Post Match. Pies pipped by Port. All comments, please.

[Cruisinwithdids]

[quote="Piesnchess"][quote="Lazza"]Fair dinkum reading some of the posts, it feels like we lost by 100 points

[PeterD35]

[quote="Piesnchess"][quote="Lazza"]Fair dinkum reading some of the posts, it feels like we lost by 100 points

[Pies2016]

Come on Cam. He may "Crack in",but he continually gets caught with the ball.He has no footy smarts and has no idea how to keep the flow of the game going.Continually looks backward rather than looking to see "How cn I get the ball to someone forward"? Can't kick over a jam jar and his decision making was on full show in the final qtr, where he could have TWICE won the game for us, first,missing a soda of a set shot from 25mtrs and then gathering the ball 35 mtrs out running into an open goal, no pressure and the SHORT passes to Miochec with 2 gorillas hanging off him.No idea and shouldn't be in the team and should be delisted along with Josh Thomas.

In fairness to Cam, he says at the end of his post “ by all means, drop him “
F W I W , I have a similar attitude to Cam on this. It’s like Brown is being blamed because the club picked him to play. I guarantee he knows he’s got flaws but he turns up and does his best. It’s actually not his fault if his best doesn’t meet people’s expectations. That’s sport, there’s the best players and then there’s the rest. I’ve coached juniors and been around junior footy clubs for many years, so I’m thankful that I have a healthy respect for anyone who goes out there and cops the knocks, the bumps and the knees in the back for the greater good.
To be honest, I think it’s more important to be a class act than a class footballer. Some of the rants are genuinely over the top and they say more about the poster than the player but as they say, that’s just my humble opinion.

I think what we are talking about here is a good VFL player who was never going to be an AFL player & and got a gig because his old man was a star. It’s a brutal game & he is not going to make it.

I’m the first to agree he’s struggling but I don’t get the hate that’s heaped on him because he’s not cutting it at the moment. What should he do when he’s selected ? Say thanks but no thanks. I’m not good enough to play seniors according to all those people who know more than the coaching panel.
And who are the world beaters he’s keeping out of the side ? Murphy could do with some continuity but to say his impact would be much improved on Brown would be a bit of a stretch. I imagine as soon as Bianco is fit ( amongst others ) he will likely replace Brown anyway.
Also, I don’t buy in on the dad was a Collingwood champion reasoning. Do you think they would honestly compromise selection because his dad is currently at the Kangas. Tyler was dropped and Kelly is spending time in the VFL.
C. Brown is playing because amongst a list profile of many players who aren’t up to it, he appears to be at the front of that queue rather than the back of it.
F W I W, I don’t particularly rate Browns progress 50 games on but I rate all the haters way less.

[Magpietothemax]

I see the small margins as actually part of the wider issue, as it comes at the cost of a completely disfunctional forward line and an excruciatingly poor game plan. It was highly predictable that Collingwood were going to lose in the 2nd quarter once they started possessing the ball with 15 metre sideways kicks and refused to try and take the game on. That resulted in a low score for Port Adelaide. And a marginally lower score for Collingwood. Does anyone ask, what would the point of us winning like that been? Young players second guessing themselves kicking 10 metered sideways, just programmed to save the career of a failed coach. It’s not a future for this club. I would rather us kick 15 goals and go down by 40 points playing an attacking brand.

i agree with this. While we train our kids to play this suffocating game style we don't develop them in a rounded fashion. How do we know that we will get smashed if we take the game on in the 2nd quarter? We never actually find out. As another poster mentioned, with such a young team we need to see an overall picture of what we are aiming to achieve, even if sometimes we go down by more than 15 points. We know that our team has a strong capacity for slowing down the ball movement of the opposition. But this is not enough to win games. It is only enough in general to achieve honourable losses, so that supporters can take solace in the fact that we have the "best losing margin "record in the AFL. I don't take any joy from holding such a record. I want us to improve, to have a clear and coherent picture of what we are aiming for. I would much rather have a team that is beginning to establish a new, modern, daring game style, even if we cop a few heavy losses along the way. The ultra defensive strangulation style plan has only one purpose, as CWD alluded to: limit the damage and win a contract extension for Bux. It is not a viable path to the future.

[Monco Matt]

I agree 100% with both of your posts. I would rather lose by kicking 15 goals to 20 playing an attacking, exciting brand of footy than to lose kicking 7 goals to 9 in a boring, sideways scrappy dogfight.

Why, why, why not for just one week let the boys take the game on, take risks, be 100% attacking, throw caution to the wind, have fun playing footy the way we did in the school yard. Just do that for one week and see what happens. We may lose, but who cares, we've been losing.

Let's see what we are capable of when given the freedom to show our flair.

[PyreneesPie]

I would much rather have a team that is beginning to establish a new, modern, daring game style, even if we cop a few heavy losses along the way.

I think proponents of this strategy are overlooking the psychological damage of getting walloped by "a few heavy losses". It can lock teams into years of being bottom dwellers eg the years in the wilderness for Melbourne not so long ago.

I was encouraged to see yesterday that we can play a free-wheeling, daring game style, while the opposition is lacking in pressure.
I was also pleased to see that when the opposition ramped up their pressure, we were still able to stifle their scoring. If it weren't because of a couple of glaring individual errors, we would've held on and won.

