Reason why we do well in the wet

[Freak 100]

Against the bulldogs we played some great footy in the wet as well as in the 3rd quarter against the Blues. The reason why we play so well in the wet is because we stick to the basic principle of kicking it long!

Now firstly, I understand that people will say that 'there is no point in kicking it long if there is no options there'. In response to that, I say 'well there is no point kicking it short when there is no viable option there'. Kicking it short when you're not sure is suicidal and we do this too often. The fact that we have played well in the wet and kicked it long on most occasions is proof that this basic principle should be applied; whether wet or dry. I would go as far to say that half of the goals we concede are due to us turning it over after kicking it 25m or less to a 50/50 contest.

Frawley and Moloney have high football IQ in this regard and its a big reason why fans love them.

[Felix 92]

melbourne does not do well in the wet due to the fact they have yet to win a game in the wet. WB, Geelong & Carlton...

[e25 5]

I think it's because our small crumbing players are better than those of the sides we have played in the wet.

In the wet the ball hits the deck.

One of our weaknesses at the moment is tall targets and contested marking.

This will be rectified when our promising young talls develop or regain fitness.

When it is wet this ceases to be a problem for the most part.

[praha 11,240]

Hmm, poor teams typically do better in the wet, because the skill level overall drops. We play good in the wet because we are not a very good team in the dry yet.

[jnrmac 20,189]

melbourne does not do well in the wet due to the fact they have yet to win a game in the wet. WB, Geelong & Carlton...

Darwin was pretty wet.

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

We do ok in the wet, and most games are closer all up because the pace the skills & the reaction times are just that bit slower. Tackles and hindering opposition can be used very effectively.

That said, running in heavy boots kicking a heavy ball for an entire game is not easy.

[rpfc 28,779]

That Brisbane game was in the pouring rain...

Plenty of run and carry and short kicks too.

Too bloody easy.

[45HG 1,559]

That Brisbane game was in the pouring rain...

Plenty of run and carry and short kicks too.

Too bloody easy.

And the Pies game

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

And the Pies game

Round 2 wasn't wet that i remember??

[armstrong35 262]

Round 2 wasn't wet that i remember??

im pretty to sure it wasnt either

in the sun it was hot!!

[Roost It 1,434]

im pretty to sure it wasnt either

in the sun it was hot!!

Sarcasm is often used to belittle others posts.

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

Sarcasm is often used to belittle others posts.

Ahh it was attempted humour! I see, i must say i was suprised when i read it coming from 45....

[Deefolt 0]

Yeah brisbane was rather wet, darwin was pretty wet as well. So 2 games won , but the other games we were struggling till it started raining then we started coming back. It does have a trend

[45HG 1,559]

It wasn't an attempt at humour and it wasn't belittling anyone.

Just the sheer frustration of some posts around here get the better of me sometimes. People who simply don't see how young our team is and can't accept the ups and downs that will occur along the way.

The same people who probably say we'll be good in 3-5 years yet whinge when we have losses this year. As rpfc himself points out, many posters think we'll have 6-8 wins this year, yet go ape-shite when those 14-16 losses happen.

We were putrid for two quarters, played one decent quarter where we kicked 4 goals (4 or 3?) in the rain. It was still raining and wet in the last, a quarter we lost by 22 points.

Lions and Pies were two of our best performances this year and they were both in the dry.

It's almost as frustrating as the talk this week of losing first quarters and how Bailey needs to turn it around (like somehow it's his fault).

Yet those people complaining about it don't see that we've won 4 of 11 first quarters...shock horror we've also won 4 of 11 matches.

People's theories seem to be built week to week.

First quarters and the wet this week it seems.

[H_T 3,049]

Yet those people complaining about it don't see that we've won 4 of 11 first quarters...shock horror we've also won 4 of 11 matches.

You're content with 4 out of 11 first quarters 45HG ?

You were content with our team going into quarter time 7.4 to 2.2 down against Carlton ?

