Speed algorhythm - Uncontested Possession

[TGR 1,367]

Much debate in the past 24 hours is about whether we really lack outside speed.  

We can all look at this a bit simply and directly correlate this with uncontested possession numbers.  But what are the other related variables and factors?  We lack speed, but does that mean we wouldn't be assisted by a Sam Mitchell (circa 2012), Tim Kelly or Dustin Martin?  These players aren't quick, but would they help our uncontested possession crisis?  I think they would, so it can't be all about leg speed.

 

Despite the recency of the 6/6/6, the league has been clear on its want to reduce congestion.  Congestion was our friend, and favoured teams that were hard inside with quick hands in congestion.  Some of our inside work last year reminded me of Sydney in 2005/6 as well as the Bulldogs in 2016.  Collingwood's quick hands in 2018 was elite too.

 

So as the game decongests (quicker ball-ups, decisions over ball-up, 6/6/6, kick-out play-on etc...), uncontested possession is about to be gold.  This ugly duckling of 2005-2018 (bar Clarkson/Hawthorn) is about to become the go-to stat of most games hereon.

Leg-speed counts quite a bit toward uncontested possession; but what else.  Surely there are teams without elite leg-speed that are OK with uncontested possession.  So what are the additional factors?  What makes the sum of the parts more whole?

Foot skills have got to be a factor.  Clarkson's Hawthorn had foot skills of the highest percentile.  They were able to start a chain from D50, and not rely on clearance-dominance and contested possession.  As stated, they were the exception when contested was king.

Uncontested possession requires a chain to start and continue obviously.  So what else, other than leg-speed and foot skills will enable a chain to start and continue.

The ability to break a tackle must be relevant.  As soon as this happens, a +1 instantly occurs, and overlap can happen.  Dustin Martin in 17/18 has been the best, and regularly gave Richmond a +1 and overlap chain.  Despite being dragged down yesterday, I have faith in Petracca being elite at breaking a tackle.  I think Brayshaw's ability to evade a tackler is grossly underrated as well.  Oliver's quick hands are elite in evading a tackle, but this delegates responsibility to the player who has just received the pill in close, and doesn't necessarily augment a chain starting and spreading to the outside.

The other 'non-speed' component is lateral speed or change-of-direction speed.  Sam Mitchell was like treacle in a straight-line, but somehow could zig-and-zag quicker than most.  Tim Kelly has a bit of Sam Mitchell and Brayshaw about him.  Not electric, but slices through.

Fox Footy (Lyon with Roos agreeing) also mentioned the A2 and A3 having faith in the A1 to get the ball.  In other words, does the A1 (person about to get the pill) really need support in close.  Yesterday's example was Petracca (identifying this near the city end) peeling off offensively and dangerously, and having faith that his teammate would win the possession.

Other factors involve defensive spread (which primarily require leg-speed), workrate and restricting dangerous space.

 

Alternatives?

If you don't do well with uncontested possession, then you have an unhealthy reliance on winning clearances and gaining territory into F50.  You also have an unhealthy reliance on your forwards keeping the pill in our forward 50.  Mooney on Fox Footy yesterday overheard (3/4 time break) that Port didn't rate our forwards applying pressure, and coaching staff advised Port's backs to take stock coming out of their backline.

 

Have we built a list that incorporates all these variables?  I think it is important to start judging players on the whole, rather than the simple (good v bad, slow v fast).

 

 

 

Spargo is quick, but not lightening.  He rarely breaks a tackle.  I don't think his change of direction speed is great either.  Spargo needs bulk (to break a tackle) amongst other things to earn a spot.

Lewis should retire now.  Other than his foot skills, I can only see him being a liability in the decongested era.  I have said repeatedly over the past few years, Watts could have done Lewis's onfield role with much more upside.

Frost is the new whipping boy.  But the simpletons are mad thinking he is our greatest problem.  He is super-quick.  His change of direction was hampered by wearing ice-skates yesterday.  When he gets it, he attracts 2-3 opposition, which in theory should create the overlap opportunity.  I would like to see him bulk up a bit and break a few more tackles.

Hunt - must play.  Speed, change-of-direction and overlap.  With 6/6/6 dump kicks into F50 will now go to 1-on-1s or 2-on-2s more often.

Brayshaw - tackle evasion/breaking is understated; foot skills are better than what he has been given credit for; his non-dominant side foot skills are on the way (not there yet) to what Mitchell's was like.

