Why cant we blaim injury?

[malpaso]

They probably should say that. They don't get accused of playing bruise free footy by other clubs for nothing.

Why does half time matter? That was our best half. The second quarter we won almost every clearance. Who cares? Did you not see the second half? They kicked 12 goals to our two.

You mentioned contested possessions and clearances in your earlier post Clay. I was merely pointing out that we were dominating clearances and that didn't matter..

Strange excuses. All of the blokes out there that replaced our outs Harvey has recruited. He was meant to bring a harder edge to the club. Not evident in the vast majority of players he's brought to the club. Quite a few of them were squibbing contests all day.

I'm not trying to make excuses. No one complained about us playing soft football last year. All of us enjoyed a hard, intense brand of footy that enabled us to get to the finals and win a finals game. Harvey did and has brought a harder edge to the club, it's just waned significantly with injuries.

It is not a coaching directive to be 'soft'.

 

[Clay Davis]

You mentioned contested possessions and clearances in your earlier post Clay. I was merely pointing out that we were dominating clearances and that didn't matter..

Of course it mattered. In one stage in the second quarter we were within striking distance of Melbourne. We'd reigned in their lead from 37 points to 19 and had kicked three consecutive goals.

I'm not trying to make excuses. No one complained about us playing soft football last year. All of us enjoyed a hard, intense brand of footy that enabled us to get to the finals and win a finals game. Harvey did and has brought a harder edge to the club, it's just waned significantly with injuries.

It is not a coaching directive to be 'soft'.

Did Harvey bring it? Or was it entirely related to Barlow and the dominance of Sandilands? Was it due to better assistant coaches being at the club? Because it has only been evident in one year of Harvey's four years at the club. We played weak footy 08 and 09, and weak footy this year. Last year was an anomaly. This year is very similar to 09 (another year we had a lot of injuries).

I can't see many of the players out there that he's brought to the club putting their head over the ball. There's no excuses for the soft way many of them played yesterday. Harvey brought them to the club, at the very least, even with their shit skills, they should be working hard enough to win the contest. That's what matters in finals footy. A number of players don't look cut out for it.

He's had a few years now to sort out the lack of depth. It isn't getting any better.

 

[malpaso]

Of course it mattered. In one stage in the second quarter we were within striking distance of Melbourne. We'd reigned in their lead from 37 points to 19 and had kicked three consecutive goals.

Melbourne went soft and weren't manning up. How else do explain MJ kicking 3 goals?

Last year was an anomaly. This year is very similar to 09 (another year we had a lot of injuries).

Yeah, notice what happens with injury?

I can't see many of the players out there that he's brought to the club putting their head over the ball. There's no excuses for the soft way many of them played yesterday. Harvey brought them to the club, at the very least, even with their shit skills, they should be working hard enough to win the contest. That's what matters in finals footy. A number of players don't look cut out for it.

He's had a few years now to sort out the lack of depth. It isn't getting any better.

McPhee, Suban, Silvagni, Barlow, Ballantyne, De Boer, Griffin, Fyfe, Lower, Mayne, Morabito, JVB

All of the above put their head over the ball and all brought to the club under Harvey.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

For starters - injuries are a reasonable excuse for sub optimal performances. Suffice to say without the best players - a team can't play their best football. My mob lost a final to collingwood (after drawing at the end of the game) without Judd, Cousins and Kerr. Replace those 3 fit with any other 3 in our team and we win.

However - injuries don't excuse the performances of those best 22 players who actually run out on the ground. I didn't see the game yesterday - but have read some of the reviews on here.

Injuries don't excuse the poor showing by Duffield, Pavlich et al (again I only assume thet had poor games by your review threads)

 

[Clay Davis]

Melbourne went soft and weren't manning up. How else do explain MJ kicking 3 goals?

So Melbourne went soft, but we didn't when they kicked six goals in a row in the last?

Yeah, notice what happens with injury?

Every side cops injury. Every single one. Collingwood had 7 premiership players out against Melbourne. They won over them by the margin we lost to Melbourne.

You can excuse a loss with our outs - we are not as good as Collingwood - but for Melbourne to have a 177 point turnaround against two teams with significant outs is staggering. It's not as though we are a young team either - Melbourne were less experienced and signicantly younger (by an average age of over a year).

Injuries are not an excuse for those kinds of losses, two-three years after those kinds of losses were because of exposed lack of depth.

McPhee, Suban, Silvagni, Barlow, Ballantyne, De Boer, Griffin, Fyfe, Lower, Mayne, Morabito, JVB

All of the above put their head over the ball and all brought to the club under Harvey.

