10 minutes ago, ProDee said:

A goal is obviously massive in a game of footy. 

Freo have been universally lauded for how well they've played and we've been pilloried over a 2 point loss. 

Tomorrow week looms large. 

They played with 22 ProDee. We had 21.5 there is your two points.

4 hours ago, sue said:

Put me down in the glass-half full group despite all the mistakes, poor play, bad selections and coaching errors posters have bemoaned in this long thread. 

Someone posted we could have been a disaterous 0-4.  Equally we could have been 4-0 with people booking their GF tickets.

In fact everything points to 4-0 being the more likely given the winning position we should have been in both losses.

And this without 2*Hogan, 2*Lewis and1.5*Gawn, some of our better players putting in poor games and a couple of headless chooks being selected, plus a long injury list.   Sorry, I haven't felt less upset about a loss for a long time. Disappointed, but not upset.

I'd agree with all of this, Sue, if it hadn't happened the week before. I really hoped that the Geelong loss would have burned in the players and that they would be eager to make amends on dropping a game they should have won the previous week. Instead, they came out sluggishly, kicked poorly for goal and then thought they had it won at half time when the lead was under 4 goals. It's inexcusable really. That's what makes it frustrating.

4 hours ago, No10 said:

ANB has been given a shot and played well, not break out, but good enough...  The rest...  Tyson, Salem, Stretch, Harmes...  not great performances.

Hunt is one of the few players with a role that suits his attributes.  Oliver too.   But so many players trying to play the system aren't playing their best.

What role is Jones even playing?  Or Viney?   Everyone wants A grade players but how do you think that happens if you don't let them play to strengths.   Hogan is one of the few arrogant enough to play where he wants.

I agree with Jumbo, Trac should be tearing apart the competition, he has that level of ability.

Goodwin is following a model that's already out dated.  He has potential stars, he needs to get them firing.

It's an interesting post this, because it could be argued that the reason the Hawks and the Dogs played to such a system was because they didn't have the level of elite talent that we have. So they needed role players right the way across the ground.

Now, obviously, I'm not saying these teams didn't/don't have stars in them, but we have an awful lot of talent right across the ground, that has arguably already surpassed our older brigade in less than a year. Oliver, Hogan, Petracca, Stretch, Salem are already in probably our top 10-12 most important players.

The bigger question is will a system provide sustained success or will the young stars we currently have provide sustained success? It might be a bit of a balancing act.

3 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

We had a +1 down back early on Lord. They got on top slowly around the stoppages and as Sandi started to find or direct the ball favourably to his targets and/or those targets started reading him better. Fyfe, Hill and McArtney keeping them in it early and then slowly getting on top with Sandi's assistance. They had their +1 around the ball early and most of the time throughout the match which we never seriously addressed. Thought this cost us dearly in the end with the number of clearances they extracted and quickly into their 50. I thought the mountain man did a sterling job under the circumstances though and even took a few nice clunkers and some nice goals.

I actually dont think we were offensive enough as we tended to be happy to try and work our way backwards as you were suggesting far too often (i agree it became very predictable), and we were also too slow from off HB to get the ball into 50 when the opportunity arose, fluffing it around laterally around HB and even across HF at times failing to put Freo under pressure often enough.

Freo did a great job of working their way around our +1 defence and finding a free player somewhere inside 50 or alternatively happy to just plonk it in quickly, taking their chances with the havoc ball on the ground, the ball bouncing luckily their way for the easy pick up and goal on a few occasions.

Our biggest fail though IMO was our failure to handle their heavy press in the 3rd. Very hard to get the ball out under such circumstances for any team but i thought it was badly handled. We were happy to hang off our opponents sitting 60/70 meters from goal, instead of manning up and putting pressure on them and contesting. One on one was the way to go. Back each individual player to beat their direct opponent instead of allowing a panic kick to be easily marked and driven straight back in under extreme heat and havoc for eventual easy goals by a Freo player who has 5/10/15 meters on his opponent time after time.

This, our continual backwards/lateral play (the ball being worked/switched around the back half often unnecessarily) and the failure to flood in the last 2 to 3 minutes were the stand out fails of coaching on the day from where i was sitting. Goody and the boys still have a fair bit of learning left if we are to win/ice close games like this in future. If they keep playing and using strategies like yesterday, expect to be in games for longer, just don't expect to win many of the close ones.

I agree. It was the first time this season we didn't play fearless footy. We did in patches, but we need to play with more dare if we're going to account for any team in such an even competition.

