Just got back from the game...its amazing what you can do with a team when they dont have to spend their time with Charlie Walsh or play like robots..

Crows just kept at it and nearly stole it.

How pleased they must be to be rid of Neil Craig and into the new decade.

They had 10 less scoring shots and 26 less inside 50's. The only thing that was close was the score because Hawthorn are mentally poor and nearly kicked themselves out of a grand final. Attacking through the centre square at every opportunity made for fun viewing but should have seen them lose by 40+ points.

They needed Tippett to stand up with Tex to expose Hawthorns weakness against tall forwards in defence and he did. Got value for their inside 50's which along with Hawthorns poor kicking kept them in the game.

Hawthorn kick straight and Hale, Roughhead and Breust keep their nerves better in check when marking and kicking for goal and they would have won by 10 goals. Adelaide gave as much as they possibly could, and still lost. Nothing to see here, the real stuff starts next week.

Hawthorn kick straight and Hale, Roughhead and Breust keep their nerves better in check when marking and kicking for goal and they would have won by 10 goals. Adelaide gave as much as they possibly could, and still lost. Nothing to see here, the real stuff starts next week.

Agree. They should have been 10 goals up at half time.

old55 is nothing but a troll.

They had 10 less scoring shots and 26 less inside 50's. The only thing that was close was the score because Hawthorn are mentally poor and nearly kicked themselves out of a grand final. Attacking through the centre square at every opportunity made for fun viewing but should have seen them lose by 40+ points.

Nothing wrong with going direct if they have the skills-which they almost did.

Nothing wrong with going direct if they have the skills-which they almost did.

The thing wrong with going direct is having 26 less inside 50s. Not often that lets you get within a kick.

Just got back from the game...its amazing what you can do with a team when they dont have to spend their time with Charlie Walsh or play like robots..

Crows just kept at it and nearly stole it.

How pleased they must be to be rid of Neil Craig and into the new decade.

Disagree entirely.

Did Sando create their physique? No Craig and Watts did.

Did Sando create their underlying ability to defend? No Craig did.

The foundation for the creative flair is imposing physicality and an ability to defend.

BTW they should have lost by 8 goals. The inside 50 differential was unprecedented for a one kick game.

Disagree entirely.

Did Sando create their physique? No Craig and Watts did.

Did Sando create their underlying ability to defend? No Craig did.

The foundation for the creative flair is imposing physicality and an ability to defend.

BTW they should have lost by 8 goals. The inside 50 differential was unprecedented for a one kick game.

Agree until the last bit. Only 3 weeks ago Carlton had 24 more I50's and were beaten by 2 goals by Gold Coast. We also lost the I50 count by a fair bit in our win over Essendon.

Adelaide created actual or implied pressure on Hawthorn forcing errors, I completely disagree with the constant referral that if the other team had more scoring shots they should have won by more. Adelaide had far more efficiency going I50 and that's more important. Would have been very deserving winners.

Disagree entirely.

Did Sando create their physique? No Craig and Watts did.

Did Sando create their underlying ability to defend? No Craig did.

The foundation for the creative flair is imposing physicality and an ability to defend.

BTW they should have lost by 8 goals. The inside 50 differential was unprecedented for a one kick game.

Sando on 3AW said (quote) '......I walked into a club whose players had an amazing level of fitness and running capacity..' He went on to say that they changed their training to focus on stoppages and clearances and getting to a contest.

Agree until the last bit. Only 3 weeks ago Carlton had 24 more I50's and were beaten by 2 goals by Gold Coast. We also lost the I50 count by a fair bit in our win over Essendon.

Adelaide created actual or implied pressure on Hawthorn forcing errors, I completely disagree with the constant referral that if the other team had more scoring shots they should have won by more. Adelaide had far more efficiency going I50 and that's more important. Would have been very deserving winners.

We are not talking more scoring shot/inside 50's we are talking a bucketload of both. Yesterday and the two cases you mention all have one thing in common. The favoured side kicked appalling for goal. Adelaide had some fantastic individual performances but Hawthorn were clearly the better team.

Edited September 23, 201212 yr by big_red_fire_engine

Sando on 3AW said (quote) '......I walked into a club whose players had an amazing level of fitness and running capacity..' He went on to say that they changed their training to focus on stoppages and clearances and getting to a contest.

ok and on 774 it was noted that in fact the first thing he did was get rid of the bloody bikes and install a boxing ring.

They should have lost by more,as all the experts here have observed, but instead, by kicking long to their forward targets and never backing down, they almost stole it.

The siren went when they were loading up for another attack.

By focusing on using what he had to best advantage instead of imposing a game style on the team regardless. Sando nearly stole it.

Craig is yesterdays man which is why he's no longer the Coach.

Hopefully his yesterdays ideas about football fitness are not taken on board without question.

I imagine that with his very organised mind and his experience he has plenty to offer in an advisory role

Edited September 23, 201212 yr by IRW

Agree until the last bit. Only 3 weeks ago Carlton had 24 more I50's and were beaten by 2 goals by Gold Coast. We also lost the I50 count by a fair bit in our win over Essendon.

Adelaide created actual or implied pressure on Hawthorn forcing errors, I completely disagree with the constant referral that if the other team had more scoring shots they should have won by more. Adelaide had far more efficiency going I50 and that's more important. Would have been very deserving winners.

I wanna plead "the vibe" on this point.

It wasn't purely the numbers of entries, it was the quality. Very few of these were shallow entries that were rebounded straight back out by offensive half backs. These were generally deep entries which resulted on gettable shots at goal (this being the main issue as indicated by the scoreboard).

