Who can beat Adelaide? [Update: I was wrong. Someone can]

[Jarman3]

The Bulldogs anywhere at the business end!

The finals history between the two clubs would suggest otherwise

 

[Cromulent]

I haven't actually had the chance to watch much of the Crows yet this season

We've got a bunch of Thursday and Friday night games coming up. Will give some of you Vic folk more of an opportunity to see what we're up to.

 

[radiojake]

I haven't actually had the chance to watch much of the Crows yet this season, but their results are speaking for themselves at this point. Not sure what Geelong was doing to them last season, but it seemed to stifle their run from halfback and cause them problems both games.
.

Crows kept bombing it on Enright's head

Hopefully with him now retired we'll try a different approach

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

I haven't actually had the chance to watch much of the Crows yet this season, but their results are speaking for themselves at this point. Not sure what Geelong was doing to them last season, but it seemed to stifle their run from halfback and cause them problems both games.

Hopefully they haven't worked it out yet either.

Just want to say 'hats off' to Crows supporters in here - they're good sports and dealing with the early favouritism well.

Geelong played a loose man in defence and then put a lot of pressure on our midfielders kicking to our forwards.

This resulted in a lot of long "up and under" kicks into our forward line that Enright picked off left, right and centre. Why we didn't actually bother to man him up in either game, I don't know.

 

[officialjc]

What a load of s***.

think what you want

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

Geelong played a loose man in defence and then put a lot of pressure on our midfielders kicking to our forwards.

This resulted in a lot of long "up and under" kicks into our forward line that Enright picked off left, right and centre. Why we didn't actually bother to man him up in either game, I don't know.

Sando once mentioned about shutting down enright, had some success with it early on.

 

[GreyCrow]

The Bulldogs anywhere at the business end!

The Bullies will bring the manic pressure and contest required to win. Geelong can do that as well as run away from our midfielders. It wont be all beer and skittles and the Crows will need to be on their toes in every game.

 

[JVseven]

Only Adelaide can beat Adelaide.

 

[Janus]

The Bullies will bring the manic pressure and contest required to win. Geelong can do that as well as run away from our midfielders. It wont be all beer and skittles and the Crows will need to be on their toes in every game.

This is one of the greatest mischiefs perpetrated on the Australian football public. Manic pressure and contest isn't what is required to win against Adelaide. You eat that shit up, because it allows you to get the ball into space to your runners.

No, the teams that will beat the Crows are the ones that keep their discipline and cover their outlets from the contest. That's why the Bulldogs will not just beat you, but smash you, because that's exactly how they set up at stoppages. Your midfield is too pedestrian to make anything happen by itself.

Do that and anyone can win. Of course, most teams get sucked toward the contest trying to 'help' because footballers are, by their nature, tactically dumb.

 

[GreyCrow]

This is one of the greatest mischiefs perpetrated on the Australian football public. Manic pressure and contest isn't what is required to win against Adelaide. You eat that shit up, because it allows you to get the ball into space to your runners.

No, the teams that will beat the Crows are the ones that keep their discipline and cover their outlets from the contest. That's why the Bulldogs will not just beat you, but smash you, because that's exactly how they set up at stoppages. Your midfield is too pedestrian to make anything happen by itself.

Do that and anyone can win. Of course, most teams get sucked toward the contest trying to 'help' because footballers are, by their nature, tactically dumb.

Quoted to stop the edit. We shall see. Are you saying you know this because Port did or didn't bring manic pressure and the contest? Be careful now others are watching

 

[Obeanie1]

One thing I've noticed about the Crows in recent years is they start the season really well.

Then by the end of the season it's a case of best fittest team standing prevails.

Crows have dropped away late in the past couple of years and didn't 'get the cigar'.

Only time will tell this year again.

 

[Cyclonus]

This is one of the greatest mischiefs perpetrated on the Australian football public. Manic pressure and contest isn't what is required to win against Adelaide. You eat that shit up, because it allows you to get the ball into space to your runners.

