| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
To be fair to Cox he was injured twice early in the game.
I thought there was a lot to like about the Pies tonight, WHE is a good inclusion |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Magpietothemax wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | Kick straight = win.
Kick bloody points when you are going for a regulation goal = lose.
It is that simple.
Our first quarter kicking buggered us and despite a good effort we never quite caught up.
Kick straight = win. |
There is alot of truth in this simple summation |
True, and kick straight + replace Cox with mobile marking forward = win by five goals. Howe forward, Scharenberg promoted next week.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
WarrenerraW
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
As much as I'm annoyed after tonight's loss, I have to admit that the effort and endeavour is there. However, time and time again we coughed up the ball - turning it over only to see it fly down the other end for a goal, so our skills and decision making remains poor at times.
The other thing is that the mongrels literally got the rub of the green, with everything they touched turning to gold. I lost count the amount of times they went forward and threw it on the boot for a goal. They also get away with a lot of throws too. Noticed we got pinged for one while they were doing it and getting away with it all night.
It doesn't help when we make life hard for ourselves with sloppy and or ineffective disposal. I thought we lacked pace and class and were too top heavy up forward. Add a broomhead, aish, wells, Elliott and de goey and you've got yourself a vastly different side. Moore is years away from being able to influence games as a power forward and cox simply didn't do enough.
I don't care what people say but Blair is not afl standard. How he gets a gig is anyone's guess. He made some appalling errors tonight.
There's a lot of room for improvement. Next week becomes a must win encounter. Lose again and sure the board will start drafting up a wish list of available coaches. Wins are Buckley's only saviour. |
|
|
|
|
Johnno75
Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Wantirna
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We smacked them in contested ball and clearances and went forward more but our set up going forward was awful or we couldn't hit that last target.
5 or 6 times we had a forward in space and the ball went over their heads. They were more clinical going forward especially in the first half and we let them out easily with that free little pass.
Who was responsible for Johannisen surely it had to be Blair or Mayne. He torched us.
If you told me before the game Pendles, Treloar, Adams and Sidey would have had 140 touches between them and 5 goals, I would have said a big victory tonight.
That's what irks me the most is that we lost that game tonight with our shithouse disposal.
We need to unearth a decent crumbing forward.
_________________
Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy. |
|
|
|
|
Tezza23
Joined: 16 Mar 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
First mistake tonight was at selection. The bulldogs won the GF last year by running hard and fast every time they had the ball. So what do the Collingwood brains trust do - thats right they pick a slow top heavy forward line. It just seems to me that Buckley and co just don't know their opposition well enough.
Having said - we were able to match them in patches but not consistently enough across the whole game. That is something that we will keep repeating for this season.
Our general skills were totally deplorable save for a couple of players. We totally butchered about five gettable goals in general play - which does not include our set shot kicking. Did Adams actually hit any team mate with a kick ?
If you want to know why opposition score so easily against us go to the match and watch how we set up. We maintain a cluster of players between the two forward and defensive fifties that moves slightly forward or back depending on where the ball is. The opposition just run outside of this zone and we just stand and watch them. Even if the opposition are stupid enough to kick the ball into this congested area, we have so many players there that we get in each others way and if we do happen to go forward we have generally have very few options to kick to as our main purpose seems to be marking territory in the midfield. |
|
|
|
|
ThePieMind
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MarkOSuv wrote: | | ThePieMind wrote: | the irony of the score board.
We win (which we could well have done) sees Bulldogs being criticised for being smashed in all the leading indicators and the likelihood of contending in 2017 questioned.
We loose and all the focus is on the over the top goals and poor defensive, and the SMASHING the Premiers on the most important stats completely overlooked.
Who do you believe is the happier coach tonight looking forward into 2017 - I guarantee its not Beverdge, because he knows they dodged a bullet tonight, and they will not contend, being outplayed in so many critical areas as they were tonight. |
Over the top goals occur because the coach is defensively tactically inept. Nothing has changed.
