Its not correct to say there is no issue.
There is.
Is it good that we pushed both grand finalists, beating the premier? of course it is.
Do you think the coaches would be happy that we had a 53 point turnaround (60-19 to 60-72) against the swans?
Do you think the coaches would be happy that we had a 51 point turnaround (35 point lead to 16 point deficit) against the hawks?
If the coaches are happy with those things I would be shocked.
I am not trying to slag off the boys or the win. They are amazing and the win is the best one I can remember (I’m a young’n, and was overseas for a few years, so didn’t follow closely).
But there is no denying we are prone to comebacks. Hence it is worth discussing.
A ■■■■■■ sight happier than being 35 points down, hitting the lead by 16 points with 3 minutes to go and losing by 2.
Our forward line is about 3 or 4 years out of sync with the rest, unfortunately.
Get games into Langford.
Absolute gun.
Agree he’s a gun.
But he’s also a very young gun. I have doubts on JC, Joey will take a couple of years, TBell is no KPF. Smack comes closest to the position after Joey, and he’s a rookie. We need a real KPF.
Its not correct to say there is no issue.
There is.
Is it good that we pushed both grand finalists, beating the premier? of course it is.
Do you think the coaches would be happy that we had a 53 point turnaround (60-19 to 60-72) against the swans?
Do you think the coaches would be happy that we had a 51 point turnaround (35 point lead to 16 point deficit) against the hawks?
If the coaches are happy with those things I would be shocked.
I am not trying to slag off the boys or the win. They are amazing and the win is the best one I can remember (I’m a young’n, and was overseas for a few years, so didn’t follow closely).
But there is no denying we are prone to comebacks. Hence it is worth discussing.
Actually, most coaches you speak to will say that there are defined momentum shifts during a game. There are specific reasons for this, but the important thing is to hold as tight as you can when the other team has momentum (or ‘a run’) and come back and make your momentum count. How far you can effect the scoreboard when you have the upperhand is a key to winning the game. Good teams minimise the opponents effect when they have momentum.
In the last game, we had an abnormally long surge. Hawks were not able to stem the tide, because of our intense physicality and pressure. It was always going to break though. No one can keep that up - there is only so much fuel in the tank for a contiguous assault. When Hawthorn came back at us (and at an extremely dangerous time of the game - and they knew it), we took about 15 mins to rally. We slowed down their assault, and hit back to win.
That is not being ‘over run’, or ‘not being able to hold a lead’. it is purely the result of two good teams, pretty well matched, both having a go.
I completely agree with the momentum surge thing. Last week our lead probably flattered us slightly because when Sydney had momentum (Q2) they kicked like rubbish.
But the key is when the other side has momentum for it not to be more than 3-4 goals before you bring things back to even keel and get your own goal. Instead sides are kicking 6+ goals in their surge. While we’re keeping their share of the momentum to a minimum, they’re really hurting us when its their go.
Its not correct to say there is no issue.
There is.
Is it good that we pushed both grand finalists, beating the premier? of course it is.
Do you think the coaches would be happy that we had a 53 point turnaround (60-19 to 60-72) against the swans?
Do you think the coaches would be happy that we had a 51 point turnaround (35 point lead to 16 point deficit) against the hawks?
If the coaches are happy with those things I would be shocked.
I am not trying to slag off the boys or the win. They are amazing and the win is the best one I can remember (I’m a young’n, and was overseas for a few years, so didn’t follow closely).
But there is no denying we are prone to comebacks. Hence it is worth discussing.
Actually, most coaches you speak to will say that there are defined momentum shifts during a game. There are specific reasons for this, but the important thing is to hold as tight as you can when the other team has momentum (or ‘a run’) and come back and make your momentum count. How far you can effect the scoreboard when you have the upperhand is a key to winning the game. Good teams minimise the opponents effect when they have momentum.
In the last game, we had an abnormally long surge. Hawks were not able to stem the tide, because of our intense physicality and pressure. It was always going to break though. No one can keep that up - there is only so much fuel in the tank for a contiguous assault. When Hawthorn came back at us (and at an extremely dangerous time of the game - and they knew it), we took about 15 mins to rally. We slowed down their assault, and hit back to win.