LOL. Morabito? Are you serious? I have my doubts on Mayne as well, likes to chase players, but when it comes to actually attacking the ball, he waits for the uncontested receive. He picks and chooses when to go.

JVB does nothing of the sort either. Just because he's a defensive player doesn't mean he puts his head over the ball. Gets destroyed in most contests.

Hill, Hinkley, Mayne, Pitt, Crichton, Roberton, Bollenhagen, Mzungu, Morabito, Walters, JVB all get beaten in contests and most of them prefer to spread from packs looking for the easy receive.

 

[malpaso]

Clay, I'm not saying we were not soft against Melbourne. Again, I'm referring to your sweeping statements that the entire team/gameplan/structure is to be a soft team and that it has been the case since Harvey became coach. That is what your constantly implying.

You cannot have a team full of Sam Mitchell's. We'd get the ball out and we would win the clearances however we'd be mown down each and every time.

We have players that can put their head down. Unfortunately most of them are injured, it changes the nature of the team on the field.

Our effort yesterday was soft, I've never said otherwise.

 

[E Shed]

Pav was ok yesterday. He was trying his guts out. And Hill fought hard in the clinches despite some calling him a squib too. He ran all day end to end and got in and under, took responsibility to make the play. He's a little champ.

Just think about this. A couple of weeks ago Essendon came over for a crunch game that was built up by the media all week. They have one of the most experienced, expensive and decorated coaching panels every assembled including dual premiership coach Mark Thompson. Essendon came out half asleep and we put them away to the tune of 6 goals in the first quarter.

The Bulldogs, widely tipped to go all the way this year came over and got absolutely demolished, blown off the park by The Eagles.

It happens, some days teams don't show up. The only ones that seem to maintain the same standard week in week out are Geelong who are full of battle hardened veterans in their core group and Collingwood who have champions and class on every line and the best support staff money can buy.

For a middle of the ladder team like us, a few years into a rebuild we need all our players available to be at our best. We currently have the worst injury list in the AFL. There is nothing surprising about what's happening here. All we can do is grit out teeth and wait till we start getting players back.

 

[malpaso]

Very good points EShed. I agree.

 

[Clay Davis]

Clay, I'm not saying we were not soft against Melbourne. Again, I'm referring to your sweeping statements that the entire team/gameplan/structure is to be a soft team and that it has been the case since Harvey became coach. That is what your constantly implying.

That is not what I am implying. I am saying that the soft way of football has never left the club. That the hard edge we saw last year was never more than a few players. Of the blokes you listed, Suban, Silvagni, and McPhee wouldn't have made a lick of difference. De Boer was ordinary and couldn't get involved.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room here: we started the rebuild at the end of 07, and have used each first pick to get midfield types. Palmer, Hill, Morabito and Pitt all went first round. Aside from Morabito, all three were available to play on the weekend. Two of them didn't. Hill and Pitt don't get the hard ball. Palmer can, but is on the outer at the club.

Our midfield, at present, is not much better than it was at the end of 07. We don't win clearances, we don't win contested possession. These were big problems in the Connolly era, and we embarked on building the midfield. Here we are in 2011, with three of our last four first round picks unable to form anything like what you would call a developing top class midfield. The only thing that holds the whole recruiting picture together is Barlow, and to a similar degree, Fyfe. The rest is fairly patchy.

These excuses about injuries don't really run when the players we've picked as first round recruits don't suit the game plan we apparently want to play.

It happens, some days teams don't show up.

How often does it happen to the Freo football club? The anomaly is when we do show up. You seem to willingly accept such performances.

 

[prattsta]

It's not as though we are a young team either - Melbourne were less experienced and signicantly younger (by an average age of over a year).

Just on this, Fremantle were a year older, but in terms of actual experience we were pretty even.

Avg Age:
Melbourne - 22y11m
Fremantle - 24y0m

Avg Games:
Melbourne - 53.5
Fremantle - 56.5

Games Played:
Melbourne
<50 - 13
50-99 - 5
100-149 - 3
>150 - 1

Fremantle
<50 - 15
50-99 - 3
100-149 - 1
>150 - 3

Anyway, it's a minor issue, carry on...

 

[malpaso]

That is not what I am implying. I am saying that the soft way of football has never left the club. That the hard edge we saw last year was never more than a few players. Of the blokes you listed, Suban, Silvagni, and McPhee wouldn't have made a lick of difference. De Boer was ordinary and couldn't get involved.

That should tell you all you need to know about why we didn't play well yesterday. Even De Boer wasn't in it. Shall we get rid of him? No amount of inclusions would have made a lick of difference yesterday with the way the team went about it, that's obvious. I daresay we wouldn't have lost by 89 points though..

