The Port game and the Adelaide game were NOT the same...

[mjp]

...so why are we all saying it was the same.

Vs Port:

-14 clearance.
-14 contested possession
-9 inside 50

vs Adelaide
+3 clearance.
-7 contested possession
+16 inside 50

=======
Have all the angst about the result you want - I'm pretty frustrated - but there seems to be a narrative that 'we dished this up 4 weeks ago...'. NOT the same.

Vs Port we were clearly in a bit of a funk and got smashed around the clearances AND for possession...Port owned the footy, kept it inside 50 and generally did what they liked.

Vs Adelaide we didn't play 'well' - but so much of what we didn't do well was detail oriented. We didn't see things through...I think we were only 5% off. Now I know that's obviously unacceptable given the stakes but let's not kid ourselves this was a repeat of the Power game.

[GVGjr]

Agreed, Port thrashed us and Adelaide just converted their chances a lot better and were clearly more efficient.
Same disappointing result but very different gaps in our games.

[bornadog]

I said the same in the game day thread. We were getting the ball inside 50 but not getting rewarded, whereas against Port, we couldn't get the ball past the centre let alone into the F50

[Sedat]

...so why are we all saying it was the same.

Vs Port:

-14 clearance.
-14 contested possession
-9 inside 50

vs Adelaide
+3 clearance.
-7 contested possession
+16 inside 50

=======
Have all the angst about the result you want - I'm pretty frustrated - but there seems to be a narrative that 'we dished this up 4 weeks ago...'. NOT the same.

Vs Port we were clearly in a bit of a funk and got smashed around the clearances AND for possession...Port owned the footy, kept it inside 50 and generally did what they liked.

Vs Adelaide we didn't play 'well' - but so much of what we didn't do well was detail oriented. We didn't see things through...I think we were only 5% off. Now I know that's obviously unacceptable given the stakes but let's not kid ourselves this was a repeat of the Power game.
Adelaide scored 6 goals from centre square and 4 goals direct from kick-ins - that is off the charts, and something we should be able to adjust for the rest of the season. Losing through getting belted at the source (like we did against Port) would be far more concerning at this late stage of the season.

We do need to make some changes in personnel/match-ups. The main one is Buku, who will get played through every week by the oppo and he's just not up to one-on-one defending deep - he has to make way.

Conversion is an obvious one as well. We cannot continue to be profligate with our corridor shots at goal from 30-50m. It bit us yesterday (at least in relation to keeping the scoreboard much closer to 3/4 time) and it cannot bite us again if we are to make a charge and impact in finals.

[Happy Days]

Yeah I think our actual output was okay, and we were in positions to kick scores - it wasn’t the case of repeated bad entries, we had a ton of set shots and functioned well enough with the ball when we did have it.

But - yesterday really showed just how unsustainably well the rest of the back 6 has been playing to cover Buku, and also probably shows our fatal flaw of having to defend a team with a third dangerous forward. Maybe this will be good in the long term because it’s a wake up call we probably needed and honestly was there to see in the Melbourne game.

[hujsh]

Yeah I think our actual output was okay, and we were in positions to kick scores - it wasn’t the case of repeated bad entries, we had a ton of set shots and functioned well enough with the ball when we did have it.

But - yesterday really showed just how unsustainably well the rest of the back 6 has been playing to cover Buku, and also probably shows our fatal flaw of having to defend a team with a third dangerous forward. Maybe this will be good in the long term because it’s a wake up call we probably needed and honestly was there to see in the Melbourne game.

Yeah I want Buku to succeed but it only really works when we dominate the mids. Which is kind of true for all defensive systems but even moreso with Buku.

Happy enough for JOD to come in he's got pace and intercept ability too but should be able to do basic defender stuff on 3rd tall types.

[Grantysghost]

...so why are we all saying it was the same.

Vs Port:

-14 clearance.
-14 contested possession
-9 inside 50

vs Adelaide
+3 clearance.
-7 contested possession
+16 inside 50

=======
Have all the angst about the result you want - I'm pretty frustrated - but there seems to be a narrative that 'we dished this up 4 weeks ago...'. NOT the same.

Vs Port we were clearly in a bit of a funk and got smashed around the clearances AND for possession...Port owned the footy, kept it inside 50 and generally did what they liked.

