1 minute ago, Singa said:

Still gutted today. I think the weather conditions actually suited us but we just can't seem to win these close games and our ground ball game particularly in defences will be the death of us.

It would help if our forwards could win their own ball.  Or if they played in front and were a lot more visible

Fast ball movement into the forward line would help too (not always via the cape) 

We seem to have an aversion to the corridor and the hot spot

35 minutes ago, Macca said:

Goodwin doesn't know how to coach offense very well

At best, he is adequate 

That's why it's Chaplin's job to coach the offense

I thought GWS got us on ground ball and some of our defensive stoppage work was poor.

Some of this might have been down to Mayzie not being there to organise and settle on stop plays. We panicked and turned the ball over in defensive half after repeat stoppages in GWS’ forward half, but the good news is that these issues are fixable.

It hurt to lose that game, but it’s the first of a long season. We showed a lot.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by ChaserJ

2 hours ago, Mouseymoo said:

Feel like we're playing one short with Fritsch if he's not kicking goals. Drop him for Turner. 

I'd rather have Roy George out there.

Crazy that we are STILL trialling backmen as forwards when there's a natural just sitting there waiting to be plucked from obscurity and could also potentially bring some increased pressure at ground level i50, more assists and potentially play some mid minutes also.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by Demon Dynasty

31 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

We also lost that game in the last two minutes because we didn't set up adequately in the event that AJ's shot for goal missed. Their transition from the kick out was too easy.

This is spot on. It wasn't the gameplan, kicking efficiency, forward line issues that cost the game. It was our inability to execute in the last 2 minutes. I'm sure they will review that in detail to get better for the next time... hopefully

1 hour ago, chook fowler said:

at the end of the day we lost by 3 points to a flag contender playing 6 debutantes - good result overall, acknowledging we blew it in the last quarter and by missing gettable  set shots.

This post highlights a really curious phenomenon I reckon chook, one that is rife on demonland - downplaying the significance of a game we played really well in, but lost, in terms of assessing where we are at (ie as if only wins count in that regard).

The overwhelming consensus pre game was the giants were the real deal, a lock for top 4 and one of the premiership favourites. And I agree with that assessment, which means logically the evidence (albeit only one game) suggests we are  tracking well and likely be competitive with the very best teams.

I'm really, really frustrated we lost. We should have won the match. Trigger alert, we had a higher expected score.

Yes they had key players out too, particularly Briggs. But I'd contend that our major weakness is we are short two genuine gun small forwards and at least one quality small/medium defender (which is why AMW going down was such a blow).

So, nor having Koz and Mcvee had an outsize impact (whereas the weather mitigated the impact of losing Briggs and Hogan)

I wrote this in my match preview:

"The weather also really favours the giants in terms of their fleet of small to medium forwards. Unfortunately a weakness of ours is covering such players, exacerbated today by no Mcveee. And we also lack such players in our forward line - and no koz makes that a huge problem for us. Together those factors present a huge challenge for us. Our ability to meet that challenge will, in my view, decide our fortunes."

I'd argue that proved to be correct (not that it took a nostradamus to predict) as we could only manage 3 goals by smalls or mediums (Henderson, Sharp and Bowey).

Whereas for the giants 7 of their 11 goals came from small or mediums (cogniglio × 3, Greene × 3 and Werhe).

You could argue one of Greene's goal was as midfielder, making it 6 goals to 3 for small medium forwards (and that's counting Bowey's goal - who had pressed up as defender).

And I actually think we defended their small medium forwards really well given the conditions- Bowser had his best game for some time.

But if koz and mcvee both play we likely score more crumbing goals and defend Greene better (surely mcvee would have stood him). And  probably won. And we also would have done a much better job trapping the ball inside our 50.

(Note: I know koz would have predominantly played as a mid, but he would have rested forward and Viney and Sparrow would have had more forward minutes)

In my preview I also highlighted the key stats I thought we had to win to win the game, one of which was scores from turnover:

"Scores from turnover - killed us last year. We simply can't afford to lose that stat."

Unfortunately that proved to be correct conceding 44 points on turnover, 15 more than they conceded.

I highlight that not to be smart after the fact (again, hardly an earth shattering prediction), but to reinforce the point that, again, whilst they had important outs none hurt them to the same extent in terms of exposing a weakness.

Koz and mcvee are our two best field kicks (though xl says hi) - they play and we almost certainly have fewer turnovers - not to mention more scoring chains.

In a 3 point game the results are in the margins. Less turnovers means less scores from turnover and more scoring opportunities. Koz and mcvee play we likely win.

By the by, we also lost our best key defender before the game - arguably the best in the AFL. Sure tmac admirialy filled May's role (though he'd love to have that non spoil on cadman back). But that makes my point about the relative impact of losing players in areas of weakness.

The Giants lack a bit of defensively in terms of key defenders. If like us they lost their best key defender - Taylor - that game changes completely and our chances of winning go up significantly.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by binman

7 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

I'd rather have Roy George out there.

Crazy that we are STILL trialling backmen as forwards when there's a natural just sitting there waiting to be plucked from obscurity and could also potentially bring some increased pressure at ground level i50, more assists and potentially play some mid minutes also.

Based on what evidence would Roy George made much difference?

Probably speaks volumes on him that he's been overlooked twice for the SPP position especially considering he's been training with us the whole summer and yet we still overlooked him.

I want to see some form first at VFL level before we further assess if he's actually any good.

We lost a lot of close games last year.  More than most clubs I think. 

