Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

[Twodogs]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

Sorry mate, I wasn't trying to be disingenous or silly. My original comment was that Dahlhaus, JJ and Wood are comparable to any of those(I know Selwood and and Danger are better players but our 3 are pretty critical to our structure too). Stevens is a grunt, Smith an unknown, McLean a kid and Boyd...who knows how he's going to end up. So as a collective Geelongs group is better rounded group and not really comparable.

I would have went with Wood, JJ, Murphy, Crameri and Dahlhaus as my 5 important players missing though.

I would have went with those guys because they suited my argument a lot better but I wanted players who would be back this year.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

There's a few reasons why we were incredibly poor v Geelong:

1 - Injuries to key players. You can cover them to an extent, but against Geelong we quite simply needed them.

2 - We looked a little mentally off and I'd put that down to some fatigue. Very young side with 7 or so of our best out, coming off two intense games v WCE and Port.

3 - They out coached us in a few areas. They were prepared to give us that first handball out of the congestion but worked hard to close up our options from there. We like to flick it around to the point of insanity and they made us pay. It was smart play - not too dissimilar to what they used to do to Hawthorn when the two sides were at their best and the Hawks just couldn't shake them. Geelong are very good at closing up the corridor and making you chip it sideways/backwards. We didn't have the dare, skill or energy to really challenge them in other ways so we played into their hands.

I thought the way we shaped up defensively was very poor too, allowing them to chip it out from FB (particularly after kick ins) before they then ran and drove it through the middle of the ground.

Providing we can put a side close to our best 22 on the park we'll obviously run them a lot closer. I do have some concerns with our coaching v Geelong because last year we bombed the ball long to their tall defenders too. We'll see what happens - still extremely disappointed in our insipid performance, but they got us at the perfect time and they're probably the best side in the competition.

[Mantis]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

There's a few reasons why we were incredibly poor v Geelong:

1 - Injuries to key players. You can cover them to an extent, but against Geelong we quite simply needed them.

2 - We looked a little mentally off and I'd put that down to some fatigue. Very young side with 7 or so of our best out, coming off two intense games v WCE and Port.

I made the point in another thread that it was our 2nd least experienced team we fielded for the year, average of 70 games per player and 11 players under 50 games.. When looking at when we played our best footy we were fielding teams that had played between 78-85.. Geelong were just over 120 per player... The difference was telling.

3 - They out coached us in a few areas. They were prepared to give us that first handball out of the congestion but worked hard to close up our options from there. We like to flick it around to the point of insanity and they made us pay. It was smart play - not too dissimilar to what they used to do to Hawthorn when the two sides were at their best and the Hawks just couldn't shake them. Geelong are very good at closing up the corridor and making you chip it sideways/backwards. We didn't have the dare, skill or energy to really challenge them in other ways so we played into their hands.

I think those 2 go hand in hand.. We looked tired and tired players are more prone to skill errors.

I thought the way we shaped up defensively was very poor too, allowing them to chip it out from FB (particularly after kick ins) before they then ran and drove it through the middle of the ground.

It was extremely poor.. We just gave them too much easy ball across the back half and were playing catch-up from then on.. We just had too many players who didn't or couldn't work hard enough to find a man in transition.. The number of times the likes of Wallis, Bontempelli & Picken were dawdling through the middle of the ground was endless.

Providing we can put a side close to our best 22 on the park we'll obviously run them a lot closer. I do have some concerns with our coaching v Geelong because last year we bombed the ball long to their tall defenders too. We'll see what happens - still extremely disappointed in our insipid performance, but they got us at the perfect time and they're probably the best side in the competition.

Assuming we can field close to our best teams it will be real interesting to see how we perform against Geel & Norf in rounds 19 & 20 as these are the 2 teams we have had real trouble against from an offensive stand-point so far.. We should be pretty much at full strength by then (assuming no more injuries) and our returning players should have a number of games under their belts so we should be in a position to give a good account of ourselves.. We will learn a lot about the progress we are making in these games.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

Were we psyched out by the hype over Selwfield? They seemed to force a lot of errors.

[Twodogs]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

It was extremely poor.. We just gave them too much easy ball across the back half and were playing catch-up from then on.. We just had too many players who didn't or couldn't work hard enough to find a man in transition.. The number of times the likes of Wallis, Bontempelli & Picken were dawdling through the middle of the ground was endless
.

