SA Footy

That was the sort of game where we really missed dangerfield. If more than one of our current midfield is down on any given day we will really struggle. Danger would have been the guy to start winning that contested ball.

Not complaining he left, more just pointing out that the "better without dangerfield" tag is wrong imo and saturday night is why

We looked very slow again in the midfield which was one of the major reasons for the free kick count as they held and scragged the quicker WB mids to slow them down.

they were very good at lifting the arm as they got tackled, to ensure the tackles went high. Thommo fell for it every time.

I dont really see the crows doing that a lot, and i think they should

bennymacca wrote:they were very good at lifting the arm as they got tackled, to ensure the tackles went high

Cop out.

Aim lower, or be stronger in the tackle.

Zartan wrote:

bennymacca wrote:they were very good at lifting the arm as they got tackled, to ensure the tackles went high

Cop out.

Aim lower, or be stronger in the tackle.

Don't think he means it as a cop out mate, more that it's a legitimate skill in todays game and his team is nowhere near as good as others at executing it.

not a cop out at all, a legitimate strategy that teams like geelong and bulldogs do very well, and the crows dont.

most of thommo's tackles were around the top of the arm but slipped high. I do agree he needs to aim lower, but I think the bulldogs did well in that area

edit: what JK said

I cant work out whether its a compliment to Titus O'Reilly or an indictment on the traditional football media that his stuff is about the only content (along with robbo's tackle) that i actively seek out to read every week. Very funny stuff

Western Bulldogs (123) v Adelaide (108)

What was an incredibly exciting game was overshadowed by the fact the free count kick was 20-5 in the Bulldogs’ favour at three-quarter time and 28-11 for the entire game.

Usually you would have to be watching Fremantle to see something so one sided.

If the Bulldogs had any money you would suspect bribery.

I don’t believe in conspiracies though. I just don’t believe the AFL has the competence to carry them out. I do believe in bad umpiring. I’ve seen that with my own eyes on numerous occasions.

I don’t blame the umpires though. Can you imagine umpiring our great game? It would be a nightmare. Not only is it a fast, 360 degree, nonstop sport, the interpretations are so nuanced.

They’re also constantly being changed, sometimes mid-season. It’s an actual miracle it’s as good as it is overall.

None of that’s going to make Crows fans happy and nor should they be. Footy isn’t about calmly assessing the situation over the long term and forming a nuanced view. It’s about being furious in the moment.

Umpiring aside, this is another game that adds to the high quality season we are having. Its been a blast this year and these two sides are a big reason why. Both play exciting footy.

The Bulldogs seemed to get their mojo back in this one, looking more confident and solid than in recent weeks, while the Crows keep proving they are a finals calibre team.

If only the AFL didn’t have a vast conspiracy to keep the Crows out of the finals.

Indictment on the rest, I think.

I had a look this morning, Adelaide average 45 rebound 50's per game, the most in the league.

Gold Coast 42, Collingwood, Essendon, Port and Brisbane 41. The Bulldogs, the least with just 29. Geelong and Hawthorn with 33.

So while Adelaide's forward line is as good as, if not the best around, it's the back half that's still a worry and the North, Hawthorn and Bulldogs losses while only small margins show the top sides are being given too much opportunity by Adelaide to hit the score board.

hawks21 wrote:Not a good game for us on Saturday night.

We got it wrong in the coach’s box and some of the senior players had bad games which you can’t afford to do against good sides.
Douglas (possibly has the worst game of his career – missed 2 easy set shots and finished with 9 possessions, Walker (got his hands to about 20 marks, finally plucked a few late in the game and set up a few goals – form will come) Betts, Thompson, even Sloane well beaten!

We went in too tall/slow in the backlines. Hartigan or Cheney needed to be rested for a quicker/smaller player. Hartigan on Stringer again was a horrible move, should have learnt from last year’s game! Dogs did it well, took Talia high up the ground and Hartigan to the goal square.

We were smashed in the midfield (-21 contested possessions) and we aren’t going to win many game conceding 68-37 inside 50’s!

Positives out of the game IMO were the fact we only played about 30 minutes of good football and nearly pinched the game (If Sloane was paid that mark late in the last quarter to put us in front we might have pinched it) and our ability to score 17 goals from 37 inside 50’s. Jenkins and Cameron our best Saturday night IMO.

While the umpires didn’t help us, it was far from the reason we lost…it was probably the ones they didn’t pay rather than the ones they paid the Dogs as they were mostly there as they were first to the ball.

Expecting a better 4 quarter performance at home this week!

Yes Dougies misses were costly. Momentum could have been so different.