I stick with Hawthorn should have won by further. But they looked a little bit "dis-integrated" and will need to all get on the same page next week or they will lose.

ok and on 774 it was noted that in fact the first thing he did was get rid of the bloody bikes and install a boxing ring.

They should have lost by more,as all the experts here have observed, but instead, by kicking long to their forward targets and never backing down, they almost stole it.

The siren went when they were loading up for another attack.

By focusing on using what he had to best advantage instead of imposing a game style on the team regardless. Sando nearly stole it.

Yep, duly noted...but, you can't install a boxing ring to build upper body strength if there isn't a high aerobic fitness capacity as a foundation.

Yep, duly noted...but, you can't install a boxing ring to build upper body strength if there isn't a high aerobic fitness capacity as a foundation.

Yep, duly noted...but, you can't install a boxing ring to build upper body strength if there isn't a high aerobic fitness capacity as a foundation.

I figure the coach is responsible across the board...he got them fit, as he should have, but basically removed their natural talent with an obsession with structured build ups.

Yesterday Sandos plan let them spear it in direct to their marking targets and they relished the chance to win the game...nearly did in fact.

It also gave the Hawks the jitters,although they already self inflicted with bad kicking in the first quarter.

In the end the better side won, but I'd wager a Craig coached side wouldnt have even got near the Prelim.

If I had a left nut, I'd give it up for Patrick Dangerfield.

So much want!

I figure the coach is responsible across the board...he got them fit, as he should have, but basically removed their natural talent with an obsession with structured build ups.

Yesterday Sandos plan let them spear it in direct to their marking targets and they relished the chance to win the game...nearly did in fact.

It also gave the Hawks the jitters,although they already self inflicted with bad kicking in the first quarter.

In the end the better side won, but I'd wager a Craig coached side wouldnt have even got near the Prelim.

Are you deliberately ignoring that if Hawthorn kicked as accurately as Adelaide did, then the hawks win by 8-10 goals? Is this one of those situations where the reality just doesn't suit you so you will just spend time ignoring it and speaking in strident tones?

As for Craig, well, it was him who got them fit, got them ready and stated that it was a team with more talent than he had seen before. But you'll spit on everything he built and crown the blow-in as a champ. FMD.

Are you deliberately ignoring that if Hawthorn kicked as accurately as Adelaide did, then the hawks win by 8-10 goals? Is this one of those situations where the reality just doesn't suit you so you will just spend time ignoring it and speaking in strident tones?

As for Craig, well, it was him who got them fit, got them ready and stated that it was a team with more talent than he had seen before. But you'll spit on everything he built and crown the blow-in as a champ. FMD.

Its difficult to understand why they got rid of Craig then isnt it?

I acknowledged the kicking, and that the Hawks are the better side, its just that Craig wouldnt have got thenm to the Prelim.

Yesterdays coach

Despite the fact that Adelaide defeated Freo last week (albeit at home and off a longer break) - who'd you rather have as coach rock-hard Ross "Anyone, anytime, anywhere" or soft sausage Sando who says the Hawks will have to not be at their best for Adelaide to have any chance on Saturday? Hard to see the Crows having any chance against the hardened Hawks after that inspiring prognosis. A 10 goal margin will hardly be surprising.

I am a huge fan of Ross Lyon. But that would have to rank as one of the more embarassing posts I've read. Sanderson is clearly a ripping coach and his players play out of their skins for him. His coaching was Blightesque.

If I had a left nut, I'd give it up for Patrick Dangerfield.

So much want!

Not keen on parting with your right?

Yeah and guess who picked him up???

Cheez between Neeld the absolute and Craig the metronome .... Good Luck

Metronome's are useful for timing your work. And make good teaching aides.

The Crows have been tuned well, & apart from being a bit juvenile, almost upended the flag favorites.

Cra'g is fine with me.

Its difficult to understand why they got rid of Craig then isnt it?

I acknowledged the kicking, and that the Hawks are the better side, its just that Craig wouldnt have got thenm to the Prelim.

Yesterdays coach

No, it's not. You can't see the difference between a teaching coach & a Finals coach.

In the 80's the club ideally needed Northey first, prior to Barassi.

Barassi/Jordan built the foundations & restored the culture to a somewhat professional one for the day.

Freedom & confidence, & a heap of Schwab interstate recruits did the rest.

Not keen on parting with your right?

Fine, have both of my imaginary nuts.

It's worth it just to see Patrick Dangerfield in a Melbourne jumper.

I am going to Photoshop it and dream.

Fine, have both of my imaginary nuts.

It's worth it just to see Patrick Dangerfield in a Melbourne jumper.

I am going to Photoshop it and dream.

Good morning Jaded.

Keep dreaming

As I tell my wife without dreams what do we have left?

I wanna plead "the vibe" on this point.

It wasn't purely the numbers of entries, it was the quality. Very few of these were shallow entries that were rebounded straight back out by offensive half backs. These were generally deep entries which resulted on gettable shots at goal (this being the main issue as indicated by the scoreboard).

I stick with Hawthorn should have won by further. But they looked a little bit "dis-integrated" and will need to all get on the same page next week or they will lose.

Actually thats not true, Bruest missed 2 shots from 35 metres out directly in front, Roughhead dropped two marks, one of which was at the top of the goalsquare, the other was 25metres out on a slight angle, he also miss a shot around the corner he would kick 9/10 and two set shots which are kickable for him. Adelaide did remarkably well but the largest part of it was that Hawthorn didn't put them away. Buddy also missed at least 3 very kickable ones. Yes, you have to kick the goals and the Hawks nearly choked, but don't get carried away 10/10 Hawthorn win that game, this was Adelaides best possible effort, play it again on the weekend and the Hawks win by 10 goals.