08-14-2021, 12:09 PM
Why did I think we would get smashed today? Port have big bodies where it counts. We had no real tall forwards - Charlie is 3 games in after a couple of years out, Cas is still injured (it seemed) and never been a great player anyway. Losing Jones upsets the balance in the backline. Not having Cripps is a big body. TCK isn't big enough to take on Lycett. I had said to my wife that a good result will be 12 goals. Port aren't a team to have Honey, Durdin, Kemp make a debut at once.
The first quarter and a bit to get 22 up was pretty exciting, although we were still 2.6 at 1/4 time. We got the jump on Port. Keeping the way we were playing was going to be impossible. The commentators mentioned Wines/Boak, someone like that going into the middle, which helped them turn things around. Who did we have in our team that we could flick around to make a difference on the ball? We barely had enough to get four in the centre bounces.
What would the cohesion of that team be? We can play the same style with our best 22 on the ground, but the skill level is lower, so it can't work as well. We all know that we don't have great depth.
Missing Harry, Cripps, Pittonet (against the bigger bodies), Jones, SOS has to make a difference to the side - they give structure and or effort.
In the last quarter, TDK (knackered) half jumped early, the tap that Port got straight to their mid was hilarious it was so easy (not a dig at TDK, just a description). TDK is cooked for the year.
The commentators mentioned a few outs in the first quarter when we were going well, but forgot about them later and made no excuses (which is the way it should be for them). Tiges are going great at the moment with their injuries. WB couldn't handle a forward out.
Who was available that wasn't injured? Fogarty, Cottrell, Carroll, Parks, Ramsay. None of whom would have made much difference, or come in ahead of Cas, McGovern - needed some size (that we didn't have against North). We wouldn't have beaten any team today.
Much has been made of closing the losing margin under Teague, with a generally more attacking game plan. Every coach has had big losses, where they just can't stop the opposition.
How many games does the core of a team need to play together to become a good team? Ours wouldn't have many.
The board is sitting on a report - great that there weren't any spills and take the shine from Murph - I hope that they look at the report, take their time to digest it, then act appropriately.
I really feel for Teague. Whatever the decision of the board is it is. For me, how they explain and execute their decision is key.
What toll does it have on players - the coach is surely part of the decision to commit and sign. Why wouldn't players just play for $$ if there is no commitment by the club.
The first quarter and a bit to get 22 up was pretty exciting, although we were still 2.6 at 1/4 time. We got the jump on Port. Keeping the way we were playing was going to be impossible. The commentators mentioned Wines/Boak, someone like that going into the middle, which helped them turn things around. Who did we have in our team that we could flick around to make a difference on the ball? We barely had enough to get four in the centre bounces.
What would the cohesion of that team be? We can play the same style with our best 22 on the ground, but the skill level is lower, so it can't work as well. We all know that we don't have great depth.
Missing Harry, Cripps, Pittonet (against the bigger bodies), Jones, SOS has to make a difference to the side - they give structure and or effort.
In the last quarter, TDK (knackered) half jumped early, the tap that Port got straight to their mid was hilarious it was so easy (not a dig at TDK, just a description). TDK is cooked for the year.
The commentators mentioned a few outs in the first quarter when we were going well, but forgot about them later and made no excuses (which is the way it should be for them). Tiges are going great at the moment with their injuries. WB couldn't handle a forward out.
Who was available that wasn't injured? Fogarty, Cottrell, Carroll, Parks, Ramsay. None of whom would have made much difference, or come in ahead of Cas, McGovern - needed some size (that we didn't have against North). We wouldn't have beaten any team today.
Much has been made of closing the losing margin under Teague, with a generally more attacking game plan. Every coach has had big losses, where they just can't stop the opposition.
How many games does the core of a team need to play together to become a good team? Ours wouldn't have many.
The board is sitting on a report - great that there weren't any spills and take the shine from Murph - I hope that they look at the report, take their time to digest it, then act appropriately.
I really feel for Teague. Whatever the decision of the board is it is. For me, how they explain and execute their decision is key.
What toll does it have on players - the coach is surely part of the decision to commit and sign. Why wouldn't players just play for $$ if there is no commitment by the club.