Toast Round 19 = Port Adelaide 83-85 Collingwood

[BuildEmUp]

It was off the ball, Rioli should have been given the free for being man-handled, his frustation cost him: lucky for both it was a slap and not a closed fist.

two weeks ... seems a few important people disagree with you..

 

[Big Bryza]

I thought it was a bad game from him. Not just by his standards but by the standards and expectations of this team for it's midfielders. You quoting some average stats does not change this in the slightest.

I assess a players game based on the impact they had on the game, not on stats. I mean c'mon. Apart from the goal most of his stats were non impactful. As I said in the original post, he didn't handle the tag and the heat well. He was missing targets by hand and foot, fumbling, making poor decisions, giving away free kicks and his tagging opponent was getting as much of it as him.

Beau McCreery had more positive impact than Daicos with 10 possessions. Murphy had more just by punching the ball all game. So much for your stats.

I'm pretty sure young Nick would not be at all happy with that performance. Not sure why you were.

The lack of understanding really confuses me.

It's been mentioned time and time again by coaches and Nick himself, that when he gets tagged, it's a win for the team. He gets to dictate where to drag his opponent which then allows his fellow mids to become more dangerous. No surprise that Pendles plays a belter with the heat going on Nick and then JDG in the last.

If you want to sit back and criticise a 40 game player for a 25 possession game whilst copping a heavy tag, then fire away. But it's showing a lack of understanding for the bigger picture of entire game.

Beau and Murph were both unreal on Saturday night. We can pump them up though without potting our young gun.

 

[Fat Jesus]

The lack of understanding really confuses me.

It's been mentioned time and time again by coaches and Nick himself, that when he gets tagged, it's a win for the team. He gets to dictate where to drag his opponent which then allows his fellow mids to become more dangerous. No surprise that Pendles plays a belter with the heat going on Nick and then JDG in the last.

If you want to sit back and criticise a 40 game player for a 25 possession game whilst copping a heavy tag, then fire away. But it's showing a lack of understanding for the bigger picture of entire game.

Beau and Murph were both unreal on Saturday night. We can pump them up though without potting our young gun.

Nick had 9 clearances. Outstanding

 

[JuniorB]

We will have to be on top of our game in all of the finals to win the ultimate. The team is capable of doing that, and the team will believe it too - which is the most important aspect.

We will need luck to go our way in the way of injuries and form.

The way we play, we will seldom blow away teams, as many of us want to. Opposition teams will always get a sniff. However, they will have to compete with us for 4 quarters to beat us. Most teams have not been able to do that. We have shown we are capable of turning it on when it needs to and the ability to win from any position. So we will be very hard to beat but it can happen.

Worry - yes we worry before every game. However, it has been a hell of a season. Let's enjoy it for what it is without worrying too much

I think another factor in not blowing teams away is that Fly's focus seems to be getting the 4 points.
In his post-game presser, he mentioned that we've qualified for finals, but still need to tick off top 4, then top 2.
So we would be conserving resources to that end.
Our fitness guys are doing a tremendous job in managing our players.

 

[Maggie5]

People on big footy pick players at will and tell us they're sore.
Sick of reading this crap.

Maybe his neck (reported in June) and sore back (not reported) is still playing up?

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

What about Will Drew's tackle count. 16.

I dare say Drew’s holding at the contest count would have been higher than 16.

 

[jimmy35]

View attachment 1751267

Awesome pic. Just awesome

 

[neilk]

Im curious to know: now that the dust has settled, does everyone still feel convinced about our win?
Do we have something to worry about in Port (and/or their method for stopping us), or are you totally confident we have their measure?

They showed the rest of the comp that Nick can be neutralised with a tag. Interesting that they stopped the tag by Drew at half-time. Maybe they didn't want to show their hand for the finals?

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

And Port fans saying the umpiring cost them lol.

I think the core of the issue around the "who gets looked after" discussion is the fact that the vast majority of people purely only look at the free kick count as some indicator of which team was looked after. Which to this day I still find baffling.