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

 The coach and game - plan are good. 

Really strong defensive structures, hard around the contest and bold ball movement.  Right now it's not happening for long enough, but it will. 

At times we're moving the footy too quickly from D50 and too slowly from forward of centre.

We'll get the balance right. 

I think our defensive press was too high yesterday. It reminded me of the start of 2016 when St Kilda got us. The winning goal came because our defence was too high with no cover out the back. I wonder how we would have played that with Lewis in the team. In the JLT and in the first two rounds, he played the anchor and read the play really well, subsequently stopping a couple of those easy goals out the back. We needed his experience yesterday.

But we also needed to lower our eyes and use the ball better than we did most of the day. We're getting there though. To come back and almost snatch it with many of our best players down or not playing, was at least one positive, but probably added to the frustration in the end.

Some of our players are ignoring some absolute basics when in the process of having a set shot for goal.  I see the same errors time and time again and it's as if they can't believe their good fortune in having that set shot ...

• Walking back with their backs to the goals (a no-no) ... every single moment counts when lining up for goal plus there's always a chance to dish the ball off to a player in a better position.
• Not trying to improve the angle of a shot ... walking backwards towards the opposition's far behind post should be the default move and we should be doing that 100% of the time.  The umpire may well be awake to the tactic but not always.

Also, a number of our forwards also get caught playing from behind far too much - but that's been an issue for years.  A good forward relishes the front position - all the great forwards have that instinct.  Of course, a forward doesn't have to be in front every time but must do when the ball comes in quickly or in a haphazard way.  Basics.

6 minutes ago, A F said:

I agree. It was the first time this season we didn't play fearless footy. We did in patches, but we need to play with more dare if we're going to account for any team in such an even competition.

I think our defensive press was too high yesterday. It reminded me of the start of 2016 when St Kilda got us. The winning goal came because our defence was too high with no cover out the back. I wonder how we would have played that with Lewis in the team. In the JLT and in the first two rounds, he played the anchor and read the play really well, subsequently stopping a couple of those easy goals out the back. We needed his experience yesterday.

But we also needed to lower our eyes and use the ball better than we did most of the day. We're getting there though. To come back and almost snatch it with many of our best players down or not playing, was at least one positive, but probably added to the frustration in the end.

Unfortunately we will never know the answer AF. I hope Mr Lewis has finally learned a lesson here. It's great to fly the flag but lets keep it below the head from here on! Viney did the same dumb act last year i remember which saw him out with a fractured fist/finger for a week or so extra on top of the suspension yes?

3 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

There were several occasions where we allowed them to set up goal side with no player back on the line, esp boundary throw ins in their F50.  Really dangerous, especially when we are struggling to win the clearance.

also, Hill absolutely creamed us- he was responsible for so many goals through his delivery inside 50 and goal assists, and we did little if anything to shut him down.  

Letting 7 goals and 30 minutes pass by before anyone did anything is appalling.  Even Frost to the ruck, Watts to half back or rover, and extra man back, Jake to full forward.  Something.  Mix it up a bit!

a young team learning its craft, but you don't train a dog by getting it to do the wrong things.  Why do it with a football team?

I saw this also buck. Frost an offender on a few occasions. Don't think it cost us from his point of view though from what i witnessed, at least up the Punt Road end anyway. Too far to tell what was happening up the other end.

Lewis much missed here to organise and direct the troops down back. Doubt he would allow that slackness.

Our general organisation down back, lack of clearances through the middle in the 2nd half, a lack of extras down back for the last few minutes, the inability to cope with their press and our slowness and horrible delivery on occasions coming off/out of HB cost us dearly.

 

5 hours ago, No10 said:

ANB has been given a shot and played well, not break out, but good enough...  The rest...  Tyson, Salem, Stretch, Harmes...  not great performances.

Hunt is one of the few players with a role that suits his attributes.  Oliver too.   But so many players trying to play the system aren't playing their best.

What role is Jones even playing?  Or Viney?   Everyone wants A grade players but how do you think that happens if you don't let them play to strengths.   Hogan is one of the few arrogant enough to play where he wants.

I agree with Jumbo, Trac should be tearing apart the competition, he has that level of ability.

Goodwin is following a model that's already out dated.  He has potential stars, he needs to get them firing.

 

Thought Salem, Harmes and ANB all had reasonable/ok games No10 and in our best 8 or so players on the day. Room for improvement and not great as you say but wouldn't put them at the same level as Tyson/Stretch yesterday who both looked pretty ordinary. Stretch in our top 5/6 up till yesterday IMO.

