AFL Autopsy RND 19: Loss to the Pies

[Bjchan13]

What evidence do you have that they weren't trying to set the team up (or that it wasn't set up) other than you don't like the structure and the 10secs of footage of Jones walking into kick?

How do you know they hadn't done all the organising before then? Why is the finger pointing and barking at people the only measure of whether we are setting up our defence.

Its not, i never said that it was. The only evidence we have is that the ground wasnt set up correctly and the footage.

What evidence do you have that the team set up was correct and that it had been organised by our senior players?

 

[bomberj]

I really hope someone is collating all of David King’s shitty takes to play back for when we hit the promise land.

Boy, it will be sweet.

Sadly we will be waiting a while for those goodies.

 

[bomberj]

24 hours on I’m still very much glass half full. Plenty of mistakes that have been well and truly pointed out but still plenty to like from yesterday.

It’s been interesting to see the narrative that all the media outlets have been running with. How different they would be if Elliot misses. Amazing the difference one kick makes.

Very true. I'm over how the media is going on about how good individual pies were. The beat a dodgy bomber team who came back from 37 points down. If poor Jones kicks the goal, it's a totally different narrative. U guys too tough on Jones. Only a 2nd year player. It takes a while to get them right. We wasted many more years on daniher than required.

 

[bomberj]

I don't feel as bad from this loss as I thought I would be. The dons played back hard after a dire first quarter, really were the better team for most of it. To lose from a flukey goal at the last minute.
This young dons team will learn and become stronger from here.

Collingwood supporters went in thinking they were going to thrash Essendon and now carrying on like they won a grand final.

The media had a good go at Melbourne when they celebrated over in the west a few years back in the finals saying it was over the top. This one was on par. What happened to the dee's that year

 

[bomberj]

That was a good breakdown. I still can’t work out why Langford would be goalkeeper/sweeper in that circumstance. He looked like he had no idea what he was doing. Has he trained for that role? Should someone else have been in that role?

It was a nice summary. It made me feel sick watching it. It felt a bit like watching jfk. Basically if we had our bull, Redmond, there... we win. Lots of dominoes needed to fall but it exposes how immature we r as a side. I'm hoping getting pantsed in front of Aust will teach us valuable lessons. We are so far from a flag it's not funny. I'm a patient man but it's getting annoying as hell

 

[Kyptastic]

Why is Peter Wright behind the goals watching the ball hit the post?

He should be in position to defend as soon as the ball is kicked.

My guess is he's there in case the ball doesn't make the distance. He'd be behind the goals so he has a chance to run up for a mark/shepherd the ball through.

 

[yodellinhank]

My guess is he's there in case the ball doesn't make the distance. He'd be behind the goals so he has a chance to run up for a mark/shepherd the ball through.

No problem with him starting back there. The ball had already hit the post and the umpire was signalling a behind. Wright was spectating with the cheer squad.

 

[faible]

Here's a take on the final play worth reading:

Great write-up, basically a collection of sub-optimal choices instead of any one single thing, and everything just falling for the most optimal outcome Collingwood's way.

Moore is an exceptional athlete, people having a go at Wright need to remember just how exceptional Moore is on the move for a 200cm player. Very few KPD's could have made the ground Moore did. Wright could have made a more optimal choice by moving faster off the goal-line which might have given Moore less space.

Moore making that play then forced Ham to make a split second decision; he's seeing what's happening with Moore and realising no one else is going to impact the contest, because most of our side has set up to defend the corridor and not the flanks or wings. Again, a sub-optimal setup but not outright bad one, a more experienced side would likely set up a bit further down the field instead of being so high that they were out of the contest from the first kick, but we're not a more experienced side.

Ham wasn't able to impact Moore, but had also left Bianco alone which gave him space to run. BZT left Mihocek, forcing Langford to hesitate, despite that he managed to get to the Elliot contest where Elliot executed two exceptional pieces of play - taking a clean mark between two opposition players, and kicking a very difficult set-shot goal.

Any one of those sub-optimal choices alone, without a similarly best-case outcome from Collingwood wouldn't have resulted in the Elliot goal.

Ham was probably the one who made the worst choice given he was never in a position to impact the Moore contest, and but for Ham, there was zero defensive presence on the wing, but he also isn't responsible for the lack of defensive presence behind him (that's a setup issue) or for Moore receiving that ball (Wright + generally Moore being an exceptional athlete). Neither Wright or Ham responsible for BZT leaving Mihocek given he was never going to make the Elliot contest, which forced Langford to hesitate. You then had a generally reliable 1v1 defender in Jake Kelly simply lose a contest to Elliot, and Langford fail to impact the contest, followed by Elliot kicking a goal most players would struggle to kick.

