The Last Minute

[Kane McGoodwin]

Why? I'm serious, would really like to know why.

If it's true then the haters will now line up to blame the Gooch, since Motlop was well-clear and unmanned.

Because one requires much more thought process than the other... though as it turned out we may have been better off with Gooch not colliding with Gov.

 

[1970crow]

Good post . You made a good point about team strategic planning in such a situation, but I still think it's about reacting in the moment, when time for consideration doesn't exist. It's easy for us to look at what happened, slow it down, replay it frame by frame, after the event.
But how about at the time? What were you thinking at the time?
I was thinking, "Great, Greenwood has got it, kick forward ... oh shit". I didn't even see Eddie unmarked out there. I certainly didn't think "Fall down! Waste time! Take the HTB!!".
Did you?

Put yourself in Greenwood's poz for a second.
40 seconds to go, extreme pressure, you have possession but your right arm's held and you're getting dragged down. In that millisecond, do you have time to think:
"Hmmm, Eddie's out there but I can't handball [right arm held]. Ball's dropping do I kick it or not? If I get pinged for HTB they get a clean possession in the middle of the ground but we can set up again. Maybe I can grub it out wide to the L half-forward flank ..." etc?
I don't know what he was thinking, but I doubt he had the time to consider team rules and weigh up the advantages of HTB (against) in the centre of the ground vs. a kick forward which would have used up time and distance. His instincts and reflexes took over.
Either way, we can bet he did not intend to kick it so that it bounced up nicely for Howard .

We're looking at the whole thing knowing afterwards where the ball went, where Howard's kick went, the collision between RD and Gov etc etc. Greenwood could not possibly have predicted any of that. We need to look at what Greenwood did in terms of effort. Did he try his best? I believe so.
Did it work? Hell, no .
One more example: I hit a roo 30Kms out of Broken Hill which came out on my R, from behind a 10m mound, by braking and swerving left. Impact on the front L of my car, right on the dirt on the LHS of the road. I realised afterwards that if I'd braked and swerved R towards the roo, or even kept going straight, I'd have missed it . I'd thought about such a scenario many times before the event, planned for it, told myself "Swerve towards the critter, and you'll end up behind it" etc etc.
In the moment, I didn't think at all. Reflexes took over --- reflexively you don't swerve towards something, but away from it --- and planning flew out the window.

I've posted many times that I'd rather our mids get caught HTB if they haven't defined an option. Many, many times. A HTB decision against is far less damaging than giving clean possession to the opposition in open play. This happens a lot when our opponents set up extra numbers behind the ball. The communication from the forwards to the mids when this happens should be a SOP. If it's not trained into them, then heads need to roll.

 

[1970crow]

And what possible use was Douglas in that position? He needed to be back with Gov. And what the hell was Jenkins doing letting his bloke run in?

What happened to man up and have extras behind the ball? We had extras to the side, despite having no intention of scoring again (which is obvious because we had 2 forwards at that contest). There was 40 seconds left, not 10 - plenty of time for one play - yet we basically said "here, have the ball".

Unbelievable.

Dougie is there for a short hack out of the clearance by Port. What's odd is Gooch running to the contest which leaves Motlop unaccounted for despite our superior numbers.

 

[Slippery Pete]

They had seven men across half back, opposed to Walker and Jenkins.

We had 10 defenders at that bounce and it somehow wasn't enough.

Douglas and Gallucci running in off the back of the square after the bounce was stupid though. Should have held their ground.

That’s right... players missing in that pic but looks like it was 10-7 in our defence, 6-4 in the middle (including wings) and 2-7 in our forward line.

My point was we should’ve gone either 12-7 in defence or 4-7 up forward (leaving 4-4 in the middle). There are 3 possible scenarios at that centre bounce: us winning the clearance in a scrap and going forward (which is what happened), us winning the clearance cleanly and going sideways, Port winning the clearance and going forward (they’re not going wide because they have to score).

We put a contigency in place (wings) that covered one third (and the least likely) of those three scenarios, instead of covering two thirds of the scenarios (which were also the two most likely).

*I agree that we still would’ve won with that set-up if not for the human bowling ball.

 

[Scorpus]

That’s right... players missing in that pic but looks like it was 10-7 in our defence, 6-4 in the middle (including wings) and 2-7 in our forward line.

My point was we should’ve gone either 12-7 in defence or 4-7 up forward (leaving 4-4 in the middle). There are 3 possible scenarios at that centre bounce: us winning the clearance in a scrap and going foward (which is what happened), us winning the clearance cleanly and going sideways, Port winning the clearance and going forward (they’re not going wide because they have to score).