5.5 to 2.1 down against Geelong ?

3.0 to 1.3 down against West Coast ?

3.2 to 0.6 down against the Dogs ?

3.3 to 2.1 down against the Roos ?

6.3 to 0.3 down against the Hawks ?

I know we're young and inexperienced, its not just a week to week thing. Sure, these stats may not tell the whole story, but surely supporters are entitled to some frustration such as being 5 or 6 goals down at quarter time ? MY point earlier in the week was this. If the team wants to be in the game, they've got to be within reach at quarter time or at best in front. The games we have won, we were either in front or within reach (ie Adelaide game...low scoring affair). There is a trend. It comes down to preparation and mind set as well as application. You cannot dispute that....although you may

PS. All I want to see is the team improve...Saturday's first quarter was disappointing, despite predicted win/loss ratio's.

[45HG 1,559]

I know we're young and inexperienced, its not just a week to week thing. Sure, these stats may not tell the whole story, but surely supporters are entitled to some frustration such as being 5 or 6 goals down at quarter time ?

This is my point.

Supporters are acting like we're 5-6 goals down at 1/4 time week to week when in fact it's only happened twice. The first match that was symptomatic of the day as we were no where near it and should almost have been 5-6 goals per quarter worse over the journey - but I was very happy with the way we fought back. Carlton on the weekend is the first time a first quarter has cost us the match this year - after the amount of times it's happened in the last two years I think that's a step in the right direction.

Of course I'm not happy about being down at 1/4 time more often than not, but with a young team that doesn't have a great deal of confidence - it's to be expected.

[DeeSpencer 26,082]

You're content with 4 out of 11 first quarters 45HG ?

You were content with our team going into quarter time 7.4 to 2.2 down against Carlton ?

5.5 to 2.1 down against Geelong ?

3.0 to 1.3 down against West Coast ?

3.2 to 0.6 down against the Dogs ?

3.3 to 2.1 down against the Roos ?

6.3 to 0.3 down against the Hawks ?

Geelong and West Coast the performance lasted all day. Roos lasted for a half. Dogs we had the better of the quarter, but did give a goal away practically at the start of every quarter.

The Hawks and Carlton games have been the most disappointing. Interestingly on the weekend we started with both Sylvia and Bate off (along with Gysberts and Garland). That made no sense to me. I'd start Sylvia on the ground in every game, and if he was off I'd start Bate to give us something to kick to around half forward.

[H_T 3,049]

This is my point.

Supporters are acting like we're 5-6 goals down at 1/4 time week to week when in fact it's only happened twice. The first match that was symptomatic of the day as we were no where near it and should almost have been 5-6 goals per quarter worse over the journey - but I was very happy with the way we fought back. Carlton on the weekend is the first time a first quarter has cost us the match this year - after the amount of times it's happened in the last two years I think that's a step in the right direction.

Of course I'm not happy about being down at 1/4 time more often than not, but with a young team that doesn't have a great deal of confidence - it's to be expected.

I agree with all that. Particularly your last sentence.

Maybe the Geelong game felt like 5-6 goals behind. Your stat is right that it's only happened twice, the 4 out of 11 is probably the stat that resembles more than anything, where we are at. Point taken.

[H_T 3,049]

The Hawks and Carlton games have been the most disappointing.

No doubt. That is one of the reasons why I believe its somewhat acceptable to occassionally vent a bit of frustration. Despite acknowledging where we are at. Which is the point I'm making.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Hmm, poor teams typically do better in the wet, because the skill level overall drops.

Conversely nothing changes better skilled players handle the ball better than less skilled players whether it is wet or dry. The gap still remains even though the conditions to play in have deteriorate

We play good in the wet because we are not a very good team in the dry yet.

Ummm....lets think about that one.

[Adam The God 30,420]

I disagree. I don't think we change our game style particularly much in the wet weather. I'm not saying I know the answer, but perhaps it could have something to do with us still taking the game on (playing our usual run and carry style) and the opposition playing safe football?