Endeavour v wet coke e.girls

[Dan Warna]

we did well.

we lacked polish, but our endeavour was good, and our attack was good.

we failed in a couple of areas, kicking for goal, and decision making under pressure.

both are solveable with training and discipline.

it was good to see us not turtle and continue to attack right up until the last.

it ddidn't go our way, but we certainly didn't leave many stones unturned trying.

if thats the end of the season for us, so be it, at least it wasn't a whimper like a few surrenders we've had earlier this season, namely hawthorn, footscray, collingwood. essendon and a couple of others.

if we played with the same endeavour we played against the cokers, we'd be better off by a fair few games IMO on the ladder.

[Mr Magic]

it was good to see us not turtle and continue to attack right up until the last.

Dan, I wonder if this had something to do with the way the Cokers played against us.

They didn't seem to 'flood' anywhere as much as other teams (except for the last bounce) and tended to play us 'man on man'.

It may well be that our 'turtling chippolotto' has a lot to do with how the opposition is playing against us and less to do with our desire to do it?

Look at the 2 games against the Dogs - the first time when they tried to play their normal game, we smashed them. The second time, Eade created a 'new game plan' that choked the life out of the game by putting every available player behind the ball.

[wildgoose]

Our skills are awful, that's costing us.

We haven't been blown away in the second half of the season like we were last year. Our losses have been by far less, earlier this season, or last season we would be belted in some of these games.

We have improved in that area.

But to many players on our list have poor skills, and that's costing us.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

it was good to see us not turtle and continue to attack right up until the last.

Dan, I wonder if this had something to do with the way the Cokers played against us.

They didn't seem to 'flood' anywhere as much as other teams (except for the last bounce) and tended to play us 'man on man'.

It may well be that our 'turtling chippolotto' has a lot to do with how the opposition is playing against us and less to do with our desire to do it?

Look at the 2 games against the Dogs - the first time when they tried to play their normal game, we smashed them. The second time, Eade created a 'new game plan' that choked the life out of the game by putting every available player behind the ball.

I think this is 100% on the mark.

From my observations, I think the teams that try and set up their run via handballs struggle against the way the Saints work their numbers. 1st quarter via West Coast, the pressure was relentless, and once the handball in a circle starts, the Saints are very good.

Against say, the Bulldogs, I think we saw what I think of as "the book" against the Saints - if in trouble, kick it to the fullback, and push numbers back, keep the game slow, and the Saints disposal won't be clean enough to punish. If you can keep the Saints key forwards from having too many possessions I50, the St. K crumbers can be handled with numbers...

No co-incedence that v the Eagles, and v the Dockers, midfield running teams from Subi, the gameplan looks more attacking.