POSTGAME: Rd 10 vs Adelaide

[Adam The God 30,644]

20 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

2 out of 6 in the first quarter.

2 out of 5 in the second quarter.

Thanks mate.

Any idea of around the ground stoppages? I presume they're the centre clearances?

[DubDee 26,395]

We got the job done. They were very physical in the first half, clearly set themselves for this game. 
viney was crucial in the first half with his toughness. 
but let’s not get carried away. They are as poor a team as we were in 2013. 
bring on north 

[Adam The God 30,644]

18 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

I thought he came across pretty agitated. I was glad to hear him stick up for Max as well. From recollection he also made the point that our on ballers had been copping unfair treatment as well. Hopefully Goodwin keeps raising it as it goes unnoticed most weeks and clearly hampers players like Oliver, who knows the effect it has on the results of games.

Oliver is man-handled without the ball every week. I'm glad he finally got one or two of those frees tonight.

15 minutes ago, nosoupforme said:

Luke Jackson  is coming on well and is showing his skills in the big time as an 18 yo. Played his part in the Ruck with 14 HO and kicked two goals when playing deep forward. Laced one out to I think it was Melksham in the last Quarter for a goal. He certainly has class written all over him. 

I know it was Adelaide  however once you cross the white line you are there to showcase  your skills and play for the jumper and do your best. For an 18 yo that is what he did. That is part of our future.

Melksham ended up missing that soda after the pass from Jackson didn't he? He's usually a certainty from there.

[Watts the matter 1,235]

3 minutes ago, A F said:

Thanks mate.

Any idea of around the ground stoppages? I presume they're the centre clearances?

Yeah that's centre clearances, I don't have access to the stats, was just able to quickly check the goals on Kayo.

[Ted Lasso 19,567]

Going against consensus probably but i thought overall we were quite poor. 

Defensively we looked sound against a team that wasn't really capable of asking too many questions. 

we had multiple opportunities to put that game away much earlier and more bad skill errors cost us. 

i thought we gave away a few cheap free kicks. 

Not sure that performance beats many sides.

Positives, Luke Jackson coming along nicely, think Gus is showing some signs things are starting to turn, Oliver back to his best. i thought Viney played a better team game. Harmes seems to be working a bit harder and May pushing hard to be included in the AA conversation

[Murph1524 52]

Won't get much attention, but Harmesy really showed up, especially early in the game, down back taking a few grabs and clearing the ball out of trouble with a couple of ground balls

[nosoupforme 3,085]

3 minutes ago, A F said:

Completely agree. If we play finals this year it'll be because Gus is given more midfield time. We look a completely different team when he's going.

Unless there's a significant drop in form or injury from Weideman and Jackson, I wouldn't play Tom again.

I agree Gus was given more time in the second half and proved to be damaging as he worked into the game. Is still learning how to be involved more often when rotating in the middle. IMO l would like to see him start the game there to get himself pumped up.

I rate TMac and l think he will be given the chance real soon and a person like him has alot to offer and will grasp it when he returns.

Worst case  he can play back if needed  and can pinch hit in the ruck. He is valuable when he is up and about. 

Don't write him off just yet.

 

[DeeSpencer 26,482]

47 minutes ago, A F said:

That's big. His pressure is what makes our forwardline work. I hope he makes it up for the North game, but it doesn't sound likely.

Vanders has been playing on the wing since half time in the Richmond game. He's not a forward pressure player he can't find the ball or the man when forward, what he does do is seal the edges on the wings and make teams think twice about going quick to their wingers.

Langdon struggles to do that on taller wingers for obvious reasons. Tomlinson (when on the wing) struggles to do it on anyone with pace. Jones just flat out struggles.

Vanders also seals the stoppages in a similar way. Teams don't want to take it out the front when he's waiting there.

51 minutes ago, A F said:

Thought it was a very good analysis actually from David King, who flip flops from one week to the next in terms of how he rates Clarry. At least he recognises he's had a very good season and that he's capable of beautiful kicking, which is absolutely true.

