Notes from the game: 2014 Round 19 Port Adelaide

The Pies claw their way back into the eight in a match notable for the number of errors by both teams.

Team                    Q1      Q2      Q3      Q4      Final
Collingwood Magpies     2.3     6.6     9.7     11.10   76
Port Adelaide Power     1.0     5.7     8.8     10.10   70 

Neither team deserved to win this game; nor do they deserve to be in the eight. Collingwood played a lot of terrible football, yet Port seemed to play even worse.

With few exceptions, this game wasn't much of a spectacle. Soon the only interest in the game was who would cock up next and how. Collingwood had its bevy of enthusiastic candidates.

Quarter 2

Start of Q2. You might want to argue that Port Adelaide's first goal was not directly a consequence of Taylor Adams's screw-up, but had any other player kicked it, it would have gone deep into our F50 and the pressure would have been on Port. Instead, it was partly smothered off the boot, contested and disputed until Port cleared somewhat scrubbily. Again a contest before it was badly delivered by Collingwood (Macaffer) into the centre where it was turned over for a goal to Port. If Adams was not directly responsible for the goal to Port, he was at least guilty of making Collingwood players burn up energy scrambling to regain possession.

Not to let him off too lightly, when Collingwood players saw that the ball was a Monty to enter our F50, they would have all run forward (justified) and perhaps this led to their exposure on the rebound. Such unforced errors ought to result in a demotion (at least a week in the VFL) but Collingwood stocks are so thin, natural consequences cannot come into play.

In the play from the restart, much to my surprise, the Collingwood players handballed to Adams who delivered deftly to Elliott. A goal to Blair resulted. Sadly, most observers will judge that Adams compensated for his previous error, but that's being far too generous to Adams. One unforced error is not offset by a regulation play (even if it was deft); because there is nothing more unsettling than erratic behaviour.

I would argue that if his error cost a goal, then he owes us three.

Harry spoils an attempted Port mark. The ball spills to Blair who gives off to Langdon. Langdon teases the fans who know his disposal is dodgy. He almost tries to do too much but gives it off to Goldsack who confidently chips on his left foot to Elliott 40 out. Goal.

But we're not done with Langdon yet. You remember how he cost us a goal when he kicked in against the Bulldogs? He must have felt that his assist-assist (Goldsack gets credit for an assist when Elliott goals, so Langdon can argue that he assisted Goldsack) was meritorious. With 8 minutes on the clock in Q2, he two-fists the ball through for a Port behind, follows the ball through the sticks, picks it up, and, like a dinosaur, acts before the signals from his brain have time to reach his extremities. "That's a dreadful kick-out," says Jason (in case you think I'm biased).

Now this is an egregious failure of coaching which is simply unforgivable. Had I been the coach, after the Bulldogs game, I would have whispered in his shell-like, "Listen, son. Until further notice (think 2017 or 2018) you are never to take the kick-in again. If I see you even thinking about taking the kick-in, we'll leave you in the VFL for life. If Collingwood has 18 injured players and you're the only one left, and the umpire invites you to take the ball, tell him you have to speak to the coach - and get off the field."

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

But why should we be surprised? Buckley was trained by Malthouse. Each of them lacks respect for certain positions. Malthouse had no respect for ruckmen - until he had a change of heart, recruited a real ruckman from Sydney (not Fraser) and (with a bit of luck) won a premiership. Buckley has no respect for (or understanding of) the importance of the kick-in.

We're still not done with Langdon. (I know I've used this recently, but if the shoe fits ...). He manages what was once said of Yasser Arafat: never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The Pies somehow survive his kick-in cock-up, the ball eventually with Keeffe outside 50. He kicks it to the members wing. The ball is thrown in; Port work it back towards their F50. Goldsack handpasses to Fasolo who kicks into D50 to - oh, no - Langdon metres in the clear. Langdon has an obvious, simple option - recall that he is about 15m from the goal he's defending - a kick to a player where "50" is marked on the ground. But, no, Langdon, with delusions of adequacy, finds an implausible play, not at all helped by Langdon's poor execution, the quinella of the inferior player. The handpass finds H, still inside D50, immediately tackled by a Port player.

With Langdon, Dirty Harry's words from Magnum Force reverberate in my head: a man's got to know his limitations. Ball up. Will Langdon play next week? I guess so. Another Buckley failing: no consequences. When I read in Saturday's paper that Langdon had been omitted, my spirits soared and I cheered like a man possessed. Imagine my disappointment the next day when I learnt that, even though he had not been part of the extended 25-man squad, there, like a bad penny, was his name, in the team. There's no justice.

The camera stayed on Buckley who seemed to be miming, "How shit was that?" But next week, all will be forgiven.

But there's more. From the ball up, the ball ends with - you guessed it - Langdon, who, true to form, kicks it out of bounds on the full. (Never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.)

And, on cue, from the resultant free, the ball spills, lands with Wingard who slots an impressive goal (degree of difficulty 3.7). Just don't mention Langdon. You know, if Buckley doesn't drop him, maybe he'll be so embarrassed by his disposals, he'll do the right thing by the club and send himself to the twos. Or feign an injury.

afltables.com has Langdon down for 2 clangers, Adams for 3, Cloke for 4, H for 6 and Sidebottom 5. Were they at the same game as I? Or do they count Langdon's six in a row as a single clanger? They credit Collingwood with 45 and Port 49. I'm tempted to look up some other games, but then I wonder, what's the point?

