tall. Clement is a gin. Presti is a rock. Wakelin is very handy. Swan and Heath Shaw were big bonuses and look like real keepers. Thomas was and is exciting. Fraser proved he is a good footballer but proved he isn’t much pf a tap ruckman. Davis showed a bit. I am not convinced yet but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. O’Bree was a front runner. When we were good he was at the forefront. When we do not dominate he goes missing. Lockyer was slow, indecisive ad poor at the contest. I am struggling to think of anything else. Everything else was just mediocre.

 

[Jabso]

The thing with O'Bree is he cannot be a #1 midfielder. He is battling hard each week for our club, but our midfield just isnt' good enough. Swan and O'Bree are the only keepers in our midfield if it is going to be any good, maybe also Holland if he can turn around his form alot and perhaps go back to his tagging games. Alot of our midfield hopes will be pinned on the likes of Pendlebury, Thomas, H.Shaw and if some of them can push a Licuria, Burns or Lockyer out of the team, or into "bench roles" then we will be better for it in 2007.

Lockyer has to go. He has done the minimum every week. I would rather cut our losses and play any of Stanley, Iacobucci, Toovey, O'Brien, Davies week in week out in his position(s). I will be slightly disapointed if he is still on our list, I will be absoloutly mad if he is in our 22 unless he makes a HUUUUUUUUGE improvement.

 

[ant22]

the main reason we lost-Plain and simple

We got smashed in the takeaways. If you can't win the footy at clearances than you really on the other team to turn it over. They wanted it alot more. For a final the lack of intensity by our players was very poor. We were poor in other areas but this was the main area we stuffed up.

 

[MarkT]

the main reason we lost-Plain and simple

We got smashed in the takeaways. If you can't win the footy at clearances than you really on the other team to turn it over. They wanted it alot more. For a final the lack of intensity by our players was very poor. We were poor in other areas but this was the main area we stuffed up.

That is all easy to say but why is the issue. The ruck and the personal in the middle is the issue that has to be addressed. The problem is this has been apparent for a long time.

 

[Jabso]

I think we went a fair way to adressing the midfield at least this year. We moved Johnson, Swan and even Lonie into the midfield and blooded the likes of Pendlebury (who spend most of his time in the centre which Mick never does), but it was the drafts before that where we went wrong by drafting big bodied midfielders who were no good in the first place let alone not what we needed.

 

[MarkT]

but then again I can't see another coach doing better.

I think that is the wrong way to look at it. I think you have to ask whether Malthouse is the man to bring a premiership. I can’t see it. Maybe the list isn’t nearly good enough. I suspect it isn’t. That is partly his fault and that is as relevant as anything. It is his list. Nevertheless if we don’t think MM can bring a flag with this list then we should make a change. Adelaide would have thought the same with their list under Ayres. Sydney likewise under Eade. Eade can certainly coach but sometimes it’s just the message getting stale.

The way I see leaving MM in place is the easy option but the one that has failed. Take a big punt on McGuane. Take a risk on Carey or even McKenna. Try and poach Pagan out of his mess (not a favoured option by me FWIW). Give Mitchell his chance. Grab O’Donnell or Mark Harvey. Add Alves to the mix with a first time coach. Speak to Blight. There are lots of options. Some might be a risk. I’d rather take the risk and fail then go ahead knowing we won’t win a flag in the next 3 years at least and then have to take the same risk anyway. The worst thing that could happen is we end up appointing a dud and get some early draft picks. We might get that anyway under MM.

How long does MM get? He’s had 7 years already. That’s more than Tom Hafey got and he had us in 5 grand finals including the draw/replay. Mathews got 10 and he won a flag. How many coaches have coached a club for 7 years and then gone on to win a flag?

but it was the drafts before that where we went wrong by drafting big bodied midfielders who were no good in the first place let alone not what we needed.

We also traded for duds and did not pay for the quality that was out there. We did our midfield no favours not recruiting a ruckman. These decisions all come back to the coach. The type of midfielder, the duds brought in and the quality let go by. This is why we have such a thin list that was so badly exposed last year.

 

[ant22]

That is all easy to say but why is the issue. The ruck and the personal in the middle is the issue that has to be addressed. The problem is this has been apparent for a long time.

That is a seperate issue all together . The topic is why we lost and the main reason we lost is because we got smashed in the take aways. We have been smased before this game but that was about as bad as I have seen considering the importance of the game.

 

[CatFan79]

What I'd be worried about is that this is as good as the pies are going to do with this list.

2006 you had a dream draw and virtually no injuries.

I think making some player trades/changes would be advised.

