Misson

on field leadership....

 

or Gatorade...

Edited July 20, 20169 yr by jnrmac

In our biggest losses this year in the third quarter:

St Kilda (Round 6): 3.2 vs 8.2

Port (Round 10): 5.3 vs 4.5

Sydney (Round 13): 1.3 vs 2.5

Adelaide (Round 15): 4.1 vs 7.3

Total: 87 vs 141

61.07%

 

Factor in the North loss, it's actually 107 vs 186. That's also not including the Bulldogs loss or Hawthorn loss, although we were fairly even with them.

 

In our wins:

GWS (Round 1): 1.1 vs 2.6

Collingwood (Round 4): 2.5 vs 3.2

Richmond (Round 6): 3.4 vs 4.4

GC (Round 7): 9.4 vs 3.1

Brisbane (Round 9): 3.3 vs 1.5

Collingwood (Round 12): 2.1 vs 1.2

Freo (Round 16): 2.3 vs 4.3

Total: 153 vs 132

116%

 

If you take out the GC game, it's 95 vs 113

 

Let's look at our last quarters vs the same sides:

St Kilda (Round 6): 4.1 vs 3.4

Port (Round 10): 1.4 vs 6.2

Sydney (Round 13): 1.1 vs 6.1

Adelaide (Round 15): 1.3 vs 3.4

Total: 51 vs 119

43%

 

GWS (Round 1): 6.3 vs 2.4

Collingwood (Round 4): 2.2 vs 1.3

Richmond (Round 6): 6.2 vs 3.3

GC (Round 7): 7.5 vs 3.0

Brisbane (Round 9): 6.7 vs 3.4

Collingwood (Round 12): 5.1 vs 2.4

Freo (Round 16): 1.4 vs 1.3

Total: 222 vs 111

200%

 

So, what do we get out of this? I see that in our wins, we almost always win the third quarter, and comfortably. On average we outscore the opponent. This tends to lead to strong fourth quarters where we hold on. In our losses, we tend to lose the third quarter. IMO, our last-quarter performances are irrelevant: we're giving teams far too much space after half-time, where they break out and control the game.

Sunday wasn't really a last quarter 'fade-out'. We played just as bad as we had the three quarters prior. In most of our other loses, it's patches in the third that have cost us, and big time.

The third is the "premiership" quarter. If you have momentum, you can hold on and bounce back in the fourth. If you hand the game to the opposition in the third, you're playing catch-up in the fourth, when it's harder to get things going.

As the stats show, we're good in almost half of our games, but bad in just a little over half of our games. That's exactly where our record sits.

To be honest, to sit above 100% at 7-9 is pretty good. If we can finish between 95%-105% and on 10 wins for the year, I'd say 2016 has been very successful.

My concern is that we're seeing similar fadeouts in the second-half as we did in the Bailey era, and we're seeing similar beltings of opposition teams in the second half. We're either attacking hard, or defending extremely poorly. There's no in between.

We still have a "running both ways" problem. I put that down to poor leadership. We have no one on the field that really empowers those around them to continue performing for four quarters.

Edited July 20, 20169 yr by praha

2 hours ago, praha said:

In our biggest losses this year in the third quarter:

St Kilda (Round 6): 3.2 vs 8.2

Port (Round 10): 5.3 vs 4.5

Sydney (Round 13): 1.3 vs 2.5

Adelaide (Round 15): 4.1 vs 7.3

Total: 87 vs 141

61.07%

 

Factor in the North loss, it's actually 107 vs 186. That's also not including the Bulldogs loss or Hawthorn loss, although we were fairly even with them.