Have said it for the past three seasons and I'll keep saying it. We lack consistently smart and efficient ball users across our entire side. Both by hand and foot. That should be plainly obvious to the eye.

We are nowhere near teams like the dogs or GWS in this regard. We've recruited for ultra competitive ball winners, all of whom share the same weakness: Quality ball use by foot. I reckon it's hurting us. Salem is the only player as part of our young core who can be consistently damaging by foot.

We rely on smashing teams in the contest and applying significant pressure around it. But we have no other way of winning if we don't get on top in this area. 

Even Billy Stretch as an outsider barely provides quality line-breaking ball use. In fact, he possesses really poor metres gained. 

Basically, I think we have an unbalanced list profile and will need to make a correction over the next trade/FA/draft. 

It also doesn't help when you've got guys like Vince and T-Mac who can stink it up every second week. It's a major problem. Always has been with Tom and Bernie is now almost certainly in that camp.

Generally, your more experienced guys shouldn't have such a gap between their best and worst games. Jones is an outlier. But why? How does Tom McDonald perform in such an erratic fashion at this point in his career? And Vince? It doesn't make sense to me.

We still might have a decent year but geez I reckon our list is still a way off. 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Macca said:

Some of our players are ignoring some absolute basics when in the process of having a set shot for goal.  I see the same errors time and time again and it's as if they can't believe their good fortune in having that set shot ...

• Walking back with their backs to the goals (a no-no) ... every single moment counts when lining up for goal plus there's always a chance to dish the ball off to a player in a better position.
• Not trying to improve the angle of a shot ... walking backwards towards the opposition's far behind post should be the default move and we should be doing that 100% of the time.  The umpire may well be awake to the tactic but not always.

Also, a number of our forwards also get caught playing from behind far too much - but that's been an issue for years.  A good forward relishes the front position - all the great forwards have that instinct.  Of course, a forward doesn't have to be in front every time but must do when the ball comes in quickly or in a haphazard way.  Basics.

I think we're not smart enough at times. That Kent goal for example. Lucky he dobbed it. The shot was on the correct side for Oliver. What Clarry should have done is pretend it was his and see if he could con the umpire. Instead, he waited for Kent to get up and gave him the ball. Clarry is a lovely kick. Just these little things we need to get smarter and better at.

22 hours ago, old dee said:

We did not lose the game because of Gawn's absence. We lost it at the section table when we picked a kid who is not up to AFL. Smith in and we win that game.It is that simple. 

You are referring to the Weed - he is struggling and is at best marginal at the moment, then got a bad corker so couldn't run at all.

22 hours ago, Garbo said:

Can we all agree that Melksham needs a long spell in the 2s. He was the catalysts for the whole thing going to [censored]

Id like to know if he had any disposals that didn't result in a turnover 

 

22 hours ago, DemonLad5 said:

Melksham. Please. Get out. Not worthy to wear the red and blue. 

Hasn't shown me anything to get excited about.  Hope his mate Hibberd is better.

21 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

If is the key word here and I know thats why they played him. Its a juggling act at best but a player can also go downhill if crushed each week. Look how long it took Watts to recover from his premature entry to the big time.

 

Weed needs at least a month at Casey: recall only if he sets the house on fire.  Replace with Pedo to add the second big bodied forward (with Hogan presumably to return next week, unless his emphysema catches up with him of course) who can also provide ruck relief with JW4.

21 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I certainly don't expect Weideman to be like Hogan was in his first/second year.

But there's dominant, and then there's OK, or even acceptable.

I don't want anyone in our forward line who has no ability (whether because they're not fit enough or otherwise) to impact the game once the ball hits the ground.

He might learn from Hogan but if we lose games as a result then that's not the right decision.

Of course, we're 2-0 with Hogan and Weideman and 0-2 without Hogan. But IMO he's just not capable of doing enough when the ball hits the ground to warrant remaining in the team.

Does anyone know if Hogan has been at these two games? Hope he is feeling really embarrassed and comes back with a vengeance attacking the ball.  As I recall his break out game was at the G at night v Richmond.

21 hours ago, John Dee said:

This was a game we could have, should have, won. Had that happened, it would have papered over the abysmal third quarter, and got the players ahead of themselves. Whilst I, as a supporter who goes to the footy, would have liked to win, it is, methinks, a good game to have lost. That third quarter and the misses by Viney and Weideman, in particular, need to stick in the craw.