 

[mark73]

My thoughts are when you play the Bulldogs, you have to do everything in your power to shut down 2 blokes.West and Johnson and to a lesser extent stop Cooneys drive.I didn't go to the game yesterday, but looking at the stats, West had 36 disposals, Johnson 25 and Cooney 25 and 3 goals.To beat them, you can't allow this to happen.When we played and beat them mid season, these three guys were shut down and the inevitable happened.But West and Johnson are the keys.Close them down, and 9 out of 10 times you will beat them.Allow them to run wild as yesterdays stats would suggest, and you've got no hope.Anyway, bad luck on the loss, at least you got to play finals.

 

[augie]

We lost to a team that had a far superior work rate and had the breaks go their way because of it. They played out of their skins, while I got the sense we were already looking towards the next final. We also have an ongoing problem of being unable to stop good sides that get on a roll against us. The whole side seemd to be waiting for someone else to spark them, and it simply never happened. But even playing at our best we would have struggled to win given the way the bulldogs played.

But one thing I have to ask is how Rocca keeps getting a game. FFS he has been absolutely useless in the 2nd half of the season. Are we like the Australian cricket team where you are given about 10 too many chances to get out of a slump? IMO he should have been dropeed 6 weeks ago, and if he did nothing with Willy should have stayed there for the season. If you compare the workrates of T Cloke and A Rocca over the 2nd half of the season you have to wonder why one was sitting in the stands rather than the other.

And I am sick of the trade Tarrant comments. He was our best forward and one of our better players. He worked his a*** off and was let down by poor delivery. Sure he missed a couple of goals he should have kicked, and does this too often. But he is far too valuable to us, and should be used solely on a HFF. Sort him out by offering a vastly reduced contract next time around. If he wants to prove himself, as he said he does, then this should sort him out.

 

[Scotty2006]

We need to get some pace and hardness into the midfield. That has been our problem all year. Burns, obree are to slow and we need to get rid off them. Obree only plays good when all our other players do and has never stood up when we really needed him. Once they go and we chick some pace in their with players like thomas and pendles. People keep saying put egan in their but he has played well for us up forward. We also need to get a ruckman and use fraser as the second and a man up forward. Rusling has showed a lot of promise in the last few weeks so i would like to make him our big project in making him a top class full forward. Then maybe someone could discuss getting rid of rocca. to lazy to slow to ****. On the weekend he cost us at least 3 goals. He couldnt take a chest mark, he had 3 people open in the goalsquare by themselfs and went back on all 3 occasions about 50 out on an angle and had a shot. He missed them all and was to worried about his own stat sheet rather then helping the team win the game.

to sum it up quick midfield and no rocca = success
slow midfield and rocca = disappiontment

 

[ant22]

What I'd be worried about is that this is as good as the pies are going to do with this list.

2006 you had a dream draw and virtually no injuries.

I think making some player trades/changes would be advised.

you are correct on both points but a dream draw is worth probably 2 extra wins assuming you add 1 more interstate game and 1 more game against a top 8 side instead of player 2 bottom sides. We still would have finished with 12 wins and played finals. We did however have a dream run with injuries.

As for the list, no team ever has the same list . I wouldn't be going overboard on changes. We impoved 8 spots this year and the improvement came from players from years 1-4 so we can assume it will get better. We also played much better football at the start of the year proving we can play better than we did on the weekend . Footy is about peaking out the right time and we peaked way to early.

 

[rychenroller]

That is a seperate issue all together . The topic is why we lost and the main reason we lost is because we got smashed in the take aways. We have been smased before this game but that was about as bad as I have seen considering the importance of the game.

They are directly related to one and other. Its a symbiotic relationship...the reason we got smashed in the take aways? Because our ruckmen cant give us first use and havent been able to for a long time (since the days of monky)...just like Mark T said.
I think our midfield also lacks a little nous...with a slow midfield, they have to work for each other, be sure to put the blocks on, look out for each other. Fletcher still has a job...but I would love to see Ratten get a go with some of our younger blokes.

 

[Broady Poker Tour]

Why you lost?

cause the magpies a *****.

You have the biggest supporter base, but are more interested in telling everyone you are the best than actually winning something to prove it. Malthouse has been given ample time to bring home the premiership, all he's got is the hanky he used to dry Paul Licuria's tears.

You need a lot of work over the summer. Defence is fine, midfield slow, key forwards are rubbish. At least Pendelbury and Thomas will give you some spark. Tarrant and Rocca- enough said

Maybe you need to replace Malthouse with Guy McKenna or Wayne Carey. Even the great Peter Daico thinks Malthouse is too predictable. I'd have to agree