You swap Luke Beveridge with Nathan Buckley tonight and Collingwood win by 6 goals. |
We take our chances tonight and we win - its that simple, regardless of the over the top goals.
The 'same tactically inept" coach has built a great midfield group that will dominate possession and give forwards scoring opportunities that will be coverted far more efficiently than tonight.
Bulldogs vaunted defence will not cope with such huge differentails in clearances and contested ball.
I would rather we build a midfield first that dominates possesion rather than a defense constantly under pressure and ultimately lose games because we cant get our hands on the ball. |
|
|
|
|
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tezza23 wrote: |
If you want to know why opposition score so easily against us go to the match and watch how we set up. We maintain a cluster of players between the two forward and defensive fifties that moves slightly forward or back depending on where the ball is. The opposition just run outside of this zone and we just stand and watch them. Even if the opposition are stupid enough to kick the ball into this congested area, we have so many players there that we get in each others way and if we do happen to go forward we have generally have very few options to kick to as our main purpose seems to be marking territory in the midfield. |
Someone said last year or the year before that we should play the Benny Hill theme music when going forward.
Yeah... I get that. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thompsoc wrote: | | Tezza23 wrote: |
If you want to know why opposition score so easily against us go to the match and watch how we set up. We maintain a cluster of players between the two forward and defensive fifties that moves slightly forward or back depending on where the ball is. The opposition just run outside of this zone and we just stand and watch them. Even if the opposition are stupid enough to kick the ball into this congested area, we have so many players there that we get in each others way and if we do happen to go forward we have generally have very few options to kick to as our main purpose seems to be marking territory in the midfield. |
Someone said last year or the year before that we should play the Benny Hill theme music when going forward.
Yeah... I get that. |
Think it was keystone cops but point taken ps:   |
|
|
|
|
Tezza23
Joined: 16 Mar 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | True, and kick straight + replace Cox with mobile marking forward = win by five goals. Howe forward, Scharenberg promoted next week. |
We only had one more scoring shot than them. Stringer missed a few gettable goals in the last quarter too. Howe was tried as a forward last year - which is why he ended up in the backline and became a good player for us. I hope I'm wrong, but I think Sharenberg looks slow for AFL. We will have to see how he goes over a season or too, but I am nervously holding my breath on him and hope my gut feeling is wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax 
magpietothemax
Joined: 27 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tezza23 wrote: | First mistake tonight was at selection. The bulldogs won the GF last year by running hard and fast every time they had the ball. So what do the Collingwood brains trust do - thats right they pick a slow top heavy forward line. It just seems to me that Buckley and co just don't know their opposition well enough.
If you want to know why opposition score so easily against us go to the match and watch how we set up. We maintain a cluster of players between the two forward and defensive fifties that moves slightly forward or back depending on where the ball is. The opposition just run outside of this zone and we just stand and watch them. Even if the opposition are stupid enough to kick the ball into this congested area, we have so many players there that we get in each others way and if we do happen to go forward we have generally have very few options to kick to as our main purpose seems to be marking territory in the midfield. |
I think that this comment touches on the most important point of reflection from tonight. Why were the Bulldogs able to get the ball forward to an open forward line so many times? Eliminate these occurrences, and we win.
It is not a question of the calibre of our defenders. I thought that they were excellent tonight in how they combined when their structures were set up. The aerial defence was brilliant.
It was our entire team defence that was woefully inadequate. It seemed that any hint of a systemic team defence against fast opposition movement forward when we lost possession in our F50 was missing. And that is a major coaching issue. |
|
|
|
|
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Magpietothemax wrote: | | Tezza23 wrote: | First mistake tonight was at selection. The bulldogs won the GF last year by running hard and fast every time they had the ball. So what do the Collingwood brains trust do - thats right they pick a slow top heavy forward line. It just seems to me that Buckley and co just don't know their opposition well enough.
