3 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

Hardest they've played for 2 or 3 years

They emerged tonight

Seriously? Emerged? Friday night footy, chance to cement 4th spot, stamp ourselves, and we failed yet again.

Wow. Some are easily satisfied

At the end of the day you dominate a game like that so many inside50 , Richmond would have one that game by 8 goals

1 minute ago, jumbo returns said:

Composure

How do we fix it?

1 minute ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

The ten marks were all in 50 were they? You story is not stacking up my friend. 

Check the stats mate. 10 marks inside 50 to 7, even though we dominated inside 50s.

I'm not saying this is the reason we lost, but we can't continue to play with an under-sized backline.

2 minutes ago, Watts Jurrah Dunn? said:

The Hogan missed snap with 5 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter was critical. The bloke is on $800k a year and was under no pressure 20m directly in front of goal. An absolute pretender

Jesus.  Aren't we good at turning on a player after a couple of below par games.  The bloke had been in great touch prior to that, yet a couple of poor games and he's an 'absolute pretender'.  This is not the Collingwood board, is it?

Totally confused by tonight.

By my reckoning we would have won by 4 goals at least without umpire involvement, and yet... And yet we got virtually nothing from: Hogan, Harmes, AirBNB, T Smith, Tyson, Tracc after 1/4 time, and most others below their best.

So should we have won, or lost by more?

Also, as usual,  I’m probably wrong in everything I just said, which is even more confusing.

37 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Can't wait for the presser...

Actually..i can

Actually I can't be bothered

Same here. I cannot handle another Goodwin press conference where he trots out the line "we didn't play the brand of footy we want to be known for".

Reality is the last two games were an opportunity to show we're serious and sadly we couldn't hack it. 

These pricks will let us down every time. 

Edited June 22, 20186 yr by deegirl
Spelling

3 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Joel Smith is just not good enough to play as a second tall.

Good post. And you're not wrong there (Petty in please)... but Smith can play. And can play tall as long as he's not expected to for a full 120 minutes. He'll be a good player. Just played out of position the last two games.

3 minutes ago, Watts Jurrah Dunn? said:

Goodwin got what he deserved for loading up with guys like Tyson and Harmes at the expense of Spargo, Garlett and even JKH. 

No offense, but that's daft. JKH has shown nothing and is on the chopping block unfortunately. Spargo likes to go but he's a kid and would have been eaten alive. Garlett hasn't played a meaningful minute in AFL or VFL in months.

This was a game for mature bodies. Tyson and Harmes are at least mature. We lost, but it wasn't because of coaching decisions.

10 minutes ago, fattysback said:

I thought that the umpiring was fair and we played really well and we just couldn't finish it off.

Thats what I thought. 

There's always next week.

Do you think it’s fair when Wingard holds it for a split second and gets a mark paid while Brayshaw does the same thing and isn’t? Or when Wingard flops and gets high tackle free kick after high tackle free kick but when Melksham cops one high inside 50 play on?

Do you think Bernie accidentally raising his arm and touching Rockliff’s face who wasn’t even in possession and getting a high tackle free is fair? 

I respect your opinion but I could go on with these..

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

The umpires did not win them the game. Our inability to kick goals with our inside 50 count did. Wrong move  to not play a crumber.  

And not for the first time this year we lose games at selection. 

We went too small down back and too tall up forward. I get the need to have a backup for Gawn, but gees to drop Spargo and not bring in Garlett is just making an already slow team slower. 

I think Joel Smith is doing really well, but Lewis and Vince down back are destroying my soul. They are good footy users and they give us maturity, but they run in mud. Sooooo slow. Why don’t they give Stretch a go at Vince’s role? 

We simply cannot keep playing both. Tyson had a chance at redemption and blew it. Trac is giving us nothing. Hogan missing in action. Neal Bullen and Harmes lack of composure is another team killer.

I would have loved to see Salem take the wing in the last. Help us get the ball inside 50 with some finess. Clearly the focus this week was “see ball, win clearance, smash ball forward”. Great in theory, awful in practice. We wasted so many opportunities because apart from Melksham, nobody lowers their eyes going inside 50. It’s bomb central, with not a single crumber inside. The mind boggles. 

1 minute ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Check the stats mate. 10 marks inside 50 to 7, even though we dominated inside 50s.

I'm not saying this is the reason we lost, but we can't continue to play with an under-sized backline.

You're hanging your hat on some pretty flimsy stats.  Sure, they took a few extra marks, but that's due to quicker ball movement and better use than anything else.  An undersized backline, as you put it, had next to nothing to do with the loss tonight.  What your stats highlight is our inefficiency going forward, as we should have clunked 20 marks inside 50 on the numbers we had.

We are stuffed needed to win that game, we can't beat good sides and we are so slow. Premiership hopes dashed and we will struggle to make the 8.

2 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Check the stats mate. 10 marks inside 50 to 7, even though we dominated inside 50s.

I'm not saying this is the reason we lost, but we can't continue to play with an under-sized backline.

Who took the marks? If their name is Ebert so we have a tall back problem? 

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

You're hanging your hat on some pretty flimsy stats.  Sure, they took a few extra marks, but that's due to quicker ball movement and better use than anything else.  An undersized backline, as you put it, had next to nothing to do with the loss tonight.  What your stats highlight is our inefficiency going forward, as we should have clunked 20 marks inside 50 on the numbers we had.

And we didn't because they flooded back and crashed the packs with tall defenders. 

End of the day this side is not good enough to win a flag, yet. We need better outside runners than we have now and we need more mature key backs.