The whole capitulation needs to stick in the collective craw -- recall hope it does.

10 minutes ago, monoccular said:

You are referring to the Weed - he is struggling and is at best marginal at the moment, then got a bad corker so couldn't run at all.

 

Hasn't shown me anything to get excited about.  Hope his mate Hibberd is better.

Weed needs at least a month at Casey: recall only if he sets the house on fire.  Replace with Pedo to add the second big bodied forward (with Hogan presumably to return next week, unless his emphysema catches up with him of course) who can also provide ruck relief with JW4.

Does anyone know if Hogan has been at these two games? Hope he is feeling really embarrassed and comes back with a vengeance attacking the ball.  As I recall his break out game was at the G at night v Richmond.

The whole capitulation needs to stick in the collective craw -- recall hope it does.

Mono there was nothing wrong with his leg the week before with similar results.

I have watched everyone of his games except the saints game.

He has no presence. The other team can play their third best defender on him because they know he won't hurt them.

To play him yesterday has the key forward was not his fault it was the FD.

imo the blunder of 2017 so far.

1 hour ago, Petraccattack said:

What odds can I get on us beating Richmond, and then losing to Essendon the week after?

I would gladly load up.

You will get better odds on losing both Pa.

I actually think we will lose next week but win against Essendrug.

12 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Have said it for the past three seasons and I'll keep saying it. We lack consistently smart and efficient ball users across our entire side. Both by hand and foot. That should be plainly obvious to the eye.

We are nowhere near teams like the dogs or GWS in this regard. We've recruited for ultra competitive ball winners, all of whom share the same weakness: Quality ball use by foot. I reckon it's hurting us. Salem is the only player as part of our young core who can be consistently damaging by foot.

We rely on smashing teams in the contest and applying significant pressure around it. But we have no other way of winning if we don't get on top in this area. 

Even Billy Stretch as an outsider barely provides quality line-breaking ball use. In fact, he possesses really poor metres gained. 

Basically, I think we have an unbalanced list profile and will need to make a correction over the next trade/FA/draft. 

It also doesn't help when you've got guys like Vince and T-Mac who can stink it up every second week. It's a major problem. Always has been with Tom and Bernie is now almost certainly in that camp.

Generally, your more experienced guys shouldn't have such a gap between their best and worst games. Jones is an outlier. But why? How does Tom McDonald perform in such an erratic fashion at this point in his career? And Vince? It doesn't make sense to me.

We still might have a decent year but geez I reckon our list is still a way off. 

I agree our list isn't quite there yet, but Clayton Oliver is undoubtedly a great ball user and I'm not sure most sides have more than a couple of quality ball users. Oliver is probably equal with Salem IMO. And I'm leaving out Watts here.

Tell me how many good ball users the Hawks had in their heyday. Lewis, Mitchell, Hodge and Smith? I'd say Hodge's ball use is the equivalent of Jones' off half back. Oliver could well be as good as Mitchell. We have Lewis on our own list, but let's say Salem is a similarly good kick. I reckon we just lack that beautiful kicking outside runner in the Smith mould. Josh Kelly is that sort of player.

So we're really one less good ball user down than one of the greatest teams of all time. Even if you look at the Judd's, Cripps', Dangerfield's, Selwood's etc, none of them are great by foot. 

What about the Bulldogs' ball users? It's probably Suckling and Murphy. We have Salem and Lewis for the moment off our half back. 

Sydney haven't had the greatest ball users either.

I don't think this is our biggest problem.

One thing I noticed yesterday was the number of times Freo players smothered the ball from a Melb kick attempt. Reckon I saw this 5 times - much more than usual.

Were we slow on those occasions? Was it just the result of close pressure? Whatever the reason it's a terrific team moral and confidence booster.

12 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

One thing I noticed yesterday was the number of times Freo players smothered the ball from a Melb kick attempt. Reckon I saw this 5 times - much more than usual.

Were we slow on those occasions? Was it just the result of close pressure? Whatever the reason it's a terrific team moral and confidence booster.

Oh. Yes. I remember calling Tom's one on the point post in the third. I said "you watch Tom get smothered here". Sure enough. Tom is one of the biggest worries for mine. He has gone backwards in the last 20 or so games he's played.

8 minutes ago, A F said:

I think we're not smart enough at times. That Kent goal for example. Lucky he dobbed it. The shot was on the correct side for Oliver. What Clarry should have done is pretend it was his and see if he could con the umpire. Instead, he waited for Kent to get up and gave him the ball. Clarry is a lovely kick. Just these little things we need to get smarter and better at.

