Psyber wrote:Well Port have a long established pattern of going purely defensive when in front and my wife, who was a Port supporter and came from a Port Adelaide linked family, first pointed it out to me.Chuck Wepner wrote:Do you think ? how insightful... of course don't give any credit to Port's opponent - they didn't lift or change their gameplan at all... psber with your revolutionary thought processes I'm amazed youre not coaching an AFL side now.. or perhaps you are?Psyber wrote:The Crows have a bit of work to do.
Too many handballs, especially to players already covered by opponents.
Too many kicks straight to opposition players standing there on their own - a kick to a contest would be better than that.
One ruckman??? It might have made sense if the one had been a Sandilands....
Both Fremantle and Port played a more direct style and both won.
[Though Port did their usual "take it easy and go defensive" once well in front, and nearly came unstuck as usual as a result.]
She used to watch Port matches more closely than me, and always saw it as a sign they were about to lose - and she was usually proved right!
I'd concede it could have been just a remarkable turn around by Nth Melbourne, but I'm not convinced from what I saw on the televised game.
Port's effort appeared to drop off rather like last year, although their early play was much improved, and much more direct.
I'm not sure why you highlighted my comment about the Crows kicking directly to an unmanned opponent, as you didn't comment on that, unless you did and it was lost in your grammatical construction
But that is a basic mistake whatever the opposition is doing at the time..
my point is that to say you'd rather see the crows kick to a contest than to the opposition is like saying you'd rather see them kick goals than points... it is a very strange comment from someone analysing that match