No, the teams that will beat the Crows are the ones that keep their discipline and cover their outlets from the contest. That's why the Bulldogs will not just beat you, but smash you, because that's exactly how they set up at stoppages. Your midfield is too pedestrian to make anything happen by itself.

Do that and anyone can win. Of course, most teams get sucked toward the contest trying to 'help' because footballers are, by their nature, tactically dumb.

It's not a bad analysis. It may happen, but I hope the Crows hold to their gameplan and win.

 

[Craigevo]

This is one of the greatest mischiefs perpetrated on the Australian football public. Manic pressure and contest isn't what is required to win against Adelaide. You eat that shit up, because it allows you to get the ball into space to your runners.

No, the teams that will beat the Crows are the ones that keep their discipline and cover their outlets from the contest. That's why the Bulldogs will not just beat you, but smash you, because that's exactly how they set up at stoppages. Your midfield is too pedestrian to make anything happen by itself.

Do that and anyone can win. Of course, most teams get sucked toward the contest trying to 'help' because footballers are, by their nature, tactically dumb.

Pedestrian midfield, haha!
I think that all you do is string together a bunch of words to sound like you're smart, in the hope that other people believe what you're saying. This somehow fulfils your own belief in the crap you come up with.

 

[Infra Ted]

Crows kept bombing it on Enright's head

Hopefully with him now retired we'll try a different approach

Bomb it on Henderson and Tuohy's head.

 

[Elite Crow]

This is one of the greatest mischiefs perpetrated on the Australian football public. Manic pressure and contest isn't what is required to win against Adelaide. You eat that shit up, because it allows you to get the ball into space to your runners.

No, the teams that will beat the Crows are the ones that keep their discipline and cover their outlets from the contest. That's why the Bulldogs will not just beat you, but smash you, because that's exactly how they set up at stoppages. Your midfield is too pedestrian to make anything happen by itself.

Do that and anyone can win. Of course, most teams get sucked toward the contest trying to 'help' because footballers are, by their nature, tactically dumb.

So let's get this straight, you think the Bulldogs need to worry when they play you but they will smash us. I think this is right up there with some of your other pearlers like:

Port went easy on us in the Phil Walsh game and we took advantage, Port would beat us up and enact revenge in the first showdown of 2016. Result we smashed you.

Port would beat Melbourne in 2016 leading to a glorious run at the flag. Result Melbourne beat you.

You'd beat us in the first showdown 2017. We beat you.

You don't need talls in defence against GWS. Their talls smashed you.

Matty White was your secret weapon along with Monfries. White was dropped after one game and Monfries will be lucky to get back.

Kochies bitching about the jumper was a set up to build up publicity and you would release a commerative China jumper. Kochie is still bitching.

There are others but they escape me.

But in a nutshell, why would anyone believe you know what you are talking about?

 

[VictorianCrow85]

So let's get this straight, you think the Bulldogs need to worry when they play you but they will smash us. I think this is right up there with some of your other pearlers like:

Port went easy on us in the Phil Walsh game and we took advantage, Port would beat us up and enact revenge in the first showdown of 2016. Result we smashed you.

Port would beat Melbourne in 2016 leading to a glorious run at the flag. Result Melbourne beat you.

You'd beat us in the first showdown 2017. We beat you.

You don't need talls in defence against GWS. Their talls smashed you.

Matty White was your secret weapon along with Monfries. White was dropped after one game and Monfries will be lucky to get back.

Kochies bitching about the jumper was a set up to build up publicity and you would release a commerative China jumper. Kochie is still bitching.

There are others but they escape me.

But in a nutshell, why would any believe you know what you are talking about?

LMAO some sheer delusional stuff, entertaining at least.

 

[Elite Crow]

LMAO some sheer delusional stuff, entertaining at least.

There is more but I'm getting old and my memory is fading

 

[Truckosaurus]

[North Melbourne tactical meeting]
Brad Scott: I've decided to bring in a few ringers, professional footballers. We'll give them spots on the Category B list and promote them in time for the game. Gerald Brosnan, Jock McHale, Norman 'Hackenschmidt' Clarke...
Darren Crocker: Uh, Brad?
Brad Scott: What is it, Crocker?
Darren Crocker: I'm afraid all of those players have retired and, uh, passed on. In fact your centre halfback has been dead for 79 years.

