nudder12 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 11:55 pm
It's a tired trope, but it's true for today's game.....the opposition worked harder.
Most commentary blames our goal-kicking accuracy. And sure, if we kicked straighter it might have made the difference.
But overall, we lost because:
- we conceded easy goals where the Suns had players free inside 50, or they were able to deliver the ball to leading targets.
- on every occassion (except one) that we went inside 50 it was to a contest.
To me, that simply means the Suns worked harder to make space, and to close down space. That's effort based.
And our innacuracy was mostly because we were forced wide inside 50.
Fans blaming poor kicking are kidding themselves.
More inside 50s and better efficiency inside 50 says otherwise.
Inaccuracy cost us.
Efficiency measured how often we scored from Inside 50's. Yes we scored, but from poor places - resulting in Behinds.
I'm saying the difference was about the the "good looks" at the goals. Change that and they wouldn't have kicked as many goals, and we might have kicked more, and either way we would have won.
On just about every measure, we were even or slightly better. So the effort was there.
Maybe the “leading patterns” and other weird metrics they use these days were a bit off, I don’t know. But 11.14 is wasteful.
11.14
And the Suns were 14.7
Read my comment about efficiency again.
If we'd worked harder and forced them wide, they wouldn't kick 14.7
If we'd worked harder, we'd have better scoring opportunities and would have done better than 11.14.
There's the game.
nudder12 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 11:55 pm
It's a tired trope, but it's true for today's game.....the opposition worked harder.
Most commentary blames our goal-kicking accuracy. And sure, if we kicked straighter it might have made the difference.
But overall, we lost because:
- we conceded easy goals where the Suns had players free inside 50, or they were able to deliver the ball to leading targets.
- on every occassion (except one) that we went inside 50 it was to a contest.
To me, that simply means the Suns worked harder to make space, and to close down space. That's effort based.
And our innacuracy was mostly because we were forced wide inside 50.
Fans blaming poor kicking are kidding themselves.
More inside 50s and better efficiency inside 50 says otherwise.
Inaccuracy cost us.
Efficiency measured how often we scored from Inside 50's. Yes we scored, but from poor places - resulting in Behinds.
I'm saying the difference was about the the "good looks" at the goals. Change that and they wouldn't have kicked as many goals, and we might have kicked more, and either way we would have won.
On just about every measure, we were even or slightly better. So the effort was there.
Maybe the “leading patterns” and other weird metrics they use these days were a bit off, I don’t know. But 11.14 is wasteful.
11.14
And the Suns were 14.7
Read my comment about efficiency again.
If we'd worked harder and forced them wide, they wouldn't kick 14.7
If we'd worked harder, we'd have better scoring opportunities and would have done better than 11.14.
There's the game.
Their efficiency inside 50 was 40%, ours was 48%.
We stopped them from scoring when they went inside 50 more than they did us… which means we worked harder.
More inside 50s and better efficiency inside 50 says otherwise.
Inaccuracy cost us.
Efficiency measured how often we scored from Inside 50's. Yes we scored, but from poor places - resulting in Behinds.
I'm saying the difference was about the the "good looks" at the goals. Change that and they wouldn't have kicked as many goals, and we might have kicked more, and either way we would have won.
On just about every measure, we were even or slightly better. So the effort was there.
Maybe the “leading patterns” and other weird metrics they use these days were a bit off, I don’t know. But 11.14 is wasteful.
11.14
And the Suns were 14.7
Read my comment about efficiency again.
If we'd worked harder and forced them wide, they wouldn't kick 14.7
If we'd worked harder, we'd have better scoring opportunities and would have done better than 11.14.
There's the game.
Their efficiency inside 50 was 40%, ours was 48%.
We stopped them from scoring when they went inside 50 more than they did us… which means we worked harder.
We didn't stop them from scoring GOALS though did we? 14 to 11. Even though they had less inside 50's.
My point - again - we didn't work hard enough to prevent them scoring easy goals.
11.14 ... from memory it was 6 or 7.12 at one point
The goals late in the game made it look a lot better than it was.
I also thought MacKay had a shocker. People might point at Laverde, but he was dreadfully mismatched on Long. Too slow.
The 50m was a sucker punch. The player who didn't have the free should have been exiting the mark, and as both players tackled him, Laverde didnt have a clue who the free was given to.
On the positive side, Hind had another good game and Bryan did very good before running out of puff at the end of the 3rd quarter. Needs to work on his tank.
Efficiency measured how often we scored from Inside 50's. Yes we scored, but from poor places - resulting in Behinds.