We put a contigency in place (wings) that covered one third (and the least likely) of those three scenarios, instead of covering two thirds of the scenarios (which were also the two most likely).

*I agree that we still would’ve won with that set-up if not for the human bowling ball.

It's typical Adelaide. For that structure to work effectively, we needed to win the clearance and contested ball. It was backing us in to generate play on our terms...

...when the game was in the balance with 40 seconds to go.

At that point we don't need to generate our own play. We need to shut down the game and the opposition for just 40 seconds. We don't need to win a clean clearance in an attacking play at all, just ensure everything is clogged and shut the **** down.

It's also baffling that we used a structure that requires an effective clearance, when we were getting smashed in the midfield for most of the game, and were down on contested possessions, disposals and clearances. Surely at that point you'd recognize that getting a clearance when we've been generally beaten is not the most likely outcome, and instead go with the shut down plan

 

[Slippery Pete]

It's typical Adelaide. For that structure to work effectively, we needed to win the clearance and contested ball. It was backing us in to generate play on our terms...

...when the game was in the balance with 40 seconds to go.

At that point we don't need to generate our own play. We need to shut down the game and the opposition for just 40 seconds. We don't need to win a clean clearance in an attacking play at all, just ensure everything is clogged and shut the **** down.

It's also baffling that we used a structure that requires an effective clearance, when we were getting smashed in the midfield for most of the game, and were down on contested possessions, disposals and clearances. Surely at that point you'd recognize that getting a clearance when we've been generally beaten is not the most likely outcome, and instead go with the shut down plan

That was exactly my point earlier. That structure with the two loose wings was actually a more attacking structure than if those two men had been forward manning up two of Port’s extra backs.

 

[Bob Neil]

For this type of one minute set play I think it makes sense to have a defined structure when you’re behind and need to attack.

But in our situation when you’re ahead and defending a lead there shouldn’t be a defined structure but rather a flexible one based on our ‘read’ of the opposition’s setup. No point putting two blokes on the wing if they don’t have anyone there...send them to either man up loose Port players starting from our full back line and working up the ground to the middle and otherwise be loose in defence in a dangerous space.

 

[CrowBloke]

I've posted many times that I'd rather our mids get caught HTB if they haven't defined an option. Many, many times.

OK, I've missed that.

A HTB decision against is far less damaging than giving clean possession to the opposition in open play.

Let's say Greenwood held the ball, got tackled and pinged for HTB. If the ball spills out behind the mark, a PA player can swoop and play-on, to advantage. Dangerous.
The HTB free kick would have been from centre, 15-20 metres closer than when Howard bombed it forward, and it's more likely to be well-directed than his kick was. Even if the HTB used up 10 seconds, they'd still have 30 seconds to create a chance. So, the HTB free kick also gives clean possession to the opposition, but closer to goal, with time for them to still kick a goal. How is that a better option?
Best result would have been if Greenwood could have grubbed the kick out wider to between the wing and the HF flank, which was empty, and dribbled OOB. A free kick from out there would have used up more time and been much less damaging than a free in the centre.
Under extreme pressure, Greenwood was lucky to get boot to ball, I thought. Unlucky it grub-bobbled straight to a PA player and sat up nicely for him.

No doubt you've read the many melts in here at (variously, or in combination) Greenwood, Douglas, Mackay and Atkins who've been blamed and vilified far beyond what was within their control. Put that goal anywhere in the first 3 quarters, we still lose by 5 points, but nobody would have paid much attention to that goal.
Those last-minute wins by a kick always attract more attention and emotional response (eg Shuey's goal after the siren in the WCE/PA final last year), because of the timing. Many more things happen during the game, before that, which affect the result.

 

[SaltPeter]

No doubt you've read the many melts in here at (variously, or in combination) Greenwood, Douglas, Mackay and Atkins who've been blamed and vilified far beyond what was within their control. Put that goal anywhere in the first 3 quarters, we still lose by 5 points, but nobody would have paid much attention to that goal.
Those last-minute wins by a kick always attract more attention and emotional response (eg Shuey's goal after the siren in the WCE/PA final last year), because of the timing. Many more things happen during the game, before that, which affect the result.

This thread is called "The Last Minute" for a reason. This is a melt thread.

 

[CrowBloke]

This thread is called "The Last Minute" for a reason. This is a melt thread.

What? Do you mean "a melt post"?
Hardly.
The majority of my post talked about Greenwood --- in the last 40 seconds --- the rest of it speculated about if that last minute occurred elsewhere in the game.
On the Upset-O-Meter scale about that last minute, I'm in the calm zone, mate.