That is not being ‘over run’, or ‘not being able to hold a lead’. it is purely the result of two good teams, pretty well matched, both having a go.
The lack of run was very evident from midway through the third until very late in the fourth quarter.
In the first and second quarters we had a beautiful zone setup across the ground. Hawthorn couldn’t penetrate it, despite switching and changing tempo. Pressure on the ball carrier was excellent and we covered their spread from the contest so they got very little free run despite winning clearances.
Midway through the third this dried up. Hawthorn kick-outs were usually covered well on one side but we had gaping holes at the other side of the ground. When they won clearances we failed to cover the edges of the congestion and guys like Rioli and Burgoyne were finding space on the outside. Certainly didn’t help that we got wolloped in the clearances all day.
Might be a concentration issue, might be a fitness issue, definitely an issue. If we played 4Qs like we did the first two this week we would be unbeatable.
Its not correct to say there is no issue.
There is.
Is it good that we pushed both grand finalists, beating the premier? of course it is.
Do you think the coaches would be happy that we had a 53 point turnaround (60-19 to 60-72) against the swans?
Do you think the coaches would be happy that we had a 51 point turnaround (35 point lead to 16 point deficit) against the hawks?
If the coaches are happy with those things I would be shocked.
I am not trying to slag off the boys or the win. They are amazing and the win is the best one I can remember (I’m a young’n, and was overseas for a few years, so didn’t follow closely).
But there is no denying we are prone to comebacks. Hence it is worth discussing.
So the best team in the country fights back against us and this is further proof. And again we were out of legs. Fark me you can't make this ■■■■ up.
We turned a 6 goal lead into a 3 goal come from behind win. It was great, and it showed real mental toughness to come back from being overrun, but we were overrun.
Obviously they were going to come at us, and obviously they’re good enough that we weren’t just going to increase our lead all day, but they didn’t just close the gap, they closed the gap and got what they (and most people watching) would have thought was comfortably in front.
I said last week that the Swans game could be ignored, and there would be some excusability this week, and I stand by that. But coming from behind and holding a lead are two very different things, and I think we’re good at one, and not so good at the other.
It was a good thing that we recovered from a bad thing, but ideally the bad thing wouldn’t happen. Hopefully that’s the next step.
Backline speed is good. We also needs a couple of good forward crumbers. Anyone besides Orazio coming through? Our midfield pace and run is ok as long as we dont add any more inside players. Myers/Hocking put this out of balance imo. Would rather Browne/Hams/Laverde. Thoughts?
Re the plodders/zip issue, it is interesting how we scored the last 3 goals.
The first 2 came from quick entries to space in an open forward line, with run through the middle, and quick ball movement. The 3rd was direct from a centre bounce, and so was similar to a quick entry with space.
We are very good when the game is congested, there are lots of stoppages and the there is a lot of slow grinding, rugby style ball movement.
It is when the game opens up and sides like Hawthorn can move it and deliver it that we struggle. We just aren’t as good as the best teams in this aspect.
The last few minutes and our 3 goals were the exception, and it won us the game.
We just have to get better at this style of game, which inevitably occurs more in the second half when players tire and it is less congested.
That, to me, means running/spreading better and very good ball use. Both attributes Hawthorn has loaded up on in recent years.
I agree that we have a great group of contested ball, hard nosed, medium sized players, but we need more of the skilful runners. Colyer and maybe Zaharakis are the only two of this style.
It is a balance thing. Hawthorn may have gone too far the other way with Smith, Rioli, Hill, Breust, Puopolo, and Birchall (although Rioli and Puopolo are great contested ball players as well), and maybe this, combined with Mitchell’s absence, is why we dominated before the game opened up.
It's a bit like the old one about how we have no list depth.
I prefer Stanton is crap, Carlisle should be playing down back and anyone who isn’t a world beater in their first game should be replaced by one of our depth players who have been overlooked for clear reasons.
Ummmm we just had a come from behind victory against the reining premiers. We were 16points down with 5minutes to go and ran all over them, despite not having played any preseason games.
We still lack zip. Saying this does not mean I am bagging the team. Most of our midfielders are outside plodders. Great inside, but we lack fast repeat effort runners. Hopefully laverde, ashby, gleeson can add this to our side.