 

Melbourne under Goodwin and Roos have built a list of competitors that are suited to congestion.  On paper, it is a 'pretty good list', but when it is judged on these variables, it comes up short.

 

 

pTGR

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by TGR

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

Right so in laymans terms..... just when its taken us 4 years to build up an elite team capable of playing contested random football, the afl have changed the rules and made us almost obsolete.

Yeah, that would be right........

Very good observations by the way. Maybe post it to the football dept.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Wadda We Sing

[whatwhat say what 22,755]

spargo knows how to use the footy when he finds it, and actually has some pace - he just doesn't lay a tackle as he's a 19 year old, still developing strength

i personally don't think you can play frost and hunt in the same side; yes, they both have line-breaking speed, but neither can hit a target by foot

couldn't disagree with you more re lewis - the loss of him on the eve of round 1 was a massive blow as he controls our backline and is a must to have someone with a semblance of understanding of where to position themselves defensively, cos hibberd as our other backline leader can't / doesn't do it, and jetta leads by example rather than instruction, and to compare him to watts is laughable

brayshaw's skills are terrible, but he's brilliant at finding the footy - he's nowhere near mitchell's class at this stage

it's one game in, there's nothing to panic about, but there are obvious concerns at this stage

we got SMASHED for contested ball against meth coke, in the jlt match-ups, and against the pear

if you don't win the ball, you always look slow

[Tapsc...Kent...Harmes! 11]

7 hours ago, TGR said:

Much debate in the past 24 hours is about whether we really lack outside speed.  

We can all look at this a bit simply and directly correlate this with uncontested possession numbers.  But what are the other related variables and factors?  We lack speed, but does that mean we wouldn't be assisted by a Sam Mitchell (circa 2012), Tim Kelly or Dustin Martin?  These players aren't quick, but would they help our uncontested possession crisis?  I think they would, so it can't be all about leg speed.

 

Despite the recency of the 6/6/6, the league has been clear on its want to reduce congestion.  Congestion was our friend, and favoured teams that were hard inside with quick hands in congestion.  Some of our inside work last year reminded me of Sydney in 2005/6 as well as the Bulldogs in 2016.  Collingwood's quick hands in 2018 was elite too.

 

So as the game decongests (quicker ball-ups, decisions over ball-up, 6/6/6, kick-out play-on etc...), uncontested possession is about to be gold.  This ugly duckling of 2005-2018 (bar Clarkson/Hawthorn) is about to become the go-to stat of most games hereon.

Leg-speed counts quite a bit toward uncontested possession; but what else.  Surely there are teams without elite leg-speed that are OK with uncontested possession.  So what are the additional factors?  What makes the sum of the parts more whole?

Foot skills have got to be a factor.  Clarkson's Hawthorn had foot skills of the highest percentile.  They were able to start a chain from D50, and not rely on clearance-dominance and contested possession.  As stated, they were the exception when contested was king.

Uncontested possession requires a chain to start and continue obviously.  So what else, other than leg-speed and foot skills will enable a chain to start and continue.

The ability to break a tackle must be relevant.  As soon as this happens, a +1 instantly occurs, and overlap can happen.  Dustin Martin in 17/18 has been the best, and regularly gave Richmond a +1 and overlap chain.  Despite being dragged down yesterday, I have faith in Petracca being elite at breaking a tackle.  I think Brayshaw's ability to evade a tackler is grossly underrated as well.  Oliver's quick hands are elite in evading a tackle, but this delegates responsibility to the player who has just received the pill in close, and doesn't necessarily augment a chain starting and spreading to the outside.

The other 'non-speed' component is lateral speed or change-of-direction speed.  Sam Mitchell was like treacle in a straight-line, but somehow could zig-and-zag quicker than most.  Tim Kelly has a bit of Sam Mitchell and Brayshaw about him.  Not electric, but slices through.

Fox Footy (Lyon with Roos agreeing) also mentioned the A2 and A3 having faith in the A1 to get the ball.  In other words, does the A1 (person about to get the pill) really need support in close.  Yesterday's example was Petracca (identifying this near the city end) peeling off offensively and dangerously, and having faith that his teammate would win the possession.

Other factors involve defensive spread (which primarily require leg-speed), workrate and restricting dangerous space.

 

Alternatives?

If you don't do well with uncontested possession, then you have an unhealthy reliance on winning clearances and gaining territory into F50.  You also have an unhealthy reliance on your forwards keeping the pill in our forward 50.  Mooney on Fox Footy yesterday overheard (3/4 time break) that Port didn't rate our forwards applying pressure, and coaching staff advised Port's backs to take stock coming out of their backline.

