There were so many potential titles for this piece: Unforced errors, A different game, A second look, Metaphysics, others I've forgotten.
In my previous post, I reported on the West Coast game based on what I saw and remembered from the stands. Since then, I've seen the replay.
Not for the first time, I discover that, when seen from the perspective of the replay, it's a completely different game. This raises an interesting metaphysical point: is the game so different because it is seen in close up (something largely unavailable at the ground)? Is it because the replay comes with commentary (even though I often think the commentators get it wrong)? Is it because I know the result, so I look at the game with a different mindset? Or something else entirely? Or a combination of reasons?
Whatever it is, after taking that second look, I conclude that the leitmotif of this game is Unforced errors. And they abounded.
Before, I get on to that, let me be clear. The Eagles are a good team. They made a number of impressive plays. NicNat dominated in the ruck and guys like Priddis took full advantage. So, if this game were played over and over, I expect that 9 times out of 10, West Coast would have won.
For all that, you can only play the team that turns up, and on this day, the Eagles were shocking in front of goal. They made a few unforced errors of their own. It's unusual for Lecras to miss, yet he did.
As the game played out, the Pies took the lead in the second quarter. The commentators were convinced towards the end of the third quarter that, "We've got a game on our hands".
Each unforced error has a ripple-on effect: if we're in possession, our guys are trying to spread and head forward; when the ball is turned over, the opponents have unmarked players. Further, we erode our energy because chasing is harder than leading. Finally, we undermine the team's confidence for next time.
With just a bit of something - luck, concentration - Collingwood might have pinched this match. But we kept on making it hard for ourselves. Did the loss of Cloke make them lose hope? The unforced errors came as much from experienced heads as from the juniors: Nathan Brown missed a teammate and turned a switch heading forward into more pressure on the defence; Grundy kept dropping marks; ditto White; almost everyone had a go at not taking clean possession; Seedsman tried to do too much and mishandled the ball, throwing others off their stride; Ben Kennedy and Sidebottom(?) kicked simple passes out on the full; Ben Kennedy got caught between two options (pass, shoot) and sent the ball half-way between; Fasolo fluffed a pass to an unmarked Witts in the goal square; Swanny missed a regulation shot for goal on the siren at the end of Q3. In the last quarter, just 14 points the difference, Witts missed an easy set shot; then Sidebottom missed an easy snap. Shortly after, Frost intercepted and started off on one of his trademark runs, but he lost confidence and grubbed a short kick when a handpass might have been better, Crisp was wrong-footed by the bounce and the moment was lost. In the next play, 13 points the difference, Seedsman took possession in the middle and took off on one of his trademark runs, kicked from 50 - and missed. On the replay, it looks like he had options including the possibility of bouncing and running further or handballing to an unmarked player 20m nearer to goal. Having muffed an earlier bounce, perhaps he wasn't confident to try again (one of the ripple-on effects I mentioned earlier). Crisp out on the full; Langdon kicked straight to an opponent; White dropped another mark; White's kick into F50 was aimless and "didn't really do Kennedy any favours"; Williams sent the ball out on the full; Seedsman got another chance from 50: same result; with less than half a minute to play, Brown failed to kick the ball 15m to Seedsman who managed to handball directly to an opponent for a goal. Does he get credited with an assist?
Watching the replay, there were times when I yelled at the screen; times when I yelled at the umpire; times I was heartbroken; times when I was almost reduced to tears; and times when I just had to hit pause so that I could regain my composure. There are unforced errors and then there are - I don't know, actions so egregious they take the notion to a whole new level.
Further, the Eagles managed to score even when their play was woeful. For example, at the start of the second half, they kept missing handpasses as they moved the ball into their F50 with an attempted pass to Josh Kennedy, which he spilt, regained a bit, missed with his handball. Finally Cripps picked the ball up off the deck (in the forward 50!) and kicked a nice goal.
Mainly - but not exclusively - from Collingwood, there were occasional plays which were jewels in a sea of incompetence. It's easy to dismiss Collingwood's clangers as due to pressure; but the Pies applied enormous pressure of their own. Their tackling was outstanding. Like the girl with the curl, when they were good, they were very, very good; when they were bad, they were horrid.
Ultimately, when it counted, we lacked poise.
Dear Mr TFB
ReplyDeleteWhy I couldn't post this during the week escapes me - but here it is anyway, attached to your latest post. I hope it still has relevance.
It is indeed a sad mid-part of the season.
Our two main forwards are down and out.
The next main forward hasn't played for the best part of two years.
The next main forward is no forward. Can't mark (hands too soft), can't kick (something like 100 goals from a 100 games – and never put your hard earneds on his accuracy in front of goal). Can't bullock, can run and jump.
The next main forward has played two games and is merely a tall sapling at this stage.
The next main forward is accurate in front of goal in the reserves but is missing the 'X' factor.
Possible solution: Frost to FB, White to CHB Brown to CHF, Moore to FF, Karnesis forward pocket (the last two not to go chasing the ball but to stay at home – they aren't going to add anything to a rolling maul.
We shall see. Again I can't see us kicking enough goals.
The other football issue that I have is the appalling state the AFL have turned footy into. People aren't attending. No one wants to go to Etihad and be deafened by the score board and distracted by the moving flashing banners. They have to go.
Next thing the AFL need to do is to enforce the rules of play they have in order to reconstruct the style of football that is now this blight on our game..
Item 1 ABC radio informs its audience last week that the interpretation of the “running with the ball, being tackled, ball spilling out” scenario has been altered. No one notified, no publicity, viewing public left in the dark. 774 says Mathews complained that in that situation the ball carrier doesn't have enough time to get rid of the ball and so the umpires now let it go longer so that the player can run into a pack or chance his luck. Bad deal. It should be two steps with the ball is prior opportunity, then any tackle causing the ball to spill is incorrect disposal and a free kick results (and not a scrimmage).
Item 2 Player falls to ground and drags in ball – that is prior opportunity. Opposition players preventing said player from moving to dislodge the ball is not “not a legitimate attempt” but is a ball up. Result is no more of this farce of the umpire circling etc.
Item 3 when a player fumbles the ball out of bounds forcing a throw in, the correct interpretation is “he meant it and that touching the ball was prior opportunity. Don't touch it to roll it out (ball might stay in play) or knock the ball back into the field of play – or it's a free for helping the ball out. Any way you look at it, the play continues or a free is given, hence no maul.
Item 4 defender pretends the ball is in danger of being kicked through for a goal and so stumbles it through for a rushed behind. Wrong decision. Rushing the ball through is to be a free kick to the forward, so the defender has to knock the ball back into play. Much more exciting and perhaps the forwards will stay at home instead of roaming around the ground.
Item 5 Get rid of the Substitute rule. It makes players tireder by the end of the game and therefore they have more stoppages and mauls.
Item 6 A player dives onto the back of a player who has fallen on the ball has given away a free kick. Quite simple.
Item 7 If ducking the head when a player is approaching is not a free kick, then that rule needs to be adhered to.
Item 8 Being struck in the head by a graceless act such as by recidivists Franklin or Hodge demands much greater time off in suspension and not a piddly little bit of financial discomfort.
Let us see what happens.
Floreat Pica
M