3 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

I think the turning point in the match was that free kick Hogan gave away in the last. We were five points down and it was kicked to the top of our goal square and Hogan gave away a silly free kick. They didn't look back after that. If Hogan brings the ball to ground or stays in the contest without giving away a free kick, we manage to goal, hitting the front could well have been the psychological kick up the backside we needed to go on and win the game. I think we should agree to disagree on this one though, mate.

Thought so too. 11 point turn around there, also the kick that was finger tipped on the line was also 11 points against us. A millimeter here, a lower elbow there...

Yes we were flat in parts, but very good in parts. They took their chances. We didn't

3 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

I think the turning point in the match was that free kick Hogan gave away in the last. We were five points down and it was kicked to the top of our goal square and Hogan gave away a silly free kick. They didn't look back after that. If Hogan brings the ball to ground or stays in the contest without giving away a free kick, we manage to goal, hitting the front could well have been the psychological kick up the backside we needed to go on and win the game. I think we should agree to disagree on this one though, mate.

Yeah Hogan had a massive chance to turn the game around but in the end it was a poor game by him.

It also turned early in the 2nd when it was a bit of a stalemate and we were running and Brayshaw got caught because of a poor use of handballing and the Saints got one on the rebound I think

14 minutes ago, Je Roos Salem said:

He put his body on the line more than others

Disposal and decision-making is beyond ordinary, IMO. It says a lot about the users in our defence that he was taking a lot of our kick ins. He makes some mind-bogglingly bad mistakes though. He's a downhill skier at the moment and needs to hit targets or he'll be out of the team.

1 minute ago, Age said:

I noticed this happening last week against freo, the opposition ruckman are basically realising that they can't beat Gawn one on one, instead will hold him so he can't get his arms up or just push him away from the contest. The third man up just gets the tap to wherever he likes then. Us being the amazingly dumb team we are, just let the third man go up alone.

 

Drives me mad as Gawn very rarely gets a free and it is so obvious that the other ruck isn't even trying to go for the ball. 

Just now, AdamFphlebeb said:

Disposal and decision-making is beyond ordinary, IMO. It says a lot about the users in our defence that he was taking in a lot of our kick ins. He makes some mind-bogglingly bad mistakes though. He's a downhill skier at the moment and needs to hit targets or he'll be out of the team.

He can find the ball in the back half but I think he should be using his physicality more as a defensive forward. Seriously, we may as well get Dunn back in the team even if it's solely for kicking in duties

10 minutes ago, Je Roos Salem said:

He can find the ball in the back half but I think he should be using his physicality more as a defensive forward. Seriously, we may as well get Dunn back in the team even if it's solely for kicking in duties

Yep, he can find the ball if he's allowed to play loose, as they let him do in the first. As soon as they manned him up, he basically barely touched it.

It's an interesting time in Harmes' development. They obviously think he might be a go at either end of the ground and want to build some flexibility into his game. At the moment it might be a bit early though, because he's a butcher.

16 minutes ago, Je Roos Salem said:

Yeah Hogan had a massive chance to turn the game around but in the end it was a poor game by him.

It also turned early in the 2nd when it was a bit of a stalemate and we were running and Brayshaw got caught because of a poor use of handballing and the Saints got one on the rebound I think

Yep, that was another turning point, agreed.

49 minutes ago, stuie said:

With this game, I feel that the selection failure was enough to tip the balance that we lost.

We SHOULD have won this game.

And there it finally is, after about a million posts. We finally get the admission that some combination of Bugg, ANB, Newton and Michie coming in for some combination of outs (I think on the GD thread it was Vince and Kennedy for starters) would have got us a win.

Just first grade nonsense, Stuie.

8 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

Yep, he can find the ball if he's allowed to play loose, as they let him do in the first. As soon as they manned him up, he basically barely touched it.

It's an interesting time in Harmes' development. They obviously think he might be a go at either end of the ground and want to build some flexibility into his game. At the moment it might be a bit early though, because he's a butcher.

I thought he had a real crack today, but seems to run himself into pressure a lot. That was sort of the order of the day though, as after the first quarter their pressure around the ball was enormous.

16 minutes ago, stuie said:

I think there were a few incidents you could technically label "turning points", but I honestly just never thought we were serious about today's game.

Yeah fair enough, let's agree to disagree, I've rarely seen anyone change their mind here!

 

I agree with Stuie.   Bugg to add some fight.  Oliver wins clearences.  ANB to scrap.  Games turn on individual efforts.

Roos said we don't have a Danger, that sounded to me like a swipe at our leader.  If Jones was held back that much by injury he shouldn't have played.

There is paint on the Boundary line, isn't there? There is Boundary umpires isn't there? You are allowed to shepherd, aren't you? You are not allowed to hold the opposition's players, are you? Another one sided scragging game marred by dozens of illegal disposals not picked up and fewer marks paid.