 

Have we built a list that incorporates all these variables?  I think it is important to start judging players on the whole, rather than the simple (good v bad, slow v fast).

 

 

 

Spargo is quick, but not lightening.  He rarely breaks a tackle.  I don't think his change of direction speed is great either.  Spargo needs bulk (to break a tackle) amongst other things to earn a spot.

Lewis should retire now.  Other than his foot skills, I can only see him being a liability in the decongested era.  I have said repeatedly over the past few years, Watts could have done Lewis's onfield role with much more upside.

Frost is the new whipping boy.  But the simpletons are mad thinking he is our greatest problem.  He is super-quick.  His change of direction was hampered by wearing ice-skates yesterday.  When he gets it, he attracts 2-3 opposition, which in theory should create the overlap opportunity.  I would like to see him bulk up a bit and break a few more tackles.

Hunt - must play.  Speed, change-of-direction and overlap.  With 6/6/6 dump kicks into F50 will now go to 1-on-1s or 2-on-2s more often.

Brayshaw - tackle evasion/breaking is understated; foot skills are better than what he has been given credit for; his non-dominant side foot skills are on the way (not there yet) to what Mitchell's was like.

 

Melbourne under Goodwin and Roos have built a list of competitors that are suited to congestion.  On paper, it is a 'pretty good list', but when it is judged on these variables, it comes up short.

 

 

pTGR

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of this was good until you said Brayshaw has good skills. He has shithouse composure and only knows how to kick the ball as far as possible

[DV8 2,271]

25 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

spargo knows how to use the footy when he finds it, and actually has some pace - he just doesn't lay a tackle as he's a 19 year old, still developing strength

i personally don't think you can play frost and hunt in the same side; yes, they both have line-breaking speed, but neither can hit a target by foot

couldn't disagree with you more re lewis - the loss of him on the eve of round 1 was a massive blow as he controls our backline and is a must to have someone with a semblance of understanding of where to position themselves defensively, cos hibberd as our other backline leader can't / doesn't do it, and jetta leads by example rather than instruction, and to compare him to watts is laughable

brayshaw's skills are terrible, but he's brilliant at finding the footy - he's nowhere near mitchell's class at this stage

it's one game in, there's nothing to panic about, but there are obvious concerns at this stage

we got SMASHED for contested ball against meth coke, in the jlt match-ups, and against the pear

if you don't win the ball, you always look slow

Can't play them both in the back-half.   I would play Hunt from the wing...  not in defence,  but he can push back, to bring the ball thru.

Frost could play R/R. 2nd Ruck, at a pinch,  if we had an injured Gawn.    His speed and size around the packs would at least be interesting.  Even if he just hand-balled the thing out of the pack.

 

Also, I would not mind if the club took a leaf out of Ports books, and played one of our half-forwards, who needs to work harder off the back-flank, some times. 

He needs to become more accountable, and a stronger work-ethic.

[JV7 2,351]

I’m sure people will tell me to shut up because I keep banging on about the same thing every time our lack of leg speed is bought up but as long as people keep bringing it up I will put my 2 cents in.

I believe speed in AFL is completely overrated, the fastest way you can play football is by quick ball movement. Clean disposal by foot & quick chains of handballs. Our lack of speed is bought up every single time we have a bad loss or loss for that matter, we have been beaten in those games because we have not been aloud to play our style of football. Look at the total possession count from the weekend, we couldn’t get the footy off Port. I’d have a guess if you look at most of our “bad” losses over the past 2 years it would be we have been well beaten in the possession count, we just couldn’t get the ball of Port & control the game in any way.

Another point on the speed factor, take frost or hunt for example. They take off a million miles an hour, burst away, kick long  & turn it over, that footy is sling shot back inside our defence 50 by FOOT, not legs, I repeat GOOD foot skills not speed before Frost or Hunt could even turn around to defend. 

Agree we are not the fastest side in the comp, but we are playing football not racing a 100m sprint. Good ball use particularly by foot is what makes sides fast. 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

@JV7

Nail on head. 

We shoot ourselves in the foot by aimlessly kicking forward too often only to find ourselves wasting energy on chasing tail back the other way. 

It is completely a ball movement, clean possession and disposal thing. Nothing else. 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

8 hours ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Right so in laymans terms..... just when its taken us 4 years to build up an elite team capable of playing contested random football, the afl have changed the rules and made us almost obsolete.

