Rd 16 v Essendon Bombers @ MCG

[Bexl]

I just had a look at John Longmire's press conference after the game. He looked like a man who wanted to say we were @@@@ house against a bottom three team which would have been an accurate assessment.

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't we put Clarke on the ball? He racks up possessions and he is hard at it. Yep, he can be haphazard with his disposal but at least he goes where the footy is at.

Personally I would have given him another game and playing in the middle see how it goes. He did well the week before.

[Nico]

I just had a look at John Longmire's press conference after the game. He looked like a man who wanted to say we were @@@@ house against a bottom three team which would have been an accurate assessment.

- - - Updated - - -


Personally I would have given him another game and playing in the middle see how it goes. He did well the week before.

I got the same impression. He couldn't hide his disappointment. Also mentioned that Heeney hurt a knee.

[Agent 86]

It all depends how you frame it. We have only lost one game to the bottom six teams, and that was against Essendon (a finalist from last year, who we also beat earlier in the year). The middle six is perhaps more of a problem, where we have lost to three of the five (we are the sixth team), but you would expect them to be tougher opponents.

Consistency is an issue, but that might apply to all AFL teams to an extent. Everyone has dropped unexpected games this season.

All too true, Matty10. Although we did have dodgy starts against GWS and Hawks plus Norf gave us a scare (thanks JMac for bringing that one home), so not totally convincing wins.

And we do have to play 3 of them (bottom 6) before the end of the season, so let’s see how we go.

It might be just me, but there are too many games where we just look decidedly average in games where we’re the clear favourites. Then there’s the games where we’re the underdogs and are able to find another level. It must be hard being a coach!

There ain’t no easy games and it’s a long season. You’re correct in that Every team has a down period throughout the season - but the better ones find ways to win when they’re not firing well. (Apologies for the cliches, but it’s true)

[TheBloods]

Some interesting stuff there. I don't know what to make of the individual player stats, because some of the bad ones this game were amongst the best last week.

The possession count by quarter is noteworthy. It appears to be a fitness issue. We faded out as the game went on while Essendon got stronger. But it's hard to know why this should be the case.

Cmon , the other week you were saying how fit we are that we ran over Tiges and Dees , you cant have it both ways

- - - Updated - - -

It’s also contrary to what we saw in the comebacks vs Richmond and Melbourne, so who knows. We’re a weird team this year.

I tend to think our bad patches within games are overall a function of an inexperienced midfield, where only Mills and Parker are over 21 of our regulars in there. But it’s gotta be more than that.

Chad is 21 and was our best by a mile . Is probably top 3 in our best and fairest with Mills and Parker , so whats the problem ? Caught a bit of Freo v Port this evening . Most of what i saw they had Brayshaw Brodie Serong all younger than mills and Parker . No excuse

[KTigers]

+1. With the Eagles getting their players back, apart from North, there are danger games every week for all clubs.

Absolutely. Essendon are better than 4-and-11, like GWS are better than 5-and-10. If we are off more than even a few % against
anyone but North we will lose. The other thing is Essendon kicked 15.5. It's not just our lousy kicking at goal, it's their great
(or mix of great and lucky) kicking at goal. I have noticed from all my years on here it's very common for contributors to forget
there is actually another team on the field out there. They have their own ideas about how the game should go. It's unfortunate.

[dejavoodoo44]

Absolutely. Essendon are better than 4-and-11, like GWS are better than 5-and-10. If we are off more than even a few % against
anyone but North we will lose. The other thing is Essendon kicked 15.5. It's not just our lousy kicking at goal, it's their great
(or mix of great and lucky) kicking at goal. I have noticed from all my years on here it's very common for contributors to forget
there is actually another team on the field out there. They have their own ideas about how the game should go. It's unfortunate.

Yes, and the other team's idea of how a game should go, is much the same as our idea of how the game should go. That is, create space and time for their own ball movement, in order to get it through the goals without turnovers, while attempting to limit the space and time that we have for our ball movement, in order to force turnovers.

And while I'm not pleased with the loss and don't really want to make excuses for it, I do get tired of some of the more negative venting, that claims that the coach should be sacked because the opposition carried out the basics better on the day, or that certain players are irredeemable because they committed turnovers.

[KTigers]

Sorry Ktigers maybe just stay away for one game although if they do win the next one then how do we arrange for when your comeback will be.
Do we have to have a loss without you there to welcome you back.

Don't stay away it'll be like 5 odds have rolled and the odds are it will be an even next time. Besides I like your comments.

