Review Post game celebration V Adelaide

Remove this Banner Ad

Re the bombing into the 50, I wonder if that is part of a plan. In the modern form of attack where the aim seems to be to just lock the ball in the attacking half it probably doesn't matter if a forward marks the ball as it enters as long as our mids are effective at keeping it in our half. If that is a plan I can see how there could be an advantage to bombing the ball into the 50 asap rather than waiting for an opportunity to hit up a target.
 
Re the bombing into the 50, I wonder if that is part of a plan. In the modern form of attack where the aim seems to be to just lock the ball in the attacking half it probably doesn't matter if a forward marks the ball as it enters as long as our mids are effective at keeping it in our half. If that is a plan I can see how there could be an advantage to bombing the ball into the 50 asap rather than waiting for an opportunity to hit up a target.

You can still lock it up if there are moving targets in the forward line - Forwards need space and the opportunity for one-on-one battles.
 
You can still lock it up if there are moving targets in the forward line - Forwards need space and the opportunity for one-on-one battles.

Oh sure, but if the forwards can't or won't present a target or the guy with the ball doesn't have the time or space to hit up a lead properly maybe their instructions are to get it in fast rather than give the opposition a chance to flood back and fill up space.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Re the bombing into the 50, I wonder if that is part of a plan. In the modern form of attack where the aim seems to be to just lock the ball in the attacking half it probably doesn't matter if a forward marks the ball as it enters as long as our mids are effective at keeping it in our half. If that is a plan I can see how there could be an advantage to bombing the ball into the 50 asap rather than waiting for an opportunity to hit up a target.

I think it's def part of the game plan. The majority of bombs into the 50 from players who had time and space to maybe hit up other targets was very obvious. I would like to think that is only an aspect of a more rounded philosophy. I can see it falling apart on occasions if thats our primary objective.
 
Oh sure, but if the forwards can't or won't present a target or the guy with the ball doesn't have the time or space to hit up a lead properly maybe their instructions are to get it in fast rather than give the opposition a chance to flood back and fill up space.

I am specifically discussing times when our player had plenty of time to kick the ball - I am not talking about rushed kicks from packs.
 
I think it's def part of the game plan. The majority of bombs into the 50 from players who had time and space to maybe hit up other targets was very obvious. I would like to think that is only an aspect of a more rounded philosophy. I can see it falling apart on occasions if thats our primary objective.

Maybe they do it when Hurley is playing forward because they know he won't mark it anyway. I wonder if it'll be different if Gumby is the main target.
 
Maybe they do it when Hurley is playing forward because they know he won't mark it anyway. I wonder if it'll be different if Gumby is the main target.

I was also thinking it was maybe a horses for courses type situation depending on the players available and the opposition. Will get a better indication after 5-6 games.
 
its probably less risky to bomb it in than have a pass that's aimed at a lead up forward being cut off and marked therefore getting caught out on the turn over..
 
It's great to have another Merrett in the red and black.


The fact he's distantly related to Roger Merrett, the Lord twins and Thorold Merrett but in particular Roger is icing on a very sweet cake.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

One of the best aspects of the game against Adelaide was our intent to stop Dangerfield. Every time he got so much as near the ball we were right on him like when he got it on the boundary and 2 of us just bollocked him over the line.

Edit: If you watch the replay its at about the 7:10 mark of the 2nd quarter.
 
Great win from the boyz. Loved the fact that a few of the new guys - Merrett & Kommer - stood up, and a few of our better players - Goddard & Crameri _ were quiet but we still won well beating a top 4 side from last year and winning in Adelaide which is never easy. With a nice break now before we face the Demons we will go in with our tails up and full of confidence. 2 from 2 would be a great start to the season....
 
Walker kicked 3 goals. One weak mark early on, then 2 from just outside fifty later in the game.

Don't think Carlisle can be blamed for the fact that Walker drilled those shots from outside 50.



I just want to pull this back. Carlisle was good on Friday night and I'm not doubting it. But he was playing at the same level last year and I can't point to any bit of play that would be reason enough for it to now be broadly accepted outside EFC that he is a future gun. The media is simply catching up with what we already know, it doesn't mean that Carlisle did anything special against Walker.

I'll concede that he didn't do anything special against Walker because it wasn't required but his performance against Walker won't be viewed any differently because of it.

I also get annoyed by the rational approach posters take in assessing Carlisle's performances when Hooker is not afforded the same courtesy.
 
I just want to pull this back. Carlisle was good on Friday night and I'm not doubting it. But he was playing at the same level last year and I can't point to any bit of play that would be reason enough for it to now be broadly accepted outside EFC that he is a future gun. The media is simply catching up with what we already know, it doesn't mean that Carlisle did anything special against Walker.

I'll concede that he didn't do anything special against Walker because it wasn't required but his performance against Walker won't be viewed any differently because of it.

I also get annoyed by the rational approach posters take in assessing Carlisle's performances when Hooker is not afforded the same courtesy.

Carlisle was definitely better than Hooker on Friday. Hooker was still pretty good, but at times made some poor decisions that could've led to conceding. He did several things well.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Review Post game celebration V Adelaide

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top