Thommo was terrible. I have much respect for him and his career and he looks to be in much better shape physically than he was a couple of years ago with groin? issues. But he seems to be falling back into turning over so many balls. A mate and I used to call him Scotty Turnover a few years back...He's been so good in the meantime but that was awful.

7 Kicks, 9 Handballs, (really low by his lofty standards) Disposal Efficiency 62.5 (woeful), 9 Clangers 9!, 9 Tackles (great) but 6 frees against (officially - seemed like more!). He had a huge effect on the game - unfortunately not a positive one!

Good thing is that Adelaide Oval is now a fortress. Currently on a 8 game winning streak there and have won 12 of last 15 there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Booney wrote:Indictment on the rest, I think.

I had a look this morning, Adelaide average 45 rebound 50's per game, the most in the league.

Gold Coast 42, Collingwood, Essendon, Port and Brisbane 41. The Bulldogs, the least with just 29. Geelong and Hawthorn with 33.

So while Adelaide's forward line is as good as, if not the best around, it's the back half that's still a worry and the North, Hawthorn and Bulldogs losses while only small margins show the top sides are being given too much opportunity by Adelaide to hit the score board.

Yeah not a bad call. I think in a way this is deliberate though.

I have a feeling we are setting the press up slightly differently to some other teams. I think we are pressing up a little higher than some other teams. This may mean we allow some more I50s, but I feel like they are shallower entries.

This may mean that we allow more I50s, but also means jenkins, betts et al are getting out the back faster and allowing us to counter attack much more effectively than most other teams.

Would love to see a graph of where we allow the inside 50s, because it feels to me there are lots 40m out and not many to the goalsquare. scores conceded per I50 would still be good for us i think, and in terms of attack is probably league best.

I think it would be a concern, Melbourne, Port, Carlton have leaked less ( and Port have been smacked twice! ) and the rest of the top 8 ( except Hawthorn ) have conceded less points than Adelaide. Adelaide have given up 687 against.

Bulldogs and Geelong under 500 points, West Coast, GWS and Sydney under 600. Score big, leak big too.

I will keep in mind the quality of the Adelaide opposition to this point though.

Its been an bit of an interesting season in that regard, as North melbourne only have the 7th best defence too (worse than carlton) and yet are clearly on top.

Hawthorn only have the 11th best defence too.

I do agree that it needs a bit of tightening up, but given the relative youth of our key backs I think it is heading in the right direction. Hartigan is playing surprisingly good footy when he is allowed to play on the key forwards and not on the quicker guys.

Quote Mark Bickley, "I get a little sad when every time the Crows lose, it's the umpires fault".

Booney wrote:Indictment on the rest, I think.

I had a look this morning, Adelaide average 45 rebound 50's per game, the most in the league.

Gold Coast 42, Collingwood, Essendon, Port and Brisbane 41. The Bulldogs, the least with just 29. Geelong and Hawthorn with 33.

So while Adelaide's forward line is as good as, if not the best around, it's the back half that's still a worry and the North, Hawthorn and Bulldogs losses while only small margins show the top sides are being given too much opportunity by Adelaide to hit the score board.

From what I've seen the back half has been pretty good .. I don't think the defensive action of the midfield is as tight as they need it to be.

Spargo wrote:Quote Mark Bickley, "I get a little sad when every time the Crows lose, it's the umpires fault".

Was he being dramatic to say he is sad when it is claimed to be the fault of the umpries or was he actually saying he is sad because it is the fault of the umpires?

stan wrote:

Spargo wrote:Quote Mark Bickley, "I get a little sad when every time the Crows lose, it's the umpires fault".

Was he being dramatic to say he is sad when it is claimed to be the fault of the umpries or was he actually saying he is sad because it is the fault of the umpires?

I took it as he was saying he was tired of people blaming the umpires when the Crows lose

Brodlach wrote:

stan wrote:

Spargo wrote:Quote Mark Bickley, "I get a little sad when every time the Crows lose, it's the umpires fault".

Was he being dramatic to say he is sad when it is claimed to be the fault of the umpries or was he actually saying he is sad because it is the fault of the umpires?

I took it as he was saying he was tired of people blaming the umpires when the Crows lose

Yep.no worries, as I didn't hear the discussion it was hard to know what he meant.

stan wrote:

Brodlach wrote:

stan wrote:

Spargo wrote:Quote Mark Bickley, "I get a little sad when every time the Crows lose, it's the umpires fault".

Was he being dramatic to say he is sad when it is claimed to be the fault of the umpries or was he actually saying he is sad because it is the fault of the umpires?

I took it as he was saying he was tired of people blaming the umpires when the Crows lose

Yep.no worries, as I didn't hear the discussion it was hard to know what he meant.

It can quite easily be interpreted the other way. We need Spargo to give us context.

Brodlach's interpretation is correct Pirate.