Autopsy 2023 Round 1 DRAW. Ugly Blues still can't close out games

[Aphrodite]

Or Harry's for falling over... depends which team you're on Team H or Team Lob

Sarcasm from moi Joey

 

[Faz 2000]

Do we have the lowest cumulative footy IQ of any club in the league?

Yes. Yes we do. We are anti-clutch. Defeat from the jaws of victory, etc.

It's the overwhelming frustration that there's so much talent, structure and seeming upside there that it doesn't translate to results.

 

[JoeyPBLUES]

Sarcasm from moi Joey

Oh na I got that alright... I was adding

 

[Pixelshooter]

Did you miss the memo.

The loss was LOB's fault!

Nah...Motlop's for deciding to handball and make the situation live.

 

[Davey33]

Well, all KP backs and rucks outside of TDK. He was needed in the ruck when the backline crisis kicked in because Pitto got injured and we had a super green ruck as next up


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

True that. Another reason we should have recruited another ready made ruckman. (Not picking up a project player in a mid season draft who wasn't ready to play for years).

 

[footyfan1978]

Both teams deserved to draw last night.
They both have a long way to go.
However, I have some good news.
The last time I remember we had a draw in round one, we won the flag.

 

[F_therest]

The percentages are get the ball as far away from your goal as possible mate. Playing tiddlewinks amongst a bunch of very tired players close to your own goals is a negative percentage play - every time.

There is no denying that the correct play from motlop would have been to hold up and find a short pass to maintain possession and let our players structure up.

Yes we would have won the game had mckay marked it, but strategy and tactics dictate that slowing things down in that situation would have been best.

It was a low scoring game. You want the game to be slow and stay in congestion and contests. That play enabled Richmond to rebound off half back with numbers and heaps of space which is when they looked their most dangerous all night.

A few short kicks and marks and then a long kick down the line to a big pack of players was the correct play.

Yes young and gov fluffed their spoiling attempts on Lynch, but execution and tactics are different things.

 

[Coops93]

Well if you aren't blaming LoB - that's the end of the discussion - because everything I said was countering the stuff that has been posted on here post game. That is the alpha and omega of it for me.

If you and Hodge think that it is ok for Weitering/Young and McGovern attempting to spoil a mark from one player and fluffing it up is of no consequence that is fine as well - it is just one example of not LoB's fault I put.

If you think that the team should never be able to cope with a 'rebound' or so called 'turnover' from an opposition's goalsquare - and that the natural consequences of any such play is a goal to the opposition - then you and Hodge live on a different planet to me.




I mean are you kidding or what -with that 'analysis' supported by Mr genius Hodge - it was natural that Richmond were going to get the ball from goals square to goal square take a contested mark against three Carlton defenders as a matter of course ??? I mean really????

I'll just leave it there - pffffft

I never said it's of no consequence, I've only suggested there's reasons for it. There's a difference. Weitering got blocked (could argue it's a free kick, maybe the rule book says it is but it happens all the time), McGovern was out of position and attacking the contest from the front, which is already disadvantageous - for reasons I've talked about. I would agree Young could've done better. I think for a second he was caught ball watching/man watching instead of attacking the contest. But again he had to tighter play his man due to lack of other support as everyone was out of position. Peeling off in that situation is a tough call, he maybe got stuck in between making that decision and manning tighter.

I also said they should never be able to cope with a rebound or "so called" turnover. Where did you come up with that? I've only said that it stresses the defence to do that and leaves them vulnerable and prone to mistakes. Which it did. Pretty crazy stuff.

I haven't used the absolutes that you have suggested at all.

 

[Del9Sep24]

Same feeling I had. Especially when we were up by a goal with a few minutes to go. I was thinking they won’t let it happen again, they are going to move heaven and earth to win this, I’m backing them in 100%. Oh well, the trend continues.

I was the opposite with one minute to go. Just knew they would crumble. Weak mindset. Weak direction.

 

[Stamos]

There is no denying that the correct play from motlop would have been to hold up and find a short pass to maintain possession and let our players structure up.

Yes we would have won the game had mckay marked it, but strategy and tactics dictate that slowing things down in that situation would have been best.

It was a low scoring game. You want the game to be slow and stay in congestion and contests. That play enabled Richmond to rebound off half back with numbers and heaps of space which is when they looked their most dangerous all night.

