Should Gawn have played the percentages and tried to force a draw?

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,588]

4 hours ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

No. This is a team that I want to play to win not eek out a draw. If you think that would have been the best play to create a goal opportunity then I agree. 

Getting 2 premiership points instead of a big fat zero would have been a win.

It's about playing for ladder position to set our selves up at the pointy end now.

There were 120+ for the team to play for an outright win, but in that last 30 seconds where we had multiple ball ups 10m out from goal, punching it through for a behind was a winning strategy.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,588]

I guess the one thing all us armchair critics had the benifit of, which the players probably didn't, was knowing exactly how much or little time was left on the clock.

[Gorgoroth 12,447]

Once we got to the multiple ball ups then yes that should have been an option.

[layzie 30,449]

Should have got a point at least. 

[Pates 9,562]

When the rocks for brains umpire didn’t pay the deliberate I was actually thinking exactly this, for us a draw actually could’ve been massive ie the difference between top 4 and missing out. I get that the mindset should be go forward the win but I think Max can be a little stuck in his ways, smart thing to do would’ve been to thump it towards goal into space. Instruct the players that’s where it’s going and if they get the chance take it but otherwise force it through. 

I said it in the post match thread, a draw would’ve been a very fair result for both teams. 

[Brownie 5,526]

YES!

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,460]

7 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Exactly.  Even without a set play scenario trying to kick a goal, punching the ball toward goal would have created a scramble and fear in the Adelaide defenders.  A rushed behind would have been nearly a certainty.

Yep

I couldn't understand why that wasn't the tactic 

[ucanchoose 1,807]

There was 2 Adelaide players behind the ball. Everybody that is saying yes is blind

[John Crow Batty 8,377]

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I guess the one thing all us armchair critics had the benifit of, which the players probably didn't, was knowing exactly how much or little time was left on the clock.

The message would have got out to the players after the Taylor goal. 1 minute left. On the third ruck contest it was a matter of seconds left.

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by John Crow Batty

[Demon Dynasty 16,381]

8 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

We had a much better chance of forcing a draw or chance of snatching the win with a fluke goal and maintained our top position if Gawn tried to punch the ball towards the goals.Too often I bemoan the lack of creative ruck play from Max as well as strategic thinking. He could have got 2 players to position goal side and thump the ball in that direction. We had little chance of him 3 times dropping the ball non goal side at his feet in manic congestion to win a decisive clearance for a shot at goal. Quick thinking and basic math nous could have saved us. A draw would have been as good as a win.

The other critical error was the attempted palm down to one of our boys deep in their 50 towards the end of the third i think.  Instead of punching it towards the boundary.  I believe Rowe sharked it and ran in for a relatively easy goal.  Might have been the difference also.

[DeeZone 8,195]

Yes, Yes and Yes - a draw is not a loss and puts you 2 points ahead of the pack...!!!!

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

Gawn could have done that. Another thing we could have done was play in front, instead of letting them play in front. Another thing we could have done was kick straight and not let the result ride on a dodgy free in the last minute. 15.6 to 14.11

[jumbo returns 6,619]

meh

[Supermercado 2,682]

Should have hit it towards the goals and made a behind more likely but still with the idea of winning it if possible.

[John Demonic 4,991]

MFCPTSD has replaced MFCSS, if we're still discussing what-ifs the following evening. 

Edited May 23, 2021 by John Demonic

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,588]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

Ain't hindsight a beautiful thing! ?

[Boots and all 956]

2 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Gawn could have done that. Another thing we could have done was play in front, instead of letting them play in front. Another thing we could have done was kick straight and not let the result ride on a dodgy free in the last minute. 15.6 to 14.11

Yep, I noticed just how often we played from behind, more than any other time this season from my recollection. That just seems like an attitude, mindset issue which affected our ability to move the ball forward. In previous weeks the quick, rank kicks out of the pack often ended up in our hands because we were in front. 

[Macca 16,174]

1 hour ago, Boots and all said:

Yep, I noticed just how often we played from behind, more than any other time this season from my recollection. That just seems like an attitude, mindset issue which affected our ability to move the ball forward. In previous weeks the quick, rank kicks out of the pack often ended up in our hands because we were in front. 

Playing from behind also means that you'll receive less free kicks ... conversely, it is awfully difficult to win a free kick playing from behind

Definitely a mindset and a sure sign that we're not playing in a disciplined fashion or ... we are taking the opposition too lightly. 

Largely explains yesterday

I noticed it in the first half against North too ... they got to the front position with ease until we finally got our act together

Do it against a good side and we'll get smashed.  It was a major fault (playing from behind) from 2008 right through to 2015

You'd think at this level the players would automatically know how important the front position is but at this level, everything needs to be worked for.  Nothing comes easy

Again on the free kick count ... the good sides and the best players take the front position and therefore get more free kicks as a matter of course.

Footy Basics 101

Edited May 23, 2021 by Macca

[titan_uranus 23,254]

14 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

The other critical error was the attempted palm down to one of our boys deep in their 50 towards the end of the third i think.  Instead of punching it towards the boundary.  I believe Rowe sharked it and ran in for a relatively easy goal.  Might have been the difference also.

That was in the first quarter, when we'd just kicked three quick goals to open up an 18 point lead.

There was a stoppage in the Adelaide forward pocket and Gawn tapped it to the inside right in Rowe's running path.

Hard to know if that was Gawn's mistake or someone else's for failing to get to that spot but it didn't look good. Moments later Lever got called for deliberate which gave Rowe his second goal and we'd lost our early lead.

[titan_uranus 23,254]

20 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

Gawn's been less than impressive in a whole bunch of areas for four weeks in a row. 

As a captain, he needs to make less unforced errors, missed marks and spoiling his own team mates and become more physical at stoppage. 