Our midfield was meant to be Palmer, Barlow and Mundy with Fyfe, Hill and Morabito around the edges. Do the math as to why that's not happening at the present.

 

[Clay Davis]

That should tell you all you need to know about why we didn't play well yesterday. Even De Boer wasn't in it. Shall we get rid of him? No amount of inclusions would have made a lick of difference yesterday with the way the team went about it, that's obvious. I daresay we wouldn't have lost by 89 points though..

Our midfield was meant to be Palmer, Barlow and Mundy with Fyfe, Hill and Morabito around the edges. Do the math as to why that's not happening at the present.

Like I said before, the excuse doesn't wash. Swan, Thomas, Johnson, Beams were all out against Melbourne for Collingwood's midfield. Our outs don't justify a 177 point turnaround for them.

What's "the math" about why Palmer is out?

 

[Clay Davis]

Just on this, Fremantle were a year older, but in terms of actual experience we were pretty even.

Avg Age:
Melbourne - 22y11m
Fremantle - 24y0m

Avg Games:
Melbourne - 53.5
Fremantle - 56.5

Games Played:
Melbourne
<50 - 13
50-99 - 5
100-149 - 3
>150 - 1

Fremantle
<50 - 15
50-99 - 3
100-149 - 1
>150 - 3

Anyway, it's a minor issue, carry on...

I know that, but when it comes to physical presence around the ball, players like Mzungu or Broughton, despite less AFL experience, should still be able to put pressure on around the ball. They're around 25 years old, playing a bunch of 20 year olds. Physiologically, we should have had the edge, if not the edge in class.

 

[malpaso]

I know that, but when it comes to physical presence around the ball, players like Mzungu or Broughton, despite less AFL experience, should still be able to put pressure on around the ball. They're around 25 years old, playing a bunch of 20 year olds. Physiologically, we should have had the edge, if not the edge in class.

Why should we have had the edge again? Melbourne were missing Davey and Jamar? Who were we missing?

Any edge your thinking of is a fabrication to justify your arguments.

 

[prattsta]

I know that, but when it comes to physical presence around the ball, players like Mzungu or Broughton, despite less AFL experience, should still be able to put pressure on around the ball. They're around 25 years old, playing a bunch of 20 year olds. Physiologically, we should have had the edge, if not the edge in class.

I get that, but it's been mentioned a few times around here and given how small the actual experience difference was I don't think it's fair to say we we're more experienced. Bigger, taller, older, stronger? Sure, but in terms of game experience at AFL level it was negligible.

Either way, the side that ran out yesterday could've won. Failing that they certainly shouldn't have lost by the margin they did.

 

[Clay Davis]

Why should we have had the edge again? Melbourne were missing Davey and Jamar? Who were we missing?

Any edge your thinking of is a fabrication to justify your arguments.

What does who were we missing have anything to do with it? Are you willfully ignorant?

In almost every contest, we would have had the edge, physically and experience wise. Perhaps they have more young class and better ball users, but that doesn't make a difference to us being beaten in contested possession.

This wasn't a team of skinny Freo youngsters against hat-trick era Brisbane Lions. Yet the game panned out very much like that.

The players who took the field for Freo had the ability to win certain key stats, and didn't. The scoreboard may still have reflected an overall lack of class on our team. But the fact we so conclusively lost contested possessions and clearances for the match shows where the club is really at in terms of game style.

 

[Clay Davis]

Either way, the side that ran out yesterday could've won. Failing that they certainly shouldn't have lost by the margin they did.

I agree, and that's basically my point. And even in a loss, I would have expected more competitiveness in the key stats that finals winning teams make their bread and butter.

I could stomach a loss where we won contested possessions, and maybe even clearances, but were let down by execution. Shows the endeavour is there, if not the class. Yesterday was no endeavour, no class.

 

[malpaso]

Because you think we had an edge. I'm disputing that. I do not think we went into that game with any so-called edge.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

It's all in their heads

At the end of the day, yes, we are missing 8-9 first choice players

But that doesn't excuse any lack of effort or intensity that we were renowned for in 2010

The injuries are bad and they demoralise the team big team. Injured players end up getting replaced by underdone players

What is really worrying for me is the fact that we've had to play players that are on 80-90% fitness as there is no alternative - we can't seem to catch a break with injuries and as soon as we get someone back, someone else goes down leaving us in the exact same position (probably worse off as it usually takes a player returning from injury 2-3 weeks to get back to the level they were - depending on the extent of the injury)

we'll get there - it's all in their heads and I really hope we can sort our mental demons out

 

[Clay Davis]

Because you think we had an edge. I'm disputing that. I do not think we went into that game with any so-called edge.