Probably need to look at our strategy for these.

5 minutes ago, binman said:

The weather also really favours the giants in terms of their fleet of small to medium forwards. 

It seemed to me that the rain helped the giants.

Can I pick your brain about the idea in of moving Bowser fwd?

3 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

It seemed to me that the rain helped the giants.

Can I pick your brain about the idea in of moving Bowser fwd?

In what sense? Do you mean dong so in the future?

 Those enjoying Aj'S forceful attack in the forward line and wanting Fritch dropped need to understand the balance needed up forward.

Having natural talent is more valuable than simply putting in a lot of effort.

I too wish Fritta would put in better efforts but we need to keep playing skilled footballers. He is very talanted when on song.

Impressed with the defensive side of our game yesterday and that was exemplified by the hunger shown by Bowey at times yesterday. This side of our game was sorely missing last year, and hopefully yesterday was a trend and not an event.

I thought we were hard to play against for a lot of the day which is what you need to be if you want be a good team.

Key defenders in Petty and T Mac were outstanding but it was predictably their small forwards in Greene and Coniglio (no way would you budget him to kick 3) that did all the damage. 

The ability to finish off a close game is a huge issue obviously. Not sure if many people are aware, but since the round 22 game against Carlton in 2023 when Trac was involved in that controversial goal decision, we're 1-7 in games decided by 6 points or less. And that one close win came against North last year when we conceded the last 6 goals of the game.

We can't win a close game to save ourselves.

 

16 hours ago, fr_ap said:

 

Langford could barely move despite playing only one quarter. Especially when defending. He still found the ball ok but his stuff without the ball needs a lot of work. 

 

Waiting to come on he looked like a deer in the headlights but what really struck was the vision of him jogging when he should have been trying flat out to put some pressure on. I really hope someone in the leadership group points that out to him. That said he was on a hiding to nothing when brought into the game late. 

22 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

That's why it's Chaplin's job to coach the offense

It's both (Chaplin & Goodwin) but Goodwin has been head coach in his 9th season now and obviously overseas things

And the offense starts from stoppages and half back

Our game plan is Goodwin's as well (specifically our movement into the forward line) 

So 9 years down the track and we don't have one forward who we can rely on.  Not one of them can consistently win their own ball

How do you win a flag with that issue?  

I'm not calling for Goodwin's head but we are too defence orientated

Our forward line should be the main talking point out of yesterday.  GWS aren't that good and we had our chances to win the game but didn't

19 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Based on what evidence would Roy George made much difference?

Probably speaks volumes on him that he's been overlooked twice for the SPP position especially considering he's been training with us the whole summer and yet we still overlooked him.

I want to see some form first at VFL level before we further assess if he's actually any good.

I do find it funny when people think bringing in a player who has had some cameos at VFL level would impact the result of an AFL match.

 

27 minutes ago, binman said:

In what sense? Do you mean dong so in the future?

As a permanent crumber.

In 20210 , apart from Kozzie, we had Nibbler and Spargo contribute 25 goals each for a total of 50.

That's a lot. I don't think Chandler is going to manage many.

 

One thing I do want to call out was big Maxy, who I thought was a bit selfish going for his two shots at goal.

He was way out for both, so potentially the smarter option was to go to the top of the square.

McVee, Spargo, Koz eventually coming into the side for Howes, Chandler and Hendo would be a massive injection of class

21 minutes ago, Macca said:

GWS aren't that good and we had our chances to win the game but didn't

This should read "GWS are good but we had our chances to win the game". 

GWS were a top 4 team in 2024, lost to the two eventual GF teams by a goal or less, and are coming off a game where they doubled Collingwood's score!

Petty's game in defence yesterday was elite in my eyes.

Had we won i feel like he would have won a lot of kudos in the media for that performance. 

1 minute ago, waynewussell said:

This should read "GWS are good but we had our chances to win the game". 

GWS were a top 4 team in 2024, lost to the two eventual GF teams by a goal or less, and are coming off a game where they doubled Collingwood's score!

Lol yeah.. GWS are a bloody good side.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has absolutely rocks in their head. They have some genuine calibre to come back into their side still, as do we.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by dazzledavey36

29 minutes ago, Robbie57 said:

Waiting to come on he looked like a deer in the headlights but what really struck was the vision of him jogging when he should have been trying flat out to put some pressure on. I really hope someone in the leadership group points that out to him. That said he was on a hiding to nothing when brought into the game late. 

Glad others saw it. It was a really underwhelming effort and you'd almost hope it owed more to a lack of fitness than anything else. Just made me think of his face on draft night, and how unhappy he looked to be headed to the Dees.

2 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Petty's game in defence yesterday was elite in my eyes.

Had we won i feel like he would have won a lot of kudos in the media for that performance. 

Agree. I've been accused of potting Petty. I wasn't per se, I was potting his performance (in 20 games last year) playing as a forward.

It helped that TMac was a more than adequate sub for May.

I am still wondering why Trac wasn’t in the middle for the last centre bounce

4 hours ago, RickyJ45 said:

They should have played keepings off once Johnno had the opportunity to take a shot. last 120 second strategies are key to getting the biccies.

Where were the on-field leaders getting in his ear?  Trac, Lever, Max, Viney??

That was the most disappointing aspect for me. The Pies win this game (nearly) every time because they have (had) a rolled gold system for dealing with the last couple of minutes and leaders (like Pendlebury and Sidebottom) who get to the young/new kids and coach them on the field. 

And why didn't any journalists ask Goodwin about this?