Port Adelaide 2018

[The Bedge]

But. Id like the target to not be a midget. We repeatedly have Neade and Gray X2 as the target and bomb it on their head.

Robbie Gray was the only small target kicked to, generally speaking it was Dixon & Westhoff, with Neade & S. Gray crumbing. Robbie Gray's leading patterns aren't exactly ideal at times either, he leads very wide and short behind defenders.

If Marshall drops out, pick someone that can compete in the air and/or drag a key defender away. Play Hombsch forward. If not put him back and play Howard forward. Play Ryder deeper. Okay Westhoff deeper. Whatever, just give us a chance to kick more than one goal in a half of football against what was in all honesty a massively dilapidated Richmond away from home.

Marshall is definitely a missing cog, and adding him would add massively to the forward structure, but not sure you can compensate by shuffling a defender forward - particularly if they are out of form. Think the basis of keeping the back structure consistent and having continuity is important, and by the same token pick the best 6 forwards available at the time, don't mix/match. Guess it's similar to the ruck argument earlier in the year (except Port didn't have a ready to go ruck in waiting).

We had them on toast and could have skull ****** them, but went ultra defensive.

Wrong again. Richmond went ultra defensive, then turned it into a real scrap, and tried to work their way back into the game that way.

I'd also like to maybe have 1 or 2 behind the ball. Not 4. Maybe back in the mids and ruck at a centre clearance with a reasonable starting forward structure..

Don't necessarily disagree, but the extra 2 (created because the numbers Richmond dropped behind) allows to cover more lanes and exits ahead of the ball.. you don't want to add and extra 2 in the forward half, it's too congested.. perhaps extra numbers at the stoppage might work.. but overall I have no dramas - when you got Bonner, Pittard and Howard sitting alone ready to rebound it's gonna be hard for opp sides to score I would think.

Kicking one goal in a half against.

Kicked 0.5 to 1.2 in the last quarter - opportunities to ice the game were there.. could well have been 3.2 or similar and everything would be hunky dory.

[The Bedge]

C'mon Bedgey don't back away now!

Your turn now son.

[morell]

Part of that 1.7 after half time was execution in front of goal, skill based, not so much game style based.

"If" we'd kicked 4.4 instead of 1.7 after half time we win by 7 or 8 goals. "If" is a big word, I know, but we had 8 scoring shots after half time to their 7.

But that’s a familiar story right? And I’ve had this argument with Trader too. You’re right in that a lot them were skills based. Ryder’s snap, Dixons sitter. But! Execution in front of goal is also related to game style.

Even when we’re going forward, we go forward in a manner not to maximise our chance of kicking a goal, but to ensure the opposition don’t rebound. So we kick to the pockets to close off the fat side – if we get a mark, free kick or crumbs were on an acute angle. We bomb it long rather than lowering the eyes to remove high TOs – so if we get a contest it’s much easier to spoil through. We never look to switch in the forward half – meaning the opposition zone can be much tighter. All of that to ensure the opposition don’t score, rather than looking to score ourselves.

I don’t mind that mindset sometimes and its great we can do it but I’d prefer to leave it for GWS away, Geelong at Skilled, Showdowns. Or when we’re 5 goals down. I’d love it as Option B or C in other words, not Modus operandi when we have injury depleted Richmond on toast at home.

Ken has openly admitted that he is now very much a defense first coach. That’s the flaw in his coaching, IMO. I’d rather a balanced coach that adjusts dynamically.

68 inside 50's for us means the plan moving it forward worked. 49 for them means the plan holding them up worked.

We're 7-4, reportedly have several stars struggling for form and have the Bulldogs, Melbourne, Carlton, St Kilda and Fremantle in the next 5 weeks.

Glass half empty? Bollocks to that.

It's the opposite. My glass is full. We can win the whole shebang. Just need to take the handbrake off.

[Dutchy]

you guys won yeah?

[Dirty dog]

Cox got 5 yesterday because of ultra fast ball movement inside 50 and marked the nut 1 on 1 instead ofhaving all other 17 players around.
Handbrake off football

[morell]

But. Id like the target to not be a midget. We repeatedly have Neade and Gray X2 as the target and bomb it on their head.

Robbie Gray was the only small target kicked to, generally speaking it was Dixon & Westhoff, with Neade & S. Gray crumbing. Robbie Gray's leading patterns aren't exactly ideal at times either, he leads very wide and short behind defenders.

Mate we did it all the time! With Neade it’s a bit higher up. I call him the world’s smallest Centre Half Forward.

If Marshall drops out, pick someone that can compete in the air and/or drag a key defender away. Play Hombsch forward. If not put him back and play Howard forward. Play Ryder deeper. Okay Westhoff deeper. Whatever, just give us a chance to kick more than one goal in a half of football against what was in all honesty a massively dilapidated Richmond away from home.

Marshall is definitely a missing cog, and adding him would add massively to the forward structure, but not sure you can compensate by shuffling a defender forward - particularly if they are out of form. Think the basis of keeping the back structure consistent and having continuity is important, and by the same token pick the best 6 forwards available at the time, don't mix/match. Guess it's similar to the ruck argument earlier in the year (except Port didn't have a ready to go ruck in waiting).

