Close games - what is going wrong?

[jeemak]

At what point are we going to admit that (or ask if) our recruiting of bottom-middle and bottom tier players hasn't been as good as other clubs? Or our players in that bracket are out of form or not going to regain form.

If you want to win close games you need to have even contributors across the ground. Players need to be standing up and doing things that are dependably positive to influence the result.

[Vred]

I honestly just think we're not drilled in these scenarios - last year and now the Geelong game, we seem to go to water in the last quarters when they're close, we start dumping kicks, losing shape around the ground and just panicking.

Really need to tighten up and get these scenarios drilled into our players more. I know it's something that Collingwood practiced over and over last year, hopefully we start doing the same.

[jeemak]

Another angle I think about in these close losses doesn't have anything to do with what happened at the death - or leading up to that point in the last quarter, more so, what happened throughout the game.

Looking back at Saturday Geelong were just cleaner and more polished with their handling in close than we were and it released their second ball players better for them than we could for ours. It was a trend that continued through the game.

As we evolve I think we'll eventually look back at this game as one in which we hung on, but were always up against it due to our lack of quality in close. We had colossal efforts from all of Bont, Libba and Treloar, but each of them were at times guilty of fumbling that cost us split seconds here and there across the ground. Geelong didn't seem to do that as much as we did, and I think that's why they got ahead of us early and maintained the lead in a relatively close game.

Talk about strategy and set ups is fine, and I get that Chris Scott gets it right often but we had more intercepts than they did and beat them in just about every mainstream indicator you can think of, except quality at the source and next out (which can't be measured easily) which visually seemed to be an issue for us.

If that's happening all game, it's difficult to arrest at the death.

[josie]

Another angle I think about in these close losses doesn't have anything to do with what happened at the death - or leading up to that point in the last quarter, more so, what happened throughout the game.

Looking back at Saturday Geelong were just cleaner and more polished with their handling in close than we were and it released their second ball players better for them than we could for ours. It was a trend that continued through the game.

As we evolve I think we'll eventually look back at this game as one in which we hung on, but were always up against it due to our lack of quality in close. We had colossal efforts from all of Bont, Libba and Treloar, but each of them were at times guilty of fumbling that cost us split seconds here and there across the ground. Geelong didn't seem to do that as much as we did, and I think that's why they got ahead of us early and maintained the lead in a relatively close game.

Talk about strategy and set ups is fine, and I get that Chris Scott gets it right often but we had more intercepts than they did and beat them in just about every mainstream indicator you can think of, except quality at the source and next out (which can't be measured easily) which visually seemed to be an issue for us.

If that's happening all game, it's difficult to arrest at the death.

Agree with this. There?s no stat for fumbles but it?s an important point. It?s one of the big differences b/w our best and worst players.

[hujsh]

Despite the stats it always felt like Geelong had us at arms length. That we came back at all is to me a positive and I hope it starts to create some belief that we can close the gap like that going forward. Against opposition that aren't as good as Geelong we may well pinch a game or two we don't deserve to.

The ones that worry me more are the ones where we crumble and lose our lead at the very last minute. Those are the one's I'll judge more harshly.

[Danjul]

I honestly just think we're not drilled in these scenarios - last year and now the Geelong game, we seem to go to water in the last quarters when they're close, we start dumping kicks, losing shape around the ground and just panicking.

Really need to tighten up and get these scenarios drilled into our players more. I know it's something that Collingwood practiced over and over last year, hopefully we start doing the same.

If you walk around the boundary from the goals at one end to the other it is 50% further than the direct route.

Our game plan goes as wide as possible, Geelong?s was as straight as possible. Less kicks needed , less time taken. Always a receiver ahead. Maybe we should take a leaf out of the good teams approach and get more efficient tactics.

[1eyedog]

Another angle I think about in these close losses doesn't have anything to do with what happened at the death - or leading up to that point in the last quarter, more so, what happened throughout the game.

Looking back at Saturday Geelong were just cleaner and more polished with their handling in close than we were and it released their second ball players better for them than we could for ours. It was a trend that continued through the game.

As we evolve I think we'll eventually look back at this game as one in which we hung on, but were always up against it due to our lack of quality in close. We had colossal efforts from all of Bont, Libba and Treloar, but each of them were at times guilty of fumbling that cost us split seconds here and there across the ground. Geelong didn't seem to do that as much as we did, and I think that's why they got ahead of us early and maintained the lead in a relatively close game.

