Round 19 Negatives

[Nico]

Centre square work again. Too much worrying about the man rather than being first to the footy.

Johnson was nausiatingly first to the footy every time he was in there. We were blocking, holding etc.

When we win it out of the centre we do serious damage. BH and MOL read it very well coming out quickly from the guts.

[Thunder Shaker]

Defenders giving away too many frees inside inside D50 with some of the frees not warranted.

11-11 free kick count in the first half, with the Bombers getting a couple of soft ones in the forward line.

5-13 free kick count in the second half.

Umpires showing some imaginative rule interpretations.

Kirky's spilled mark inside D50 leading to a Bummer goal.

Not blocking up Lloyd's space enough.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker

Not blocking up Lloyd's space enough.

It seems that Roos never wants to double tag forwards or for us to do much shepherding. I presume he thinks both cost more than they gain?

[Snowy]

Free kick stats are a worry and probably more a worry that most of the free kicks against the defenders are there. Leo is just a bit small for some of the forwards he's copping at the minute.

[stellation]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
The second was an impossible speccy attempt when he had Bazza standing right under it in the clear. Very selfish play from a player who is not renowned for it, and it cost us an easy goal from in front.

Hall could have had 9 with that one and the shot on goal he gave up to Goodes (which was great to see).

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
The second was an impossible speccy attempt when he had Bazza standing right under it in the clear. Very selfish play from a player who is not renowned for it

So it was (uncharacteristically) selfish play from Kirk? You don't think that maybe Bazza needed to communicate a bit more?

[ugg]

Originally posted by stellation
Hall could have had 9 with that one and the shot on goal he gave up to Goodes (which was great to see).

That was superb running by Goodes. In the replay you could see Bolton trailing in the background trying to scream at one of his teammates to try to cover Goodes.

[ugg]

Originally posted by Sanecow
So it was (uncharacteristically) selfish play from Kirk? You don't think that maybe Bazza needed to communicate a bit more?

Bazza certainly 'communicated' with Kirk afterwards.

[barry]

The biggest negative for me was the revertion to the slow, stop-start, boundary hugging negative play for the first 3 quarters of the game, which reminded me of earlier in the year.

[giant]

Originally posted by barry
The biggest negative for me was the revertion to the slow, stop-start, boundary hugging negative play for the first 3 quarters of the game, which reminded me of earlier in the year.

They played the same way vs Crows too tho? Indeed they play part of most of their games in this manner. It's part of the "game plan".

[TheHood]

Was Matthews on Jason or Mark Johnson?

Also, I thought Nick seemed to be away with the fairies at times, but I did see a super slick handball (to a Swan before you start) from him at a stoppage...not all bad for Nicky.

He needs a rev up from the coaching staff and team mates. Really needs to lift his level of involvement and get creative in our forward line like we know he can be.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
The biggest negative for me was the revertion to the slow, stop-start, boundary hugging negative play for the first 3 quarters of the game, which reminded me of earlier in the year.

I don't recall a lot of that. There didn't seem to be an awful lot of hitouts.

Oops - just realised you didn't mean forcing it over the line.

I thought we moved it reasonably well along the boundary line. Certainly Essendon gave us that option and we had no real problems (except for our own execution) at getting it to our forward line.

[Provost]

Originally posted by barry
The biggest negative for me was the revertion to the slow, stop-start, boundary hugging negative play for the first 3 quarters of the game, which reminded me of earlier in the year.

I don't mind the slow, stop-start play as they deliberetly move the ball down the ground retaining possession. They wait for a player to create a lead and then kick to him.

What s#%ts me is it all works well till they get near the F50. This didn't happen so much in the Bombers game but you are right in saying allot of their play was down the side line.

The Bombers encouraged this though as every kick out we had, they had a huddle of players directly in front. We had no problem working the ball up the sideline over and over again .

[cruiser]

The Bombers seemed to very much play possession football, even bizarrely in the last few minutes when they needed to get the ball quickly downfield to their goal to score.

Re the shocking Davis handball to Hird, I can only imagine that Hird must have called out his name and that Davis reacted to that before he saw who had said it.

[giant]

Originally posted by cruiser
The Bombers seemed to very much play possession football, even bizarrely in the last few minutes when they needed to get the ball quickly downfield to their goal to score.

Re the shocking Davis handball to Hird, I can only imagine that Hird must have called out his name and that Davis reacted to that before he saw who had said it.

From the TV it looked like he spotted a Swans guys over hird's shoulder but missed by a mere 10m. Actually, late in the game he also did another handball so weak I would've sent my 3yos back to the training track if they'd done it.

Just one of those nights I suspect....