04-21-2017, 01:05 PM
Team: F
Our first half was reasonable, except for our kicking for goal. But after that it was awful.
Votes:
[4] Cripps
[2] Silvagni
[1.5] Gibbs
[1.5] Docherty
[1.5} Murphy
[1.5] Charlie Curnow
[1.5] Casboult
[0.5] White
[0.5] Williamson
[0.5] Fisher
Explanations:
Our mids can actually hold their heads higher than most, as we comprehensively thrashed in the ruck. To get the number of tackles, clearances (in particular) and disposals was admirable. But the way we used the ball hurt Gibbs, Docherty and Murphy.
On the other hand, Charlie Curnow and Casboult stood out.
[4] Cripps: A truly impressive game, especially as he was not 100% fit and working to a ruckman who couldn’t get near it. His ability to get the ball was brilliant. A couple of important kicks were less than optimal, but Cripps really led from the front.
[2] Silvagni: Jack wasn’t that great early, but he stood up in a big way. A very solid effort.
[1.5] Gibbs: Like Cripps, he never dropped his head and kept trying, but his disposal tonight was not what we need from Bryce.
[1.5] Docherty: Well beaten by Grey, Docherty did better when moved up-field. Also let down by some of the worst kicking he has ever done.
[1.5} Murphy: Like Gibbs and Docherty, Murphy couldn’t dominate and would love to have some of his kicks again. However, he kept going and managed to get far more of the ball than would be expected when we could buy a tap to advantage.
[1.5] Charlie Curnow: His best game and by a long way. Far fewer errors, at least 8 good marks and in the game in a much more constructive way.
[1.5] Casboult: If we could move the ball better he would have had a lot more scoring opportunities. As it was, he took some excellent marks and clearly beat his man on the night.
[0.5] White: Very solid effort when the ball was coming down so often.
[0.5] Williamson: Not his best game, but he did some excellent work and looked like a player.
[0.5] Fisher: A patchy game, but one filled with promise. His kicking and decision making stood out when so many others could pull off neither.
Honourable Mentions:
Sam Rowe: He took his man to the cleaners before he was moved forward. He couldn’t buy a kick as a forward.
Lachie Plowman: Not as effective as he has been, but his endeavor was good.
Sam Petrevski-Seton: Not consistent enough yet, but showed plenty of promise early.
Matthew Wright: Hopeless early, but worked hard to get himself into the game.
Our first half was reasonable, except for our kicking for goal. But after that it was awful.
Votes:
[4] Cripps
[2] Silvagni
[1.5] Gibbs
[1.5] Docherty
[1.5} Murphy
[1.5] Charlie Curnow
[1.5] Casboult
[0.5] White
[0.5] Williamson
[0.5] Fisher
Explanations:
Our mids can actually hold their heads higher than most, as we comprehensively thrashed in the ruck. To get the number of tackles, clearances (in particular) and disposals was admirable. But the way we used the ball hurt Gibbs, Docherty and Murphy.
On the other hand, Charlie Curnow and Casboult stood out.
[4] Cripps: A truly impressive game, especially as he was not 100% fit and working to a ruckman who couldn’t get near it. His ability to get the ball was brilliant. A couple of important kicks were less than optimal, but Cripps really led from the front.
[2] Silvagni: Jack wasn’t that great early, but he stood up in a big way. A very solid effort.
[1.5] Gibbs: Like Cripps, he never dropped his head and kept trying, but his disposal tonight was not what we need from Bryce.
[1.5] Docherty: Well beaten by Grey, Docherty did better when moved up-field. Also let down by some of the worst kicking he has ever done.
[1.5} Murphy: Like Gibbs and Docherty, Murphy couldn’t dominate and would love to have some of his kicks again. However, he kept going and managed to get far more of the ball than would be expected when we could buy a tap to advantage.
[1.5] Charlie Curnow: His best game and by a long way. Far fewer errors, at least 8 good marks and in the game in a much more constructive way.
[1.5] Casboult: If we could move the ball better he would have had a lot more scoring opportunities. As it was, he took some excellent marks and clearly beat his man on the night.
[0.5] White: Very solid effort when the ball was coming down so often.
[0.5] Williamson: Not his best game, but he did some excellent work and looked like a player.
[0.5] Fisher: A patchy game, but one filled with promise. His kicking and decision making stood out when so many others could pull off neither.
Honourable Mentions:
Sam Rowe: He took his man to the cleaners before he was moved forward. He couldn’t buy a kick as a forward.
Lachie Plowman: Not as effective as he has been, but his endeavor was good.
Sam Petrevski-Seton: Not consistent enough yet, but showed plenty of promise early.
Matthew Wright: Hopeless early, but worked hard to get himself into the game.
Live Long and Prosper!