If you want to know why opposition score so easily against us go to the match and watch how we set up. We maintain a cluster of players between the two forward and defensive fifties that moves slightly forward or back depending on where the ball is. The opposition just run outside of this zone and we just stand and watch them. Even if the opposition are stupid enough to kick the ball into this congested area, we have so many players there that we get in each others way and if we do happen to go forward we have generally have very few options to kick to as our main purpose seems to be marking territory in the midfield. |
I think that this comment touches on the most important point of reflection from tonight. Why were the Bulldogs able to get the ball forward to an open forward line so many times? Eliminate these occurrences, and we win.
It is not a question of the calibre of our defenders. I thought that they were excellent tonight in how they combined when their structures were set up. The aerial defence was brilliant.
It was our entire team defence that was woefully inadequate. It seemed that any hint of a systemic team defence against fast opposition movement forward when we lost possession in our F50 was missing. And that is a major coaching issue. |
Mate... year after year the same gameday strategy happens!
The opposition clogs our forward line which means our big guys have a harder time at marking.
We press up to the centre line.
The opposition gets a fast break out of the defence and kicks to a completely open forward line.
Opposition scores 8 or so goals every week in this manner.
Yoy could set your clock with this tactic.
Bux brains doesn't change year on year.
Wait until he gets to 10 years of coaching and plan B may arrive.
Can't wait for that one.
Last edited by thompsoc on Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Give me an example of a question of the calibre of our defenders. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tezza23 wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | True, and kick straight + replace Cox with mobile marking forward = win by five goals. Howe forward, Scharenberg promoted next week. |
We only had one more scoring shot than them. Stringer missed a few gettable goals in the last quarter too. Howe was tried as a forward last year - which is why he ended up in the backline and became a good player for us. I hope I'm wrong, but I think Sharenberg looks slow for AFL. We will have to see how he goes over a season or too, but I am nervously holding my breath on him and hope my gut feeling is wrong. |
Fair enough Tessa. It does not have to be Howe. It could be Elliott, or Keefe. But Cox is just too slow for a forward. He's a ruck an, maybe, but no forward.
Schaz needs to be stretched. As a top six pick, we need to know what we have there, so I'd take some risk to find out.
At least Cloke didn't kick 6!!!!
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | I thought we showed some really positive signs tonight.
Intensity and effort tick
Prepared to take the game on tick.
Much better defensively tick
Won the clearances and inside 50's tick
The Dogs are a good team. They love what I call the scrimmages. When the ball is live, not a stoppage (we killed them at stoppages) but when a contest spills the ball and players have to compete for it. They flick,punch, knock and literally throw it around until someone gets it and has space.
Their system is based on precision passing when they have time, and constant movement when they don't. They'll bang it in hope to a contest because if it creates a scrimmage, they back themselves to win it.
having said that, we weren't far away from winning that. Little things that didn't go our way, skill errors, umpiring decisions, a flukey kick that hits a target by accident.
There's a lot to work with. That 2nd quarter got the Adrenalin going like it hasn't done for ages.
I'm bullish still about our season. Round 1 against the reigning premiers is a hard ask, and we acquitted ourselves well IMHO |
Hell yeah there are better days not far ahead. Get wells Elliott and the tank DeGoey in that lot and we can beat almost anyone. Selecting cox was the difference.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | Tezza23 wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | True, and kick straight + replace Cox with mobile marking forward = win by five goals. Howe forward, Scharenberg promoted next week. |
We only had one more scoring shot than them. Stringer missed a few gettable goals in the last quarter too. Howe was tried as a forward last year - which is why he ended up in the backline and became a good player for us. I hope I'm wrong, but I think Sharenberg looks slow for AFL. We will have to see how he goes over a season or too, but I am nervously holding my breath on him and hope my gut feeling is wrong. |
Fair enough Tessa. It does not have to be Howe. It could be Elliott, or Keefe. But Cox is just too slow for a forward. He's a ruck an, maybe, but no forward.
Schaz needs to be stretched. As a top six pick, we need to know what we have there, so I'd take some risk to find out.
At least Cloke didn't kick 6!!!! |
I wouldn't give up on Cox just yet.
Now Blair.... |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