Yep ... Garlett & Watts are quite good but both players still miss shots that they should get. 

It's a confidence thing and whenever I see any of our players turn their backs on the goal (and not try and improve the angle at the same time) I see a player who perhaps doesn't relish the opportunity to have a shot.  I'm treating last week as more of an aberration but the issue remains.

And it's an issue with a number of our players ... there's no one player who is the chief culprit although Kent,  Hogan & Harmes don't fill me with a lot of confidence.  A positive is that our midfielders are starting to score more goals (as a collective)

The other positive is that we're no longer talking about endless 10 goal thrashings.  We're right in the games now and the expectation is to win.  The players looked gutted at the final siren yesterday.

7 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yep ... Garlett & Watts are quite good but both players still miss shots that they should get. 

It's a confidence thing and whenever I see any of our players turn their backs on the goal (and not try and improve the angle at the same time) I see a player who perhaps doesn't relish the opportunity to have a shot.  I'm treating last week as more of an aberration but the issue remains.

And it's an issue with a number of our players ... there's no one player who is the chief culprit although Kent,  Hogan & Harmes don't fill me with a lot of confidence.  A positive is that our midfielders are starting to score more goals (as a collective)

The other positive is that we're no longer talking about endless 10 goal thrashings.  We're right in the games now and the expectation is to win.  The players looked gutted at the final siren yesterday.

If we take out big Jake's two from two the rest only managered 13 from 27.

Right there is the reason we lost which is same as the week before. 

13 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

One thing I noticed yesterday was the number of times Freo players smothered the ball from a Melb kick attempt. Reckon I saw this 5 times - much more than usual.

Were we slow on those occasions? Was it just the result of close pressure? Whatever the reason it's a terrific team moral and confidence booster.

We also laid quite a few smothers - not sure why but it is looking more common overall.

Better defensive pressure /coaching?

16 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yep ... Garlett & Watts are quite good but both players still miss shots that they should get. 

It's a confidence thing and whenever I see any of our players turn their backs on the goal (and not try and improve the angle at the same time) I see a player who perhaps doesn't relish the opportunity to have a shot.  I'm treating last week as more of an aberration but the issue remains.

And it's an issue with a number of our players ... there's no one player who is the chief culprit although Kent,  Hogan & Harmes don't fill me with a lot of confidence.  A positive is that our midfielders are starting to score more goals (as a collective)

The other positive is that we're no longer talking about endless 10 goal thrashings.  We're right in the games now and the expectation is to win.  The players looked gutted at the final siren yesterday.

I agree. They did look gutted yesterday, but they didn't look gutted after the Geelong loss. I would have been.

1 minute ago, old dee said:

If we take out big Jake's two from two the rest only managered 13 from 27.

Right there is the reason we lost which is same as the week before. 

Only Spencer and Petracca got better than 50% conversion rates.

There's a whole bunch of reasons we lost yesterday OD ... 1 kick in it means a big slice of luck too (but using the luck element would be making excuses) 

Ordinarily I'd be confident against the Tigers next week with regards to bouncing back but the game starts in the middle and Jake needs to have a good game (in terms of rucking) Do that and we'll be right in it.

 

2 hours ago, A F said:

This might be a result of the niggle that Viney is carrying. I think they might revert to allowing him to attack the game a bit more and play instinctively. 

Frost and Hunt played the anchor role in the second half of last season to straighten up our press and give us some cover. Hunt appears to be playing higher now and Frost was a bit lost yesterday. We need someone with that pace to cover if we're going to play such a high line, but also, our backs and mids need to lift their work rate. They don't get back quick enough. 

If you watched Adelaide last night, if they made an error, their backs weren't pushed too high (consistently around the defensive 50m arc) and were able to push their mids back quick to cover any turn overs in the midfield.

A couple of things about Adelaide, and I think given they're the early premiership contenders, it's worth looking at how they operate. Some of their best kickers are half backs and roll through the midfield too. Smith, Laird and Crouch are extremely good users. Those three are given licence to line break, but as I say, all execute extremely well. They also know when to go and when there's cover. But because they rarely turn it over, they aren't caught out going the other way.

