DeeSpencer

Whilst centre clearance quality is as important as pure numbers I think you have to aim to break even in the centre. It’s too valuable a scoring asset as well as a momentum reset / builder. We should aim to keep our defensive pressure and attacking explosion whilst getting back to 50:50. 12-7 to this Adelaide midfield, that’s not good.

Yikes, didn’t know Meredith was out there. Those other 2 are experienced. Not sure they’re much good. Although Williamson is usually steady. I stand by that we weren’t as badly impacted as the stats say.

Lost inside 50’s by 6, lost centre clearances by 5. Combined with sitting back in the last quarter I’d imagine it’s centre clearance that is the major weakness. Id love to see our season numbers with Gawn vs with JVR. Now that ruck has become basketball jump balls Gawn is nullified as a tap ruck and he’s slow on the deck. Wouldn’t mind seeing Riv get a couple of cracks, can swap in with Sparrow for a couple a game. The other one I’d love to see is Chandler, now that he’s playing with faster hands, stronger tackling and more strength over the ball. Give him Kossie’s 1 a quarter.

It was a classic young/lesser umpires on the road game where the free kick count is always going to skew to the home side. But we got the Fritsch 50 (undoubtably a free), got away with a well disguised BBB block and a dissent 50 for the Roo goal and Petty got a couple inside 50 too. If we lost by under a kick I’d want a royal commission in to that Dawson shove on Rivers but otherwise I don’t think it was as unfair on One thing that hurt us a lot is our refusal to dump players in tackles and the umps not paying quicker holding the balls. Very frustrating when we do the right thing to avoid sling tackle suspensions and injuries and get punished for it. But we were also heavy legged and didn’t have the same tackle pressure as our best footy. (Or I hope that was the case)

Clint Bartram?

Hunter can't play forward though, Billings' pressure is poor and tackling inept, but at least he has most of the right attributes to play 3rd wing/forward. Hunter would have the same poor pressure at half forward without any overhead marking or forward craft. Hunter requires Windsor or Langdon moving positions (or out of the side), so it's a harder task for him to get back in than just dislodging Billings. Windsor and Langdon should roll through the forward line as is to give us a bit more pace and pressure. But there is also another solution to get Hunter in over Billings, it's a tad risky and might not work but the coaches should already be contemplating if Windsor is ready for brief on ball rotations.

If not now, then maybe some time in the next 2-4 years for kids in year 1 or 2? Sesto's still a project. Kolt, we might see sooner than later but I think he'd come in for a bigger body and a different role than what we need right now. Based purely on preseason form Kynan Brown isn't a terrible idea. He's got the zip that we'll desperately need without Pickett.

McAdam still listed as a couple away at least and needs to prove his fitness and form at Casey. And, yes, spot on.

I know Laurie played that game too but Spargo came from the clouds in round 0 to cover Pickett because there need was for pace. 3 talls, Fritsch, Billings/Woey, ANB, Chandler...it's just not enough zip if you add Laurie to that. I'd throw out the assumed pecking order and wouldn't worry that AMW has been at half back at Casey. He was moved there because we ran out of back flankers Another thing they could do is up Billings' (or Woey if they replace him) wing time and give Windsor and/or Langdon a bit of time as a forward.

At least he found the ball well and even won it a bit at times, and could’ve been used more too. And even his pressure in terms of closing space was better and had a nice chase down tackle. But he has to stick basic tackles, the one with Rankine was embarrassing. Maybe gets one more chance, but the sub is also an important role and he’d potentially be handy coming on in a tight contest.

Kozzy is max gawn. I expect May to improve with another week. Will the same but true of Oliver? Because if he isn’t trending in the right direction I’d give him a proper rest. Billings really should be dropped purely for having 4 guys bounce off him in tackles. That’s basic standards stuff. Missed 3 gettable chances too. Out: Pickett, Billings (sub) In: AMW, Woewodin

Bit lucky to survive the first and last quarter blitz from the Crows but dominated the 2nd and 3rd quarter and did enough in the last. All things considered a big tick with the ball movement game very strong covering for a stoppage game that wasn’t near our best. Room for improvements: Billings sub par contested work, Fritter having a stinker of a half, Petty’s goal kicking, naughty Kozzie, a little more steadiness down back late from Lever and co and a few too many senior players risking corridor turnovers at half forward in the last not ideal. Plenty to work on but the plan is looking much improvement and the energy is excellent.

So Hore is out and we assume Chandler is a likely out, a preventative rest for BBB makes sense and that there's a few banged up boys it's really a question of how many fresh ins do we need? I think there's a pretty good case for May and probably 2 fresh runners in Laurie and Woey in to the 22 with a rest back to sub for Billings. Out: Hore, Chandler, ?BBB In: May, Laurie, ??? FB: McVee May McDonald HB: Salem Lever Rivers C; Langdon Petracca Windsor HF: Pickett Petty ANB FF: ???? JVR Fritsch Foll: Gawn Oliver Viney Int: Howes Woey Sparrow Laurie S: Billings Is it Kolt time?

