2018 Rd 10: Post Game Insanity: Carlton vs Geelong

[LP]

Yet their talls won the game in marking contests.

The evidence might suggest that you have got this one a little wrong.

Are you basing this on stats?

There were only 19 contested marks for the whole game, 12/7 split, only 10 marks inside F50 for the whole game, they took 8 of them which is not much at all.

Geelong average 10/11 marks inside 50 per game, we average 8 per game.

The marking targets on both sides had very poor nights which suggests defenders were on top, watching the game I'd have to say disposal from both teams was very bad.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Yet their talls won the game in marking contests.

The evidence might suggest that you have got this one a little wrong.

FWIW I thought Stewart was not very good even though he got a lot of the ball. Tuohy sliced us up to setup the first goal of the final term to Danger.  Had me wondering where Jed Lamb went although some players actually play better when targeted with a bit of niggle.

Stewart was no good?.....???? I must have watched a different game....... :o

Their talls won them the game?...they had Stanley who was beaten by Kruezer, a semi tall in Crameri who did nothing and I''l give you a tick for Hawkins who kicked 3 goals...and their other tall got a broken ankle or close to it....

I thought their mids with Dangerfield, Duncan, Menegola won them the game along with Stewart and Henry intercepting most of our entries......we locked up Selwood and Ablett ok but weight of numbers won in the end even though a banged up Cripps fought on bravely.....

[LP]

That is a video of Menegola kicking the goal of the year. ;D

It's further down the page.

That vision has also been heavily cropped, Foxtel showed a full screen view of Menegola slamming Rowe's head into the ground, then kicking Rowe's head with his shin as he stood up.

[PaulP]

........................

The marking targets on both sides had very poor nights which suggests defenders were on top, watching the game I'd have to say disposal from both teams was very bad.

Chris Scott said he thought it was a horrible game.

[Lods]

Very dewy....handling and marking was probably a bit affected.
But Scott will probably talk about us dragging Geelong down to "our" level

[laj]

Chris Scott said he thought it was a horrible game.

Geelong game has changed this year. They are lower scoring and alot more in-close and defensive, the way footy is played in September compared to the rest of the year. The game the other night was essentially no different to the Qualifying Final last year when the score was 3 goals all late in the 3rd qtr. It's the way finals footy is these days.

[Thryleon]

Are you basing this on stats?

There were only 19 contested marks for the whole game, 12/7 split, only 10 marks inside F50 for the whole game, they took 8 of them which is not much at all.

Geelong average 10/11 marks inside 50 per game, we average 8 per game.

The marking targets on both sides had very poor nights which suggests defenders were on top, watching the game I'd have to say disposal from both teams was very bad.

Im basing this on Hawkins taking marks on the goal line whilst our players had taken it for granted the mark would go sailing through.

Stewart was no good?.....???? I must have watched a different game....... :o

Their talls won them the game?...they had Stanley who was beaten by Kruezer, a semi tall in Crameri who did nothing and I''l give you a tick for Hawkins who kicked 3 goals...and their other tall got a broken ankle or close to it....

I thought their mids with Dangerfield, Duncan, Menegola won them the game along with Stewart and Henry intercepting most of our entries......we locked up Selwood and Ablett ok but weight of numbers won in the end even though a banged up Cripps fought on bravely.....

Stewart turned it over a lot.

The commentary team did acknowledge he got a lot of ball, but he didn't set them up from half back, and quite a few of his kicks resulted in another contest.

Their mids did turn the game, but Danger did it when he drifted forward.  Hawkins stitched us up quite a bit and if not for the umpires paying quite a few blocks against him, and his teammates he would have kicked a lot more.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Im basing this on Hawkins taking marks on the goal line whilst our players had taken it for granted the mark would go sailing through.

Stewart turned it over a lot.

The commentary team did acknowledge he got a lot of ball, but he didn't set them up from half back, and quite a few of his kicks resulted in another contest.

Their mids did turn the game, but Danger did it when he drifted forward.  Hawkins stitched us up quite a bit and if not for the umpires paying quite a few blocks against him, and his teammates he would have kicked a lot more.

Stewart went at 78.6% DE, he had 6 x 1%ers and 9 x defensive rebounds.....you add 28 possies and 12 marks and thats a fair game IMO....
Touhy went at around 75% DE and had 3 defensive rebounds.....

Duncan really hurt us with 27 possies at 85%....

[Thryleon]

I don't know what to tell you EB.

All I can comment on, is what I saw, and Danger's goal in the final term pretty much sealed the win.  Stewart may have taken an intercept mark, but he handballed it to Tuohy on half back.  He turned into the corridor, hit up a short 30 metre target (might have been Parfitt) roughly middle of centre square, and then followed up that kick with a handball receive and delivered it to Dangerfield to advantage in front from about 40 metres, with only Lachie Plowman for company and one of the best rebound's off half backs I saw (mind you Simpson did this quite a bit for us on Saturday night, and it looked brilliant).

Our talls were busy elsewhere which leads me to believe that we had setup about right.  What will really start to worry you, is where had our midfield gone for that rebound, because I saw the middle of the ground vacant.  This was the first goal of the final quarter FWIW.

Interesting, enough, I just checked the heat maps.

Stewart and Henry look to have played kick to kick in their defensive fifty a bit.  What that means is that our forwards weren't doing enough to kill forward fifty contests, or our delivery into forward fifty was wayward.  Probably both fair assesments of how we go.  Our delivery varies from crap to appalling with a sprinkling of good here and there, and was probably where it all fell over for us at the end of the day.

[LP]

There it is;

Contact between the Geelong Cats’ Sam Menegola and Carlton’s Sam Rowe from the second quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. Menegola takes Rowe to ground in a tackle. Rowe has hold of Menegola’s arm as the Geelong player tries to get up, to return to play. Menegola seeks to free himself and in getting to his feet, contact is primarily made between the Geelong player’s shin and Rowe’s back. It was the view of the Match Review Officer the action did not constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

It was all Sam Rowe's fault.

Apparently he was holding Menegola's arm as Menegola pushed his head into the dirt using two hands, then due to a freak of anatomy Rowe's back, which resides on his head, got in the way of Menegola's leg as he tried to break free from Rowe who was lying on the ground holding Menegola's arm!

Yeah, it's a level playing field!

I wonder if the AFL will appeal that! :

In other news;
- Sam Rowe was fined $1000 for preventing a Handbagger from doing whatever they liked! Gerard Whateley was asked to comment but he was late for a coffee with Dangerfield to discuss GAFLPA tactics to prevent Carlton receiving a compensation pick for the possible departure of Marc Murphy to the Cats!

- Chris Scott's jowl retracted after the MRP report was released freeing thousands of Western District farmers who had been trapped since before the Curnow tribunal appeal.