A few short kicks and marks and then a long kick down the line to a big pack of players was the correct play.

Yes young and gov fluffed their spoiling attempts on Lynch, but execution and tactics are different things.

A few short kicks and then a long kick down the line probably leaves 45 seconds on the clock. Still plenty of time for the Tiges to go forward and score. It might well have worked out, but I'm not sure it's the lock percentage play that people are claiming.
If there was only a minute to go when Motlop marked it, sure. But we had more time that we needed to kill.

 

[F_therest]

Why?

This is genuinely dumb. Why would a coach of an AFL team highlight an excellent play that would've iced the game - using the method we'd employed throughout the game to tremendous effect; running the ball after winning clear of the defensive cluster - that only didn't work because a full forward slipped over while running in a straight line???

Tactics change from throughout the game to when there's under 2 minutes to go and we are up by a goal. You don't play the same way.

He would definitely highlight it because the clear directive was to slow the game down, take no risks and keep the ball in tight. The team that needs to score wants the ball in space and the team winning wants to just keep the ball in scrimmages...its referenced every close game by every commentator for a reason.

I mean, it just makes tactical sense. I feel it's kind of obvious. Every team in every sport tries to wind the clock down and go slow in those situations.

 

[Coops93]

99 seconds. You're allowed 7 seconds in play, so would be extremely generous to be 80 to go. And if he took that long, I'm not sure LOB has so much space to take an uncontested mark.
But say he does, you reckon we were odds on to maintain possession for 75 seconds in the backline?

So just over 90 seconds like I said, and you surely would admit they're fairly lax on the 7 second rule. They're routinely given more than that.

Lob would have had that space. On his run the only defender near him was Rioli, who he was outrunning and had 5m on the whole way. Even if he didn't pass to him Hollands was behind also unmarked and even further away from Rioli or another defender. There was easily 1 or 2 passes there and I'd expect we'd comfortably find at least 2 more.

Anyway, the short answer to that is yes, we absolutely should be able to maintain possession for 75 seconds when you already have a mark to start with.

 

[F_therest]

A few short kicks and then a long kick down the line probably leaves 45 seconds on the clock. Still plenty of time for the Tiges to go forward and score. It might well have worked out, but I'm not sure it's the lock percentage play that people are claiming.
If there was only a minute to go when Motlop marked it, sure. But we had more time that we needed to kill.

I'm aware there would have been more time on the clock. But 45sec in a stoppage situation on the wing is a good one for us 6 points up.

Better than opening the ground up and exposing us to a Richmond counter off half back.

Cant be outcome focused here...yes at times going fast would win you the game and sometimes you go slow and still lose. Still, the higher percentage play that you should attempt is go slow and keep the ball in tight, making it as hard as possible for the opposition to score.

Its always talked about how teams behind in the last want space and speed on the ball cause it's their best chance to score while the other team are trying to deny that. You don't want a shoot out and the ball pinging up and down the ground when you're the team ahead with under 2 minutes to go. You want possession and if not, contested ball with stoppage after stoppage.

 

[JustaBattler]

There is no denying that the correct play from motlop would have been to hold up and find a short pass to maintain possession and let our players structure up.

Yes we would have won the game had mckay marked it, but strategy and tactics dictate that slowing things down in that situation would have been best.

It was a low scoring game. You want the game to be slow and stay in congestion and contests. That play enabled Richmond to rebound off half back with numbers and heaps of space which is when they looked their most dangerous all night.

A few short kicks and marks and then a long kick down the line to a big pack of players was the correct play.

I'm over the chat about the issue mate - but here is how I saw it

Motlop took a mark AFTER a succession of repeated fumbly brain farts from more experienced players....( please review if you can)
He sees LoB running through on a wing in the clear asking for a receive - he gives off ( back your team mate/honour a lead / get the hell out of trouble)
LoB does an amazing job outrunning a fast closing Rioli...
an even more amazing job of hitting a perfect ball to Harry positioned in a space
Harry slips ball spills ...

now there were 5 Richmond defenders all closing in on Harry 5.

That means that there were 13 Richmond players versus 16 Carlton players NOT in that area
To me that means that Carlton has the numbers to close up a rebound IF there was going to be a turnover

Richmond then proceed to take the ball from goal mouth to goal mouth with kicks - WHERE were the Carlton 16 V Richmond 13?

