oh please give me a break.we sorely missed players who could get their hands on the ball something krakouer is not renowned for.Hayfever said:I agree Phanto.Phantom said:
We sorely missed the cool head and tackling ability of Andy Krakouer when the crunch came
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Game discussion thread vs Freo. [Merged]
- Thread starter borninbridgeroad
- Start date
I disagree. IMO if Krakouer was playing Tambling wouldn't have spent so much time in a forward pocket and his pace and smart use of the ball would have given us a big lift around the stoppages. We had guys like Foley and Coughlan winning the ball OK but no-one seemed able to get clear and use the ball well when it mattered.
I really hope Tambling is being thought of as an Andrew McLeod type player in the future and not a forward pocket/flanker.
I really hope Tambling is being thought of as an Andrew McLeod type player in the future and not a forward pocket/flanker.
You boys are slow tonight..... what took you so long :hihi
YES WE WERE BELTED IN THE CENTRE BUT I WOULD LIKE A DOLLAR FOR THE AMOUNT OF TIMES WE GOT OUR HANDS ON IT FIRST ONLY TO LOSE IT.
Please explain Claw and MB why we did this so badly last night yet so well a week earlier. Besides, of course, from the fact that we sorely missed our best tackler and handy goal-sneak
YES WE WERE BELTED IN THE CENTRE BUT I WOULD LIKE A DOLLAR FOR THE AMOUNT OF TIMES WE GOT OUR HANDS ON IT FIRST ONLY TO LOSE IT.
Please explain Claw and MB why we did this so badly last night yet so well a week earlier. Besides, of course, from the fact that we sorely missed our best tackler and handy goal-sneak
you miss the point we didnt get our hands on the pill in the last q even wallace acknowledges this how the hell was *smile* going to help in the last q when the biggest criticism of him is a lack of possesions.ffs *smile* struggles to get to contests on the smaller victorian grounds how the hell was he going to get to them on a wa ground. he was anonymous for 3 quarterslast week 3 quarters of the same this week and we wouldnt have been in a position to win.Hayfever said:You boys are slow tonight..... what took you so long :hihi
YES WE WERE BELTED IN THE CENTRE BUT I WOULD LIKE A DOLLAR FOR THE AMOUNT OF TIMES WE GOT OUR HANDS ON IT FIRST ONLY TO LOSE IT.
Please explain Claw and MB why we did this so badly last night yet so well a week earlier. Besides, of course, from the fact that we sorely missed our best tackler and handy goal-sneak
I'm not sure who's right on this one. Topics in subjective hindsight seem to make experts of all of us. I did see Wallace use Krak the previous week at centre bounces. I thought he did ok, not great, but ok in there. I guess that's a contest he can't not make it to. I think this is Hayfever's point and we needed somebody who could impact in the last quarter when our midfielders were tired. Whether Krak would or wouldn't have helped is something we don't know ... and us bleating about the suredness of our answers is the ultimate in p!ssing in the wind.
We got smashed in the clearances.
To Krak's credit he's been good in that area recently.
He may well have been handy and as many know I'm no fan.
To Krak's credit he's been good in that area recently.
He may well have been handy and as many know I'm no fan.
Yes, it is only an academic argument Hopper.
The popular("easy"?) option is to blame an individual when we lose . Last night Krak did not play..... so he was not the culprit. If he had played and we still lost the usual suspects would have bleated once again.
The week before Krak was used by Wallace in short spells in the centre and it worked. It helped give others a breather and he got effective possessions/disposals. When moved forward he helped set up some goals and jagged 2.1 himself. The most important point though is that Richmond, and Krakouer, lifted in the final quarter against the Cats by pressuring them and taking our chances when they came. Wallace managed Krak well and he was cool under pressure and delivered..... not necessarily quantity but definitely quality. He also topped our tackle count...... not bad for a so-called "squib". I wish some others used his tackling technique.
By contrast last night in the final quarter we lacked cool heads and we failed to pressure the Dockers when it counted. Put simply they beat us at our own game.
The popular("easy"?) option is to blame an individual when we lose . Last night Krak did not play..... so he was not the culprit. If he had played and we still lost the usual suspects would have bleated once again.
The week before Krak was used by Wallace in short spells in the centre and it worked. It helped give others a breather and he got effective possessions/disposals. When moved forward he helped set up some goals and jagged 2.1 himself. The most important point though is that Richmond, and Krakouer, lifted in the final quarter against the Cats by pressuring them and taking our chances when they came. Wallace managed Krak well and he was cool under pressure and delivered..... not necessarily quantity but definitely quality. He also topped our tackle count...... not bad for a so-called "squib". I wish some others used his tackling technique.
By contrast last night in the final quarter we lacked cool heads and we failed to pressure the Dockers when it counted. Put simply they beat us at our own game.
the claw said:you miss the point we didnt get our hands on the pill in the last q even wallace acknowledges this how the hell was Krakouer going to help in the last q when the biggest criticism of him is a lack of possesions.ffs Krakouer struggles to get to contests on the smaller victorian grounds how the hell was he going to get to them on a wa ground. he was anonymous for 3 quarterslast week 3 quarters of the same this week and we wouldnt have been in a position to win.Hayfever said:You boys are slow tonight..... what took you so long :hihi
YES WE WERE BELTED IN THE CENTRE BUT I WOULD LIKE A DOLLAR FOR THE AMOUNT OF TIMES WE GOT OUR HANDS ON IT FIRST ONLY TO LOSE IT.
Please explain Claw and MB why we did this so badly last night yet so well a week earlier. Besides, of course, from the fact that we sorely missed our best tackler and handy goal-sneak
Craw, your argument has a key internal inconsistency. That’s scientific analysis speak that your argument is contradictory and doesn’t hold water and yet again displays your bias. Disco’s point is based upon what AK ACTUALLY DID in the Geelong game. That is, game in the balance in the last Q, opposition coming at us, need someone to get some contested ball and use it, for the hundredth time, this is what AK did against geelong.
(I don’t buy you ‘unsighted for three quarters line’, it may or may not be true, it wasn’t my impression although I acknowledge he was by no means dominant, but even if it is true, we are talking about what happened in the last Q when the heat was on, we aren’t talking about AK entire career, or even the first 3 quarters of that particular game).
We’ll never know, but based on AK’s RECENT FORM, I personally reckon he could have made a difference in the last Q sat night by helping to keep the ball in the fwd line, wining a couple of tough clearances, and probably winning one of his virtually inevitable frees in front of goal.
the claw said:
Krakouer is renowned for hard ball gets and contested possessions. Also clearances - something the Dockers slayed us in. Also kicking crunch goals when we really need them.
Anyway, its all what might have been. Krakouer will be back when fit, sorry Claw.