SA Footy

Fargen horrible to watch. I actually turned the football off and watched the test instead. I have NEVER done this during round one in my entire life. The third quarter was excruitating. 12 Uncontested marks in a row before they attempted a contested possession..and this was in order to stem the attacking football of Collingwood (yes, the 15th ranked side in the competition last year) which was pretty exciting to watch at the time. When the Crows took over it was time to turn off the footy.

Of course it is Craig's job to win football games and he does this well but I don't see this type of game plan winning a premiership. There is no Davis, O'Louhlin, O'Keeffee or Hall in this Crows forward line. FARGEN BORING.

regards,

REB

It was far from convincing. In the end their class won out, but they'd want to improve heaps to compete with the top sides-who I beleive are West Coast, St Kilda and Geelong.

Still, there's plenty of time left. Heck I even hold out hope of a half decent performance from Port at some stage this season.

I was awaiting some form of analysis this morning,knew I could count on Rik-E.

Yes mate,the third term was painful,and as I only have peasant TV I was unable to tune into what appeared to be an enthralling 4th day.

The style Craigy had them playing last night was interesting.As Collingwood got a run on and the Cows followed suit,it seemed to appeal to Collingwoods game plan more,thus giving them the advantage.Then Nasty Neil came up with this hold-em up style. (Craigys hold-em it will be known as for poker fans).If this is what the Cows have decided will cure their forward line ill's then good for the rest of us,as I too cant see it holding up in the pressure cooker of finals football.(As the Kittens showed two weeks back in the NAB final.) In a summer where the heirachy at Footy park said the forward line issues will be solved appear to have devised a plan in which time in posession is the key,but slick forward movement of the ball is what is needed come September.

Lets just hope it isnt Sydney V Adelaide come that last day of the year.Superbowl XXIV would be more exciting.

Stop your bitching, like i said last year a team won a flag with that style of football, so get used to it, as its going to be used plenty of times this year.

stan wrote:Stop your bitching, like i said last year a team won a flag with that style of football, so get used to it, as its going to be used plenty of times this year.

Just suggesting a more attacking style of play would be better to watch,I dont doubt it effectiveness,just its entertainment value.

Booney, got to admit that I was thinking the same thing watching the game last night, is a game style that is going to consistantly win flags??

Time will tell but I think Geelong showed last week that when you attack the player with the ball and create the turnover the high possession game can come unstuck. However credit to the boys that when the game was broken out they reverted to a more direct style - kicked it in straight to Roo three times in the last quarter from the Centre Square area. Mind you with Collingwood flooding back there are always going to be easy kicks and catches in the midfield

Another worrying stat for me was that at one stage during the 3rd quarter the match tackle stats for the game were 14-31 Collingwoods way. Sydney last year won the flag by putting pressure on the oppsition to cause the turnover and then not giving the ball up when they got it.

Last year we consistantly had more tackles than our opposition, Having said that last night Collingwood found it hard to hit a target when their forwards were imputent. Tackles weren't that important in turning the ball over as Collingwood did it for us....

Happy with the win last night as before the game as I thought Collingwood were a real chance with Buckley, Fraser and Rocca back in with a few other inclusions. But not entirely happy with how we did it.

Gotta love how Geelong are setting up for the flag, Wedgie Rikkie I suggest you start saving those pennies for the last day in September because fair dinkum if you don't make the GF this year something is wrong. The expose in Saturdays Age made a very strong case for this being Geelongs year based on Thompson's own research on the characteristics of premiership teams.....

We won - the scum lost - end of story.

I thought it was smart tactically. Collywobbles had all their quick players and were goind for broke. The Crows let them use all their petrol in the third and went for it in the 4th when they had a lot more in reserve. Given that a lot of people were predicting the sadpies would win and some key Crows still a little underdone, a good first up result for the Crows.

