A Quick Question

[titan_uranus 23,238]

For the first time in 9 years I wasn't able to go to Queen's Birthday (might have picked the right one to miss it seems...).

So I haven't seen a single second of the game. However, I reckon I can accurately pick what happened. Can anyone tell me if this is true?

1) We were outbodied.

2) We could not move the ball through Collingwood's press (a decent press, unlike Essendon's was last week).

3) We defended from too far back. This incorporates too many players pushing too far up the ground, including our forwards. In other words, our structure fell apart.

4) We were smashed in contested ball (links into the first point).

5) We dropped our heads late.

6) We received no leadership from our 'leaders'.

How close am I?

[Roost It 1,434]

Full marks

[Real Demon 232]

Bingo!

The meat tray is yours!

[P-man 13,353]

I'd give the replay a miss if I were you. Maybe the first quarter but after that I'd find something else to do.

Correct on all points by the way, and alot more where they came from.

[Sir Why You Little 35,322]

You were there TU!!! Spot on every point.

[Chicken Deelicious 0]

Dont forget:

7) Made way too many errors

8) Made bad decisions and worse disposals

Apart from that....spot on!

[H_T 2,941]

You missed we were smashed in the midfield.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Also forgot:

- we struggled with kick-ins from a behind.

- the umpires gave us a rough ride

Honestly, I think the umpires let them soften us up early when we were competitive.

Especially that thug Leigh Brown.

I'd spit on him in the street after seeing him tunnel Frawley.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,001]

I don't know about missing the whole replay. First five minutes were pretty good actually. You saw some really good passages from Watts and Morton, which is a huge boost for us supporters. Goal to Sylvia. It was good to see. I think Watts had 5 disposals early in the first. It's just after that spell that things go downhill.

[dee-luded 2,958]

For the first time in 9 years I wasn't able to go to Queen's Birthday (might have picked the right one to miss it seems...).

So I haven't seen a single second of the game. However, I reckon I can accurately pick what happened. Can anyone tell me if this is true?

1) We were outbodied.

2) We could not move the ball through Collingwood's press (a decent press, unlike Essendon's was last week).

3) We defended from too far back. This incorporates too many players pushing too far up the ground, including our forwards. In other words, our structure fell apart.

4) We were smashed in contested ball (links into the first point).

5) We dropped our heads late.

6) We received no leadership from our 'leaders'.

How close am I?

In short, what you've said is what conservative sides do. Play defensively minded football. Not composed enough to back one another Yet. Except when fighting in our own weight division, the Bombers!

Edited June 13, 2011 by dee-luded

[tonatopia 278]

Just another week at the office

[dee-luded 2,958]

You were there TU!!! Spot on every point.

Geez WYL, the winds blowin' from the East again, is it.

[The Big Ticket 94]

I liked our first 5 minutes. Turned into a good old 'mare after that.

I saw that fat [censored] Brown tunnel Frawley from the back row of the Southern stand. How did the ump not pay 50?

[P-man 13,353]

I shudder to think what the centre clearance numbers were. There were loooong periods where it was all going one way.

[deewakka 1]

too me what brown did to chip was far worse than what jack t did over too you MRP

Edited June 13, 2011 by deewakka

[H_T 2,941]

I shudder to think what the centre clearance numbers were. There were loooong periods where it was all going one way.

41-30 their way. 74-34 smashing of inside 50's with Wellingham registering 12 of them. Absolute nightmare for a defender.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,500]

100/100

point 1 - outbodied - did anyone else notice how big the Coll#@**ingwood players backsides were. I heard their conditioning coach interviewed on radio and he was boasting the enormous weights that most of the players were lifting. They obviously do a lot of squats but it gives incredible power in their legs which made our boys look like "boys". The number of times our players just bounced off an opposition player was embarrassing apart from the score line and everything else. Just an observation.

[Sir Why You Little 35,322]

Geez WYL, the winds blowin' from the East again, is it.

What?? Little too cryptic DL

[H_T 2,941]

100/100

point 1 - outbodied - did anyone else notice how big the Coll#@**ingwood players backsides were. I heard their conditioning coach interviewed on radio and he was boasting the enormous weights that most of the players were lifting. They obviously do a lot of squats but it gives incredible power in their legs which made our boys look like "boys". The number of times our players just bounced off an opposition player was embarrassing apart from the score line and everything else. Just an observation.

They definitely work hard on their core strengthening. I've heard Pendlebury speak a few times on the strength work they do with their conditioning coaches.

Anyone notice how big Heath Shaw is through the hips and backside during the warm up? Leon Davis and Pendlebury himself are good examples. Their ability to stand up and keep their feet and their sheer power off the mark is all related to a solid core strength.

Makes a hell of a difference in 2nd, 3rd and 4th efforts and applying pressure.