 

[Janus]

So let's get this straight, you think the Bulldogs need to worry when they play you but they will smash us. I think this is right up there with some of your other pearlers like:

Port went easy on us in the Phil Walsh game and we took advantage, Port would beat us up and enact revenge in the first showdown of 2016. Result we smashed you.

Port would beat Melbourne in 2016 leading to a glorious run at the flag. Result Melbourne beat you.

You'd beat us in the first showdown 2017. We beat you.

You don't need talls in defence against GWS. Their talls smashed you.

Matty White was your secret weapon along with Monfries. White was dropped after one game and Monfries will be lucky to get back.

Kochies bitching about the jumper was a set up to build up publicity and you would release a commerative China jumper. Kochie is still bitching.

There are others but they escape me.

But in a nutshell, why would any believe you know what you are talking about?

Because instead of actually arguing against what I've said, you're bringing up other unrelated stuff to deflect away from it?

P.S GWS scored just as many goals against us from their talls as they did against the Bulldogs (8). It was their midfield that cut us up in the last quarter because they could finally generate run from half back. So no, you don't need talls in defence. What you need are good defenders.

Quoted to stop the edit. We shall see. Are you saying you know this because Port did or didn't bring manic pressure and the contest? Be careful now others are watching

Port got sucked into the contest like a bunch of amateurs and you exposed us on the outside in the second quarter. Game over. It was only when we kept our discipline and composure that we made it a contest. I was disappointed, but we'll see what happens when we can play Trengove forward and you have to drop some of your defenders deeper to cover him.

Richmond failed because they did exactly what you want them to do. You're like a pressure sponge - you soak up that shit and then explode on the outside. I'd be concentrating on your outlet passes far more than I would trying to pressure the ball carrier, because you don't have the explosive speed or the elusiveness in the midfield to generate direct transition from a stoppage. It's why you consistently fail in finals - when sides go one on one and it becomes about individual contests and talent, you get exposed for that lack of x-factor in the middle.

 

[Elite Crow]

Because instead of actually arguing against what I've said, you're bringing up other unrelated stuff to deflect away from it?

P.S GWS scored just as many goals against us from their talls as they did against the Bulldogs (8). It was their midfield that cut us up in the last quarter because they could finally generate run from half back. So no, you don't need talls in defence. What you need are good defenders.



Port got sucked into the contest like a bunch of amateurs and you exposed us on the outside in the second quarter. Game over. It was only when we kept our discipline and composure that we made it a contest. I was disappointed, but we'll see what happens when we can play Trengove forward and you have to drop some of your defenders deeper to cover him.

Richmond failed because they did exactly what you want them to do. You're like a pressure sponge - you soak up that shit and then explode on the outside. I'd be concentrating on your outlet passes far more than I would trying to pressure the ball carrier, because you don't have the explosive speed or the elusiveness in the midfield to generate direct transition from a stoppage. It's why you consistently fail in finals - when sides go one on one and it becomes about individual contests and talent, you get exposed for that lack of x-factor in the middle.

Why would I need to argue against your nonsense, time takes care of that and then I can add it to another one of your debunked theories.

 

[GreyCrow]

. It was only when we kept our discipline and composure that we made it a contest. I was disappointed, but we'll see what happens when we can play Trengove forward and you have to drop some of your defenders deeper to cover him.

.

Trengove is your best backman and you dropped your other forward. Charlie Dixon one out. Lol

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Darren Crocker: I'm afraid all of those players have retired and, uh, passed on. In fact your centre halfback has been dead for 79 years.

Still better than Firrito.

 

[Runnin Blue]

Because instead of actually arguing against what I've said, you're bringing up other unrelated stuff to deflect away from it?

