(03-28-2021, 11:37 PM)Raydan date Wrote:The old saying of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics definitely applies here. It comes down to the eye test and Pitonett was poor at centre bounces, Grundy got a lot of clean ball, which he hit away from the immediate area rather than at his hip.Yep, but it's ironic how fans perceive stuff, they see what's going on and blame Cripps, but at least twice I saw Pittonet get free hands to the pill and hit it clear and forward of the stoppage, only to be mopped up by the Filth. While our blokes like Cripps and Walsh and others were at his feet.
Why does this matter? Well it takes Cripps out of the game. Cripps like to work in a phone booth, on that 1-2 square meters of space where he can use his size and strength to either get hands on the ball or tackle his opponent. What Grundy did by hitting it to space, gave the quicker and better drilled Collingwood mids space to run on to the ball, making Cripps near redundant as he doesn't have speed or explosiveness off the mark.
On a side note, in out two games we have had two periods where we have been dominant in play around the ground. Against Richmond it was the third quarter where we kicked all the points, but Richmond could barely get their hands on the ball. The other was the third/fourth quarter against Collingwood where we came right back and got to 7 points. Both times Cripps was up forward for most of the times, not in the midfield. This allowed our mids to match the opposition in speed and nullified their rucks hitting the ball out to space.
I suppose that is a win "tap to advantage" stat for Pittonet, which is sort of the point some are making when you only look at the numbers! :o
But the bigger concern for me is who organised this tactic, who takes responsibility, the ruck or Barker and Stanton?
If mug punters are watching this and going WTF!, where does that leave our coaching panel?
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"