Needs a massive game on Friday night to win me back. 

He's been extremely underwhelming imo for a few weeks. Some his tap work has been shocking. Get going Max. 

I think "extremely underwhelming" is hyperbolic but I agree he's not playing his best football and it's costing us right now.

He continues to get into the right spots but he's dropping marks far too frequently. Cost us definitely one goal, possibly two, from dropping marks in defensive 50 that when he's in form he does not drop.

When things aren't going his way he has a tendency to do some rash stuff. The 50m penalty against him for hitting the ball out of O'Brien's hand was probably a part of that.

If he lifts on Friday night that will be huge for our chances of winning (and the converse is also true).

[Swooper1987 2,857]

4 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

That was in the first quarter, when we'd just kicked three quick goals to open up an 18 point lead.

There was a stoppage in the Adelaide forward pocket and Gawn tapped it to the inside right in Rowe's running path.

Hard to know if that was Gawn's mistake or someone else's for failing to get to that spot but it didn't look good. Moments later Lever got called for deliberate which gave Rowe his second goal and we'd lost our early lead.

It was pointed out on the commentary that the hit was perfect.  Hibberd didn't block Rowe and Oliver didn't move.  Max did his bit.  

[Swooper1987 2,857]

2 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I think "extremely underwhelming" is hyperbolic but I agree he's not playing his best football and it's costing us right now.

He continues to get into the right spots but he's dropping marks far too frequently. Cost us definitely one goal, possibly two, from dropping marks in defensive 50 that when he's in form he does not drop.

When things aren't going his way he has a tendency to do some rash stuff. The 50m penalty against him for hitting the ball out of O'Brien's hand was probably a part of that.

If he lifts on Friday night that will be huge for our chances of winning (and the converse is also true).

Fair comment titan, although even not at his best he was still easily in our best handful of players, and I thought his attack on the footy was the best it's been for at least a couple of weeks.  10 grabs, including 5 contested.  He dropped 2, but I guess how many forward would kick 12 out of 12 shots.  Odds are you are going to miss occasionally.  And he did score 8 votes in the Age player of the year award for Saturday nights game.  Like Petracca whose fumbles cost us, or Fritsch's goal kicking, or Hibberd and May's defensive errors, I'm sure they'll all go away and try to get better.

[John Crow Batty 8,377]

9 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I think "extremely underwhelming" is hyperbolic but I agree he's not playing his best football and it's costing us right now.

He continues to get into the right spots but he's dropping marks far too frequently. Cost us definitely one goal, possibly two, from dropping marks in defensive 50 that when he's in form he does not drop.

When things aren't going his way he has a tendency to do some rash stuff. The 50m penalty against him for hitting the ball out of O'Brien's hand was probably a part of that.

If he lifts on Friday night that will be huge for our chances of winning (and the converse is also true).

Gawn was generally good bar those few critical errors. It’s obvious to me why opposition players give him taps on the head in marking situations. Most of the uncontested marks he spills it’s like he’s expecting a whack and it unsettles him. He is one of the best marks in the comp and the opposition try to make him pay at every attempt. 

[dazzledavey36 49,840]

I'm going to throw something up as a suggestion and see what's everyone thinks.

I think personally clubs have finally worked out Gawn. Not only this year but last year we had the same issue with our midfield connection and ruck set up. Far too many times this year we've coughed up easy goals on the back of Gawns hitouts.

What's stopping the club in giving Jackson his fair share of responsibility as the main gig? I would love to see the coaching staff back Jackson in and maybe start the game in the ruck and even each quarter as well. Not only are we changing the dynamic of our midfield set up, but Jackson has proven this year that when he's gone into the middle, we've  even able to shift momentum back our way. 

With our forward set up, having Gawn playing as the deep forward could really throw teams out of wack in terms of defensive set up. I look at the doggies this week and they've got a small defence. Gawn would immediately take Keath which then leaves McDonald and Weideman to really get on the loose.

If people can think back to 1998 I believe this worked really well with the Jeff White/ Jim Stynes combination. There was times Neale Daniher would give White the sole responsibility as the main ruckman and Stynes would compliment that off the bench. It worked really well because when White came up against the bigger mature bodies Stynes would take on that role which would mean White would stay forward as that that extra marking option.

Just a thought.

[Swooper1987 2,857]

9 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I'm going to throw something up as a suggestion and see what's everyone thinks.

I think personally clubs have finally worked out Gawn. Not only this year but last year we had the same issue with our midfield connection and ruck set up. Far too many times this year we've coughed up easy goals on the back of Gawns hitouts.

What's stopping the club in giving Jackson his fair share of responsibility as the main gig? I would love to see the coaching staff back Jackson in and maybe start the game in the ruck and even each quarter as well. Not only are we changing the dynamic of our midfield set up, but Jackson has proven this year that when he's gone into the middle, we've  even able to shift momentum back our way. 

With our forward set up, having Gawn playing as the deep forward could really throw teams out of wack in terms of defensive set up. I look at the doggies this week and they've got a small defence. Gawn would immediately take Keath which then leaves McDonald and Weideman to really get on the loose.

If people can think back to 1998 I believe this worked really well with the Jeff White/ Jim Stynes combination. There was times Neale Daniher would give White the sole responsibility as the main ruckman and Stynes would compliment that off the bench. It worked really well because when White came up against the bigger mature bodies Stynes would take on that role which would mean White would stay forward as that that extra marking option.

Just a thought.

The other time it worked was in 1994, when Balme played Dean Irving as first ruck changing with Stynes off the bench. Jim adapted reasonably well to that at the time. Similarly, Stynes had been worked out and Irving gave us an immediate, if short term lift.  It's worth a try.