Tassie

"Another worrying stat for me was that at one stage during the 3rd quarter the match tackle stats for the game were 14-31 Collingwoods way. Sydney last year won the flag by putting pressure on the oppsition to cause the turnover and then not giving the ball up when they got it".

"Last year we consistantly had more tackles than our opposition, Having said that last night Collingwood found it hard to hit a target when their forwards were imputent. Tackles weren't that important in turning the ball over as Collingwood did it for us...."



The tackle stat can be misleading some times - a side will and can have a lot more tackles if they are second to the ball

Booney wrote:

stan wrote:Stop your bitching, like i said last year a team won a flag with that style of football, so get used to it, as its going to be used plenty of times this year.

Just suggesting a more attacking style of play would be better to watch,I dont doubt it effectiveness,just its entertainment value.

I was entertained - we won - we beat collingwood in Victoria and we got to hear the boys sign the club song

do what you have to do to win

Totally agree with your statement hence my conmment on Collingwood turning it over for us but last year when we were winning and teams were chasing us, aka the smears, we smashed them in the tackle count and on the score board

Tackle counts show a desire for the contest, they don't tell the full story but they are an important chapter

A hard tackling side won the GF last year

So my comments are based on the big picture not beating some inconsequential suburban based team from Melbourne in Rd 1.....

Rik E Boy wrote:Fargen horrible to watch. I actually turned the football off and watched the test instead. I have NEVER done this during round one in my entire life. The third quarter was excruitating. 12 Uncontested marks in a row before they attempted a contested possession..and this was in order to stem the attacking football of Collingwood (yes, the 15th ranked side in the competition last year) which was pretty exciting to watch at the time. When the Crows took over it was time to turn off the footy.

Of course it is Craig's job to win football games and he does this well but I don't see this type of game plan winning a premiership. There is no Davis, O'Louhlin, O'Keeffee or Hall in this Crows forward line. FARGEN BORING.

regards,

REB

As i said I was entertained - we won - we beat collingwood in Victoria and we got to hear the boys sign the club song

Do what you have to do to win

Did you think that maybe Collingwood had a massive flood in operation and with the game in the balance that it maybe smart footy to hold on to the ball. I thought it was a well calculated plan that worked.

Our forward line worked hard last night and lets just wait and see how the Sydney-Adelaide comparison finishes at the end of the year.

Round 1 - Adelaide 1 Sydney 0

A good tactic requiring good skills and fitness to employ. When Collingwood looked tired or lost interest in manning up, the Crows surged forward. A team that is totally negative doesn't kick 5-3 to 0-0 in the last quarter. Adelaide had the run in the 2nd quarter and when Collingwood came back at them after 1/2 time, they then deciced to play the game on their terms. Perhaps this tactic is also intended to ba a flood breaker as no matter how long it took the ball to get into the Crow's 50, they still had loose players finding space.

One thing that appears to be overlooked (and was amongst the commentators whilst analysing last night) is that the minute they adopted that style, and went on their run of 17,000 consecutive uncontested marks, the final mark of the process was taken 40m out resulting in a shot for goal .. As it turned it out Hentschel missed, but it was very gettable and hence could/should have been effective on dual levels .. Again though, I too have my doubts about this style against the hard running, honest, pressure applying type's like Sydney and Geelong!

The other thing the Crows struggled with imho was their tackling in open play, very rarely managed to pin a Collingwood player, sometimes even failed to break their stride, this MUST be improved!

But all that said, it's still early in the first season (Minor Round), where the no. 1 priority is to get the wins on the board and give yourself the best possible launching pad for the final season (Major Round) ...

giffo wrote:A good tactic requiring good skills and fitness to employ. When Collingwood looked tired or lost interest in manning up, the Crows surged forward. A team that is totally negative doesn't kick 5-3 to 0-0 in the last quarter. Adelaide had the run in the 2nd quarter and when Collingwood came back at them after 1/2 time, they then deciced to play the game on their terms. Perhaps this tactic is also intended to ba a flood breaker as no matter how long it took the ball to get into the Crow's 50, they still had loose players finding space.