 

In our wins:

GWS (Round 1): 1.1 vs 2.6

Collingwood (Round 4): 2.5 vs 3.2

Richmond (Round 6): 3.4 vs 4.4

GC (Round 7): 9.4 vs 3.1

Brisbane (Round 9): 3.3 vs 1.5

Collingwood (Round 12): 2.1 vs 1.2

Freo (Round 16): 2.3 vs 4.3

Total: 153 vs 132

116%

 

If you take out the GC game, it's 95 vs 113

 

Let's look at our last quarters vs the same sides:

St Kilda (Round 6): 4.1 vs 3.4

Port (Round 10): 1.4 vs 6.2

Sydney (Round 13): 1.1 vs 6.1

Adelaide (Round 15): 1.3 vs 3.4

Total: 51 vs 119

43%

 

GWS (Round 1): 6.3 vs 2.4

Collingwood (Round 4): 2.2 vs 1.3

Richmond (Round 6): 6.2 vs 3.3

GC (Round 7): 7.5 vs 3.0

Brisbane (Round 9): 6.7 vs 3.4

Collingwood (Round 12): 5.1 vs 2.4

Freo (Round 16): 1.4 vs 1.3

Total: 222 vs 111

200%

 

So, what do we get out of this? I see that in our wins, we almost always win the third quarter, and comfortably. On average we outscore the opponent. This tends to lead to strong fourth quarters where we hold on. In our losses, we tend to lose the third quarter. IMO, our last-quarter performances are irrelevant: we're giving teams far too much space after half-time, where they break out and control the game.

Sunday wasn't really a last quarter 'fade-out'. We played just as bad as we had the three quarters prior. In most of our other loses, it's patches in the third that have cost us, and big time.

The third is the "premiership" quarter. If you have momentum, you can hold on and bounce back in the fourth. If you hand the game to the opposition in the third, you're playing catch-up in the fourth, when it's harder to get things going.

As the stats show, we're good in almost half of our games, but bad in just a little over half of our games. That's exactly where our record sits.

To be honest, to sit above 100% at 7-9 is pretty good. If we can finish between 95%-105% and on 10 wins for the year, I'd say 2016 has been very successful.

My concern is that we're seeing similar fadeouts in the second-half as we did in the Bailey era, and we're seeing similar beltings of opposition teams in the second half. We're either attacking hard, or defending extremely poorly. There's no in between.

We still have a "running both ways" problem. I put that down to poor leadership. We have no one on the field that really empowers those around them to continue performing for four quarters.

we have a game style that is clearly difficult for younger bodies to play for 120 mins. Probably both mentally and physically and particularly against harder bodied sides like Swans and Crows and West Coast this week.

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

we have a game style that is clearly difficult for younger bodies to play for 120 mins. Probably both mentally and physically and particularly against harder bodied sides like Swans and Crows and West Coast this week.

I think you could just say we have too many kids who find it difficult to play any plan for 120 minutes.

90 more possessions and 30 more inside 50s ... poor loss to Eagles.

Is it skill or fitness?? Inability to execute under pressure ... YES

Edited July 23, 20169 yr by spirit of norm smith
spelling

Another goal less final term. Pathetic

The MFC must learn to hate losing...

The most predictable zero goal last quarter in the history of footy.

6-day break travelling to Perth with a bunch of kids against a side which ia primed for a flag tilt. 

We needed the lead to keep the adrenaline pumping. We didn't lose this in the 4th, we lost it in the 3rd. Would have been a very different game if we had have had a bigger lead that West Coast needed to overcome. As it was, they only needed 2 quick goals to take the lead which changed the dynamic.

Must be Darwins fault

Just now, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

Must be Darwins fault

Its definitely a factor.  And we signed up for another 2 years playing there.

We are no chance at the finals in that time.

Just now, Petraccattack said:

Its definitely a factor.  And we signed up for another 2 years playing there.

We are no chance at the finals in that time.

Was taking the p155

Very disappointing loss.  Final quarter cost us.

47 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Its definitely a factor.  And we signed up for another 2 years playing there.

We are no chance at the finals in that time.

I don't think Darwin will be a factor in truth.

If you were a footballer I think you might even appreciate the trip to a warmer climate.

The recovery times are sufficient.

Not an issue.

52 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

Must be Darwins fault

Charles Darwin: the new Demonland whipping boy!