The simplest way to explain why free kick count is a fallacy is an example I often use:

• Team 1 gets only 6 free kicks for the game
• Team 2 gets 20 free kicks for the game
• Team 1's 6 free kicks are all inside forward 50 and result in 6 goals
• Team 2's free kicks are almost entirely at half back, wing, centre etc and have no scoring impact whatsoever
• Team 1 wins the game by 2 goals

Like, it's a pretty simplistic example, but in the above scenario, does the free kick count give an accurate idea of which team was helped by the umpires?

There is SO much more to analysing how umpiring affects a game of football than the free kick count. What gets let go is arguably more impactful than what gets paid. Just go and ask Geelong in 2010

If you go back and watch that 2010 Prelim, so many of our 7 goals in the first quarter were a result of chains of play where free kicks that would normally be paid weren't.

Some free kicks or umpiring decisions - even if they don't result in a goal, can completely swing momentum in a game by stopping a goal. Just look at Collingwood's first game against Geelong in 2011.

Pendlebury takes the advantage from a ruck contest and kicks a goal, while we have the momentum. The goal is not allowed and the free kick is brought all the way back to the ruckman. We don't score, Geelong takes it down the other end and kicks a goal. Game over.

To actually and properly determine how umpiring affected a game, you'd have to forensically analyse each game individually and judge the moment to moment stuff as it happens and how it impacts.

The Free Kick count was 14-13 our way. 1 free kick more. That's it. But if you actually watch that game more closely, there were so many goals Port got that would never had happened had a free kick been paid earlier and put a stop to it. There was a LOT let go that shouldn't have been, even in wet weather.

I mean, just off the top of my head, there were 2 potential goals (1 was a goal and I think one was missed):

1) Marshall's blatant throw that wasn't paid.
2) Rioli literally ducks his head in a way they were supposed to have stopped paying and he gets the free

Yeah, I've clearly ranted here but I just hate it when people look at the free kick count as some bullet proof method of judging the umpiring of a game.

 

[JuniorB]

Im curious to know: now that the dust has settled, does everyone still feel convinced about our win?
Do we have something to worry about in Port (and/or their method for stopping us), or are you totally confident we have their measure?

Adelaide Oval is like some other grounds, in that it has narrow wings, which makes it easier to cover the corridor.
Docklands (I refuse to call it by a sponsor's name) is a bit narrow & Kardinia Park is even narrower.
One of the reasons Geelong play well at home is they are adapted to the narrowest ground that hosts AFL games
Grounds like this aren't the best fit for our game style.
The MCG is quite a bit wider on the wings, which makes it easier for us to move the ball quickly, whether it's in the corridor or on the wings.
We've adapted our game style to suit our home ground, so if we finish top 2, we'll play finals at the G.
Port would have a lot more trouble stopping us at the G.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Im curious to know: now that the dust has settled, does everyone still feel convinced about our win?
Do we have something to worry about in Port (and/or their method for stopping us), or are you totally confident we have their measure?

I find this idea that only Hinkley was somehow playing 4D chess fascinating. (i know thats not from you, seen it in the media)

"Oh, Ken just put the "shut Daicos down" card in his back pocket to save for later".

Has no one considered that maybe McRae has his own cards to play being saved for when we actually need them?

Here's a thought:

Collingwood plays Port in the Grand Final. Ken decides to pull his "trump card" of tagging Daicos with Drew, but this time, leaves him on him for the entire game to ensure Nick is curbed completely.

What does Fly do?

"Hey boys, clear out the 50, Nick is playing full forward"

Suddenly Drew is cast in the role of full back and Collingwood changes it's system for the most important day of the year and becomes a "front half team" for one day of the year. Daicos wins the Norm Smith kicking 5 goals at full forward.

Like, this is clearly just a hypothetical pie in the sky example, but the point is, Fly and co seems tactically switched on enough to have their own "break in case of emergency" options in place for when we need it.

We had top spot locked up. We couldn't lose Top spot if we lost this game.

What if Fly was allowing Port to take away all our weapons and challenging his team to win the game despite that?

Dixon played a slightly different role to curtail Moore (which worked)
Quaynor was nullified with a defensive forward on him
Daicos was hard tagged

They took away 3 of our weapons, De Goey was clearly still playing under the weather, we left ourselves way too tall for the conditions and still managed to win the game. Like, I'm seeing people say "We subbed off Mitchell and brought on Markov to make us faster", lmao my man, make us faster? We left Cox, Cameron, McStay and Mihocek all on the ground in wet weather.