Very good post Giffo ... Interesting isn't it that opposition crowds Boo and Hiss, and the commentators bemoan the style of play, yet none up them pipe up with anything like "Well if Collingwood didn't have 20 blokes inside the Adelaide 50 the Crows wouldn't have to play like this!" LOL

Constance_Perm wrote:

giffo wrote:A good tactic requiring good skills and fitness to employ. When Collingwood looked tired or lost interest in manning up, the Crows surged forward. A team that is totally negative doesn't kick 5-3 to 0-0 in the last quarter. Adelaide had the run in the 2nd quarter and when Collingwood came back at them after 1/2 time, they then deciced to play the game on their terms. Perhaps this tactic is also intended to ba a flood breaker as no matter how long it took the ball to get into the Crow's 50, they still had loose players finding space.

Very good post Giffo ... Interesting isn't it that opposition crowds Boo and Hiss, and the commentators bemoan the style of play, yet none up them pipe up with anything like "Well if Collingwood didn't have 20 blokes inside the Adelaide 50 the Crows wouldn't have to play like this!" LOL

Both good posts,but this tactic,when studied by opposition they will encounter in the future,I feel,will not be as effective.I'm also sure if you gave Mick Malthouse another go at countering it today,the outcome would be different.

Anyone who wants to whinge about kicking to uncontested marks! 2 words MAN UP!
They didnt wanna do it so 2 bad, we got the points. End of story.

Booney wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

giffo wrote:A good tactic requiring good skills and fitness to employ. When Collingwood looked tired or lost interest in manning up, the Crows surged forward. A team that is totally negative doesn't kick 5-3 to 0-0 in the last quarter. Adelaide had the run in the 2nd quarter and when Collingwood came back at them after 1/2 time, they then deciced to play the game on their terms. Perhaps this tactic is also intended to ba a flood breaker as no matter how long it took the ball to get into the Crow's 50, they still had loose players finding space.

Very good post Giffo ... Interesting isn't it that opposition crowds Boo and Hiss, and the commentators bemoan the style of play, yet none up them pipe up with anything like "Well if Collingwood didn't have 20 blokes inside the Adelaide 50 the Crows wouldn't have to play like this!" LOL

Both good posts,but this tactic,when studied by opposition they will encounter in the future,I feel,will not be as effective.I'm also sure if you gave Mick Malthouse another go at countering it today,the outcome would be different.

Booney

Well if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle.

In a nut shell what is done is done

Booney wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

giffo wrote:A good tactic requiring good skills and fitness to employ. When Collingwood looked tired or lost interest in manning up, the Crows surged forward. A team that is totally negative doesn't kick 5-3 to 0-0 in the last quarter. Adelaide had the run in the 2nd quarter and when Collingwood came back at them after 1/2 time, they then deciced to play the game on their terms. Perhaps this tactic is also intended to ba a flood breaker as no matter how long it took the ball to get into the Crow's 50, they still had loose players finding space.

Very good post Giffo ... Interesting isn't it that opposition crowds Boo and Hiss, and the commentators bemoan the style of play, yet none up them pipe up with anything like "Well if Collingwood didn't have 20 blokes inside the Adelaide 50 the Crows wouldn't have to play like this!" LOL

Both good posts,but this tactic,when studied by opposition they will encounter in the future,I feel,will not be as effective.I'm also sure if you gave Mick Malthouse another go at countering it today,the outcome would be different.

I think you're right Booney, but Craig must surely also be aware of this and should then have another option if the opposition changes their tactics or structure

When the crows had those 12 Marks in a row that ended in a shot on goal (worst approach to have a shot ever by Hentschel!) they were not made to kick to a contest every one of those marks was well clear, Collingwood had the run prior to that passage so how can anyone be negative to that! Sure it was not good footy to watch but the teams are playing to win not be the most entertaining FFS