POST MATCH DISCUSSION

[jumbo returns 6,538]

Only one player had over 20 disposals: Matt Jones.

Ten players had less than 10 disposals: Byrnes, Bail, Viney, Spencer, Strauss, Trengove, Gawn, Howe, Grimes and Kent. Grimes is obviously excused, and I'll cut Kent some slack because he's clearly not quite up to spec yet, but the rest of those players were utterly sheet. I doubt Howe and Bail have played worse games since they came in to the side, Strauss just isn't any good, and what-oh-what the hell is wrong with Jack Trengove?

Just way too many passengers today.

Bit hard on these players, N.

All youngsters and Strauss coming back after a long lay off with a broken leg - you and I both know that's a long haul back.

[Nasher 33,166]

Byrnes was barely sighted. Clearly WOG.

Howe WOG for mine.

[DeeSpencer 23,417]

We stacked this team with run and pace and all we ended up doing was trying to beat Carlton at their own super fast around the boundary plan. Maybe just for once if we actually held the ball up, pushed back off the mark and demanded people run to get the ball it might work better. That and stop kicking it long to players out of position.

I'm totally bewilded by Jake Spencer as well. The only time you feel like he's worth something is when he's failing to chase down a speedy player. You say thanks for trying. But how about try and jump and win a hit out or run around the ground and get a mark. Even better just bring the ball to ground once when you are playing full forward. Who knows what we were thinking keeping a list spot open for this guy when Jack Hannath was available. Damn I'd leave the spot empty so at least today we could've developed Fitzy and Gawn as a ruck-forward backups and had them learn something.

Positives I guess were Dunny did a nice job. Problem is if we use him as a tagger then we get rid of McKenzie and have one less mid. And Tapscott seems to be better using his hardness and getting more of the ball. It's a gradual build and he's yet to display any considerable midfield ability. But considering how the other small forwards went today I'd say he did well.

[Clark_Kent 315]

Byrnes was barely sighted. Clearly WOG.

True but he's been very good the last couple of weeks cut him some slack

[Nasher 33,166]

Bit hard on these players, N.

All youngsters and Strauss coming back after a long lay off with a broken leg - you and I both know that's a long haul back.

I didn't comment on Viney, just quoted the stats. A quiet game is forgiveable, but the impact of it is heavily exaggerated when he's one of 10 people in the same boat.

As for Strauss: agree that it's a long road back from where he came from, but I still stand by what I said.

[Jaded No More 58,891]

I just wish we knew how to kick and that when we did win the ball that players would RUN FORWARD.

Our forward 50 is emptier than Mitch Robinson's brain!

[Return to Glory 7,787]

Another aspect in desperate need of attention - we don't block for our players in possession. Have a look at the Swans for a perfect example of how to get away with it and allow players a path through.

[Axis of Bob 10,358]

Our style of game was much more in line with what Neeld has talking about. We tried to move the ball quickly, we made it awkward for Carlton and we even had periods of dominance (albeit we couldn't put the score on the board when we did).

We played a style that is well suited to a big, tall forward line. We moved the ball quickly and gave the forwards plenty of opportunity to win the ball in the air. The only problem is that our forward line wasn't playing and we kicked it to ruckmen or midgets. But it was really good to see the style starting to come through because we haven't been able to implement it very well so far. That style will start yielding different results when our forward line consists of Clark, Dawes and Hogan.

I thought that our intent to run defensively and disrupt play was good. We were down by 30 points halfway through the opening quarter, but had the better of the play for the first 10 minutes. I think the scoreboard looked a lot worse than the performance. If you compare that to the first 2 weeks then it's night and day.

We still have a lack of run through the midfield, and it's often the younger players that contribute to this. Viney doesn't yet have the tank to do all the running he needs to do. He'll be great, but it's players like him that are hurting us. McKenzie unfortunately struggles with the quicker style of game. I thought that our work in the stoppages was generally pretty good against a very good midfield, and a lot of that had to do with the defensive work of our midfielders and Spencer (who was good today).

So, overall, disappointing to lose but I thought it looked like a (fairly healthy) step forward overall.

[jumbo returns 6,538]

I didn't comment on Viney, just quoted the stats. A quiet game is forgiveable, but the impact of it is heavily exaggerated when he's one of 10 people in the same boat.

As for Strauss: agree that it's a long road back from where he came from, but I still stand by what I said.

There's something about Strauss that excites me.

I think he'll be very, very good for us.

[Roost It 1,434]

We made 5 changes today and played a team with twice as many games average experience

We were without our Clark, Dawes and Watts.

We have Trengove unable to run, What is wrong I do not know

Grimes goes off in the first quarter

We played the 2 least experienced ruckman in the league

For all that we chased, harassed, fought, put our heads over the ball and didn't take a backward step.

You take that effort and intensity, add 25 games experience, 2 first class mids (plus Toumpas), Clark, Dawes and Watts(no a huge help but a help non the less) and things will start to turn around.

We are nowhere near as far away as people think.

,

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Our style of game was much more in line with what Neeld has talking about. We tried to move the ball quickly, we made it awkward for Carlton and we even had periods of dominance (albeit we couldn't put the score on the board when we did).

