Team Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Final Hawthorn Hawks 4.3 7.7 12.10 17.13 115 Collingwood Magpies 3.1 6.4 9.7 13.8 86
Collingwood clawed its way back to within 2 points mid-way through the third quarter, then ignominiously gave up 3 goals in a twinkling.
Defence
In a piece in Saturday's Herald Sun (I think the equivalent article online is here) Mark Robinson talks about Collingwood's defence. "... the Pies should have a more defensive attitude than offensive one. Rather, don't worry about kicking goals, just stop Hawthorn kicking theirs." His theme is similar to mine of last week. I think his advice is pretty good.
Sadly, Buckley did not listen. If anyone did, it was the Hawks. For most of the game, each side started with a supernumerary in defence. But, whereas the Hawthorn defender hung around in the vicinity of Cloke, the Collingwood extra ran straight to the bounce. In other words, Hawthorn played with an extra defender, Collingwood didn't. Collingwood had more need for an extra defender - or two or three!
Oh, sure, the Hawks got caught out a couple of times. But nowhere near as often as Collingwood.
The Pies were always in trouble when none of Nathan Brown, Ben Reid, Maxwell and Goldsack was available. They needed a senior head or two down back. I looked through the list. Apart from those mentioned, the only remaining candidate was H. Could he have played the role of defensive general? I don't know - but in the absence of alternatives, I think I would have tried him.
Hodge often plays the role of defensive general for Hawthorn. In this game, he divided his time between playing down back and at the centre bounces. I don't think Pendlebury is the same sort of player, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Perhaps Pendlebury could have gone back and Blair could have been asked to step up in the midfield. In the end, I think we got smashed in both places.
The World Cup
Australia was down 2-1 against Chile, having fallen asleep in the first 15 minutes. I watched from about the 8th minute to the second goal. Apparently, I missed a pretty good game from then. As the time ticked away, the Socceroos threw everything into trying to get another goal - and conceded one instead. But that makes sense in soccer generally, and a knockout competition like the World Cup. It didn't make sense on Saturday.
Collingwood seemed to play a "Sydney or the bush" type of game in the last quarter and a bit. That never made sense. This is just one game out of 22. I would have thought it was far more important to stick to the game plan whatever it was. If that meant we lost by three goals, so be it. But playing kamikaze football does not augur well for the future. We can expect to get a few players back next week. Admittedly it's only Carlton, but it would have been better if we hadn't looked hopeless against Hawthorn.
The wrap
Cloke kicked another 5; and if you look at his kicking, it's much more convincing. Elliott continues playing well. 9 rounds to go. If we get some senior players in defence, and we get a bit of luck, we could see some improvement over the next few weeks. Then Port Adelaide in round 19 and the Hawks again in round 23. If we play well in both those games, then we can go into the finals with some optimism. If not, we might not make the finals.
Either way, a top-4 finish now looks unlikely. The best we can hope for is to go into the finals as the form team. And then pray.
Still, there's always next year.
Dear Mr TFB
ReplyDeleteI had been awaiting your note with great interest. I was unable to respond to the note for the previous week because the realization that we had been exposed was too unpleasant. The doggies were simply an unexpectedly better team than us.
The result against the Hawks was not unexpected.
• The bookies had them very much favorites
• They are a superb team made up of fantastically good players
• We have run out of alternative players. If someone doesn’t play well, there is not much pressure on them to do better. Who else can we put at CHF? If someone has a below par game, not much can be done (maybe physically and mentally berate them when it will be certainly shown on TV).
• The arguably best FF playing up against Frosty who has 12 games of experience, flanked by several other newbees.
• Contrast this situation with the Hawks – someone doesn’t put in 110%, they will be out next week.
• They have any number of players who could conceivably kick 4 goals in any game. We have 2. I don’t know how we overcome that.
• I will argue that we nearly had them and the final scoreboard is an aberration. To this end, I will state that the umpiring was riddled with mistakes and flaky decisions that acted to destroy our momentum, something I strongly believe in (ref. the free paid against Pendles for allegedly throwing the ball when he very clearly hand balled it correctly; the decision not to bring the ball back to where a free had been paid, instead waving play on when everyone had stopped on the whistle except Rioli who ran forward with the ball; the decision not to allow a goal to a Pie when a tackle had been laid and the ball spilled forward; some early flaky decisions of not really trying to dispose of a ball when it is held to you – what sort of rubbish is that rule; a 50 meter penalty because a player innocently gave the ball back to the wrong Hawthorn player - what sort of rule is that?)
However – Cloke was truly magnificent. He marked well, kicked straight, dribbled the ball through the goals, kicked mightily from the boundary line.
Witts responded well to his challenge. Macaffer was a warrior. Pendles was a captain. Williams was very good. Adams is a new Swanny, in that I never see him and he ends up with a huge tally of possessions. Keeffe was o.k. and Young stood up for his new club.
Floreat Pica
M
It's always a pleasure to read your passionate comments.
DeleteRe the umpires: I don't always follow my own advice, but I refer you to the last section ("But seriously") of my piece here.
Dear Mr TFB
ReplyDeleteMonday morning
Interesting to see that a well respected football journalist writing in the small paper today has enlarged on many of the thoughts that I propounded to you.
(But not my diatribe against the quality of the umpiring!)
Regards
M