I would argue it's just as likely Fly probably went out of his way to see if we could still win this game doing everything wrong lol

• We left ourselves too tall and too slow in the wet
• We subbed off our best clearance player when they were winning the territory battle against us
• We did nothing to help Nick by leaving him to be tagged in the middle
• We did nothing to try and free up Moore down back to help our defensive forays forward

Throw in the fact that they got the better of the umpiring and we still managed to win on their home deck, I'd argue we're probably pretty comfortable where we sit in handling them should we meet on Grand Final day.

 

[BuildEmUp]

YEs the fend off

And Port fans saying the umpiring cost them lol.

Yes Port were robbed... 1) the fend off by in the Face to Moore for the first goal , Moore should have been cited for exposing himslef to danger. 2) the one handed throw by Marshall in goal square to get another goal .. should have been two free kicks to Port to get them two goals. 3) the tackle and illegal ( nil) disposal after Bobby hill tackle should have been two free kicks and fifty metres ... maybe I should stop now

 

[Pie thon]

Does anyone else get the feeling that Port had revealed more of their tricks than the pies did? Like Ports pressure game of keeping our key mids quite while we didn't reveal anything. Hope Flys saving some surprise tactics for finals.

 

[Pie thon]

I find this idea that only Hinkley was somehow playing 4D chess fascinating. (i know thats not from you, seen it in the media)

"Oh, Ken just put the "shut Daicos down" card in his back pocket to save for later".

Has no one considered that maybe McRae has his own cards to play being saved for when we actually need them?

Here's a thought:


Like, this is clearly just a hypothetical pie in the sky example, but the point is, Fly and co seems tactically switched on enough to have their own "break in case of emergency" options in place for when we need it.

We had top spot locked up. We couldn't lose Top spot if we lost this game.

What if Fly was allowing Port to take away all our weapons and challenging his team to win the game despite that?

Dixon played a slightly different role to curtail Moore (which worked)
Quaynor was nullified with a defensive forward on him
Daicos was hard tagged

They took away 3 of our weapons, De Goey was clearly still playing under the weather, we left ourselves way too tall for the conditions and still managed to win the game. Like, I'm seeing people say "We subbed off Mitchell and brought on Markov to make us faster", lmao my man, make us faster? We left Cox, Cameron, McStay and Mihocek all on the ground in wet weather.

I would argue it's just as likely Fly probably went out of his way to see if we could still win this game doing everything wrong lol

• We left ourselves too tall and too slow in the wet
• We subbed off our best clearance player when they were winning the territory battle against us
• We did nothing to help Nick by leaving him to be tagged in the middle
• We did nothing to try and free up Moore down back to help our defensive forays forward

Throw in the fact that they got the better of the umpiring and we still managed to win on their home deck, I'd argue we're probably pretty comfortable where we sit in handling them should we meet on Grand Final day.

You answered my question. I have that feeling too. Fly testing our players with duress on purpose for development and to hid counter tactics. I've heard that being mentioned during press conferences by Fly and Moore throughout the year

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

I thought it was a bad game from him. Not just by his standards but by the standards and expectations of this team for it's midfielders. You quoting some average stats does not change this in the slightest.

I assess a players game based on the impact they had on the game, not on stats. I mean c'mon. Apart from the goal most of his stats were non impactful. As I said in the original post, he didn't handle the tag and the heat well. He was missing targets by hand and foot, fumbling, making poor decisions, giving away free kicks and his tagging opponent was getting as much of it as him.

Beau McCreery had more positive impact than Daicos with 10 possessions. Murphy had more just by punching the ball all game. So much for your stats.

I'm pretty sure young Nick would not be at all happy with that performance. Not sure why you were.

I'm actually a little in your camp here Scritchy.

He's set an amazing standard, but watching live, i thought he was extremely poor (by his standards.....not by "an average player" standards).
After the game i saw his stats and was surprised.....but then looking back at it, he was really poor over the ball.
Completely unlike him. He looked rattled at times.

There was a defensive effort in the middle in the 3rd qtr where he refused to chase and just gave up.
Against the Crows at ADL, he had a bad day, but his defensive play was good.
This particular play made me think he was thinking 'this is all too hard'.