I liked the comparison between Oliver and Dangerfield, and where Clarry can take his game to the next level and add scoring to his armoury. 

For the benefit of those who didn't see the piece of footage, it showed Oliver winning the clearance in the middle and bursting goal-ward, but instead of either sprinting towards 50 and kicking for goal like Dangerfield would or drawing the nearest man and handballing to his opponent, Clarry kicked inside 50 (and not very well).

If he'd nailed the pass it would have been alright, but I think King is right in this instance. Clarry needs to trust his kicking more and shoot at goal.

Adding goals from the midfield to his game will make him a frightening prospect and put him up there with the likes of Dangerfield and Judd.

Defenders close so quickly on ball carriers these days there's no way Oliver could've just strolled to 50 and bombed it home and an equal chance the guy he handballed too would cop the same fate.

He had a clear lead coming to him and just duffed the kick. It was the right decision, just the next step in his development. 

The most important thing is he got the ball running forward and bursting out of stoppages like we all hoped he could do.

[nosoupforme 3,085]

11 minutes ago, A F said:

Oliver is man-handled without the ball every week. I'm glad he finally got one or two of those frees tonight.

Melksham ended up missing that soda after the pass from Jackson didn't he? He's usually a certainty from there.

The goals were coming thick and fast in the last quarter as l lost count. Don't forget the quarter is short. I blinked and the game had finished. I did't have time to collect my thoughts.

[Sir Why You Little 37,342]

Good to hear The Coach back his players. 
Clearly not happy at The Off The Ball Attention

 

[Pates 9,687]

Even before the match I had this feeling that the game would be tight until we kick away in the final quarter. I haven't been able to see much more than clips and a little bit of live action here and there but what I've seen didn't impress me.

Whoever is responsible for our defensive rebound when teams have opportunities to set they need to come up with something better than "long down the line". Tonight it what happens when Max is not in form/underdone and not able to rake in his contested marks that frankly the club expects too much of. By all means have it as a get out kick, but for crying out loud something new needs to be created because most other clubs when a behind is kicked it's a case of "ok we've got the ball in our hands now how do we make them pay?" But for us we just look like we will either turn it back over or at best get a stoppage. The Crows (bottom of the ladder basketcase) were able to get repeat inside 50s against us, that is not good at all.

The other really worrying trend is we were losing a lot more of the clearances than I would like given our image is that we are meant to be a clearance winning team. I said this before team selection when there was word that Max might miss, I think they have become a bit lazy and expecting him to just tap it down his throat rather than working for the second and third contests to win the ball away. What I saw of Max told me he shouldn't have played, what a great chance it would've been to give Jackson main rucking duties and perhaps bring in Brown while giving Max a much needed rest. I worry he is going to be toweled up by Goldstein who is in great form.

The rest I'll leave to talk about once I've watched the replay and can properly dissect it, but we got the win which is a good thing. On to North now, massive game. 

[Adam The God 30,644]

30 minutes ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

Going against consensus probably but i thought overall we were quite poor. 

Defensively we looked sound against a team that wasn't really capable of asking too many questions. 

we had multiple opportunities to put that game away much earlier and more bad skill errors cost us. 

i thought we gave away a few cheap free kicks. 

Not sure that performance beats many sides.

Positives, Luke Jackson coming along nicely, think Gus is showing some signs things are starting to turn, Oliver back to his best. i thought Viney played a better team game. Harmes seems to be working a bit harder and May pushing hard to be included in the AA conversation

Agree with all of this, mate, but after quarter time I thought Harmes was terrible. Maybe that's just me.

[layzie 34,384]

I really liked the connection between the mids and forwards..

[Adam The God 30,644]

14 minutes ago, layzie said:

I really liked the connection between the mids and forwards..

I think the Adelaide Oval really suits us, but Adelaide allowed us to play that way.

It'll be interesting to see how we go against North. We should beat them easily, but on the majority of tonight's showing we won't.

Edited August 5, 2020 by A F

[RalphiusMaximus 6,110]

Well, I'm happy with a comprehensive win, but we need to remember that Adelaide are setting new standards for a bad season. 