6 minutes ago, Watts Jurrah Dunn? said:

I don't even accept the inside 50 differential  because ours shouldn't be counted as inside 50s. They are junk hacks forward by a midfield bunch always under pressure thanks to a lack of pace and class. It is easily the most unbalanced midfield in the afl.

That’s the point though. The only way to lose with 29 more inside 50s is when those inside 50s are ineffective. 

We clearly did something right through the middle. +19 CPs, +16 clearances. But when those CPs and clearances are just resulting in poor quality kicks inside 50s, or when we let opponents send extras behind the ball and clog up our space, we don’t turn that effort into anything productive. 

It’s the perfect summation of what is wrong with us. 

2 minutes ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

Who took the marks? If their name is Ebert so we have a tall back problem? 

It's key moments that count and tonight there were a few that killed us when they took big marks.

I'm not going to both arguing anymore but if they don't add another tall defender in the next few weeks I'll blow my lid.

2 minutes ago, Jaded said:

And not for the first time this year we lose games at selection. 

We went too small down back and too tall up forward. I get the need to have a backup for Gawn, but gees to drop Spargo and not bring in Garlett is just making an already slow team slower. 

I think Joel Smith is doing really well, but Lewis and Vince down back are destroying my soul. They are good footy users and they give us maturity, but they run in mud. Sooooo slow. Why don’t they give Stretch a go at Vince’s role? 

We simply cannot keep playing both. Tyson had a chance at redemption and blew it. Trac is giving us nothing. Hogan missing in action. Neal Bullen and Harmes lack of composure is another team killer.

I would have loved to see Salem take the wing in the last. Help us get the ball inside 50 with some finess. Clearly the focus this week was “see ball, win clearance, smash ball forward”. Great in theory, awful in practice. We wasted so many opportunities because apart from Melksham, nobody lowers their eyes going inside 50. It’s bomb central, with not a single crumber inside. The mind boggles. 

Small down back was not the problem. Inability for forwards to spread and us to bomb  long was. Possibly not having a crumb to duo with Hannan ( who had 5 shots on goal) was.  

4 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Jesus.  Aren't we good at turning on a player after a couple of below par games.  The bloke had been in great touch prior to that, yet a couple of poor games and he's an 'absolute pretender'.  This is not the Collingwood board, is it?

Great touch against who? How's he played against Geelong, Richmond, Hawthorn, Collingwood and Port?

Up to this point he's just a flat track bully who beats up on the bottom 6 sides. 

14 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Me too. 

Too easily pleased!! 

It a MFC Thing!

5 minutes ago, layzie said:

Do you think it’s fair when Wingard holds it for a split second and gets a mark paid while Brayshaw does the same thing and isn’t? Or when Wingard flops and gets high tackle free kick after high tackle free kick but when Melksham cops one high inside 50 play on?

Do you think Bernie accidentally raising his arm and touching Rockliff’s face who wasn’t even in possession and getting a high tackle free is fair? 

I respect your opinion but I could go on with these..

 

 

 

Fair call, Wingard and Brayshaw are both soft types but they did pay one and not the other. Melksham is a tough guy but got no help from the umps at all, Bernie played quite well and yeah they nab him for anything.

Edited June 22, 20186 yr by Big Demon

9 minutes ago, PJ_12345 said:

We didnt kick a goal for the last 30 minutes. Dont see how we kept up with the intensity.

Not sure I understand the connection PJ. A team can play with intensity without the polish. 

On that note, we did lack composure going inside-50 on occasion - but the game was so tight and contested in the packs that it almost felt like a wet-weather match at times (in which we've previously been poor) - with players bashing it forward to the next contest at every opportunity.

We had a bit more clear ball going inside-50 but couldn't switch mindset/approach when needed - not a huge cross in the context. Still a lot of split contests - just lacked sufficient clean crumbing. Garlett, as has been mentioned, may have helped. Fritsch and Hannan are small-percentage opportunists - some weeks they'll hit and others not. ANB and Melksham too. 

12 minutes ago, Knuckles said:

Thought Lewis really struggled again tonight. His time has probably come, but who comes in. 

We cant forget Port averaged a full season of experience per player more than us. That’s a massive. It showed in the composure throughout. 

Garlett simply has to play next week. It’s obviously every time we play a decent team. Probably could play Spargo as well. 

Garlett has been average week in week out in a winning vfl side.

Why bring him back..

Delivery into the 50 cost us the game tonight. 

1 minute ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

It's key moments that count and tonight there were a few that killed us when they took big marks.

I'm not going to both arguing anymore but if they don't add another tall defender in the next few weeks I'll blow my lid.

Show me once you add petty or frost next week the match ups vs StKilda. I look forward to reviewing them. 

Would have been better if some players were a little more selfish going forward to mix it up.  No one tried to ping a long one. Every ball went 20-30 metres out straight to a pack. Same as last week.

Edited June 22, 20186 yr by america de cali

OK.  Haven't read the thread but I have a pretty good idea of what's on here. 

The Umpires annoy the hell out of me, and I honestly thought they were OK for most of the game.  It's like they got told off at half time and changed tack to make things easier for Port.  Tat being said, they did not cost us the game. 

What did cost us the game is the fact that we ad ore inside 50's than we had points scored.  We scored from a pathetic 30.7% of forward 50 entries.  That is a direct result of reverting to high directionless bombs rather than trying to actually hit targets.  We cost ourselves the win by refusing to pass the damn ball and instead just banging in the high bomb and hoping someone could take a spekkie.