Team Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Collingwood Magpies 3.2 9.4 12.6 15.8 98 Western Bulldogs 4.2 9.5 13.6 16.10 106
It was an attractive game, the major blemish being the result.
Collingwood kicked the first 3 goals; the Bulldogs replied with the next 4 to go into the first break in the lead. Thereafter, the Pies were always playing catch-up - until finally they didn't.
Why did we lose?
I'm going to do something a bit different in this post. I'm going to try to answer the question before I look at the replay. Perhaps it will keep writer and reader on their respective toes.
The simplistic answer is that Langdon cost us two goals; we only lost by 8 points; QED.
But I think that Langdon was more a symptom than the entire explanation. I think there were several factors. Any explanation has to account for us not winning by at least 4 or 5 goals. I don't know where the line was, but of the 24 tipsters reported in The Age, only Bob Murphy went for the Dogs.
The Bulldogs came to play (pace Mick Malthouse). They were really switched on; and they played out of their skins. Good for them. I don't want to take anything away from the Doggies. Looked at from the perspective of one of their supporters, or even an impartial observer, the Bulldogs played a great game for the proverbial 100 minutes. (It might have been longer: most of the quarters went to about 30.)
The Pies also came to play and were also switched on. Perhaps not quite enough.
The Pies were off a 6-day break; the Bulldogs had 8 days to prepare. That may have contributed a percentage or two. Beams was a late withdrawal. By itself, that ought not to have been significant, but it adds a bit. Further, we were without Sidebottom through suspension; surely that exacerbates the effect of Beams's absence.
I suspect both the coaching staff and the players might have been a wee bit guilty of taking the Bulldogs a little lightly; not showing them enough respect. After all, whatever further reasons I come up with, there's still the contrary argument, namely that the Dogs lost Cooney very early (I think before they had scored a goal). That should have tilted Docklands substantially in our direction.
I'll talk more about this later, but I think we scored enough; our forwards are unlikely to be part of any explanation. On the stats, our midfield did poorly. We were beaten for hitouts, hitouts to advantage, clearances and, I'm pretty sure, inside 50s. This would have put added pressure on our defence.
Our defence is quite young. Maxwell's stabilising influence was missing. Goldsack didn't play. Toovey might have provided some maturity, but I don't think he has regained his erstwhile form; and I'm not sure he has ever provided that sort of leadership. Young teams are notorious for erratic performance. Why should we be astonished if a young defence performs below its previous heights? Surely we should be more amazed at how well they have performed in the past. It's not just a physical load the players bear; there's also the mental stress of concentrating on their opponents. After 12 rounds it's bound to take a toll.
Frosty did quite well; Keeffe not so much. He wasn't as terrible as his horror game before he was dropped, but he did spill some simple marks. Increased pressure - on himself and those around him. Marley was far from his best. And then there was Langdon.
Perhaps H should have gone back - but perhaps the coaching staff underestimated the Bulldogs. In the Melbourne game, Keeffe took all the kick-ins. I thought it was a pretty good move. In this game, it looked like there was no plan. I mean, for goodness sake, who allowed Langdon to take a kick-in?! Have they not been watching his disposals?! Do they not have statistics?! As soon as I saw the ball in his hands, my head dropped. To my mind, the goal that followed was inevitable - like watching a train wreck.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The kick-in is one of the most important parts of the game. We used to have Leon Davis: outstanding. Hawthorn used to have Brent Guerra; also very good. I'm ok with Keeffe or Young. For a while it looked like they were grooming Fasolo. Pendlebury can do it, but you'd usually prefer him further up the ground. What is absolutely unforgivable is to take the attitude that anyone and everyone can do it. No they can't.
By half time, it seemed to me that Macaffer was not containing Griffen. Perhaps it was time to go to plan B. Macaffer is a clever player, but perhaps he could have been put on someone else and one of our highest ranking midfielders could have contested the centre bounce. Mind you, at one point Blair was there for the restart. That might have signalled that our midfield stocks had run dry. I don't recall Blair ever featuring as one of our gun midfielders.
So, in summary, midfield smashed, defence feeble. Surely that's all you need. And yet, I still don't think I've got it all. I might have accounted for 4 or 5 goals. 30 points minus the 8 they won by is 22 - by itself it doesn't quite add up to the 4 or 5 goals I said we ought to have won by. But wait, there's more. When did Cloke last kick 6 goals?! Cloke has been playing below par all year (no, the St Kilda game doesn't count: St Kilda played really really badly; the Bulldogs played well - that's why this game counts). So we got 36 points out of Cloke when we might have expected 17. (Think about it!) We kicked an uncharacteristically accurate 15.8. On that analysis, the mids and defence were atrocious.
Further, for the first time in ages, we actually showed some system: the run through the centre by H may have ended luckily for us, but the system was there nevertheless. There was another play in which Seedsman ran through the centre in the last quarter which also showed signs of system.
Collingwood had two purple patches: the first 3 goals and the last 3 goals - the last of which brought us to within a point with about 5 minutes left to play. That was the most telling indictment of the afternoon: that we couldn't win from there.