Yeah, that would be right........

Very good observations by the way. Maybe post it to the football dept.

I was thinking the same WWS.  Might be another 4 years before we get ourselves back to a Prelim!

The other issue, as WhatWhat has mentioned, was the lack of any leaders out there on Sat, especially down back.  With the removal of any live in game messages coming from the runners and no level headed commandeering from Lewis, we apparently didn't correct some major issues down back eg; lack of switching, kicking long to a contest.

The OP says we are slack defensively up forward and Port were overheard in the huddle highlighting this, yet we had more tackles inside 50 than them?  Maybe not so great with "effective tackles".

We also dominated clearances from the middle and matched them around stoppages.  So one would suspect it's what happened once we got it on the outside that went wrong.

With 6/6/6 being a significant change from here, disposal skills on the outside (along with run/spread & foot speed of course), especially for teams who were more inside built and focussed (like ourselves), is now even more critical to outcomes on the scoreboard.

The AFL average on disposal efficiency % (across all teams over an entire season) is roughly 73%.  Taking that into account (and noting it is only one match and yes averages would of course be different depending on where you are playing and some players may have had only a handful of disposals and been super accurate and still played a poor game etc) let's look at who didn't make the grade on the weekend by a significant margin (for arguments sake let's say 5%...sub 68% DE) ...

- Hibberd 66.7%

- Melksham  62.5%

- Viney 60%

- ANB 60%

- Brayshaw 57.7%

- Hunt 50%

The more important one for me here is disposal efficiency by foot which helps to control the game (Hawks have always done this brilliantly with maybe last year a rare exception).  Unfortunately there are no publicaly available foot skill stats other than trawling through each player on Pro Stats which is a pain.

Looking at DE % on the weekend overall....The Power ranked 2nd at 75.4% and we came in 7th at 72.1% so overall we arent far off the usual season average but we still have a handfull needing to clean their act up (and yes some who may have a decent DE but hardly getting their hands on the pill will also need to lift!).

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Rusty Nails

[Skuit 10,031]

There are a million issues. When we lose.

They all start in the centre - and then get amplified from there.

You have Jack Viney completely underdone and not competing. Nathan Jones not much better.

It means the other mids are running more minutes and running harder compared to their opposite numbers.

It translates to greater exhaustion.

It looks like we're slow. We suddenly can't kick straight. The opposition gets it on the outside. We chase more.

We get more exhausted. We bomb it in more. Which makes our forward line look dysfunctional.

So we can't trap it in as well. Because our structures are broken. Easy rebounds. Our defenders look horrible.

Repeat and amplify.

Do you think any supporters think they have a fast team?

Seriously, have you ever thought or have you ever heard anyone say;

'Gee, we looked fast today, it's a shame about our foot-skills and effort though.'? 

The opposition makes you look slow when they dominate.

Similar: have you ever heard someone compliment their team's superior foot-skills but lament their lack of pace? 

Every supporter when their team loses thinks their team looks slow and can't kick straight.

Just the same as every fan thinks the umpires are against them.

Pace isn't our problem. We made it to a prelim last year with the exact same level of pace.

 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Hunt and Frost rarely break free because they don't have a sidestep despite their perceived pace.

The opposition know which way they are going, only forwards.

 

[Watson11 2,240]

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

@JV7

Nail on head. 

We shoot ourselves in the foot by aimlessly kicking forward too often only to find ourselves wasting energy on chasing tail back the other way. 

It is completely a ball movement, clean possession and disposal thing. Nothing else. 

Disposal is super important but we get sucked into the contest too easily.  That’s why we chase tail.  When a 50-50 ball doesn’t go our way, we have 4 or 5 players within a few metres of it, and well coached teams have players free on the outside.  If we have a good day with contested posssesion and ball movement, you don’t see it and our biggest defect is masked over.  I’d like to see us improve kicking efficiency and set up better for when we don’t win 50-50 ball.  Same happens at stoppages.  

Interesting stat, if we had scored the same as Port from stoppages on Saturday we would have won. 

 

[layzie 33,801]

100 % agree with most here. Pace is a very nice thing to have but speed of ball movement will always win out. The number of speedster mids that have ben drafted that could burn up the grass but couldn't play dead is gigantic.

It may be good to have in cases of spreading a bit quicker and tracking back but that's about it.

[TGR 1,367]

36 minutes ago, Skuit said:

There are a million issues. When we lose.