Talk about strategy and set ups is fine, and I get that Chris Scott gets it right often but we had more intercepts than they did and beat them in just about every mainstream indicator you can think of, except quality at the source and next out (which can't be measured easily) which visually seemed to be an issue for us.

If that's happening all game, it's difficult to arrest at the death.

Agreed and we turned the ball over ten more times and they scored 18 more points from turnovers than we did.

I know this is just one stat but in a tight game it's a pretty big discrepancy.

[angelopetraglia]

I understand all the commentary in this thread about us losing games because the other team was just better on the day. They had our measure. We were playing catchup. They are cleaner, we fumble. Understand all of that.

The point is though, we lost all these games by a tiny margin. Teams like the Pies and Blues have won some of these close games where THEY HAVE NOT BEEN THE BEST TEAM. They have won coming from behind. They have won hanging on with a steam train coming back at them. They just win. They get the job done. We just lose.

The Pies won three finals by seven points, one point and four points. I would argue they were outplayed in two of those games and they looked like the were going to lose.

[1eyedog]

I understand all the commentary in this thread about us losing games because the other team was just better on the day. They had our measure. We were playing catchup. Understand.

The point is though, we lost all these games by a very small margin. Teams like the Pies and Blues have won some of these close games where THEY HAVE NOT BEEN THE BEST TEAM. They have won coming from behind. They have won hanging on with a steam train coming back at them. They just win. We just lose.

Has to be related to delivering under pressure doesn't it?

[angelopetraglia]

Has to be related to delivering under pressure doesn't it?

Yes. Confidence, belief and execution when it really matters.

I would also probably add scenario planning. Like when Calrton is hanging on to a small lead, Curnow goes back to defence as a spare. How many big marks did Curnow take in the D50 across the Blues small margin win run in the the last five minutes. They know when they have to go fast, they know when the have to go slow. In the GWS v Pies prelim, the Pies with a slender lead forced how many ball ups in a row and just locked it in. When they are behind they go fast, direct and take risks running the ball.

[1eyedog]

Yes. Confidence, belief and execution when it really matters.

I would also probably add scenario planning. Like when Calrton is hanging on to a small lead, Curnow goes back to defence as a spare. How many big marks did Curnow take in the D50 across the Blues small margin win run in the the last five minutes. They know when they have to go fast, they know when the have to go slow. In the GWS v Pies prelim, the Pies with a slender lead forced how many ball ups in a row and just locked it in. When they are behind they go fast, direct and take risks running the ball.

Is the Curnow back / Cameron roam where he wants thing the product of flexible coaching or player smarts I wonder? There has been some absolute fantastic examples of running the clock down by some of the better teams over the past few weeks as well. Some of the coaches also throw a tag on for 10 minutes when they lose momentum.

Do we have dumb footballers or are we just static in the coaches box? Not trying to run the coaches down here but there seems to be a gap between what we're capable of and the top 6 teams. There's been a lot of talk over the years of Bevo's ability to think on his feet on match day and how he generally likes to just stick with the plan.

My feeling with close games is that there is an element of luck (such as the umpires jumping on your side for the last two minutes of the Carlton v Freo game) as well as confidence. When you win one, two, three close games you must kind of just think if it's close and tight we'll hold our nerve better and not panic because we've done it so often.

[Ozza]

Chiming in late as I've been away this week. But the most frustrating parts of the Geelong game were all the predictable parts.

My starting point on the game was that we would win more than our share of footy, and inside 50s - but give the ball back too much, be out coached and lose a relatively close one. Nothing nostradamus there - we have all been watching the last 8-10 years of Dogs/Cats games. They pretty much all pan out the exact same and we are Chris Scott, Tom Stewart and Jeremy Cameron's play thing.

But at three quarter time, I texted my old man - and said - "Well, 5 day break for the cats, old legs, no dangerfield and we should run over the top of them. But we won't be smart enough to win".

Same old dogs.
We don't win the close ones. But moreover, we simply DO NOT beat the well coached teams. We are Melbourne and Geelong's bunnies. St.Kilda will be a handful for us next week and god help us when we play at venues with weather conditions or awkward sizing (Tassie, SCG, Kardinia park).

[angelopetraglia]

Another game in the balance in the last quarter. Another game where we blow our lines when it really matters. So many if moments again but when it counts we don't take our chances.

[bulldogtragic]

Another game in the balance in the last quarter. Another game where we blow our lines when it really matters. So many if moments again but when it counts we don't take our chances.

Good teams take them…. Ergo….

[Eastdog]

Another gone in a close one for us. It is huge if you win these type of games.

The last close one we won I believe watch against the Tigers at the G last year.