And this is why winning close games are mostly luck, not skill.

Any one of Essendon's sub-optimal choices unfolding differently in the last minute would have resulted in a Collingwood loss.

 

[yodellinhank]

Great write-up, basically a collection of sub-optimal choices instead of any one single thing, and everything just falling for the most optimal outcome Collingwood's way.

Moore is an exceptional athlete, people having a go at Wright need to remember just how exceptional Moore is on the move for a 200cm player. Very few KPD's could have made the ground Moore did. Wright could have made a more optimal choice by moving faster off the goal-line which might have given Moore less space.

Moore making that play then forced Ham to make a split second decision; he's seeing what's happening with Moore and realising no one else is going to impact the contest, because most of our side has set up to defend the corridor and not the flanks or wings. Again, a sub-optimal setup but not outright bad one, a more experienced side would likely set up a bit further down the field instead of being so high that they were out of the contest from the first kick, but we're not a more experienced side.

Ham wasn't able to impact Moore, but had also left Bianco alone which gave him space to run. BZT left Mihocek, forcing Langford to hesitate, despite that he managed to get to the Elliot contest where Elliot executed two exceptional pieces of play - taking a clean mark between two opposition players, and kicking a very difficult set-shot goal.

Any one of those sub-optimal choices alone, without a similarly best-case outcome from Collingwood wouldn't have resulted in the Elliot goal.

Ham was probably the one who made the worst choice given he was never in a position to impact the Moore contest, and but for Ham, there was zero defensive presence on the wing, but he also isn't responsible for the lack of defensive presence behind him (that's a setup issue) or for Moore receiving that ball (Wright + generally Moore being an exceptional athlete). Neither Wright or Ham responsible for BZT leaving Mihocek given he was never going to make the Elliot contest, which forced Langford to hesitate. You then had a generally reliable 1v1 defender in Jake Kelly simply lose a contest to Elliot, and Langford fail to impact the contest, followed by Elliot kicking a goal most players would struggle to kick.

And this is why winning close games are mostly luck, not skill.

Any one of Essendon's sub-optimal choices unfolding differently in the last minute would have resulted in a Collingwood loss.

Rick Olarenshaw made a sub-optimal decision once and was eventually marched out of the club.

 

[faible]

Rick Olarenshaw made a sub-optimal decision once and was eventually marched out of the club.

Football matches are full of sub-optimal decisions. If Howe hadn't slipped over Jones wouldn't have had a set shot, for example.

 

[yodellinhank]

Football matches are full of sub-optimal decisions. If Howe hadn't slipped over Jones wouldn't have had a set shot, for example.

The decision in that case being not to go with screw-in stops.

 

[Squeaky]

Why is Peter Wright behind the goals watching the ball hit the post?

He should be in position to defend as soon as the ball is kicked.

He caught one when Snelling had his horrid shot for goal.

 

[eth-dog]

The decision in that case being not to go with screw-in stops.

Screw ins are illegal now dude

 

[bacon buster]

weirdly, quite a few players were slipping over. i know Merrett did and another of our players did in the 3rd or last. then Howe famously. didn't seem wet or dewy at all

 

[yodellinhank]

Screw ins are illegal now dude

weirdly, quite a few players were slipping over. i know Merrett did and another of our players did in the 3rd or last. then Howe famously. didn't seem wet or dewy at all

 

[faible]

weirdly, quite a few players were slipping over. i know Merrett did and another of our players did in the 3rd or last. then Howe famously. didn't seem wet or dewy at all

Didn't it rain a lot of Saturday? Would have still been some movement in the ground from that, the surface drains quickly but isn't bone-dry.

 

[Mercurial89]

HTB had been red hot all day & the ball was kicked away, it's 50 pure & simple.

I turned the tv off after the first quarter and didn't watch again.
But in the first Hind booted the ball away after a whistle at the top of their 50m arc and they didn't call the 50m, in fact it was two possessions by us after the free a handpass and the kick.

So unless there were other examples in the rest of the game that I missed it would appear that they were consistent within the game?

 

[bacon buster]

read somewhere that pointed out that Murphy kicked in whilst the umpire was still in the motion of signalling the free kick

apparently, to the letter of the law, whilst it was AFTER the whistle, it cannot be paid 50 if the umpire is still signalling.

i didn't have a problem with it, i'd be happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, it was loud out there.

 

[MiguelM]

Rutten said the ground was dewey in the last and that conditions had changed completely.

 

[yodellinhank]

read somewhere that pointed out that Murphy kicked in whilst the umpire was still in the motion of signalling the free kick

apparently, to the letter of the law, whilst it was AFTER the whistle, it cannot be paid 50 if the umpire is still signalling.

i didn't have a problem with it, i'd be happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, it was loud out there.