Weitering Young set up for the long kick to their FF as ball coming in McGovern correctly runs across the front for a spoil
Richmond bloke takes a contested mark beating all three
Now that is a series of events that should not be repeated involving most of the Carlton team's defensive efforts.

The last 3-4 minutes were a crapfest IMO - Motlop to LoB to Harry deep in Richmond territory with 1.5 minutes to go was the least of the issue....

I think the lesson in this isn't Motlop to LoB - it is "wtf were you other 16 blokes doing whilst this was going on"?

and that isn't even the most important lesson(s) from the game anyway.....

 

[Aphrodite]

1.42min left on the clock (Score - Us 58, them 52)

Gov kicks out of Tigers defence to Motlop

Motlop handballs to LOB

LOB's run & pinpoint pass to Harry & if Harry had marked the ball instead of slipping/falling over, could have shaved 30sec off the clock, kicked a behind or goal and game OVER!

 

[Gethelred]

Tactics change from throughout the game to when there's under 2 minutes to go and we are up by a goal. You don't play the same way.

Sure.

He would definitely highlight it because the clear directive was to slow the game down, take no risks and keep the ball in tight. The team that needs to score wants the ball in space and the team winning wants to just keep the ball in scrimmages...its referenced every close game by every commentator for a reason

Every commentator is paid to play up the drama, the mystique; the genius of player and coach. Every game a match of wits; every contest, the greatest ever watched!

Appealing to the notion that the commentary knows what they're talking about isn't the be-all-end-all you'd think it might be.

Again, for my last time.

You're suggesting an AFL coach would castigate - however mild - a player in his second year who is specifically in the team to provide attacking play for setting up a near certain goal?

This was silly the first time I read it, and it remains silly. It's even sillier because multiple people think it's a thing.

People aren't robots, and they especially aren't employed to be programmable the way an awful lot of people in this thread would have them be.

I mean, it just makes tactical sense. I feel it's kind of obvious. Every team in every sport tries to wind the clock down and go slow in those situations.

Sure. Where we differ would come down, solely, to team rules.

LOB saw the sign, and knew what it meant. If he broke team rules with his play, he will be dropped next week.

It's that simple.

 

[Pixelshooter]

The last 3-4 minutes were a crapfest IMO - Motlop to LoB to Harry deep in Richmond territory with 1.5 minutes to go was the least of the issue....

I think the lesson in this isn't Motlop to LoB - it is "wtf were you other 16 blokes doing whilst this was going on"?

and that isn't even the most important lesson(s) from the game anyway.....

Can't agree with that at all. If Motlop and O'Brien ice the clock on the wing, it renders everything else redundant.

 

[thylacine60]

where were the on-field leaders?

 

[FitzroyBlueBagger]

I wouldn't say that exact act by LOB cost us the game, but it was just an overall further showcasing of us failing to play the percentages when we are up late in a game. In no circumstances in that game context should we be screaming up the wing kicking to a 1 on 3 at half-forward allowing them a massive rebounding opportunity.

Says a lot about our small/medium forwards on the night also, often sucked up way too far up the ground then not providing enough options for offensive attacks or defensive structural accountability…

 

[agro]

I'm over the chat about the issue mate - but here is how I saw it

Motlop took a mark AFTER a succession of repeated fumbly brain farts from more experienced players....( please review if you can)
He sees LoB running through on a wing in the clear asking for a receive - he gives off ( back your team mate/honour a lead / get the hell out of trouble)
LoB does an amazing job outrunning a fast closing Rioli...
an even more amazing job of hitting a perfect ball to Harry positioned in a space
Harry slips ball spills ...

now there were 5 Richmond defenders all closing in on Harry 5.

That means that there were 13 Richmond players versus 16 Carlton players NOT in that area
To me that means that Carlton has the numbers to close up a rebound IF there was going to be a turnover

Richmond then proceed to take the ball from goal mouth to goal mouth with kicks - WHERE were the Carlton 16 V Richmond 13?

Weitering Young set up for the long kick to their FF as ball coming in McGovern correctly runs across the front for a spoil
Richmond bloke takes a contested mark beating all three
Now that is a series of events that should not be repeated involving most of the Carlton team's defensive efforts.

To be fair Jake Melksham did that to our defence last year in the Round 22 game versus Melbourne.