Drove me mad the number of our guys I saw walking to their spots even when the ball was in play and only 25 metres away. Watching opponents run past.

[Sedat]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

They were prepared to give us that first handball out of the congestion but worked hard to close up our options from there.

Didn't watch the Geelong game but this is exactly what the Hawks did to us in the first qtr and a half of R3 - they allowed us possession but forced us wide and made sure there were heavy numbers to chop off the corridor kick. Norf did this to us as well. By the sounds we gave Harry Taylor and Corey Enright marking practice with dumb long kicks into a vacant forward 50 - again very similar to the Norf game. Personnel will help (Boyd and Dahl this year and Crameri next year) but we do need to keep our shape better so that our forward line contains an element of danger that prevents the opposition defenders from sagging off their opponent and chopping off the long kick. Short kicks to the lead-up player should always be honoured and we also need to separate our forwards so that the opposition defenders are held accountable to a man.

[Bornadog]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

By the sounds we gave Harry Taylor and Corey Enright marking practice with dumb long kicks into a vacant forward 50 - again very similar to the Norf game.

We only did this on the odd occassion. We had a lot of set shots at goal and just continually missed from inside 50. Even Dickson barely made the distance when his ball just floated.

Our game plan is to win the contested ball and play a high possession game. We won the contested possessions, but Geelong were quick to shut us down, win the ball through tackling, and then hold on to it with good field kicking and not allowing us to get the ball. Selwood and Danger had lots of cont. poss. and the next best for Geelong was way down the list. Our cont poss were spread, and unfortunately, unlike the Port game Dahl (18) not there and Wallis was well beaten. (previous week 18, Geelong game 6)

The Hawks and North game, I felt we wasted a lot of our possessions and also kicking into the forward line. The Geelong game, we were never really in it. The only time was when we got within 28 points, and when Liam kicked the goal that wasn't a goal, we could have had a sniff. We looked like boys against men, and guess what we were, with 11 players under 50 games. and 50 games on average difference between the two teams.

[Mantis]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

We only did this on the odd occassion. We had a lot of set shots at goal and just continually missed from inside 50. Even Dickson barely made the distance when his ball just floated.

I didn't think we had that many at all, especially early on.. At half time when the score was 1.9 to 10.3 we had taken 1 mark inside 50, Geelong had taken 15.. We got more opportunities in the 2nd half, but nearly all of the misses in the first half were from general play.

[Bornadog]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

I didn't think we had that many at all, especially early on.. At half time when the score was 1.9 to 10.3 we had taken 1 mark inside 50, Geelong had taken 15.. We got more opportunities in the 2nd half, but nearly all of the misses in the first half were from general play.

I was talking overall game. I can't remember how many in the first half, but I remember a lot of misses from Dickson, Hunter, Stringer. There was only one rushed point out of 13 behinds.

[Mantis]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

I was talking overall game. I can't remember how many in the first half, but I remember a lot of misses from Dickson, Hunter, Stringer. There was only one rushed point out of 13 behinds.

Whilst I have tried to wipe the memory of this game from upstairs I would think that the only real kickable ones were from Hunter & Picken.. Dickson struggles from 50m and Stringer was right on his limit kicking from about 55m.

We just couldn't get the ball into our hands in dangerous spots.

[Bornadog]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

Whilst I have tried to wipe the memory of this game from upstairs I would think that the only real kickable ones were from Hunter & Picken.. Dickson struggles from 50m and Stringer was right on his limit kicking from about 55m.

We just couldn't get the ball into our hands in dangerous spots.

Hunter 2, Picken 1, Dickson 1, Biggs 1, Stringer had a set shot within 50 - there are 6 goals to start with. Plus another 6 shots which I can't remember whether there were any set shots.

In any case, as I said I never felt we were in this one at all. Worst game at Etihad under Beveridge.

[always right]

Re: Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

Geelong loses Dangerfield, Selwood and Menzel.....and they are considerably weaker but their game plan does not change.

We lose JJ, Wood and Dahlhaus and not only are we much weaker but our game plan changes dramatically.

I'm happy to meet the cats again when we both have a full team. Attacking defenders, foot speed, line breakers and quicker forward entries. Bring it on.