It's quandary for sure. Mrs Tigers suggested only half jokingly as I trudged grumpily from the ground back to the hotel that we still
visit Melbourne (you'll find reviews of seven Flinders Lane restaurants and bars and a treatise on the socio-economic
ramifactions of the price of beer at football stadiums and gig venues sailing so far into double digit territory post pandemic in the
Open Chat section later on) but watch the game on TV at the hotel. I've always felt I had more "control" over the game when
watching on TV or at the SCG. Perhaps it has something to do with the unfortunate presence of opposition supporters at the
MCG who are also trying to "control" the on-field events through their yelling and mental energy.

[O'Reilly Boy]

I've not been on RandW for a while—work and family stuff—but want to chip in.

I think that, inaccurate kicking aside, one of the issues for us was lack of defensive pressure in our attacking 50. In the first quarter we forced them down the line for their exits, and the McCartins, Reid, and Hickey were picking them off. Thereafter, however, they started picking their way out of defence way too easily, and I feel like I watching watching Papley, Franklin, Reid and McDonald chasing players, rather than working to close down space. Yes, that's right. I'm working towards an argument for the unsung work of pressure forwards. Not necessarily Wicks or Bell—perhaps Clarke offers this, too. But I saw precious little of it for 80% of the game. This meant that while we had more inside 50s, with so many of those ending up in kick-ins, and the Essendon boys able to get on their skates, our midfield was constantly having to run both ways, and were basically chasing for most of the game. No wonder they tired. There has been talk that Campbell could play that role, on the grounds that he is a tackler, but I don't really think that it is a tackling role. It's a channel-blocking role, is unglamorous, and too easily overlooked in terms of analyses that rely on possession counts.

[111431]

I've not been on RandW for a while—work and family stuff—but want to chip in.

I think that, inaccurate kicking aside, one of the issues for us was lack of defensive pressure in our attacking 50. In the first quarter we forced them down the line for their exits, and the McCartins, Reid, and Hickey were picking them off. Thereafter, however, they started picking their way out of defence way too easily, and I feel like I watching watching Papley, Franklin, Reid and McDonald chasing players, rather than working to close down space. Yes, that's right. I'm working towards an argument for the unsung work of pressure forwards. Not necessarily Wicks or Bell—perhaps Clarke offers this, too. But I saw precious little of it for 80% of the game. This meant that while we had more inside 50s, with so many of those ending up in kick-ins, and the Essendon boys able to get on their skates, our midfield was constantly having to run both ways, and were basically chasing for most of the game. No wonder they tired. There has been talk that Campbell could play that role, on the grounds that he is a tackler, but I don't really think that it is a tackling role. It's a channel-blocking role, is unglamorous, and too easily overlooked in terms of analyses that rely on possession counts.

excellent insight

[O'Reilly Boy]

And I do think that Hickey had a stinker. Looked like he couldn't get off the ground at centre bounces, and disappeared in general play after a strong first quarter.

Further, we are past using the age and inexperience of the team as an excuse. And we should neither play underdone players returning from illness/injury, nor drop players who are in form and adding value. JMac for Clarke was a shocker.

[stevoswan]

More than a disappointing loss in the context of the season we started the year 5-1 and fumbled our way to 9-6.

Barely hanging on to 8th if Richmond win today have Bulldogs and Freo in the next 2 weeks.

Apart from Warner and Blakey who else has shown improvement from 2021? really underwhelming season so far will be disastrous to not make finals from the position we were in.

You mentioned trading Papley, so I'll say it again.....ridiculous.

[Ludwig]

Cmon , the other week you were saying how fit we are that we ran over Tiges and Dees , you cant have it both ways

That's the point. I'm asking why do we look so fit one week and so sluggish the next. What can account for this inconsistency.

I'm sure you have the answer.

[stevoswan]

Spot on. As I've said elsewhere, that result has the real potential consequence to see us miss the finals in a season when being in the top 4 could have led to who knows what and with no guarantees on what happens next year. It was significantly more than "a disappointing loss".

Of course it was disappointing but we're still not trading Papley!

[O'Reilly Boy]

why do we look so fit one week and so sluggish the next. What can account for this inconsistency.

The match unfolded much like the Port match: fluid dominance early, and a failure to respond sufficiently when the opposition rallied. One of the commentators on the weekend mentioned their admiration for the Swans' capacity to control the tempo of the game, but I didn't see that. In those moments when the opposition gets a run on, we seemed to keep playing the same game, rather than controlling the ball for a while and taking the heat out of things. That's where we miss Joey, perhaps. Our plan B seems to be to put Mills back in defence, which takes him out of where we need leadership—across the middle of the ground—to take control of the corridor and force the opposition down the line where we can pick them off.

On the other side of the coin, I reckon that Port and Essendon had looked closely at our come-from-behind wins against Tiges and Demons and were very happy to make us chase, sapping our energy.

[Agent 86]

Of course it was disappointing but we're still not trading Papley!

Well, that might also be up to Tom? Although Carlton won’t want him anymore, you’d expect.