The advantage rule plays a part, you've got to give the benefit of doubt (no matter how ridiculous) that he thought it could be a Collingwood free kick.

The interesting thing was the reactions. No Essendon player in shot appealed for 50. The Collingwood player reacted like he'd just ****ed up and given away 50, though could have been reacting to the free.

 

[bacon buster]

The advantage rule plays a part, you've got to give the benefit of doubt (no matter how ridiculous) that he thought it could be a Collingwood free kick.

The interesting thing was the reactions. No Essendon player in shot appealed for 50. The Collingwood player reacted like he'd just *ed up and given away 50, though could have been reacting to the free.

that, or, he didn't hear the whistle. let's be honest, there were a lot of mistakes made out there in the last few minutes. pressure does funny things.

 

[Mercurial89]

Great write-up, basically a collection of sub-optimal choices instead of any one single thing, and everything just falling for the most optimal outcome Collingwood's way.

Moore is an exceptional athlete, people having a go at Wright need to remember just how exceptional Moore is on the move for a 200cm player. Very few KPD's could have made the ground Moore did. Wright could have made a more optimal choice by moving faster off the goal-line which might have given Moore less space.

Moore making that play then forced Ham to make a split second decision; he's seeing what's happening with Moore and realising no one else is going to impact the contest, because most of our side has set up to defend the corridor and not the flanks or wings. Again, a sub-optimal setup but not outright bad one, a more experienced side would likely set up a bit further down the field instead of being so high that they were out of the contest from the first kick, but we're not a more experienced side.

Ham wasn't able to impact Moore, but had also left Bianco alone which gave him space to run. BZT left Mihocek, forcing Langford to hesitate, despite that he managed to get to the Elliot contest where Elliot executed two exceptional pieces of play - taking a clean mark between two opposition players, and kicking a very difficult set-shot goal.

Any one of those sub-optimal choices alone, without a similarly best-case outcome from Collingwood wouldn't have resulted in the Elliot goal.

Ham was probably the one who made the worst choice given he was never in a position to impact the Moore contest, and but for Ham, there was zero defensive presence on the wing, but he also isn't responsible for the lack of defensive presence behind him (that's a setup issue) or for Moore receiving that ball (Wright + generally Moore being an exceptional athlete). Neither Wright or Ham responsible for BZT leaving Mihocek given he was never going to make the Elliot contest, which forced Langford to hesitate. You then had a generally reliable 1v1 defender in Jake Kelly simply lose a contest to Elliot, and Langford fail to impact the contest, followed by Elliot kicking a goal most players would struggle to kick.

And this is why winning close games are mostly luck, not skill.

Any one of Essendon's sub-optimal choices unfolding differently in the last minute would have resulted in a Collingwood loss.

I agree with all that, except for close games being luck.
I get the theory I just don't entirely believe it.

I would say that being being a fundamentally good side that doesn't make mistakes is 80% of the way to winning those close games, 10% experience in those moments and 10% luck/footy gods/ bounce of the ball.

You may not have to beat the other team if they make more mistakes than you at the wrong times, they beat themselves.

I believe the thought behind the luck aspect is because when you look at statistics it appears to be?
I'm hesitant to believe it is entirely accurate, statistics can't measure momentum but that exists for instance

 

[faible]

I agree with all that, except for close games being luck.
I get the theory I just don't entirely believe it.

I would say that being being a fundamentally good side that doesn't make mistakes is 80% of the way to winning those close games, 10% experience in those moments and 10% luck/footy gods/ bounce of the ball.

You may not have to beat the other team if they make more mistakes than you at the wrong times, they beat themselves.

I believe the thought behind the luck aspect is because when you look at statistics it appears to be?
I'm hesitant to believe it is entirely accurate, statistics can't measure momentum but that exists for instance

Statistics pretty consistently bear out that close games are a coin-toss. Winning a heap of them like Collingwood has doesn't mean they're good, it means they're lucky. Losing a heap of them in a row means you're unlucky. Over time they tend to average back out.

Good teams simply don't end up in a position where they have to win a number of games by a single kick. If Collingwood were as good as their record sounds, they wouldn't have been in the position of having to win after the siren against a bottom 5 side.

 

[bacon buster]

i don't think the Pies are "good", however, teams that are widely considered "good" win more close games than they lose.

 

[faible]

i don't think the Pies are "good", however, teams that are widely considered "good" win more close games than they lose.

Except stats don't tend to show a pattern with this.

Good teams don't get stuck playing lots of close games.

It's an artefact of human thought where we think there's a pattern to it.