 

[SaltPeter]

What? Do you mean "a melt post"?
Hardly.
The majority of my post talked about Greenwood --- in the last 40 seconds --- the rest of it speculated about if that last minute occurred elsewhere in the game.
On the Upset-O-Meter scale about that last minute, I'm in the calm zone, mate.

Thread .. not post .. thread

 

[CrowBloke]

Thread .. not post .. thread

Take that up with DJ75.
I was discussing the last minute, which is the Thread title.
Read this again:

OK, so there has been discussion in different threads, but perhaps a single thread to analyse the last minute is warranted. This is not intended to be a player massacre, although some will inevitably come under discussion.

Key word is "discussion". I don't see "melt", anywhere.

 

[SaltPeter]

Take that up with DJ75.
I was discussing the last minute, which is the Thread title.
Read this again:

Key word is "discussion". I don't see "melt", anywhere.

Why are you taking this personally, I quoted your post in which you referred to melts? A large number of posts are melty.

I don’t care if it’s a melty thread. I agree that the 3rd quarter was appalling.

 

[Bazz_27]

I can't believe that Douglas looked at Knight in the stand in the last minute & Knight got so worried he fell over and got tendinitis in his hamstring! Please stop dougy!

 

[wingardfreak]

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[MarcusP2]

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

lol is your voyeurism exposed with an accidental post?

 

[CrowBloke]

Why are you taking this personally, I quoted your post in which you referred to melts? A large number of posts are melty.
I don’t care if it’s a melty thread.

Not taking it personally. I was wondering why you've used 2, sorry, 3 posts now, to tell me this, again ---

This thread is called "The Last Minute" for a reason. This is a melt thread.

Who made you the Thread Police, or are you auditioning for Moderator?

 

[Slippery Pete]

Not taking it personally. I was wondering why you've used 2, sorry, 3 posts now, to tell me this, again ---

Because his initial post is still sailing over your head.

He said: this is a melt thread, in other words, it’s designed for losing one’s shit, for throwing the toys out of the cot, come one, come all!

You misunderstood his post and thought he was having a crack at your post by calling it a melt.

 

[CrowBloke]

He said: this is a melt thread, in other words, it’s designed for losing one’s shit, for throwing the toys out of the cot, come one, come all!
You misunderstood his post and thought he was having a crack at your post by calling it a melt.

After his first message, I went back to the start of the thread, looked who started it and why.
DJ75 said:

but perhaps a single thread to analyse the last minute is warranted. This is not intended to be a player massacre

That description doesn't sound like "a melt thread", so I basically told SaltPeter to butt out.
OK, if that's an insulting overreaction, I retract it.

All I wanted to do was discuss the last minute without blaming any or all of the players involved, or calling for them to be dropped/tarred and feathered, or for coaches to be sacked. That's because in the heat of that last minute, I don't think any of them should be blamed for the loss --- it's all coulda-shoulda-woulda imo.
However, I heard this arvo that Tex is out for up to 4 weeks (!!! ffs) and I'm certainly looking for a thread to have a melt about that on top of all the other injuries.
Haaasss haass got to go, ssuurely?

 

[SaltPeter]

After his first message, I went back to the start of the thread, looked who started it and why.
DJ75 said:

That description doesn't sound like "a melt thread", so I basically told SaltPeter to butt out.
OK, if that's an insulting overreaction, I retract it.

All I wanted to do was discuss the last minute without blaming any or all of the players involved, or calling for them to be dropped/tarred and feathered, or for coaches to be sacked. That's because in the heat of that last minute, I don't think any of them should be blamed for the loss --- it's all coulda-shoulda-woulda imo.
However, I heard this arvo that Tex is out for up to 4 weeks (!!! ffs) and I'm certainly looking for a thread to have a melt about that on top of all the other injuries.
Haaasss haass got to go, ssuurely?

Great. Good to see you’ve thrown the shovel away and employed an excavator

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

After thoroughly reviewing the footage I have decided that MacKay purposely sabotaged the team by deflecting the ball off his foot after the McLovin / dougy clash straight into Motlops path. MacKay has never delivered anything so lace out in his career.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Same under Gary Ayers, Neil Craig (not 2005 or 2008) and Brenton Sanderson (in 2013 2014).

68-2-77 in 11 point games or less since foundation

 

[Tex200]

What would be interesting is a pic of Ports set up for the last 20 secs.

Less time granted, but still, I'm sure they would have a set up for guarding a last gasp lead.