 

[JustaBattler]

To be fair Jake Melksham did that to our defence last year in the Round 22 game versus Melbourne.

Thanks for the reminder - NOT!!

 

[FitzroyBlueBagger]

Something else I noticed in the last minute last night - Hollands was running up field with LOB in the last minute, was behind him but was on a long attacking run from inside D 50 to the attacking wing, then as soon as the ball was turned over he charged back and was in the back pocket manning up when the kick came in to Lynch.

Unbelievable that a first game player who had already run 15km in that game was still going on big supporting offensive runs and then long hard defensive running immediately after in the last minute of the game. Basically went on a 250m shuttle run after 120mins of footy, as a first gamer!

That type of thing probably doesn't get rewarded, I hope they show it in the week, but I think it's important we notice that - especially from a first game player.

Noticed that too, kids a freak athlete amazing effort..

 

[JyeDye]

Sure.

Every commentator is paid to play up the drama, the mystique; the genius of player and coach. Every game a match of wits; every contest, the greatest ever watched!

Appealing to the notion that the commentary knows what they're talking about isn't the be-all-end-all you'd think it might be.

Again, for my last time.

You're suggesting an AFL coach would castigate - however mild - a player in his second year who is specifically in the team to provide attacking play for setting up a near certain goal?

This was silly the first time I read it, and it remains silly. It's even sillier because multiple people think it's a thing.

People aren't robots, and they especially aren't employed to be programmable the way an awful lot of people in this thread would have them be.

Sure. Where we differ would come down, solely, to team rules.

LOB saw the sign, and knew what it meant. If he broke team rules with his play, he will be dropped next week.

It's that simple.

Just as a bit of an aside, wondering if AFL is the only team sport you watch?

 

[F_therest]

Sure.

Every commentator is paid to play up the drama, the mystique; the genius of player and coach. Every game a match of wits; every contest, the greatest ever watched!

Appealing to the notion that the commentary knows what they're talking about isn't the be-all-end-all you'd think it might be.

Again, for my last time.

You're suggesting an AFL coach would castigate - however mild - a player in his second year who is specifically in the team to provide attacking play for setting up a near certain goal?

This was silly the first time I read it, and it remains silly. It's even sillier because multiple people think it's a thing.

People aren't robots, and they especially aren't employed to be programmable the way an awful lot of people in this thread would have them be.

Sure. Where we differ would come down, solely, to team rules.

LOB saw the sign, and knew what it meant. If he broke team rules with his play, he will be dropped next week.

It's that simple.

I mean sure some commentators can be annoying or buffoons, but the way you are completely disregarding my point is strange.

If it were only 1 or 2 commentators who had this opinion then fine, but every commentator who covers footy on TV or radio would talk about a team that was in our position wanting to slow it down and take no risks.

Hodge and Daisy both said it in our game. As I said, every commentator would say the team losing wants to get the ball out in space and put speed on the ball while the one winning wants to keep it slow and in tight.

Why would every commentator say that, many ex footy players? Hodge saying that provides no extra drama or whatever you are insinuating as a commentator, he's simply providing an observation of a mistake and tactical flaw we made. One shared by pretty much every commentator.

It absolutely was not a near certain goal. LoB did amazingly well in the end, but it was Harry and 5 Richmond players in our defensive 50. All our other players had pushed back deep as per instruction to flood our backline...a fast break isn't optimal in that situation we didn't have enough players forward of the ball.

 

[JustaBattler]

Can't agree with that at all. If Motlop and O'Brien ice the clock on the wing, it renders everything else redundant.

What cant you agree with at all - Lob being given a receive or Motlop not finding a better option than Lob free and clear- or the other 16 Carlton players being nowhere?

The fail started with Weitering/Docherty/Saad and Owies - before Motlop was good enough to be in position to take a mark )( dont get me started on OWies the confirmed match loser please)

Watch the lead up rubbish to the Motlop decision - Richmond had blocked off the transition game for the whole quarter /game- Carlton couldn't get the ball out to advantage for most of the game - Motlop sees every payer covered one on one closer to home and gives off to a player running through on a wing in the clear - where were the other options - in the moment?

Looking back now in not real time and hypothesizing about wether Motlop should have just taken more time to kick to LoB further down makes its own set of assumptions....