Now to watch the game and see if I change my mind.
After the replay
Well, I got a few details wrong. Cooney went off after 5 goals had been scored with about 5 minutes left on the clock.
The H run in the first quarter was marked by Cloke for the first goal of the match (so not a matter of luck - or, at least, not in the way I thought).
And Langdon's first stuff up was on the wing - so arguably not defensive; but it did result in a goal to the Dogs. Further, we should have been shooting for goal: Cloke's indiscretion cost Macaffer and the Pies.
The line was 35.5 points so I was being generous to Collingwood. We really underperformed egregiously.
Seeing the first quarter again, I was reminded of the Dogs's accurate handpasses. They were much cleaner than the Pies.
The Dogs were very quick, playing on and running the ball at every opportunity. The Pies were static; they constantly stopped to smell the roses - and missed their moments. They often made poor decisions and turned the ball over. The Dogs scored 11.3 from turnovers. It's true that we scored 9.4 from their turnovers - but we're supposed to be better than them.
When Collingwood did get a clearance from the centre, we were able to kick a goal in about 15 seconds.
Again we had delusions of adequacy and players trying to do too much. Young took possession and sprinted away but was run down by Liam Jones!
In the third quarter, Langdon gave away another goal when he was pinged 10m off the contest.
On several occasions, I saw Frost or Keeffe miles from the back line near opponents who did not seem to be appropriate. Where they playing to the plan? I don't know.
Jones tackled H and caused another turnover. Again it looked like H had several options but chose the high-risk play.
With about 8 minutes left in the third quarter, Broomhead came on for Grundy. He was soon in the action showing some dash. He might have scored a goal with his first kick in AFL football but chose the safer option of a pass to Elliott who took the grab and slotted it - so Broomhead registered a score assist with his first kick. Not to be sneezed at.
A few seconds later Elliott ran onto a ball in the goal square and soccered it through to level the scores. Another purple patch for Collingwood. Why did we lose? Sure was an exciting game - at times.
I have to wonder why Langdon was on Jones. I would have thought that Frost or Keeffe were more appropriate opponents. Did the Doggies have so many tall forwards? It looked like Toovey had Grant - another mismatch - so who were Frost and Keeffe on? It looked like Keeffe - at 204 cm - was on Nathan Hrovat - who?! - 175 cm! That's about my height - maybe shorter! As my friend Michael says, WWTT? That was at 58 seconds into the final quarter when Jones kicked the first goal (his fourth for the match).
Pendles missed an opportunity for a quick reply from a set shot less than a minute later. Perhaps it was the story of the night: the Bulldogs making every post a winner, the Pies below par.
The Pies played without system or success for much of the quarter. With less than 8 minutes on the clock, Cloke outmarked 4 Dogs 20 out. Something about the way he had been kicking on the day filled this observer with confidence, and Cloke duly made the shot - his fifth. Convincingly. Perhaps his confidence has returned. Maybe we'll get something out of this game.
I'm not sure that White's kick inside 50 to Blair was a good option.
Collingwood got to within a point through Pendles and Cloke. 3 minutes left to play. Surely they had enough in the tank. At the reset, the ball went into the Collingwood forward 50 - but not to a player. The Dogs held their nerve; the Pies over-reached striving for a win - and like the Socceroos, gave up an extra goal. Game over.
Checking some details
According to Sunday's Herald Sun, H was named in the back line. That still meant that there were only two senior defenders. Further, Fasolo was named as an emergency. That the coaching staff went with Broomhead ahead of Fasolo to my mind smacks of taking the Dogs lightly. Had Fasolo taken the kick-ins, I think we would have been at least one goal to the good.
We "out-younged" them: average age 24yr 6mth to 25yr 2mth. We were also less experienced:
Total Players By Games
Collingwood Games Western Bulldogs
12 Less than 50 8
3 50 to 99 6
2 100 to 149 2
5 150 or more 6
Another reason to have played Fasolo over Broomhead.
Gleanings
There is a mythology abroad that Cloke is really strong one-on-one body-on-body. That may be so, but Morris conceded at least 30 cm in height and I have to believe 20 kg, yet still managed to contest adequately in close. What no one could stop all afternoon was when Cloke led to the ball. He might not have Elliott's vertical leap, but steaming out of the goal mouth, he's awesome. I would recommend that he leave the body-on-body stuff to those situations where he can't run at the ball.
The wrap
No one has been talking about the elephant in the room, but there were many of our best 22 on the sidelines. Good teams bat deep. Perhaps this game showed that we don't.
We notice all the good things Swan and Pendlebury (and others) do; but Swan hasn't had a great game in ages, possibly not all year. And maybe there's not enough support for Pendlebury.
We played well in patches, but could not play out the full 100 minutes solidly.
Our depleted team struggled against a lowly team. Until we get back some key players, we probably aren't a top 8 team, let alone top 4.
I think they call it a reality check. Hawthorn next week, off another 6-day break, beckons.
Sources:
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=5863
The Age
SEN
http://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/2014/040720140615.html
No comments:
Post a Comment