I was really happy with the way Oliver was hitting the packs at pace and breaking away with the ball rather than dishing off.  It's what the dominant mids do while he has tended to look for the really quick dish off which often gets us into trouble.  I do wonder if he saw the media speculation from certain individuals about his trade value and felt the need to make a point.  We haven't seen him dominate like that before. 

As for Jackson, I'm reminded of a pre-season game I went to.  I was chatting to a random fellow supporter on the fence about how Jackson had played so far.  Consensus was that there was something there, lots of speed and agility and good ground-balls, but his two-grab hands were a problem.  The young lady who does running was in front of us and she piped up and told us that Jackson was going to be fine and "Burgo" calls him The Ferrari.  It's looking like she was spot on.  He and Weideman are getting some nice chemistry going now and the forward line is looking functional with them working together. 

It was also a bit of a thrill to see Gus playing some decent football again in the second half.  I don't know what it is with his game, whether it's a position thing or he and Viney get in each other's way, but while Viney was off the ground Gus dominated. 

[Mel Bourne 4,537]

That was a fantastic game of suburban footy. Could almost hear car horns after every goal.

 

[Pates 9,687]

Random aside with us on more level pegging with games to a few others we are sitting 12th with an ok percentage and we can't go any lower (although we could go higher if the Saints beat the Suns by a comfortable margin).

EDIT we could go lower if the Swans beat the Pies by a large margin.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Pates

[Demon trucker 1,800]

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The umps clearly got on the Crows at $3 just like I did. That umpiring was worse than anything I've seen in WA over the years, land of the home cooked umpiring.

I reckon Weid is coming on really well. Pretty unconvincing win for me even for 50 pts - it was really just the last quarter the first 3 quarters were pretty rubbish except for Viney and Oliver.

3 $ way to short for crows, would not put a cent on them unless they where at least, 10 to 1, smashed by north, who did not give a yulp against cats.

[Tracca 862]

7 hours ago, Elegt said:

Disagree. His foot skills are a liability

Lol. He went 90% DE tonight. His foot skills are great.

[Tracca 862]

7 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

hahahahaha . . . for a minute i thought you were serious Tracca. 

I am!

 

So many can't stand Tomlimson here. I think he did quite well down back and is much better than Oscar. Smith is a deer in headlights. Hopefully he can develop as a running tall hbf

[Pickett2Jackson 3,904]

Just a reminder that Luke Jackson is 18 years old.

Have a great day and go Demons.

[Lucifers Hero 40,563]

In the last qtr when Jackson took the ball out of the ruck took a few steps facing directly at goals and kicked beautifully he looked very Nic Nat like. 

Not saying he will be a Nic but he will be a joy to watch in years to come - Gisele like in his movements.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Lucifer's Hero

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 11,024]

8 hours ago, Meggs said:

Love Langdon but his kicking ?

Lol and ahhhhh/grrr all at the same time.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[Lucifers Hero 40,563]

I usually don't mind King but he annoyed me with the post game comments:

1. He said Goodwin shouldn't have mentioned the lack of umpire protection for Max.  What BS!  Hardwick carries on about it (was it Cotchin?).  Ratten recently talked about protecting the ball carrier (can't recall who) and Carlton are all fussed about lack of protection for Cripps.  All are valid but King says nothing about those but tries to put the heat on us.  Rubbish comments.

On this it was good to hear Goodwin say the club had talked to the powers to be (I assume he means umpires) about lack of protection for Max.  Handled the right way, behind closed doors.  Because nothing is happening he took it to the press conf.  Very happy about that.

2. That the AFL need to make a statement about sling tackles and give ANB 3 or 4 weeks.  Yeah right.  Its always Melbourne when the AFL need to 'make a statement'. 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Lucifer's Hero

[pitmaster 3,589]

27 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That the AFL need to make a statement about sling tackles and give ANB 3 or 4 weeks.  Yeah right.  Its always Melbourne when the AFL need to 'make a statement'. 

 

If so Burgoyne's should be made retrospective to match. (It won't, I know.)