14 minutes ago, willmoy said:

There is paint on the Boundary line, isn't there? There is Boundary umpires isn't there? You are allowed to shepherd, aren't you? You are not allowed to hold the opposition's players, are you? Another one sided scragging game marred by dozens of illegal disposals not picked up and fewer marks paid.

We had a couple of holding the balls against us that I was ready to hit the roof over, only for them not to be paid.  Odd feeling - a bit like building up for a huge sneeze only for it to pass at the last second.

I thought the umpiring throughout the game was generally horrible, but a non-factor in the result.

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

The 'third man up' at the rock contest needs to be outlawed from the game.  The ball ups and throw ins should be contested by the ruckmen, and the ruckmen alone.  

Been saying that all year mate. Why have a a bounce or throw in if you're just going to let anyone jump all over the rucks? Imagine if your power forward did it in basketball? Might as well be like auskick  where the coach just blindly kicked it and called play on. 

I hope it's changed. One ruck rules changed basically killed off one of our greatest ruckman 15 years ago with the introduction of the centre circle, maybe the next one can help the career of our current promising star

There are 6 games left and we need to get a scalp that shows we may have improved a bit.

We must win one of the following -  Eagles in Perth, Geelong in Geelong or Hawks at the MCG.

Port in Adelaide would be great too, but those three are the real litmus test.

They just use an AFL form of "rope-a-dope" to beat us. Every time.

Ball lands between 3 players from each side. The 3 Dees all try to pounce on the ball. One Saint goes for the ball, the other 2 go to the outside. If a Dee gets first hands, he is too close to his flatfooted teammates to be able to get clear of the contest, and the two Saints on the outside just close in if a Dee does look like breaking clear. If the Saint gets first hands, he immediately flicks it clear of the contest to where one of  his teammates cruising past can accelerate into the open with the other teammate running in support alongside him. They're 30 metres away by the time the 3 Dees pick themselves up. Same happens with 3 or more Dees getting sucked into the tackle.

They expected that we would keep trying the slingshot through the corridor and we were determined not to let them down the whole game. We don't seem to be able to move the ball forward any other way. They just simply closed down the space through the corridor. And when we turned it over, this also meant that they had much more space out wide to run into.

And when they got it wide, we were always in real danger further up the field. Yet there was never any apparent urgency to run back hard and get out wide to cover their chain of spare men. We were content to just jog alongside them & keep them out wide, and before we realised it, they had put together 3 uncontested possessions and an uncontested mark inside 50.

Exactly the same as Round 6. Exactly the same as last year. Rope-a-dope. Yet we never see it coming, like every other side does.

And don't give me this "Saints are just a better side than us" crapola. These are the names of some of their "stars" who made us look stupid today: Membrey, Ross, Weller, Dunstan, Billings, Newnes, Roberton, Geary, Acres, Minchington, Gresham, Jack Sinclair, Daniel Mackenzie, Nathan Wright. That's two thirds of a side of absolute plodders. We made them look like top-four material, because they were so much better as a combination. We played like 22 individuals after 1/4 time, because of "rope-a-dope". There was no one on the field or in the box who saw the need to do anything different.

Oh, and we don't seem to have anybody who can hit an accurate bullet handpass over more than about 5 metres. Over 10 metres and we have to "loop" the handball. But that's another story.

 

 

At least we're not Brisbane.

2 hours ago, McQueen said:

Nah, the seating that was left when I looked was atrocious. Three rows from the rafters, directly behind the goals, looking into the setting sun etc. That and the WAFC want to charge me an added $60 to take the handbrake along. She wasn't interested enough to fork over that sort of coin for rubbish seating.

I might get down to light training run they usually have.

What about yourself?

Yeah me and the youngster are going, now dreading it after what I saw today. Last time we got spanked by the Eagles, he wept for a solid hour after the game, nearly broke my heart. 

Re: seating, as soon as the email came through, I booked within about 5 minutes and got the front row on the second tier behind the goals. About a month afterwards, the club rang me up and told me that I couldn't have those seats as they were reserved for the cheer squad, so we got relocated 10 rows further back. I understand the club had to do this, but thought it was pretty poor that the seats were available at the time of booking. I sure hope the new stadium doesn't face into the setting sun like crappy old Subiaco. Can't wait till that shitehole is demolished.

4 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

There are 6 games left and we need to get a scalp that shows we may have improved a bit.

We must win one of the following -  Eagles in Perth, Geelong in Geelong or Hawks at the MCG.

Port in Adelaide would be great too, but those three are the real litmus test.

Dreaming....

I saw Brisbane win three flags in a row.
Haven't seen us win any.

 
 

7 minutes ago, Demon Jack said:

At least we're not Brisbane.

Haha no we were Brisbane 

We have too many hackers by hand and not enough good ball users/decision makers by foot also.

