7 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Brayshaw - 11 turnovers
Viney - 9 turnovers
Gawn - 7 turnovers
Petty - 7 turnovers
Lever - 6 turnovers
Hibberd - 6 turnovers

Sparrow, ANB, Spargo and Melksham combined for 5 turnovers total.

Sydney scored 70 points from turnovers. That's the game right there.

Not saying those 4 played well by any stretch, but they're not the reason we lost.

 

Just to add to this - too late to edit the post - I've either checked footywire too early or just looked at the wrong numbers, but Petty, Lever and Hibberd only had a couple of turnovers or so each, not the numbers above. Apologies.

2 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

here's the actual #s

Yeah I went back to edit the post but it was too late, already chucked up a post to correct the backline numbers. My mistake.

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Just to add to this - too late to edit the post - I've either checked footywire too early or just looked at the wrong numbers, but Petty, Lever and Hibberd only had a couple of turnovers or so each, not the numbers above. Apologies.

Four to Six turnovers in a match is pretty standard in most matches, especially mid-fielders and on ballers.  Nothing unusual or game changing about that.  It's the top three here that killed us.  The top two in particular.

To put the top three turnover kings in to some sort of context, Clarry, who had the most effective disposals of any player on the the night with 24, had only 1 turnover!

Turnovers
A Brayshaw	11
Jack Viney	9
Max Gawn	7
C Petracca	5
Ed Langdon	5
J Harmes	5
Steven May	5
C Salem	4
Jake Lever	3
J Hunt	3
B Fritsch	2
Ben Brown	2
J Melksham	2
L Jackson	2
M Hibberd	2
T Rivers	2
A N-Bullen	1
C Spargo	1
C Oliver	1
H Petty	1
K Pickett	1
T Sparrow	1

 

4 turnovers from only 12 disposals from Salem. Everyone says he's a great kick but I think his kicking has dropped off he's in career worst form. 

I think we need a definitive definition of a "Turnover" .

None of the scribes have mentioned the intensity that Sydney brought to the table the other night

17 minutes ago, dimmy said:

I think we need a definitive definition of a "Turnover" .

None of the scribes have mentioned the intensity that Sydney brought to the table the other night

Would also like to know, what is the exact definition? We had 75 turnovers Sydney had 81.

I don’t believe we handed the swans the ball directly on 75 occasions and vice versa.

Edited September 3, 20223 yr by Dee Zephyr

12 minutes ago, dimmy said:

I think we need a definitive definition of a "Turnover" .

None of the scribes have mentioned the intensity that Sydney brought to the table the other night

Their intensity WAS THE CAUSE of our turnovers. Mainly because we weren’t up to the pressure challenge, either by matching their intensity or adjusting our game to minimise the risk of being turned over. Watching live it was excruciating to see how predictably and repetitively we coughed it up to them, and how well-drilled they were in capitalising. Never seen a turnover ambush like it. It was clearly their primary plan, and worked brilliantly. The depressing thing being that at no stage did it look like we could counter it. 

35 minutes ago, Webber said:

Their intensity WAS THE CAUSE of our turnovers. Mainly because we weren’t up to the pressure challenge, either by matching their intensity or adjusting our game to minimise the risk of being turned over. Watching live it was excruciating to see how predictably and repetitively we coughed it up to them, and how well-drilled they were in capitalising. Never seen a turnover ambush like it. It was clearly their primary plan, and worked brilliantly. The depressing thing being that at no stage did it look like we could counter it. 

Spot on.

It was the planning involved in making us pay for turnovers and Longmire knowing we can be vulnerable on the rebound.

Sydney had more turnovers than us, but they had clearly planned their game around it and made us pay.

19 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

It’s amazing how Brayshaw escapes so much scrutiny with his disposals. He absolutely butchers it and is the worst offender in our team. I’m not sure if it’s arrogance but he doesn’t seem to be working on improving his disposals at all.

i wish we had his Bro🤔

2 hours ago, Kent said:

i wish we had his Bro🤔

You have got to be a bit fair in that the "degree of turnoverism" = function (the amount of heat in the kitchen) as distinct from the wide open dinner plate.

Yeh, i would like his brother ,too (as would 16 other Clubs), but the one we have got is a "contributing" premiership player.

11 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

4 turnovers from only 12 disposals from Salem. Everyone says he's a great kick but I think his kicking has dropped off he's in career worst form. 

His kicking has always been overrated IMO.
Good kicks kick 50meter bullets, not 20m lollipops.

Edited September 4, 20223 yr by Fork 'em