Port should never have been in this game but Langdon, notably assisted by Adams, has been doing his best. (Or should that be worst?)

And don't let anyone tell you such cock-ups are not contagious. From the restart, the ball is fed back to Keeffe just inside the centre square. He forgets he's a defender and begins to dither, is run down by a Port player, the ball spills to another Port player whose kick is marked by Robbie Grey (whose opponent is ... Langdon). Goal. Port has just doubled its number of goals in a minute. The Pies' lead has been whittled to 8 points. 2 minutes ago, Port weren't in the game.

And here's a stark contrast. Port kick a pass into the centre, spoilt by H. Armstrong crumbs and releases immediately to Adams, who immediately passes to one of our real players (Sidebottom). That's really all the new kids should be doing. Sidebottom kicks short to another real player (Beams) who looks for options and decides he likes what's in the goal square. The ball is contested by Reid and Cloke at the top of the square, ends with Cloke, who turns and snaps truly.

Port kept entering their F50. They managed a goal seconds before the siren to bring the margin back to 5 points.

Quarter 3

Judgement and execution. A couple of minutes have passed. Collingwood comes out of defence and fumbles the ball, but recovers to provide Williams with a mark almost to the wing, but still in the defensive half. He looks down the line where a player is leading towards the boundary for him. There's also an even longer kick to Cloke also leading towards the boundary. Williams chooses the third of two options and heads inboard.

I take this view of almost any team sport. At every moment in the game, there is a par play. If the player can do better than par that's great. But to ignore a par play for something better, the player must bear two responsibilities: judgement and execution. I don't think Williams's judgement was wrong, but his execution was a bit off. Under some circumstances, that's forgivable. Given that he had two safer options, I'd call it an unforced error. Sidebottom was pretty much on his own in the centre, but Williams's kick was loopy and short. There were players between Williams and Sidebottom so a bullet may not have been possible, but the kick should have erred to the far side of Sidebottom so that he could run on to it and continue towards goal. In the event, Sidebottom had to run towards Williams - and an opponent, who naturally ran towards Sidebottom, spoiling the mark. The ball spilt and Port kicked a goal. That's about as below par as it gets.

Collingwood lost the lead. That's not percentage footy.

To rub salt into the wound, Hartlett, the player who kicked the goal was Langdon's opponent. I don't know where Langdon had gone, but Hartlett was being chased by Witts.

12:30 White has the ball in the back pocket. There's a simple 20m kick along the boundary to H on offer. White chooses to pass 45m to a Port player on the wing for an uncontested mark. What do they teach the players?

A couple of kicks later, Hartlett kicks another goal.

H was fumbly and inaccurate in his disposal. However with about 5 minutes left, he delivered a nice pass to Witts who moved it on for Broomhead to mark and goal.

2:34 From a ball up, Sidebottom collects , weaves and drops the ball on his boot from one hand to slot an impressive goal to regain the lead.

Just over a minute left, Collingwood turn it over. It ends with Monfries who marks. His kick from 32m is uncharacteristically dreadful: it slews off the side of his boot for no score.

The ball is kicked inside Port's F50 to be punched away by Keeffe seconds before the siren goes. Collingwood by 5 points.

Quarter 4

Sidebottom had his share of errant shots during the game but at just under 12 minutes on the clock he ran into the goal square and goaled a spill from a marking contest 15 out.

How the game should be played

9:00 Adams marks just outside 50 near the boundary. For all his clangers, his next kick did a lot to redeem him. He kicked it up into F50, but it did not look like a kick in hope. It was sufficiently far in front of Cloke (and actually on top of the head of a loose defender) that he had to run and jump, leaving his direct opponent out of the contest and Cloke in a position to easily outmark the stationary defender.

It should have been the money play of the day, the play where Cloke earns his million dollars. Sadly he missed.

Cloke and the commentators may believe that his signature play is the wrestle at full forward (and he certainly won one of them earlier), but I believe his best value comes from the play just described, the classic full forward's play. I think it's significant that he is prepared to run and jump in his other signature play, the mark 65 out near the left boundary (of course this time without additional opponents).

6:18 Give 'em a bit of praise. Shulz takes a shot from just outside 50. It's punched back into play by White. Adams picks it up 30cm from the behind line, Wines close, Collingwood's lead 14 points. All he needs to do is fumble it over; instead he kicks blindly, high and long - and straight back to Shulz for another shot from the same spot. This time it's touched on the line for a behind. Adams has dodged a bullet.

Collingwood defended a 12-point lead moderately well for the last 4 or 5 minutes but still managed to concede an unnecessary goal with 4 seconds left.

The wrap

What you think the game means depends on how you rate Port. This is the team who is supposed to be the last-quarter specialist. They actually lost Q4 (by a point). There is word around that flu or meningitis had swept through Port Adelaide. They had lost 4 of their last 6 and had difficulty overcoming Melbourne.

I started by saying that neither team deserved to be in the eight. Consequently, this win is about as significant as if we'd beaten one of the bottom 3 or 4: not at all.

Collingwood has problems all around the ground with decision making and execution. For this game, few players could be considered really solid: Beams, Sidebottom, Pendlebury, Dwyer, Goldsack, Fasolo. Armstrong playing his first game (?) was also solid; Broomhead again looked good and kicked 2 goals. I think Kyle Martin was the sub, but did not get on the ground.


Sources:

http://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/2014/041320140803.html
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=5918