I think it’s a handy back up tool but if we ever can get our talls settled and healthy we’ll go for a runner. We need to give the bursts of game time to the likes of Taj and Laurie too.

I thought they opened us up through the half backs and midfield a number of times. Not a huge surprise when they are super strong in that area, just asking the question on whether we did that by design to protect the back line or if we just got beat at times. 2 to 3 talls, plus Fritsch, plus Billings not heavily engaged isn't a great defensive pressure forward line tho, but we do rely so much on Pickett to create pressure. And our midfield has a baby in Windsor who gets out of position at times (as is to be expected) as well as Clarry surely not at peak fitness, Salo finding his role and some coaching changes no doubt. I'd just prefer to see Lever play to the percentages and to try to funnel more footy through Howes, McVee, Rivers, Salem than Jake going for too much. As well as some smarter options when we try long kicks to not Max, a few too many long kicks to smalls at times which shouldn't happen with 3 talls up front. I like the handballs back through the corridor, just need to keep that flow to the open space rather than go back in to trouble. The passages of play that start with one winger and end up across to the other - the Langdon's wing, ball gets to Windsor on the far side, who kicks inside 50 to Langdon - that's high class stuff. I thought from about the 2nd quarter it was the night to abandon too much open play and beat up on Port down the line, they do panic if they can't get out running in space. So I loved the result. I'm just curious to see if it was a tactical change up or not.

Great post would read again. Am I seriously not allowed to have some discussion about a game our coach and captain both admitted we generally wouldn't win based on all key stats? Honestly, what is a footy forum for? Just sitting around with the happy clappers until someone posts things that gets taken down for legal reasons? Not looking for perfection, it was a heck of a win, just looking at the way that probably more than 50% of the game was on Port's terms/in their style and how we got the game played more to our strengths.

What don’t you agree with? The inside 50’s, possessions and heat maps are all clear to me that Port’s ball movement was far too slick for us in the middle for a lot of the game. We just tried to keep our shape and force longer kicks and give our backline a chance. A backline that was taller, stayed home and defended well. And it became evident that through choice or otherwise we weren’t going to get the ball spreading around as we did against the Hawks and Dogs. Petty forward. Play down the boundaries, numbers at the drop, hem Port to one half of the ground to take away their counter was the plan. Doesn’t mean we didn’t counter well, we did very well to score from the back half with that method and we were more balanced and patient around half forward especially. Mixing angles and hitting leads just inside 50. But on a narrow ground with width to really get the ball to flankers, wings and half forwards we decided to use Tracc, Oliver, Viney even ANB and Chandler up the lines rather than attempting to open the game up and invite Butters and Rozee to run it straight back. It was still more expansive, open, up tempo than the last 2 years, but we used our old friend the boundary line to do plenty of defending for us. And of course the clearances! Can’t be beaten so much in there against good sides.

Slow start and the bad 3rd quarter were concerning, made us grind back to even with good footy and good luck a couple of times before kicking away twice in the last. The big question is how much of our lack of speed on the spread defensively was due to covering May with a tall slower backline in the first half? Or how much was our midfield and half forwards probably being a step slow and disorganised? Similarly, was reverting to more bomb and chase down the line - a tactic I mostly supported to get the job done on the night - just pragmatism? Or are we still needing to work on skill execution under pressure to play a more expansive style when facing heat? Because there were a string of bad decisions or shoddy kicks coming out of the backline early and especially in the 3rd - hello Mr Lever - and also a lot of handballs that went back in through traffic rather than clearing to the fat side. Fantastic win, but one that raises a few questions too.

No, he was a victim of our uncontested game dropping right away under Port’s pressure, our game turning in to more defensive half and countering in straight lines and his own struggles winning the ball in a tough contested game. I doubt it will see him dropped purely on form reasons, but there might be a physical reason why he wasn’t up to the pace of play. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the sub.

Interesting thought exercise, possibly with a snap and a heap of wind. But in the real world if it hits the post it hits the post, at least until they bring in ball tracking technology.

Petty back for a 1-2 games. I lean towards Hore sub and someone in at half forward, just not sure who! Fullarton? Woey? Laurie? Or….is it time for the Kolt? But Hore in too and Salem back on ball works as well.

I think that's a generous bit of paraphrasing. Howes had a couple of good games on the wing and I believe we had a few midfield injuries at the time. Not sure he would've developed fast enough to get ahead of any of Dunston, Harmes, JJ who were the midfield depth in 22. Even last year he had taken another step forward with more consistent footy across half back but never really threatened to get a game. Still looked more like a hopeful for this year than a certainty and sounds like he had a big preseason to improve a lot. JT's always going to pump up his picks in an offseason fan podcast. Good news on AMW. Happy that Kolt's at least settled in and competing. Keen to see more of a fitter Sestan.

I hope they do, but his training program is reflective of missing the Casey game with concussion. Skill session and extra work because he hasn't played on the weekend.

Seems to be a bit of a reverse Grundy situation! I think the club knows he’s better as a forward, but if he is to play he’ll have to be a back up ruck. So they’re getting him as many ruck minutes as they can justify.

You’re incorrect