I'm saying the difference was about the the "good looks" at the goals. Change that and they wouldn't have kicked as many goals, and we might have kicked more, and either way we would have won.
On just about every measure, we were even or slightly better. So the effort was there.
Maybe the “leading patterns” and other weird metrics they use these days were a bit off, I don’t know. But 11.14 is wasteful.
11.14
And the Suns were 14.7
Read my comment about efficiency again.
If we'd worked harder and forced them wide, they wouldn't kick 14.7
If we'd worked harder, we'd have better scoring opportunities and would have done better than 11.14.
There's the game.
Their efficiency inside 50 was 40%, ours was 48%.
We stopped them from scoring when they went inside 50 more than they did us… which means we worked harder.
We didn't stop them from scoring GOALS though did we? 14 to 11. Even though they had less inside 50's.
My point - again - we didn't work hard enough to prevent them scoring easy goals.
Maybe if we kicked our easy goals, things would have been different…
s'dreams wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 7:40 pm
We need Parish back. Even when we were first to the ball at ruck competitions, half the time we turned it over with an errant handball to their mids. Parish really straightens us up there.
s'dreams wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:16 am
11.14 ... from memory it was 6 or 7.12 at one point
The goals late in the game made it look a lot better than it was.
I also thought MacKay had a shocker. People might point at Laverde, but he was dreadfully mismatched on Long. Too slow.
The 50m was a sucker punch. The player who didn't have the free should have been exiting the mark, and as both players tackled him, Laverde didnt have a clue who the free was given to.
On the positive side, Hind had another good game and Bryan did very good before running out of puff at the end of the 3rd quarter. Needs to work on his tank.
Yeah I thought McKay was pretty ordinary too.
Hind looked great. But I always wonder, because it's so hard to tell on TV, while he was dashing forwards a lot, was he accountable to his opponent when it mattered??
And Bryan did just fine given his experience. Sad to see some social media commentary paying out on him.
s'dreams wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:16 am
11.14 ... from memory it was 6 or 7.12 at one point
The goals late in the game made it look a lot better than it was.
I also thought MacKay had a shocker. People might point at Laverde, but he was dreadfully mismatched on Long. Too slow.
The 50m was a sucker punch. The player who didn't have the free should have been exiting the mark, and as both players tackled him, Laverde didnt have a clue who the free was given to.
On the positive side, Hind had another good game and Bryan did very good before running out of puff at the end of the 3rd quarter. Needs to work on his tank.
Yeah I thought McKay was pretty ordinary too.
Hind looked great. But I always wonder, because it's so hard to tell on TV, while he was dashing forwards a lot, was he accountable to his opponent when it mattered??
And Bryan did just fine given his experience. Sad to see some social media commentary paying out on him.
That sucks - he has ahead of Moyle until 3/4 time.
Then again 2MP was ahead until half time and then dropped right off.
If you don't play your reserve ruck at AFL level, you have problems when you demand he step up for 100 minutes.
Further - he had a much better game than a number of more experienced players.
nudder12 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 11:04 pm
...Hind looked great. But I always wonder, because it's so hard to tell on TV, while he was dashing forwards a lot, was he accountable to his opponent when it mattered??
Who was he on?
His disposal efficiency was 66.7%. So 1 out of 3 might've come back over his head unless we managed a contested possession from the 33.3% inefficient disposals. He only had 74% of game time too, so his ability to maintain running power should've been ok. 6 contested possessions.
I didn't see him labouring with running/chasing at all. Positional and direct defense isn't something I can comment on.
Except to say, if he expends effort and energy running off an opponent who gets left behind, then the team defense approach might be important.
He also had 10 score involvements...
nudder12 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 11:04 pm
...Hind looked great. But I always wonder, because it's so hard to tell on TV, while he was dashing forwards a lot, was he accountable to his opponent when it mattered??
Who was he on?
His disposal efficiency was 66.7%. So 1 out of 3 might've come back over his head unless we managed a contested possession from the 33.3% inefficient disposals. He only had 74% of game time too, so his ability to maintain running power should've been ok. 6 contested possessions.
I didn't see him labouring with running/chasing at all. Positional and direct defense isn't something I can comment on.
Except to say, if he expends effort and energy running off an opponent who gets left behind, then the team defense approach might be important.
He also had 10 score involvements...
Spot on.
His defence all lines approach means he is able to burst and recoil in a manner that allows for a team sweep of an errant disposal here and there to cover for that run.
Call it the Hindlich manoeuvre.
Since he has been literally let off the leash from the sub role, he has given us a lot of link lapping options forward of centre.