They all start in the centre - and then get amplified from there.

You have Jack Viney completely underdone and not competing. Nathan Jones not much better.

It means the other mids are running more minutes and running harder compared to their opposite numbers.

It translates to greater exhaustion.

It looks like we're slow. We suddenly can't kick straight. The opposition gets it on the outside. We chase more.

We get more exhausted. We bomb it in more. Which makes our forward line look dysfunctional.

So we can't trap it in as well. Because our structures are broken. Easy rebounds. Our defenders look horrible.

Repeat and amplify.

Do you think any supporters think they have a fast team?

Seriously, have you ever thought or have you ever heard anyone say;

'Gee, we looked fast today, it's a shame about our foot-skills and effort though.'? 

The opposition makes you look slow when they dominate.

Similar: have you ever heard someone compliment their team's superior foot-skills but lament their lack of pace? 

Every supporter when their team loses thinks their team looks slow and can't kick straight.

 

Hawthorn under Clarkson.  Only Cyril and Hill and maybe Smith had genuine leg speed.

Geelong under Thompson?

 

I see where you are going saying one swallow does not make a spring.  I rarely judge on the basis of one performance.  Geelong beat Collingwood on Friday night...and the Pies will be premiers to make the point.

Kicking efficiency stats require caution.

 

If I have the ball in time and space (work rate, and relative leg speed required) AND the receiver has busted his [censored] to be out on his own, then I could bloody kick it to him with good efficiency.  OK I am Hibberd coming out of deep defence under pressure, I look up....Viney is incapable of sprinting free...so is Jones...Gawn ain’t quick and took no contested marks....the wind is bloody gusty...  Of course my kicking efficiency is going to be average.

 

This thread is about thinking more than one dimensionally about a problem.  If you think kicking efficiency is all about a ball drop and foot contact, then your thinking half dimensionally.

 

 

 

 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

What's the fastest way to move the ball from one end to the other?

By kicking it forward and hitting targets.  

Leg speed, while handy, is overrated if your ball use is good.

[TGR 1,367]

4 minutes ago, layzie said:

100 % agree with most here. Pace is a very nice thing to have but speed of ball movement will always win out. The number of speedster mids that have ben drafted that could burn up the grass but couldn't play dead is gigantic.

Agree BUT....that was when contested was king.

[Skuit 10,031]

Just now, TGR said:

Hawthorn under Clarkson.  Only Cyril and Hill and maybe Smith had genuine leg speed.

Geelong under Thompson?

 

I see where you are going saying one swallow does not make a spring.  I rarely judge on the basis of one performance.  Geelong beat Collingwood on Friday night...and the Pies will be premiers to make the point.

Kicking efficiency stats require caution.

 

If I have the ball in time and space (work rate, and relative leg speed required) AND the receiver has busted his [censored] to be out on his own, then I could bloody kick it to him with good efficiency.  OK I am Hibberd coming out of deep defence under pressure, I look up....Viney is incapable of sprinting free...so is Jones...Gawn ain’t quick and took no contested marks....the wind is bloody gusty...  Of course my kicking efficiency is going to be average.

 

This thread is about thinking more than one dimensionally about a problem.  If you think kicking efficiency is all about a ball drop and foot contact, then your thinking half dimensionally.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure exactly your point - but mine is simply the more you run the more your efficiency and spread drops off. If you get beaten in the contest, you chase more and then look slower, exponentially. Shift/return will cut out some of your white space by the way.

We were middle of the road in terms of efficiency last year - right in there with the teams that dominated space. It was the crap teams with a higher number of kicks across half back which had better efficiency stats%

[TGR 1,367]

11 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

What's the fastest way to move the ball from one end to the other?

By kicking it forward and hitting targets.  

Leg speed, while handy, is overrated if your ball use is good.

Read the thread opener.  I said that Tim Kelly, Sam Mitchell and Dusty would help our uncontested possession.  It’s not all about leg speed, but it’s not all about kicking it forward and hitting targets either.  First, this does not help you get the ball back.  Second, if you hit safe targets in non-dangerous positions you can slow yourself up and allow teams to get numbers back.  Third, I saw ‘good’ kicks to Spargo heading toward the city end.  They hit their target, but with a defender on his heels, and the fact that Spargo is c-grade overhead, you are dancing with the devil.

 

6/6/6 and other rules have been the biggest changer to the game perhaps in its history.  No surprise that most of the prelim finalists, who had 1 month less prep to think about and train for the quantum leap actually lost.  Conversely, the sides that injected youth and speed (Geelong and Port) had their best wins of the modern era.