While the team is rebuilding and hopefully developing and acquiring top quality players, there's a place I believe for both styles of play.
When we have a team chock full of stars and very good players, then we can think about playing the daring style for longer periods, if not the whole game.

[think positive]

Look guys I agree, the game plan, whatever that is, is crap, someone is telling them to dick around down the back, and bomb forward instead of vis versa, which when they did it actually worked! That lost us the game, dickedit around until it was intercepted and tame over. However, thissack don’t sack is exhausting, I think we are all in shock as to how we ended up here, from 6th, but at least this week we saw effort, we saw quite a bit of team play, skillsare still mediocre yes, and that is fully on the coaching panel, but I expected a ten goal hiding, the guys didn’t quit, they got panicky, lot of kids out there, but they never quit, not once none of them, so for this week, I’m just going to enjoy the thought thatthey do give a damn, cheers

[Cruisinwithdids]

I would much rather have a team that is beginning to establish a new, modern, daring game style, even if we cop a few heavy losses along the way.

I think proponents of this strategy are overlooking the psychological damage of getting walloped by "a few heavy losses". It can lock teams into years of being bottom dwellers eg the years in the wilderness for Melbourne not so long ago.

I was encouraged to see yesterday that we can play a free-wheeling, daring game style, while the opposition is lacking in pressure.
I was also pleased to see that when the opposition ramped up their pressure, we were still able to stifle their scoring. If it weren't because of a couple of glaring individual errors, we would've held on and won.

While the team is rebuilding and hopefully developing and acquiring top quality players, there's a place I believe for both styles of play.
When we have a team chock full of stars and very good players, then we can think about playing the daring style for longer periods, if not the whole game.

But would we get hammered every week? I think it’s worth trying to score. I believe the negative mindset being taught to these young players could be more damaging that 10 goal losses.

[Presti35]

Were they selling records yesterday?

My brother has Aspergers and his routine was changed. I could tell it was bothering him all day. We were late because I forgot about the trainline works. Couldnt find anyone selling the records. We weren't that late (10 mins into first quarter).

[PyreneesPie]

I would much rather have a team that is beginning to establish a new, modern, daring game style, even if we cop a few heavy losses along the way.

I think proponents of this strategy are overlooking the psychological damage of getting walloped by "a few heavy losses". It can lock teams into years of being bottom dwellers eg the years in the wilderness for Melbourne not so long ago.

I was encouraged to see yesterday that we can play a free-wheeling, daring game style, while the opposition is lacking in pressure.
I was also pleased to see that when the opposition ramped up their pressure, we were still able to stifle their scoring. If it weren't because of a couple of glaring individual errors, we would've held on and won.

While the team is rebuilding and hopefully developing and acquiring top quality players, there's a place I believe for both styles of play.
When we have a team chock full of stars and very good players, then we can think about playing the daring style for longer periods, if not the whole game.

But would we get hammered every week? I think it’s worth trying to score. I believe the negative mindset being taught to these young players could be more damaging that 10 goal losses.

Well, it would be worth a try ........ ie have nothing but "play on and get the ball forward at all costs" type of football. (I think that's what you're suggesting?) Definitely no propping and stopping or being careful to hit targets or going down the line and similar such defensive/protective play. Nothing but a full on attacking attitude and set up to be allowed..
I'd wager my last dollar that we would be absolutely crucified by teams rebounding on the back of our turnovers. You see we don't have an abundance of great ball users, decision makers or two key tall forwards as do the likes of the Doggies and co.

[Cruisinwithdids]

Not suggesting to play on every time at all costs. Let’s look at the last quarter on Sunday. Port played on 46% of the time, Collingwood 16% of the time. That is not a plan to win a game. It’s poor coaching and bad football. I am suggesting to play with dare, so when there’s a choice to play on and break the game open - take it. At 2-8 the current defencive horror show is clearly not working. There is actually nothing to lose. Losses are losses and wins are wins.

[Pies2016]

^ ^ ^
Do we look like a team that can put a chain of three or four pin point disposals together at full tilt.
Nothing wrong with change when plan A fails but plan B is usually the second option for a good reason.
We will be damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

[Lazza]

Chaos football may be worth a try. As already said, what do we have to lose? At least we can go down fighting instead of giving up without a whimper. Let’s do it and see what happens.

[PyreneesPie]

Not suggesting to play on every time at all costs. Let’s look at the last quarter on Sunday. Port played on 46% of the time, Collingwood 16% of the time. That is not a plan to win a game. It’s poor coaching and bad football. I am suggesting to play with dare, so when there’s a choice to play on and break the game open - take it. At 2-8 the current defencive horror show is clearly not working. There is actually nothing to lose. Losses are losses and wins are wins.

No, there's nothing to lose and I'd sure like to see what would happen when our players "chose" to play on. However, like I said above, we are not blessed with a great many A graders atm, so the consequences of choosing to play on would certainly be interesting.

I strongly disagree that all losses mean the same. Compare the Saints to Melbourne yesterday.

[PyreneesPie]

Actually, thinking about the last quarter yesterday, both Sidey and JDG "chose" to play on and both "chose" the wrong option. So, the virtue of playing on is strongly determined by the decison making of the player concerned in selecting the best options and their ability to execute skilfully (as Pies2016 pointed out above). Roughie played on, his kick got smothered and Port scored a goal.
So, I suggest it's not quite as simple as saying playing on would turn losses into wins.