03-23-2018, 01:17 AM
(03-23-2018, 01:10 AM)LP link Wrote:Yes, the Nthmond game style and our new apparent game style depend on scores from turnovers, so they should be expected as part of the plan!
Is it good to watch? Really both teams looked ordinary last night, and I think an in-form Swans unit would have given them both fresh ones to crap out of!
Our problem wasn't creating turnovers it was execution once we got hold of the footy. I won't have it that the pressure is to blame, because we regularly won the ball then forked up during a chain of three or four handballs. The pressure was the same for both sides but I didn't see Nthmond missing targets by hand or foot.
We missed targets even when in the clear! :o
There were other very ordinary events, but there is one that stands out on the replay Watch in the last quarter you see us scramble out of defense to the nearside HBF where Mullett wins the ground ball and breaks free. He sets off past two or three of our own players who just stand-by and watch Nthmond players run past them and run Mullett down. The spud commentator, I think it was Ling, bags the hell out of Mullett for a lack of awareness and says nothing about Mullett's two or three team-mates who let the opposition run past them without even an attempt to shepherd. This sort of event happened several times, but that one in particular you can see the whole play in the field of view on the replay. it's a very ordinary look, and it's that lack of effort that shows we are not a unified team!
Yes, but having 18 players on the park all unified is hard to do, and it's why the Tigers are so good. A very good example of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Our skills haven't looked consistently sharp since the Ratten days.
Considering it was a first game, I thought the Tigers looked sharp and slick in the main, and we looked like that in patches. I thought as a visual spectacle it was pretty good.