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by TGR

[Wiseblood 24,637]

1 minute ago, TGR said:

Second, if you hit safe targets in non-dangerous positions you can slow yourself up and allow teams to get numbers back.  Third, I saw ‘good’ kicks to Spargo heading toward the city end.  They hit their target, but with a defender on his heels, and the fact that Spargo is c-grade overhead, you are dancing with the devil.

 

I agree with that, and I think we took too many safe options due to our lethargy on the weekend.  We didn't push hard enough to take the risks in moving the ball quickly.  We turned it over, they then ran it out with ease because they were set up to do so.

When we take the risks with our ball movement, we look the goods.  We barely attempted it on the weekend and it showed.

[Demon Dude 425]

you cant chase down and pressure opponents with foot skills though. I agree moving the ball quickly will always beat running it, but its only half of the game. there is a balance to be found, and pace is certainly a handy thing to have when you don't have the ball. our midfield was very slow on Saturday, quite often when they won possession Port were off and running in waves and we were powerless to stop them, our blokes plodding along 20m behind them.

 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

1 minute ago, Demon Dude said:

you cant chase down and pressure opponents with foot skills though. 

 

No, but you can be in the right position to do it.

One thing we still do too often is have players sucked into the contest, while we allow them a free man off the pack.  If they win possession, they flick that handball out and are away.  That has nothing to with pace, but has everything to do with either the instruction to get numbers around the ball, or an inability to know when to stay out or to go in.

[Demon Dude 425]

14 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

No, but you can be in the right position to do it.

One thing we still do too often is have players sucked into the contest, while we allow them a free man off the pack.  If they win possession, they flick that handball out and are away.  That has nothing to with pace, but has everything to do with either the instruction to get numbers around the ball, or an inability to know when to stay out or to go in.

yeah we do that a lot. a symptom of too many inside types, like Jones, AVB and the like, playing wing etc. like I say there is a balance to be found, and we don't have it atm. the sooner we can get a KK or Baker in the side the better I reckon.

[praha 11,240]

Imo, losing the contested ball, and lacking pace are mutually exclusive. Once a team starts getting easy transition out of a stoppage, we get sliced up on the outside, especially on the MCG.

On the weekend we were lethargic and slow. That is a bad combination. Every team has its weakness. The Eagles were a terrible contested ball team last year and weren't especially fast, but they had key linebreakers across half back.

Hinkley coached to Port's strengths and our weakness. We had an off day and couldn't adjust. 

You tend to lose games when a weakness is exploited successfully. And it happens to every team. This is why no team goes undefeated.

Reasses and regroup.

[hemingway 7,627]

When the ball was kicked into our forward line or defence we rarely had players in front or behind the pack. Time and again Port swept the ball away when we had our guys flying for the aerial contest but noone at ground level. Very frustrating to see this occur repeatedly.

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

29 minutes ago, praha said:

Imo, losing the contested ball, and lacking pace are mutually exclusive. Once a team starts getting easy transition out of a stoppage, we get sliced up on the outside, especially on the MCG.

On the weekend we were lethargic and slow. That is a bad combination. Every team has its weakness. The Eagles were a terrible contested ball team last year and weren't especially fast, but they had key linebreakers across half back.

Hinkley coached to Port's strengths and our weakness. We had an off day and couldn't adjust. 

You tend to lose games when a weakness is exploited successfully. And it happens to every team. This is why no team goes undefeated.

Reasses and regroup.

I'm wrapped that the anxiety of the potenital to be an undefeated 'champion' team for 2019 (whilst winning the Grand Final) is no longer an option... now we can get on with the business of winning games

[TGR 1,367]

39 minutes ago, praha said:

1. Imo, losing the contested ball, and lacking pace are mutually exclusive. Once a team starts getting easy transition out of a stoppage, we get sliced up on the outside, especially on the MCG.

2. Hinkley coached to Port's strengths and our weakness. We had an off day and couldn't adjust. 

1.  We didn’t get smashed with contested ball.  Some of you are sneaking this falicy into explanations.

 

2.  Agree.

Hinkley built them up for this game all summer.  Targeted Gawn (shame some teammates didnf fly a flag for him).  Reassigned Watts.  Injected speed.  Consensus is that Lycett gave IP about the prelim decimation, whereas Goody said ‘we won’t look at that game...that’s the way we don’t usually play’.