We played a style that is well suited to a big, tall forward line. We moved the ball quickly and gave the forwards plenty of opportunity to win the ball in the air. The only problem is that our forward line wasn't playing and we kicked it to ruckmen or midgets. But it was really good to see the style starting to come through because we haven't been able to implement it very well so far. That style will start yielding different results when our forward line consists of Clark, Dawes and Hogan.

I thought that our intent to run defensively and disrupt play was good. We were down by 30 points halfway through the opening quarter, but had the better of the play for the first 10 minutes. I think the scoreboard looked a lot worse than the performance. If you compare that to the first 2 weeks then it's night and day.

We still have a lack of run through the midfield, and it's often the younger players that contribute to this. Viney doesn't yet have the tank to do all the running he needs to do. He'll be great, but it's players like him that are hurting us. McKenzie unfortunately struggles with the quicker style of game. I thought that our work in the stoppages was generally pretty good against a very good midfield, and a lot of that had to do with the defensive work of our midfielders and Spencer (who was good today).

So, overall, disappointing to lose but I thought it looked like a (fairly healthy) step forward overall.

I agree with a lot of what you say there, but our skill today was appalling and two of our better players, Howe and Trengove, just went missing.

It was a better overall performance, but still well below par and Carlton just put the foot to the floor when they needed a goal.

Edited May 5, 2013 by RobbieF

[jumbo returns 6,538]

We made 5 changes today and played a team with twice as many games average experience

We were without our Clark, Dawes and Watts.

We have Trengove unable to run, What is wrong I do not know

Grimes goes off in the first quarter

We played the 2 least experienced ruckman in the league

For all that we chased, harassed, fought, put our heads over the ball and didn't take a backward step.

You take that effort and intensity, add 25 games experience, 2 first class mids (plus Toumpas), Clark, Dawes and Watts(no a huge help but a help non the less) and things will start to turn around.

We are nowhere near as far away as people think.

,

Don't forget that Hogan is waiting.....

I reckon we try and entice an experienced FA backman - we're missing a Rivers more than I thought we would.

[Soidee 1,496]

Even Viney looks lost....Neeld is slowly destroying this list.

[Clark_Kent 315]

Even Viney looks lost....Neeld is slowly destroying this list.

Viney is not lost..... The guy runs hard but he is 18 and runs himself into the ground.

Dumb comment

[dees64 104]

Bottom line....

We are miles of the pace!

6 yrs of early picks & we have the poorest midfield......

Dont have the cattle & concern that our developing of players if you go on past history is diabolical!

The spuds they recruited in Pedderson & Rhodan are terrible...would have preffered we got more kids

How long do you put up with 10 goal loses & the only wins are agianst expansion teams....as we will beat no other team

[dees64 104]

Don't forget that Hogan is waiting.....

I reckon we try and entice an experienced FA backman - we're missing a Rivers more than I thought we would.

Why let Rivers go along with Moloney & replace them with spud Rhodan & Pedderson...........answer Neeld!

[Soidee 1,496]

Viney is not lost..... The guy runs hard but he is 18 and runs himself into the ground.

Dumb comment

It's not a dumb comment. Viney will be a star but he won't realise his potential while Neeld is running the show.

[bandicoot 1,395]

110 possessions less again this week, since Neeld took over as Coach I doubt there's be more than 3 or 4 games where we've had more than the opposition.

But there are some on here who reckon it doesn't matter that you have a 100 or so less than your opponents.

The are some that also believe a 10 goal loss is acceptable.

[45HG 1,539]

I saw enough today...

No - not enough for me to give it away.

I saw enough attack at the footy to think that the players still have drive inside them.

I saw enough chains of disposal to believe that, as this group plays more games together, we will become a more cohesive unit throughout the year.

I saw enough discipline in players playing their roles to hope that Neeld's message may get through to the whole playing group in time.

I saw a team who desperately want to do what it needs to do to win, but can't. A team that could get its hands on the footy but couldn't use it through half forward (especially in the second term). A team that was burnt on the turnover.

I saw a team who is a few high quality mids from improving dramatically (though, I suppose, all teams are).

I saw a massively overrated team who will, in time, get found out against better opposition and will probably be lucky to make finals.

I saw a team that should head into next week as favourites - if only just!

[angrydee 842]

I still think Neeld is inept, but today's performance was the best and most committed for the year.

It's

hardly surprising that uncontested possession differenials are so bad, when players r actually spreading and the ball is kicked to opponents who then run it down the ground. What could have been a string of possessions for us becomes that for them.

Commitment good, skills appalling.

[jumbo returns 6,538]

Why let Rivers go along with Moloney & replace them with spud Rhodan & Pedderson...........answer Neeld!

Rivers was free to go.

Moloney behaved like a sulking baby.

Old ground.

[bing181 8,208]

Even Viney looks lost....Neeld is slowly destroying this list.

Yeah, bummer that a guy who has played 4 games doesn't look like a seasoned pro.

It was a dumb comment. He doesn't look lost. He looks inexperienced.

[dees189227 10,994]

Rivers left because he wanted to play finals. His choice not Neelds.

[bing181 8,208]

The are some that also believe a 10 goal loss is acceptable.

Who?

[Hero1 74]

Grimes is injury prone and weak. He kicks it straight to the opposition.