In comparison, off our half back line, we probably have Salem, Lewis, Hunt and Jones when he's in form. I'd say Hunt is the weakest kicker, but the best line breaker out of our guys. So far this season, most of these guys have turned it over and allowed the opposition to hurt us going the other way. Adelaide rarely do this, so they've managed to build great trust in their team mates. We're not there yet on that front.

Let's examine Adelaide's last line of defence. Lever and Talia have an extremely good understanding with each other and their half backs and mids. Talia is 25 now and Lever has played almost 40 games. It must be said that Lever is performing ahead of expectations and is a little undersized too as 195cm and 93 kgs KPD, but these two have played two years alongside each other and understand the system Pyke is trying to play. They've had continuity together for some time. This is so important for developing trust and understanding. Both players play to their limitations, often using chip kicks or handball to release their half backs and they move the ball quickly, instinctively.

Our defence is a different story. Tom McDonald plays in a more Alex Rance way, rather than playing within his limitations like Talia and Lever do. Tom tries to take the game on and is prone to the occasional momentum shifting turn over. This means trust is hard to build with him. If I was playing alongside him, I wouldn't trust him not to make a game-changing turnover by foot or by hand. I had believed that Goodwin's take on the game at all costs would mostly pay off, but I just wonder if we need our two KPDs to play within their limitations. That way, our half backs should always know to look for the handball or break hard on the spread to provide an option. Everyone then knows their role and can play it instinctively.

We also haven't defined who that second KPD is. Is it Oscar McDonald or is it Sam Frost? There's an argument to be made that we could play all three, but I don't think you can play three guys who are liabilities with the ball in your back 6. You just don't see this in the top sides, ever. Freo and St Kilda carried Dawson's poor kicking, but then they often had another KPD who played within his limitations. ie. Sam Fisher at the Saints.

Although, it'd be great to think we've got that second KPD on our list, perhaps we'll have to trade one in to fast track the success of our backline and our defensive system? I'm not suggesting we could get him, but Weitering is exactly the sort of player that would compliment Tom perfectly and allow him to play within his limitations a little more. Lever is another, although both of those guys would cost us too much and there's no way Lever would leave Adelaide at this point.

As I mentioned earlier, our half backs are actually okay, but need to become more consistent and ensure they hit targets 9 times out of 10. Hibberd will help. Jetta is the third guy I'd allow to play within his limitations a little bit more, but still ensure he provides some run off half back. 

So the way I see it, without having continuity and a settled key defender partnership, our defence will continue to leak goals it shouldn't. It's also not a defence at this stage that will become a top 4 defence. I like attributes of both Oscar and Frost, but I think by the end of 2017, we have to know whether these guys will partner Tom or whether we have to chase someone else in the short term to get our defence up to scratch. I'd also expect us to adjust our defensive line and play slightly deeper and less aggressively as the season wears on.

Finally, the ball use around the forward arc by Adelaide forwards is world's apart from ours. So it isn't just defence, but improving ball use is certainly a key theme across the ground.

I haven't seen much of thr crows but i understand and agree with what youve said.. 

Missing frost and hibberd has hurt us to start off the year.

The sooner we get them all playing together the better 

I also still think ozzie mac will be a valuable contributor as well. But we are still very inexperienced and young across the ground 

3 minutes ago, A F said:

I agree. They did look gutted yesterday, but they didn't look gutted after the Geelong loss. I would have been.

The result was not close in the last quarter AF. It was over against Geelong with ten minutes to go.

yesterday it was still in the offing with 30 seconds to go. We were I think in front with 2 minutes to go.

I also think they went into the Geelong game really not expecting to win whereas yesterday they would have expected to win.

add all those together and you see the difference in losing one game verse the other. 

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

but using the luck element would be making excuses ...

Using the luck element would just be acknowledging that much that happens in a footy match comes down to luck, or something close to it.

The world is a much more unpredictable place than we're prepared to admit, but we still spend our lives convincing ourselves it makes sense and looking for reasons to justify such an assumption.

11 minutes ago, old dee said:

The result was not close in the last quarter AF. It was over against Geelong with ten minutes to go.

yesterday it was still in the offing with 30 seconds to go. We were I think in front with 2 minutes to go.

I also think they went into the Geelong game really not expecting to win whereas yesterday they would have expected to win.

add all those together and you see the difference in losing one game verse the other. 

Maybe, OD. Maybe.

12 minutes ago, A F said:

I agree. They did look gutted yesterday, but they didn't look gutted after the Geelong loss. I would have been.

Memo to club:

Could players be instructed to display appropriate levels of looking guttedness after losing.

Thanks,

A Fan