Team Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Carlton Blues 1.2 1.5 2.7 10.10 70 Collingwood Magpies 3.4 7.6 10.15 14.20 104
MR, this was a game you were fortunate to miss! It was everything Anzac Day wasn't.
Oh, there were some positives: Goldsack's ferocious tackling (for the second week in a row); our defence - until 3-quarter time; Elliott's mark; Grundy's mark; Blair's attack on the football; two delightful plays in Q2; Collingwood's pressure and tackling; we won; we beat Carlton.
But the negatives! Letting Carlton kick a goal in the last quarter; letting Carlton kick another goal in the last quarter; letting Carlton kick another goal in the last quarter; letting Carlton kick another goal in the last quarter; ... (I've lost count). 14.20! Had it been 20.14 you might have put up with Carlton's 8 - count them: 8! - last-quarter goals. We took 3 quarters to kick 10 goals and we let them kick 8 goals in a single quarter. After we had them on the ropes, out for the count, our foot on their throat, [supply your own cliche].
The result was never in doubt, but we fed their delusions of adequacy. Carlton!
After the Fremantle game, our percentage was in the toilet. We have now clawed our way to a percentage in positive territory. We had an opportunity to build an imposing percentage. Bah!
The Blues kicked out to 1.2 before Collingwood had the next 10 scoring shots. In the first 3 quarters, Carlton could manage a measly 2 goals. Our best quarter was 4.2, Carlton's, 8.3.
Speaking of delusions, at half time I suggested to Mark that we could win by 100 points. At that stage we were 37 points in front, but it felt like we had been wasteful; it should have been more. At the final break we led by 8.8. That in itself speaks volumes. A 54-point lead could have been so much more with better finish. An improbable lead of 12.3 would have required one scoring shot less with vastly better finish, but it would have put us on track for that 100-point smashing.
Had 3-quarter time lasted longer, I could have conjured even more extreme fantasies.
I've repeatedly used the term better finish in preference to kicking accuracy. Part of the problem is to do with where we take our marks. And when I say we, I chiefly mean Cloke. Now marks in F50 are a Good Thing. I'm not saying I don't want us to take those marks.
But there are several things I do want. I want Cloke to play a bit more like the younger Rocca: start in the goal square and lead straight out towards CHF to about 35, crash the pack, either clunk it or bring it to ground, but either way be in a position to shoot from little angle. This has other advantages: I reckon Cloke is a better mark when he is moving (rather than stationary and wrestling); it's much harder for a third (fourth, ...) man to get involved.
Where is the rule that says that if you take a mark within scoring distance you must take a shot? Or that a designated forward must take a shot? Yesterday, we kicked two brilliant goals from footy's equivalent of a corner (soccer); both in the second quarter. From the pocket, the ball was kicked to that spot I spoke about, Luke Ball took a terrific contested mark and duly goaled (it was exactly his distance). Later, Blair, deep in the other pocket, found Dwyer 25 out directly in front. It may be a little risky, but the rewards are huge.
And, as I said two weeks ago, I want someone (or two someones) to run around Cloke like Milne used to at St Kilda.
It's still early in the year, I may be getting a bit previous, but we came into this game a precarious 4th on the ladder; Carlton was 16th. We are a genuine candidate for a top-four finish; Carlton are a genuine (but unlikely) candidate for another wooden spoon. On our performance in this game (even if we exclude the dismal final quarter), we are not in the same class as the teams above us.
We were very good at getting the ball out of defence, we transitioned the ball sweetly through the middle lines, but we constantly broke down beyond that; or we kicked ineptly into F50. Once the ball was in our F50, we were excellent at retaining possession or regaining possession; but the re-entry kick constantly failed the finish test.
And then we dropped our bundle in the last quarter.
Perhaps I'm prescient, perhaps fortuitous. At the last break, I asked Mark if he wanted to go home. He replied that he didn't think it was such a bad game. So we stayed.
We left about 20 minutes later. Ironically, it was Mark who asked why he had a sour taste in his mouth.
There are two reasons to go to the footy: to see an attractive game; to raise one's hopes that one's team looks like a premiership contender. I got neither.
Sources:
Channel 7
Foxtel
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=5811
No comments:
Post a Comment