-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Review Good, Bad and Ugly vs Collingwood
- Thread starter Carmo
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 61,657
- 164,860
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #327
Triggers could work against us.
If we are only going to extend Nicks if we finish (say) 12th or higher, yet our squad is really 16th in quality, he will go all out with "tactics" to win meaningless games instead of prioritizing development. Things like, playing Keays Sloane and Crouch in the midfield all day to minimize the damage of an inconsistent, youthful, developing midfield
Good
The game finished
Bad
4 quarters with lack of effort
Ugly
Sitting through the entire game
The game finished
Bad
4 quarters with lack of effort
Ugly
Sitting through the entire game
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,374
- 69,757
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Best post of this thread so far was the guy who said he watched with the sound off, but “got the gist of it.”
Next week I might watch with the entire TV off.
Next week I might watch with the entire TV off.
CBA's - Round 2 Game 3 - Adelaide 24 - Reilly O'Brien 19, Ben Keays 18, Matt Crouch 16, Rory Sloane 16, Harry Schoenberg 16, Elliot Himmelberg 5, Jordan Dawson 3, Josh Rachele 2 & Lachlan Sholl 1
OK, let's all calm-the-you-know-what down, take a few deep breaths
AND
look at all the positives:
... uhhhh
Nah, I got nothing.
I’ve got a positive:
Brodie Grundy didn’t accept our massive contract offer. He wasn’t a whole lot better than RoB, and at crazy money.
That contract is going to bury Collingwood unless he lifts
GreyCrow
Make me an Admin!
- Mar 21, 2016
- 81,588
- 133,452
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
He is already playing protection football
We get hurt by fast movement and bad handling - so his survivor instinct is to instruct slow precise movement
This slows the damage going the other way ( or its meant to) but it also increases the chances of sling shot back the other way
Bernie Vince? on MMM said the issue with the slow movement is exactly that - fast long kicking football means any errors are further back in the oppositions defence and they have to negotiate the pressure - but as noted above - slow stagnant movement means the ball is more likely to be turned over in the oppositions half of the ground creating an easier passage to goal
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 61,657
- 164,860
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #335
There was one especially disgusting piece of play where we took about eight 15m kicks in a row and managed to move the ball from deep in defense to about half way, and it took about 60 full seconds to execute it, it was that slow. Every time we had to penetrate Collingwood's zone as we gave them plenty of time to set up after each mark. We tried the 9th consecutive short dinky kick, messed it up, and Collingwood were inside their 50 in seconds.
All of those short garbage kicks and "controlling the play" could have and should have been executed instead with one or two long fast penetrating kicks from defense, with our forwards getting up inside 50 ready to receive from the third or fourth kick
It was appalling play. I can't imagine the players want to play like that. It's total rubbish that will not work
GreyCrow
Make me an Admin!
- Mar 21, 2016
- 81,588
- 133,452
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
- Aug 5, 2013
- 2,565
- 2,306
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I think the most damning indictment of Sloane as captain is that he actually played ok (considering he left the game early due to injury,) but seems to have had precisely zero effect on the team morale as a result of 'leading from the front'.
- Oct 16, 2011
- 16,371
- 42,174
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The bit that gets me about that sort of play is when it is done, it is done to condense the defense of the opposition to the point where you, on the 6 or 7th kick, go back through the middle and to the other flank with quick possession to break them open...but we go slow and steady down the line.
In other news, getting to see why Matt Crouch wasn't getting any offers last year, absolutely zero hurt factor
Actually thought rob beat him in the ruck contests today. If it wasn’t for his constant dropped marks I would’ve said he had a decent game
- Moderator
- #340
Honest question
When was the last time that Sloane had a dominant game? Not in terms of possessions, but a real dramatic impact on the game? I'm struggling to remember the last time he did.
I don't want to be too critical of him, but I think enough is enough and it's time to make a call and permanently move him out of the middle.
Game after game he gets the lion's share of the CBAs and has no impact.
I've been calling for him to be played off half forward for 2 years now and yet we still persist with him in the middle giving us nothing.
Why not give someone like Jones who is a ball chaser some CBAs and see what he can do, if he gives nothing then it will be no worse than having Sloane in there.
When was the last time that Sloane had a dominant game? Not in terms of possessions, but a real dramatic impact on the game? I'm struggling to remember the last time he did.
I don't want to be too critical of him, but I think enough is enough and it's time to make a call and permanently move him out of the middle.