Ok, if we don’t want to use a defender or swingman, despite that method being used by innumerate numbers of teams now and in the past, then play Westhoff as a legitimate forward, like he used to be, and then play an Atley or Johnson or Barry on the wing.

We had them on toast and could have skull ****** them, but went ultra defensive.

Wrong again. Richmond went ultra defensive, then turned it into a real scrap, and tried to work their way back into the game that way.

No I agree that Richmond bitched out, especially once Astbury went down. It was smart coaching by Hardwick.

But **** them! We don’t have to let them control how the game is played.

I'd also like to maybe have 1 or 2 behind the ball. Not 4. Maybe back in the mids and ruck at a centre clearance with a reasonable starting forward structure..

Don't necessarily disagree, but the extra 2 (created because the numbers Richmond dropped behind) allows to cover more lanes and exits ahead of the ball.. you don't want to add and extra 2 in the forward half, it's too congested.. perhaps extra numbers at the stoppage might work.. but overall I have no dramas - when you got Bonner, Pittard and Howard sitting alone ready to rebound it's gonna be hard for opp sides to score I would think.

Sure its hard to score, but it’s also hard for you to score, and you’re playing into their hands.

Let’s not forget. Richmond, despite having lost a lot of their scoring potential and one of their key defenders, really should’ve gotten to within a goal with 2 minutes to go. Ryder was in a 2 v 1 deep and they fluffed their chance.

I suppose I am not criticising the tactic, if there was ever a time for a team to use it Richmond were in that time. I am criticising Hinkley ley for its timing and appropriateness for that particular game.

Kicking one goal in a half against.

Kicked 0.5 to 1.2 in the last quarter - opportunities to ice the game were there.. could well have been 3.2 or similar and everything would be hunky dory.

But we didn’t.

Its easy to say “we’re not good kicks”. But if you look a bit deeper, there is not only an underlying pattern there but a core reason for it.

[morell]

you guys won yeah?

And thus the difference between North and Port was laid before us

[Jim05]

you guys won yeah?

And thus the difference between North and Port was laid before us

This is the big league now, Port are no longer the big fish in the little pond. Think you have to be realistic and accept that Port was never going to dominate the AFL like they did the SANFL

[Booney]

you guys won yeah?

And thus the difference between North and Port was laid before us

This is the big league now, Port are no longer the big fish in the little pond. Think you have to be realistic and accept that Port was never going to dominate the AFL like they did the SANFL

[Jim05]

you guys won yeah?

And thus the difference between North and Port was laid before us

This is the big league now, Port are no longer the big fish in the little pond. Think you have to be realistic and accept that Port was never going to dominate the AFL like they did the SANFL

Hey I have this argument with our fans all the time aswell. They still seem to have a sense of entitlement and the big 4 in Melbourne still struggle with the concept that they won’t dominate like they used to.

[morell]

**** that.

[Booney]

Hey I have this argument with our fans all the time aswell. They still seem to have a sense of entitlement and the big 4 in Melbourne still struggle with the concept that they won’t dominate like they used to.

I'm with you, realistic and all with drafts and salary caps etc etc but you've just popped the top off a tin of morell shaped worms.

[Dutchy]

you guys won yeah?

And thus the difference between North and Port was laid before us

one ladder position and 10% at the moment.

[Booney]

you guys won yeah?

And thus the difference between North and Port was laid before us

one ladder position and 10% at the moment.

He's saying we're not happy with where we are and should be demanding better.

[morell]

I guess you could summarise my viewpoint with some of Max Barry's work.

He's the guy behind the now somewhat infamous macro Level analysis colloquially known as "race to the flag with squiggly lines"

Sounds silly. But it's pretty cool.

The premise is that generally speaking, the teams that have a positive balance of attack and defence win flags. If you plot teams score for and against the premiers cluster in the top right quadrant. Only Sydney bucked the trend under Roos. To a lesser extent Richmond last year as well...

He doesn't do it anymore, but here's an example:

[Lightning McQueen]

I am utterly speechless.

[morell]

Hahah, sounds silly, looks silly.

Has a lot of merit.

Much like you LM!!

[Booney]

I am utterly speechless.

Not the only member of that club.

[morell]

Funny thing is, where this was originally posted, it gained thousands of posts of support and analysis.

People mulled over the permutations and argued about it's connotations.

You can mock it all you like, but the logic is irrefutable:

Teams with a balance of attack and defence are the teams that win flags in the modern era.

[am Bays]

I guess you could summarise my viewpoint with some of Max Barry's work.

He's the guy behind the now somewhat infamous macro Level analysis colloquially known as "race to the flag with squiggly lines"

Sounds silly. But it's pretty cool.

The premise is that generally speaking, the teams that have a positive balance of attack and defence win flags. If you plot teams score for and against the premiers cluster in the top right quadrant. Only Sydney bucked the trend under Roos. To a lesser extent Richmond last year as well...

He doesn't do it anymore, but here's an example: