8 hours ago, goodwindees said:

Lost by one kick to one of the weakest sides Geelong will field all year, plus they lost a key player early. I am filthy at the thought of those who state this was a gallant/brave loss. 

This was a matter of not being good enough to beat a weakened team on our home ground after an off-season of talking tough and saying how we’ll rebound after a pathetic end to last season. 

If you lose a game you should’ve won, that is a bad loss. 

That about sums up last week's loss perfectly.

Another poor result, to add to the many poor results this group has been churning out on a regular basis since that Sydney game at the G last year.

I don't understand how the defence was so bad in the first half and super good in the second half, I am fearing that Goodwin has not learnt how to stop a teams momentum in qtrs, or the team don't know how to slow down a game, seams to be our defective set up can only work for a half of footy, after the 1 st term when Geelong scored 8 scores form 10  entries, Goodwin should have addressed that after the first quarter and not until half-time, only the demons could lose the way we did

10 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

I don't understand how the defence was so bad in the first half and super good in the second half, I am fearing that Goodwin has not learnt how to stop a teams momentum in qtrs, or the team don't know how to slow down a game, seams to be our defective set up can only work for a half of footy, after the 1 st term when Geelong scored 8 scores form 10  entries, Goodwin should have addressed that after the first quarter and not until half-time, only the demons could lose the way we did

A lot of the issues were down to two-way running (or lack thereof) from the midfield. While we were winning our fair share of the clearances, as soon as the ball was turned over and went the other way our mids were very slow to transition. 

I love Trac and think he’ll become a superstar but 2 way running isn’t his best attribute. It might have been part of the reason why he was moved forward after HT.

Edited March 29, 20187 yr by Gawn's Beard

On 3/28/2018 at 3:18 PM, ProDee said:

It's easy to read too much into things, but considering Goodwin may want to get Tyson, Brayshaw and perhaps the defensive pressure of Bugg into the side one suspects that Hannan along with Maynard would be one of the first in line to lose his spot.  It's possible Goodwin was breaking the news to him.

 

On 3/28/2018 at 4:18 PM, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I'm guessing Hannan's omitted??

 

 

On 3/28/2018 at 4:51 PM, Satyriconhome said:

Goodwin does this all the time at training, doesn't necessarily mean he is omitted, might have a different role in mind

The team lost by a kick, why would Goodwin be considering changes?

It was the 1st half defending which disappointed him

Listen to his presser, he is already flagging there may be no change

Saty way off the mark once again.

39 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

 

 

Saty way off the mark once again.

Not really. Goody actually did have a different role for him. At Casey.

On 3/28/2018 at 3:18 PM, ProDee said:

It's easy to read too much into things, but considering Goodwin may want to get Tyson, Brayshaw and perhaps the defensive pressure of Bugg into the side one suspects that Hannan along with Maynard would be one of the first in line to lose his spot.  It's possible Goodwin was breaking the news to him.

I'm going to call you Nostradamus!

Those that state it was a gallant loss I don't disagree but it is only a gallant loss because we fought back and in essence should have won with better forward 50 conversion.

Then ask yourself how many of our players played to your expectations for the full game. I counted 8 with Lewis and Harmes making it 10 if you just count their second half.

We looked good over JLT due to even team performances with most playing their roles to expectations across most of the game. Need to get back to that this week and moving forward and we will murder most sides.

 

On 29/03/2018 at 9:09 AM, Diamond_Jim said:

Perhaps a little harsh but the sentiment is correct. That was a game we should have won ... at the MCG.. Dangerfield out and an early injury to a key Geelong player.

The alternative view could be that we came close to winning with a large number of poor contributors- in the past we would have dropped in confidence early and got smashed. No excuses but plenty of up side.

4 hours ago, Tough Kent said:

I'm going to call you Nostradamus!

Dear me precious, I have an opinion, in hindsight it was incorrect, thought Hannan worked his way into the game, Goody obviously didn't I can live with that

Unlike the Aust Cricket followers on here, I don't have a holier than thou attitude and can admit my opinion was in this instance erroneous 

2 hours ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

Those that state it was a gallant loss I don't disagree but it is only a gallant loss because we fought back and in essence should have won with better forward 50 conversion.

Then ask yourself how many of our players played to your expectations for the full game. I counted 8 with Lewis and Harmes making it 10 if you just count their second half.

We looked good over JLT due to even team performances with most playing their roles to expectations across most of the game. Need to get back to that this week and moving forward and we will murder most sides.

 

You know you have a problem when Hawkins has more possessions, 9 in the first half, than 17 Dees. 

I wonder if Richmond are gnashing their teeth after fielding a full side last night and losing to a Crows side two down on the bench and missing some important players.

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

You know you have a problem when Hawkins has more possessions, 9 in the first half, than 17 Dees. 

Who was Hawkins paying on?

8 hours ago, chook fowler said:

The alternative view could be that we came close to winning with a large number of poor contributors- in the past we would have dropped in confidence early and got smashed. No excuses but plenty of up side.

The alternative view you pose is irrelevant. We moved on from that mindset 2 yrs ago...

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The alternative view you pose is irrelevant. We moved on from that mindset 2 yrs ago...

Excuse me for having an opinion

5 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Who was Hawkins paying on?

Oscar, who I thought did ok on him. Hawkins didn't score and didn't really hurt us.

11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Oscar, who I thought did ok on him. Hawkins didn't score and didn't really hurt us.

Yes I remember Hawkins chasing possessions down on the wing in the first and thinking that is a good thing for us at the time. 

12 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Yes I remember Hawkins chasing possessions down on the wing in the first and thinking that is a good thing for us at the time. 

It was.  It’s not his prime gig, so better he’s in a contest 85 from home, rather than 15.