EFC v Adelaide Rd 1 - 12 days on, match day thread

It will be interesting.
Do you work on the source or the target?

The general consensus at the moment seems to be that itā€™s not a problem if the opposition gets a lot of contested ball, what matters is when you allow the ball in the hands of their best decision makers. Itā€™s those guys, who can create space and slice through defences, that are the most damaging and who are the most important to stop

2 Likes

Not trying to be a pill, but that would suggest to me that youā€¦put work into the Crouches?
Sorry, Iā€™m confused.

I see your point (and yes you are being a pill!)

The other issue as well is that itā€™s easier it seems to tag an outside player than an inside player.

So thereā€™s no point trying to turn off the tap at the source, the point is to stop the water getting into the water pistol. I acknowledge this is an extremely cr@p analogy

1 Like

Another way of putting it is;
Which Selwood would you see rather have 25 possessions?

Gibbs by foot, and Sloane running with the ball into space are more dangerous than either Crouch.

Given theyā€™ll probably get their 25 possessions one way or another, current coaching would like to see them get these with pressured short handballs, and force Sloane to hoof it round his body from the back of packs.
Still potentially dangerous but it doesnā€™t slice you apart downfield.

Fixed

1 Like

If you keep the Crouches to 25 possessions, youā€™re probably putting work into them. Last year Brad had 4 games of 25 or less, Matt had none.

Its an interesting question, in last years grand final youā€™d have to say that both Crouchā€™s were in Adelaideā€™s best on the day. Contested ball around the stoppages wasnā€™t specifically were they lost it but they couldnā€™t match Richmond for overall pressure & better ball use. I donā€™t think we can necessarily use the same tactics as Richmond because when we get beaten for the contested ball it usually means a lot more inside 50ā€™s to the opposition & we still look very vulnerable down back.

Well that sounds like a load of rubbish to me. If the opposition win a lot of contests, then of course their best players will get a lot of possessions.

Saying that itā€™s necessary to stop their damaging players getting a lot of the ball is really only saying that we need to win the contested ball.

ā€œNot that thereā€™s anything wrong with thatā€

I think you misunderstood the logic.

1 Like

Is raz gonna play?

Would you rather us win 60 clearances a game but get 30 Myers sky kicks. Or 30 zerrett bullets. Because I J ow what 17 teams want.

I disagree.

Last I heard he was definitely ruled out. Is there any reason to believe that may have changed?

You donā€™t see how the above may not be the case? Is it inconceivable that the opposition may win the ball at the coal face, the inside mids are not the best users of the ball on their team, and the best users - their outside mids, for example, are hindered from receiving the ball?

In the 2nd paragraph, you are telling the poster ā€˜what they are really sayingā€™. Translating that paragraph reads to me ā€˜the only way to stop their damaging players is by winning the ball ourselvesā€™. That is partly true, but is it exclusively true? Is that really the only alternative?

In short - if we tied up their most damaging players - with Gaffa tape, say, would their most damaging players receive the ball unless we won it ourselves?

Hmmmā€¦maybe youā€™re right, after all, and it is a load of rubbish.

@aceman saying heā€™s still a chance

I was fearing he was going to miss multiple weeks so if thereā€™s some chance for this week then thats fantastic news. Having said that zero risk needs to be applied - heā€™s far too important to our year to risk him returning too early.

I canā€™t remember his exact words or where he posted it, but I think he indicated round 2 is more likely

1 Like

Aceman said this

2 Likes