 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Magpietothemax 
magpietothemax
Joined: 27 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Pies2016 wrote: | ^ ^ ^
Ok R B and I see where you’re coming from too.
My point is that increasing our clearance numbers doesn’t automatically translate into a better scoreline.
As per recent history, some clubs get their best returns when they ( inadvertently ) concede the clearance because their defensive structures are so good. No one sets out to lose clearances but on the occasions when well drilled opposition win it back, it’s generally the best chance to hit the scoreboard without the extra numbers getting back.
I do accept that given Grundys dominance, we should have more clearance numbers but I can’t stress enough there is no evidence to suggest that would automatically improve our scoreline.
Our real issue is that we’re not maximising our return when we win the ball back at half back, especially considering how many clearances were conceding
😉 |
I don't think Sam Mitchell agrees with this analysis, P2016.
_________________
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
 |
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 27 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
dp
_________________
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Magpietothemax wrote: | | Pies2016 wrote: | ^ ^ ^
Ok R B and I see where you’re coming from too.
My point is that increasing our clearance numbers doesn’t automatically translate into a better scoreline.
As per recent history, some clubs get their best returns when they ( inadvertently ) concede the clearance because their defensive structures are so good. No one sets out to lose clearances but on the occasions when well drilled opposition win it back, it’s generally the best chance to hit the scoreboard without the extra numbers getting back.
I do accept that given Grundys dominance, we should have more clearance numbers but I can’t stress enough there is no evidence to suggest that would automatically improve our scoreline.
Our real issue is that we’re not maximising our return when we win the ball back at half back, especially considering how many clearances were conceding
😉 |
I don't think Sam Mitchell agrees with this analysis, P2016. |
My response to Mitchell would be on two fronts
if Grundy had magically gone away from what had earnt us a preliminary final and got more creative in the square, then what would have most likely occurred.
Reid and Miochek would have made absolutely no contribution to the hacked kick to half forward and it would have come back at twice the speed with all our mids out of position.
Retention ( or not ) after the clearance is so much more important than the clearance.
Secondly, we were monstered at the stoppages. The Giants really applied the heat at the contest. They generally covered our two prime movers at every ruck contest. Grundys performance was fine but it was the players around him who let him down. Mitchell should be pointing the finger at our mids, not Grundy.
Mitchell is clearly a smart mind on footy but sadly, he is just another ex player who is paid to comment. His challenge is to have an opinion on something different. At least he did that. |
|
|
|
|
mgh3536
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
“Nick reiwoldt was incredibly surprised by Collingwood’s stoppage setup in their Preliminary Final loss to GWS.
Brodie Grundy finished with 73 hit-outs for the day and was completely dominant in the ruck, but Riewoldt feels they didn’t properly utilise his dominance.
“What it looked like Collingwood were trying to do is send a forward up to support the stoppage and then as soon as they did win it, they went forward to an outnumber,” he told SEN Breakfast.
“It blew my mind that they didn’t equalise the numbers because Nick Haynes and Sam Taylor, they just mopped up at absolute will.
“Go back and just spike it forward. Wet weather footy, it’s all about field position and it’s all about ground ball.”
Because of this, Riewoldt didn’t think Grundy’s impact was as big as it could have been.
“He had a prolific game numbers wise, but I didn’t think he had a huge influence on the result,” he said.
“He had 70 hit-outs, they lost clearances by 20.
“He had an influence late. I was absolutely staggered that they didn’t try to surge the ball forward.”
Riewoldt was impressed with Shane Mumford’s role on Grundy, especially late in the game when it mattered most.
“The discipline in a situation of such desperation, to not give away a free kick, I was just waiting for a whistle,” he said.
“Shane Mumford had the audacity to sell candy to Scott Pendlebury in the goal square.
“It was amazing. I couldn’t believe he’d done that and it was really important because it cleared the area.
“Mumford was really smart too with his ruck stuff because that was the other avenue, him giving away a free kick at some stage.
“He separated from Grundy. He put a 10m gap between himself and Grundy so he didn’t give himself the best opportunity to win the hit, but he wasn’t giving away a free kick.”
The number 1 analyst in the games view... |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Just love to read Nick Reiwoldt's thoughts about how to win big finals.  |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 27 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies2016 wrote: |
My response to Mitchell would be on two fronts
if Grundy had magically gone away from what had earnt us a preliminary final and got more creative in the square, then what would have most likely occurred.
Reid and Miochek would have made absolutely no contribution to the hacked kick to half forward and it would have come back at twice the speed with all our mids out of position.
Retention ( or not ) after the clearance is so much more important than the clearance.
Secondly, we were monstered at the stoppages. The Giants really applied the heat at the contest. They generally covered our two prime movers at every ruck contest. Grundys performance was fine but it was the players around him who let him down. Mitchell should be pointing the finger at our mids, not Grundy.
Mitchell is clearly a smart mind on footy but sadly, he is just another ex player who is paid to comment. His challenge is to have an opinion on something different. At least he did that. |
Yeah, that makes sense. Also what Riewoldt said. Rather than Grundy getting creative, we needed to reconfigure/revitalize our mids' performance
_________________
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
