I know I am late, but if we hadnt of fumbled so so much then it would have been a win. Collywobbles looked pretty slick but they still rely on Pendles and Sidebottom to carry them.
-
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.
Round 2 Collingwood
- Thread starter Baron Samedi
- Start date
Buckley and dimmas pressers were chalk and cheese. Dimma commanded the room, said exactly what happened and why, bucks was defensive, reactive and seemed a bit stumped.
I also thought Bucks 'reaching out' to Lumumba, even though all the commentators crapped on how it was amazing leadership,
was a weird load of *smile*.
just ring him up?
Yep all the dumbass Collingwood suck up media can talk about is how Buckley has it all worked out about how to beat Richmond.
What’s that then? Employ soccer tactics? Get a few goals in front then put 18 players behind the ball? Don’t score for 2.5 quarters? Bore the *smile* *smile* out of everyone?
What a load of *smile*? We absolutely dominated that game for 2.5 quarters but couldn’t score due to a combination of our own haphazard play and rustiness and Buckley parking the *smile* bus for 3 quarters.
No mention of that from the sycophant imbeciles in the media.
Quite annoyed we blew that game now. Hopefully we’ve blown that rust off and take it out on a very ordinary Hawks team next week
agree - I just watched both for the first time - Bucks is a sore loser and Cameron was only there for looks whereas Dimma made sure Dave was included and Dave ended up saying some great things - he speaks really thoughtfully.
Just saying but the difference between the two club cultures was on display there and they are chalk and cheese
5_6_36 is pretty much as low as it gets for the round (of course Adelaide had to be the exception)
Interesting to see if the two teams are pressuring at a level others wont be able to handle next week or are both teams thanking their lucky stars that they played each other to work out a few obvious kinks. Anyway top eight so, so good so far.
Interesting to see if the two teams are pressuring at a level others wont be able to handle next week or are both teams thanking their lucky stars that they played each other to work out a few obvious kinks. Anyway top eight so, so good so far.
Final word on the Higgins mark. Sounds like AFL BS to me, but I already thought it was a mark.
AFL officially approves contentious goal-line mark paid to Richmond forward Jack Higgins (paywalled)
The AFL has officially approved Jack Higgins' contentious goal-line mark but has admitted Fremantle’s Matt Taberner should have been paid a critical mark late in the loss to Brisbane.
The league’s football department said it was comfortable with both Higgins’ mark and the decision to award a behind when North Melbourne’s Jamie McMillan rushed a Toby Greene kick on the goal line.
Higgins’ mark on the goal line on Thursday night was heavily criticised by the Channel 7 commentary team, with the mark freeze-framed after he controlled the ball on the line.
New vision used by the AFL’s team in its bunker confirms the mark, as it marries up two different TV angles showing Richmond’s Higgins controlled the ball on the line.
All of the ball needs to be over the goal line and while the TV camera was not perfectly placed the league has ticked off that mark, which saw Higgins kick the last goal of the game late in the third term.
AFL officially approves contentious goal-line mark paid to Richmond forward Jack Higgins (paywalled)
The AFL has officially approved Jack Higgins' contentious goal-line mark but has admitted Fremantle’s Matt Taberner should have been paid a critical mark late in the loss to Brisbane.
The league’s football department said it was comfortable with both Higgins’ mark and the decision to award a behind when North Melbourne’s Jamie McMillan rushed a Toby Greene kick on the goal line.
Higgins’ mark on the goal line on Thursday night was heavily criticised by the Channel 7 commentary team, with the mark freeze-framed after he controlled the ball on the line.
New vision used by the AFL’s team in its bunker confirms the mark, as it marries up two different TV angles showing Richmond’s Higgins controlled the ball on the line.
All of the ball needs to be over the goal line and while the TV camera was not perfectly placed the league has ticked off that mark, which saw Higgins kick the last goal of the game late in the third term.
The Pies tactic hasn't changed IMO. It relies on them being able to mark consistently all across the ground. If they keep the ball off-the-deck then our pressure game is not able to get going. That's it. If we don't let them mark too easily, we win. Lynch was a little rusty and JR was off his game a little, so I am not reading too much into that.
Our ball movement plus their flood impacted one of the areas that have really impacted our game over the last 3 seasons, marks inside 50. We had just 4 on Thursday night.
2017 we averaged 14 - ranked 2nd
2018 we averaged 13 - ranked 2nd
2019 we averaged 12.1 - ranked 4th
Fix the ball use and we fix this stat and we'd have won the game. I'm not concerned.
2017 we averaged 14 - ranked 2nd
2018 we averaged 13 - ranked 2nd
2019 we averaged 12.1 - ranked 4th
Fix the ball use and we fix this stat and we'd have won the game. I'm not concerned.
Yep, crap delivery into the forward line means we can't get good shots on goal, marks inside 50 and we can't counter a flood.
But it was a weird game and both sides looked a bit out of sorts. I'm confident they know exactly what they were doing wrong and will get better as the season goes on.
DS
Agree. Marks inside 50 are so important to us, not just from getting the offence side with better shots at goal, but also for defence in case we miss. It allows us to set our defensive setups whilst the 30 second shot clock goes, enabling us to help to retain that ball inside 50. Its one of the biggest reasons for us gaining repeat and whilst we could get that defensive setup in place (Collingwoods flood helped us to do that), we just couldn't retain the ball in the right areas within 50 unfortunately.
As a human being with eyes, I agree with you.I reckon it was a mark as the 'whole' ball wasnt over the line imo.
I'll take it yet I'm bias toolol
Lynch is a big unit and will have an impact at almost any contest he gets to. But if the opposition backs are better in the air then slow high delivery is not going to advantage our forwards (as if it ever does?). Quick use to leading forwards or using the space behind a leading forward to the advantage of our smalls and Dusty will always be better. But JR's timing will get better and Lynch won't get any smaller. It will work itself out.
My take of the game was when we clicked it was Collingwood who should be worried.
Their game plan works well under no pressure but as we dialled it up they had no answers.
We had the ball on a string and looked like a top racing car driver taking the car for some warm up laps as we blew out the cobwebs. They looked lost and they have no chance at the flag.
I expect us to easily account for the Hawks this week.
Their game plan works well under no pressure but as we dialled it up they had no answers.
We had the ball on a string and looked like a top racing car driver taking the car for some warm up laps as we blew out the cobwebs. They looked lost and they have no chance at the flag.
I expect us to easily account for the Hawks this week.
if there was any doubt in the decision it should’ve gone with the umpires call, which was a behind. Having said that, I think it was a mark but it was a bit contentious.
On JR8 he had a bad game, he got pushed off the ball too easily and seemed to lack timing and strength. No one has mentioned he looks to have shed kilos and condition - May have something to do with his form (or lack thereof).