 Some examples just for starters…

·       Some horrid handballs from Jetta and Jones off HB and through the midfield in the first 10 minutes. One of Jetta’s resulting in the first goal to the Aints . Another horrid entry i50 from Jetta by foot straight to a Aints player who was in between about 3 Demons.

·       Tyson’s decision at about the 15 min mark of the first. Took a solid contested mark on the wing playing in front. Goes back, then decides to kick a long ball inboard towards the other side of the 50 meter arc to a 3 on 1 (I seem to recall the only player he could be aiming for was an out of position White). The hang time was ridiculous, allowing their defenders plenty of time to intercept. Ball turns over to the Aints, as you would expect, and they’re off to the races.

·       Viney, Harmes, Tyson, Kennedy were in the mix off and on today but over used handball big time. 16 clangers just between these four! N Jones also had a horror first quarter with selections and execution.

The effects of the overuse and poor choices/execution….

·       By overusing the handball and doing it poorly we gift too many turnover goals to our opponent as we have so many players running forward of their opponent on the overlap as we attempt to transition off HB. We then gift the opponent the ball back, boosting their confidence as they run forward, often without an opponent nearby and very little pressure coming inside their 50 allowing the easy hit up or kick to advantage.

·       Knowing this, most of opponents then pay us very little respect in any part of the ground (ie., usually playing way off us waiting for the turnover receive etc, which means they look like they’re spreading better! In effect they are as they are so far off their opponent they have so much time/space).

·       That the Saints had 61 more pressure acts than us is no accident. They are under instruction but we also gift them the opportunity to do so by over handballing, allowing them to get to us more often and pressure us into the next turnover.

·       Even when they aren’t putting extreme pressure on in general play our disposal/decision making is often just not at a high enough level.

·       The overall effect of the above ….we are TOO EASY to beat!

The alternative is to reduce the handball and instead, hit more short targets up by foot more often. The aim being to control the ball for longer, controlling the tempo of the game and keeping the ball off the opposition, a la Hawthorn.

Our defence is also way too flakey and easily penetrated although i admire the effort of some week in and week out to try and prevent the bleeding. Usually too much falls to TMac though. Time to get Dunn back for a bit of support here. Apart from one dodgy kick at the end of the match against the Doggies today he was very solid all day and easily in our best.

Our forward pressure is virtually non existent for much of the match, which magnifies our defensive holes, and means most of our goals have to be hard fought from the backline putting too much pressure on our defence both ways. Not enough effort to lock the ball in and force turnover goals up forward. Some of Jeffy’s lack of effort (or is it willingness!?) to chase today was deplorable. One of the laziest footballers I have ever seen once he feels he is unlikely to score. His opponent scoring 2 goals on the rebound neautralised his 2 goals!

As much as I liked last week’s effort/outcome….this week was just another disappointing follow up match in a konga line of disappointing results for this club since 2007.

We are at least one or two pre-seasons away and about 6 to 8 extra mature quality players (100 plus gamers who can hit short targets by foot at a high level and are almost one touch super clean by hand) from winning games like today... occasionaly.

With the expansion clubs now the AFL’s main game and Brissy looking worse by the day and also likely to get assistance, the chances of us picking up these 6 to 8 players in the next few seasons is looking highly unlikely baring a minor miracle!

5 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

We were consistent for most of the game, the difference was St Kilda got better and took their chances.

They lifted a notch after quarter time applying pretty frantic pressure and we couldn't/wouldnt match their work rate. Same as last time we played them.

5 hours ago, chook fowler said:

The most inept handball I've seen.

Yep the loopy handballs need to go. The skipper did one in the first quarter ando there were several more throughout the day. And just always getting in one too many.

So many people making lame excuses, blaming darwin, selection, roos coaching, umpires, etc. etc. etc.. Reality is the 22 on the field did not do their job after quarter time. The played dumb football. It was a disgrace, we were damn lucky not to have lost by 10 goals or more. poor skills, too many players not prepared to chase to tackle properly, to put their head down and play. Viney is one of the few who can hold his head up for giving 100% all day long. You cannot go into any match carrying so many poor performers and expect to win.  As for stats, I really think we need another category of stats, something like the player actual does something good with it. We had a lot of players who go cheap stats handpassing and kicking to players vastly out numbered, or directly to the opposition, or fiddly hand passes back and forth a couple of times before they turned it over.

The Melbourne football club's skills coach needs to be replaced, that is if we actually have one.

For those who had a go at Nathan Jones...take a close look and notice that he came out after half time with a pretty solid knee bandage.

My guess is it happened in a contest in the goal square when he landed awkwardly in the 2nd Q, but that's only a guess. Definitely happened in the first half and his movement was restricted.

We're talking about someone who played with a debilitating neck injury last year that would have kept a lot of people off work for 6 months let alone going out and playing football week in week out.

He doesn't complain, he goes about his job and his injury doesn't get reported in the AFL match report....