Vs Adelaide we didn't play 'well' - but so much of what we didn't do well was detail oriented. We didn't see things through...I think we were only 5% off. Now I know that's obviously unacceptable given the stakes but let's not kid ourselves this was a repeat of the Power game.

So what you're saying is...

IT WAS WAY WORSE!


Are you trolling now :) :)

It was a very different game.

However, sometimes stats at points in time can be important not just the final tally.

After ht we were down 8-2 clearances and the game was over they'd kicked away. Not sure how being with the coaches for 20 mins leads to that?

[Bullies]

...so why are we all saying it was the same.

Vs Port:

-14 clearance.
-14 contested possession
-9 inside 50

vs Adelaide
+3 clearance.
-7 contested possession
+16 inside 50

=======
Have all the angst about the result you want - I'm pretty frustrated - but there seems to be a narrative that 'we dished this up 4 weeks ago...'. NOT the same.

Vs Port we were clearly in a bit of a funk and got smashed around the clearances AND for possession...Port owned the footy, kept it inside 50 and generally did what they liked.

Vs Adelaide we didn't play 'well' - but so much of what we didn't do well was detail oriented. We didn't see things through...I think we were only 5% off. Now I know that's obviously unacceptable given the stakes but let's not kid ourselves this was a repeat of the Power game. I think both games were as bad as each other in different ways. In both games we never looked like it. Port were in the 4 so could be expected to give us a hiding and the Crows are well down the ladder. Crows looked like scoring every time they went forward and by the last quarter they were spent but the damage had been done so for me the score line was a bit flattering. To me it was a horrible watch and the stats yesterday may show differently but you can read what you want into stats.

[Grantysghost]

So what you're saying is...

IT WAS WAY WORSE!


Are you trolling now :) :)

It was a very different game.

However, sometimes stats at points in time can be important not just the final tally.

After ht we were down 8-2 clearances and the game was over they'd kicked away. Not sure how being with the coaches for 20 mins leads to that?
https://i.postimg.cc/0NycBG2x/Screenshot-20240812-111000.png

[Grantysghost]

Other stats from the game of note that aren't as available.

Crows kicked 6.2 to 1.3 from defensive chains. Their highest of the season and our worst against.

Scored 8.3 to 3.6 from stoppage.

So our forwards and mids didn't defend again. It's the same story.

At 3/4 time the Crows had kicked 7.1 to 3.1 from 30-40 metres out.

And 3.0 to zilch from 0-15 out. So getting better looks inside 50 (feeds into lack of defensive forward/mid pressure).

[mjp]

So our forwards and mids didn't defend again. It's the same story.


It's not though.

The i50 count is confirming the eye-test: We got a lot of re-entries which means the forwards and mids WERE defending...but as the ball is retained i50 the defenders get higher (and higher) and this leads to a high number of d50 to goal chains (which is what you have reported)...no surprise.

I'm sure as hell frustrated but it honestly is one of those games where just KICKING STRAIGHTER could have made a massive impact.

[mjp]

After ht we were down 8-2 clearances and the game was over they'd kicked away. Not sure how being with the coaches for 20 mins leads to that?

Well, Adelaide spent 20 minutes with their coaches as well...obviously we adjusted to something that wasn't happening anymore. Further, it means we REALLY dominated stop outside of that 20-minutes (even though it didn't feel that way)...basically we were + 9 outside of that 20-minute period which is pretty remarkable given O'Brien's total dominance in the hit-outs.

Despite EVERYTHING that happened in q3, we managed 6x shots on goal (Adelaide also had 6)...but when we missed (2.4), they HIT (5.1).

[Grantysghost]

It's not though.

The i50 count is confirming the eye-test: We got a lot of re-entries which means the forwards and mids WERE defending...but as the ball is retained i50 the defenders get higher (and higher) and this leads to a high number of d50 to goal chains (which is what you have reported)...no surprise.

I'm sure as hell frustrated but it honestly is one of those games where just KICKING STRAIGHTER could have made a massive impact.
Ah makes sense. Thanks!

We had 15-7 tackles inside 50 which backs up that retention you speak to.

I guess as a ratio of inside 50s it should be higher but even then it's still more.

[MrMahatma]

I agree with the premise of this thread. This match was never going to be an easy win, not one where we could afford to butcher shots on goal and still get a win. We missed easy ones early, and then continued to. If we kicked the early ones it's a different game.

Do we win? Dunno. But it was never going to be easy to win. Missing those goals guaranteed the loss though.