I'm being a touch harsh, but I'm just offering an objective view as opposed to 'he can't do anything wrong' which we see a lot on here.
Even Adams made a comment on one of his interviews that made it sound like he wasn't super happy with what Nick was doing (may have that wrong??!).


Having said all that....
I think it was a little bit of a perfect storm against him.
Drew had a career night, our mids were second to the ball and every fumble / bounce went their way.

But even more importantly, he (and by extension us as a team) got a full preview of what teams will do come finals.
Plenty of footage for the mids to digest about how to help him more.
For me, this was the best outcome from that game with regards to Nick and the rest of the mids.

 

[stormskye]

two weeks ... seems a few important people disagree with you..

Imagine if Maynard did this to one of them. I’m sure his tune would change

 

[Big Bryza]

Angry? Just responding in kind. Don't find a need to respond to posters who only ridicule without providing any points of their own.

It's a clear concern for Mitchell that he was subbed in a big game. This is not like Pendles being subbed off when we had the game won. I've read nothing into Mitchell's sub role against Freo.

I disagree there was any toss-up between Jordy and Mitchell for the sub. The choice was clear. In fact Port pulled their tag on Nick in the last and applied it to De Goey.

Can understand that some may be happy with Mitchell's previous form. I think he's been going ok, not much more. He's been getting the ball but not having great impact. Earlier in the year he was better with more clearances. Adams going into the middle has made it more clear that Mitchell hadn't been great, Adams has looked better, giving us actual drive rather than short handballs and loopy kicks.

I'm more interested than anything to see what we'll do. I don't get overly invested with my views on who should be playing, we're really not in a position to judge. So while I may look to have stated my views strongly, I don't hold them that way. I enjoy discussing options and hearing others give their views. I'm not emotionally tied to them. If Mitchell stays in the team, fine. If he plays well, awesome.

Titch would be top 6 in the BnF to this point of the season.

Players bizarrely get written off when they have a quiet game or 2.

He's not going anywhere and will be an important cog in our quest for the flag.

 

[Big Bryza]

Nah, the load reduction is mutually beneficial for both players.

This.

They are both 30 year old inside mids. Their bodies have copped a hammering for 12 seasons.

We recruited Titch to support Tay.

What we have seen is the emergence of a once in a generation player (Naics) emerge before our eyes.

This limits the mid time for both Titch and Tay but that's ok.

Mark my words, come September we'll be glad to have both these veterans on our side.

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

TBH I think 1 or 2 weeks would be on par. It was medium impact as the MRO categorised it. How many weeks did you expect him to get?

Many moons ago when I was playing a good mate of mine was involved in an incident similar to this. Unfortunately the punch connected in the exact right spot and my friend didn’t make it.
I just think the afl can easily stamp this this rubbish out with harsher penalties. Because there’s no reason to be potting blokes behind play regardless of force or intention.

 

[Big Bryza]

It was off the ball, Rioli should have been given the free for being man-handled, his frustation cost him: lucky for both it was a slap and not a closed fist.

Give us a spell, champion.

 

[danielnajdek]

I dare say Drew’s holding at the contest count would have been higher than 16.

Yep several times you could see Nicks top being held.

 

[SuperSub17]

It was off the ball, Rioli should have been given the free for being man-handled, his frustation cost him: lucky for both it was a slap and not a closed fist.

Staker was manhandling Barry Hall too.

What a bizarre take.

 

[Big Bryza]

Im curious to know: now that the dust has settled, does everyone still feel convinced about our win?
Do we have something to worry about in Port (and/or their method for stopping us), or are you totally confident we have their measure?

Get them on a bigger deck and we'll belt them off the park.

They play their narrow sh1thole perfectly.

 

[Big Bryza]

Does anyone else get the feeling that Port had revealed more of their tricks than the pies did? Like Ports pressure game of keeping our key mids quite while we didn't reveal anything. Hope Flys saving some surprise tactics for finals.

Port played out of their skin... and still lost.

This is why most of their fans are so salty about Saturday night. Had so much go their way and they still got 'grim reapered'.

 

[No SPIN]

It was off the ball, Rioli should have been given the free for being man-handled, his frustation cost him: lucky for both it was a slap and not a closed fist.

I’m sure this is the defence the PA legal team will use - LOL