Game after game he gets the lion's share of the CBAs and has no impact.
I've been calling for him to be played off half forward for 2 years now and yet we still persist with him in the middle giving us nothing.
Why not give someone like Jones who is a ball chaser some CBAs and see what he can do, if he gives nothing then it will be no worse than having Sloane in there.
Shocking stat. It clearly wasn't working yet the coaching staff stayed with the same old. Dawson had 3, Rachele 2. Pedlar, Jones, Fog, Hinge even Doedee could have had a run in there but they all got 0
If you want to give Crouch and Keays big midfield time it should look something like:
Keays: 8
Crouch:10
Schoe: 12
Dawson: 8
Laird: 10
Sloane: 3
Pedlar: 6
FOG: 5
Jones: 5
Rachele: 5
My take on the game
We have youthful exuberance to burn. Our endeavour is outstanding really.
The glass half empty in me will blame skills, the coach, the umpires etc.
The glass half full thinks from a development point of view, it wasn't a bad game. We kept coming the entire game and having a crack. Yes, skills, polish and the absurd over umpiring in collingwoods favour. (literally, it was not the umpires best day and I don't think they'd get a favourable review from their superiors).
Overall in comparison to the opposition experience on the day we weren't that bad. We were never int he hunt for finals. We will win our fair share of home games and may even steal the occasional away game. But for us to hold a Collingwood with De Goey, Grundy, Sidebottom, Moore, Pendlebury, Hoskin-Elliot, Adams, Howe, Elliot, Crisp etc to just a 42 point win is not as bad a result it looks on paper.
There were more positive signs than bad. If you removed some of the horrendously bad gifted non free kicks to collingwood and improved our skills by just a tad the game would have been far closer.
We have youthful exuberance to burn. Our endeavour is outstanding really.
The glass half empty in me will blame skills, the coach, the umpires etc.
The glass half full thinks from a development point of view, it wasn't a bad game. We kept coming the entire game and having a crack. Yes, skills, polish and the absurd over umpiring in collingwoods favour. (literally, it was not the umpires best day and I don't think they'd get a favourable review from their superiors).
Overall in comparison to the opposition experience on the day we weren't that bad. We were never int he hunt for finals. We will win our fair share of home games and may even steal the occasional away game. But for us to hold a Collingwood with De Goey, Grundy, Sidebottom, Moore, Pendlebury, Hoskin-Elliot, Adams, Howe, Elliot, Crisp etc to just a 42 point win is not as bad a result it looks on paper.
There were more positive signs than bad. If you removed some of the horrendously bad gifted non free kicks to collingwood and improved our skills by just a tad the game would have been far closer.
Nicks is a huge worry right now.
- Nov 5, 2009
- 11,257
- 11,499
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Rd 3 last year against the Suns.
I was confident that he would come back fresh and ready this season, but he looks awfully out of sorts.
I think Nicks is the problem. What I envision is a coach that would prefer to kick 10 goals the way we practiced than 15 in a haphazard manner where players just roll the dice.
- Nov 5, 2009
- 11,257
- 11,499
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Nope.
Nicks has done his job. The club is fun again and we have re-signed everyone.
Bottom 3 finish (with the top 3 draft pick) is the goal and we get a new coach, maybe another mature player and then we start to build.
I think the strategy is to play players that are close to AFL selection in the roles they'll play when they go up a level. It's the continuity thing. When has excellent form as an SANFL forward translated to AFL level?
The midfield and entry strategy is the issue, which Keays is a component of. How many leading forwards did he hit up? No doubt our 3 senior mids shared 90 disposals between them and at least broke even in stoppages. so you'd be happy with that? Job done? Just get better forwards and defenders because the midfield win or break even on paper?
Obviously there'll be short term pain, but you can't seriously think that we've got the midfield mix right. Or that our forward 50 entry strategy isn't diabolical. And it's not just the forwards who we screw over, our inability to apply pressure between the arcs makes defenders jobs that much harder too.
Forget about Fog and all the forwards until our midfield becomes more than a SuperCoach's wet dream. And, as advertised, we're not running deep and Sloane is not making way. And even without Sloane, it's still Laird, Crouch and Keays playing their 80% TOG entirely in the middle. This is a club and coach going nowhere, we'll be rebuilding again after Nicks gets the arse.
He's got Keays and Sloane around him most of the time. Which of those isn't good?