P.S GWS scored just as many goals against us from their talls as they did against the Bulldogs (8). It was their midfield that cut us up in the last quarter because they could finally generate run from half back. So no, you don't need talls in defence. What you need are good defenders.



Port got sucked into the contest like a bunch of amateurs and you exposed us on the outside in the second quarter. Game over. It was only when we kept our discipline and composure that we made it a contest. I was disappointed, but we'll see what happens when we can play Trengove forward and you have to drop some of your defenders deeper to cover him.

Richmond failed because they did exactly what you want them to do. You're like a pressure sponge - you soak up that shit and then explode on the outside. I'd be concentrating on your outlet passes far more than I would trying to pressure the ball carrier, because you don't have the explosive speed or the elusiveness in the midfield to generate direct transition from a stoppage. It's why you consistently fail in finals - when sides go one on one and it becomes about individual contests and talent, you get exposed for that lack of x-factor in the middle.

Since you have it all worked out, I hear there may be a coaching vacancy opening up at Collingwood next year. You should apply, you seem to have a stellar grasp of the caper. The only thing that could be funnier than Buckley coaching Collingwood, is you.

Drop defenders to cover Trengove? Now, that is some funny shit. Now that secret weapon A was a flop (Matt White), time for secret weapon B is it?

You and your football club are a perennial joke buddy. Keep the laughs coming.

 

[Hobbes]

One thing I've noticed about the Crows in recent years is they start the season really well.

Then by the end of the season it's a case of best fittest team standing prevails.

Crows have dropped away late in the past couple of years and didn't 'get the cigar'.

Only time will tell this year again.

I'm not convinced that this analysis stacks up, so I'll try to check facts. (Having typed that, I don't know where this analysis will go.) i'll just look, for now, at first 11 rounds versus last 11 rounds. I'll just do the last ten years - i doubt Adelaide have many people playing who go back further than that.

2016: 7-4, 9-2. Won a home final, lost an away one.
2015: 6-5, 8-3. Won an away final, lost an away one.
2014: 4-7, 7-4, 10th.
2013: 5-6, 5-6, 11th
2012: 9-2, 8-3, lost a home final, won a home final, lost an away final.
2011: 3-8, 4-7, 14th
2010: 3-8, 6-5, 11th
2009: 6-5, 8-3, 5th, won a home final, lost an away one.
2008: 8-3, 5-6, 5th, lost a home final
2007: 5-6. 7-4, 8th, lost an away final

Finals performance can use a little work, but most finals have followed the form guide (so, when Adelaide finish 5-8 and win their first final, they usually lose the next one). But in H&A performance, Adelaide have been much more successful in the second half of each year - 56-54 in the first half, 67-43 in the second half. With one exception (2008) the performance has been consistently better in the second half of the year.

 

[officialjc]

Because instead of actually arguing against what I've said, you're bringing up other unrelated stuff to deflect away from it?

P.S GWS scored just as many goals against us from their talls as they did against the Bulldogs (8). It was their midfield that cut us up in the last quarter because they could finally generate run from half back. So no, you don't need talls in defence. What you need are good defenders.



Port got sucked into the contest like a bunch of amateurs and you exposed us on the outside in the second quarter. Game over. It was only when we kept our discipline and composure that we made it a contest. I was disappointed, but we'll see what happens when we can play Trengove forward and you have to drop some of your defenders deeper to cover him.

Richmond failed because they did exactly what you want them to do. You're like a pressure sponge - you soak up that shit and then explode on the outside. I'd be concentrating on your outlet passes far more than I would trying to pressure the ball carrier, because you don't have the explosive speed or the elusiveness in the midfield to generate direct transition from a stoppage. It's why you consistently fail in finals - when sides go one on one and it becomes about individual contests and talent, you get exposed for that lack of x-factor in the middle.

so ur saying that collingwood should win the flag. number 1 rated midfield by champion data. pendlebury, treloar, wells, sidebottom and co with an athletic grundy feeding them fit the bill in having explosive speed, elusiveness and x factor. you probably think we will roll out thompson, lyons and co in the finals.