If you don't think a guy like Crowley, with over 100 games experience, decent size and fitness base, can reign in a skinny kid like Scully, who's come off an injured preseason, in the first few minutes of the game, then you have pretty low expectations of Freo as a playing group.

That's just one example of many throughout the game.

Scully is on his way to top shelf, but the way in which he was allowed to get free by our main tagger was disgraceful. Jordie McKenzie is a skinny kid from the rookie list, but was one of Melbourne's leading contested ball and clearance winners.

Are you saying guys like Broughton, Crowley, Duffield, etc couldn't have gotten their hands on the ball as much as them and gone some way to negating their influence?

 

[malpaso]

If you don't think a guy like Crowley, with over 100 games experience, decent size and fitness base, can reign in a skinny kid like Scully, who's come off an injured preseason, in the first few minutes of the game, then you have pretty low expectations of Freo as a playing group.

That's just one example of many throughout the game.

Scully is on his way to top shelf, but the way in which he was allowed to get free by our main tagger was disgraceful. Jordie McKenzie is a skinny kid from the rookie list, but was one of Melbourne's leading contested ball and clearance winners.

Are you saying guys like Broughton, Crowley, Duffield, etc couldn't have gotten their hands on the ball as much as them and gone some way to negating their influence?

Clay, WE SUCKED YESTERDAY across the board. I'm not saying we didn't. Everything has been amplified by that fact. It was a big avalanche of mediocrity.

I just do not fathom how anyone thinks we had an edge going into that game given the impact on our structures/personnel.

 

[free at last]

That is not what I am implying. I am saying that the soft way of football has never left the club. That the hard edge we saw last year was never more than a few players. Of the blokes you listed, Suban, Silvagni, and McPhee wouldn't have made a lick of difference. De Boer was ordinary and couldn't get involved.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room here: we started the rebuild at the end of 07, and have used each first pick to get midfield types. Palmer, Hill, Morabito and Pitt all went first round. Aside from Morabito, all three were available to play on the weekend. Two of them didn't. Hill and Pitt don't get the hard ball. Palmer can, but is on the outer at the club.

Our midfield, at present, is not much better than it was at the end of 07. We don't win clearances, we don't win contested possession. These were big problems in the Connolly era, and we embarked on building the midfield. Here we are in 2011, with three of our last four first round picks unable to form anything like what you would call a developing top class midfield. The only thing that holds the whole recruiting picture together is Barlow, and to a similar degree, Fyfe. The rest is fairly patchy.

These excuses about injuries don't really run when the players we've picked as first round recruits don't suit the game plan we apparently want to play.



How often does it happen to the Freo football club? The anomaly is when we do show up. You seem to willingly accept such performances.

of course our midfield is not that much better than 2007.would injuries have anything to do with that? you seem to have a short memory.rewind the clock back a bit over 12 mths and we beat geelong with a near strength midfield.why did win? i'll tell you why. we had mundy,barlow,mora,sandi and hill all up and firing,playing confidence,instinctive football,add the rest to that lot as well. .confidence in sport is everything.it's not hard to see the whole group has no confidence.

 

[Clay Davis]

Clay, WE SUCKED YESTERDAY across the board. I'm not saying we didn't. Everything has been amplified by that fact. It was a big avalanche of mediocrity.

I just do not fathom how anyone thinks we had an edge going into that game given the impact on our structures/personnel.

What I am saying, is that we had an edge in physical size, age, and a slight edge in experience.

Melbourne had an edge in footy smarts, ball use, and general class.

The way the game panned out - it was like late 90s, early 00s Freo against the Brisbane Lions of that era. No class, no endeavour, completely shamed around a contested situation. Not something you would think would happen against a young Melbourne side, is it?

 

[Lach72]

Lats year the injuries seemed to be staggered, so that when one dropped out, we got one back.
This makes it easier for young fellas to come in and play a role.
Chricton has played some decent footy, yesterday nto so much.
Last year he rotated on and off the ground more and was not expected to carry the load.

I thought he played quite well against Hawthorn and very well last week against Essendon.

We have such a depth of players missing that it is difficult to get continuity.

We were not winning contested ball yesterday, and what made it worse was the diabolical skill errors, which gave them so much easy ball.

 

[malpaso]

We have such a depth of players missing that it is difficult to get continuity.

We were not winning contested ball yesterday, and what made it worse was the diabolical skill errors, which gave them so much easy ball.

That's the exact point. We cannot get this in practice let alone during a game with the massive effect that injuries have had.

It's noble to sit there and say we can't blame injuries but really who are we kidding?