Post Match. Pies whack West Coast. All comments please.

[Skids]

The only non WA team with a positive win/loss record at the house of fools ... 2 wins and 1 (narrow) loss.

[Mr Miyagi]

From the gist of the West Australian's headline, we didn't break any rules. I remember the umps told us off for something before the first bounce, but they can get stuffed because we weren't doing anything illegal. I watched the 7 broadcast, and they didn't pick up on what we did so it's hardly a controversy.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/have-t ... 881258881z

In a nutshell, we used someone on the wing to run to the back of the square as soon as the ball was about to be bounced. Crocker at one point, I think. That way we had an extra defender to stop NicNat. Perfectly legal, but expect the AFL to throw a hissy fit and change the rules again because we found a way around it.

[Pies2016]

From the gist of the West Australian's headline, we didn't break any rules. I remember the umps told us off for something before the first bounce, but they can get stuffed because we weren't doing anything illegal. I watched the 7 broadcast, and they didn't pick up on what we did so it's hardly a controversy.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/have-t ... 881258881z

In a nutshell, we used someone on the wing to run to the back of the square as soon as the ball was about to be bounced. Crocker at one point, I think. That way we had an extra defender to stop NicNat. Perfectly legal, but expect the AFL to throw a hissy fit and change the rules again because we found a way around it.

Interesting. Most clubs were throwing this tactic around in the preseason farce anyway. The best way to nullify what we did, is for the Eagles to utilise their spare even better. That’s actually where coaches earn their pay.
Which brings me to our coaching panel. Thought they engineered a great game plan against the eagles. They threw the magnets around and the players responded. I reckon the coaching panel deserve a bit of love in that win.

[Pies4shaw]

Malthouse started to say last night after the game that West Coast was outcoached - and then he backtracked a little to an expression like "out-thought".

Now, there's a dilemma - if you were an AFL coach for a living, would you rather that you were said to be "out-coached" or, in substance,"dimmer" than the other coach?

[K]

[K]

...
Where the 'pies really improved from last week, though, was with ground-ball and run inside (and from) the defensive 50. The small West Coast forwards barely touched the ball in the last hour of the game. That was mainly because we played WHE on their medium marking target (so, if he couldn't mark the ball, he was never going to touch it on the ground), ...

Did WHE start at the first bounce on Allen or was he moved back only after Moore went down? (i.e. was this a planned move or improvisation?) What was the re-shuffle when Moore went down?

Allen looks to me larger than he is, if you believe the official numbers (192cm, 87 kg), but WHE's still much smaller.


Allen looks very cocky, as did Petruccelle, so it's good they weren't both playing.

[Pies2016]

...
Where the 'pies really improved from last week, though, was with ground-ball and run inside (and from) the defensive 50. The small West Coast forwards barely touched the ball in the last hour of the game. That was mainly because we played WHE on their medium marking target (so, if he couldn't mark the ball, he was never going to touch it on the ground), ...

Did WHE start at the first bounce on Allen or was he moved back only after Moore went down? (i.e. was this a planned move or improvisation?) What was the re-shuffle when Moore went down?

Allen looks to me larger than he is, if you believe the official numbers (192cm, 87 kg), but WHE's still much smaller.


Allen looks very cocky, as did Petruccelle, so it's good they weren't both playing.

Allen started on the ground and pretty sure he got Maynard. Allen didn’t stay on long and then they brought on Cameron. That’s where we got exposed against to many slick small forwards. Having said that, their ball movement was superb, so they would have exposed anyone.
Moore went down and Maynard moved to Darling but at the same time Cripps went off, so both teams had to shuffle their team around in the same part of the ground.
Pretty sure W H E started forward, albeit briefly but the two early injuries threw both teams out and it took a while for the dust to settle on the right match ups. W H E certainly put some time into Allen on occasions but they were at their most dangerous when Cameron replaced Allen early in the game.

Maynard was brilliant playing tall ( qtr time onwards ) and Greenwood and Aish just willed themselves to win those 50 / 50 contests in the second half.

[bally12]

Great fightback in the last quarter Pies. It was like the reverse of the Grand Final. Great signs, and great to see the team spirit from players and coaches alike after the game. As Maynard said after the game, they played with a changed attitude of going on the hunt, rather than standing off their opponents. Much better intent with ball movement as well.

I thought Jordy DeGoey really turned the match for us in the centre. He made his presence felt by blasting through the stoppages and leaving the Eagles tacklers flailing. The thing i s he did it to the tough Eagles players like Yeo. The tables were turned on them, and suddenly players like Shuey were resorting to ducking tactics in the tackles to get a cheap free kick.
It reinforces how important midfield dominance is against the Eagles.

Up forward, it was clear we were under instruction to kick it in flat and with angles, and let Cox come at the ball. Coxy looked on, and attacked the footy . A big change from last few weeks.
Mihocek was super important and seems like he found his kicking boots again.
I thought Sier did some good things. His handballs in traffic are on the mark. Sidey, Treloar, Pendles, Crisp, Grundy, also very good games.
Agisnst us, I have a feeling that Eagles are suited to the MCG more than their home ground. We should have beaten them in the finals match we played them in Perth last year as well. Hope I'm wrong on this, I'd love for us to whack them resoundingly on the G in the finals.
Go Pies!

[K]

...
Agisnst us, I have a feeling that Eagles are suited to the MCG more than their home ground. We should have beaten them in the finals match we played them in Perth last year as well. Hope I'm wrong on this, I'd love for us to whack them resoundingly on the G in the finals.
...

I think the ground dimensions are very similar.

[Cam]

[Nearly]

Ben Crocker.

I’ve read all the comments.

No, he’s not a star. And probably not quite up to sustained AFL level.

But I’ve watched it again. I knew beforehand he gives it his all, and as someone else said above they have to go around him because they can’t go through him.

He also did a couple of deft little nice things.

And he was caught with the ball, but nearly every time the ball was delivered just out of reach or on the bounce. Etc. Not once did he have a clean go that I saw.

No, he will never be best 22. But geez he’s a good foot soldier to call on when the the list is stretched.

[Pies2016]

HopefullyCheckers, who has a great work rate, has finally unlocked the secret to playing on McGovern ( as long as our midfield honour his leads )
And kicking straight first up and feeling good about yourself helps to set the tone too.

I think part of dismantling McGovern was stopping the chop outs by Hurn. They are a deadly rebounding combo.

Yep, completely true, Cam. I was even going to add that into the post but I decided not to add another layer.
The best way to get on top of their defence is to divide and conquer.
It starts with making McGovern accountable and then seeing that he has little support around him so he can’t do a hand over and drop off.
Everyone knows it but executing it is another story.
It’s a credit to the discipline of our players on the night.

[inxs88]

foot soldier is an interesting adjective for a guy that can't kick

[Magpietothemax]

I'm still floating on air after that win for the ages last night. What a team, what a coach!

I disagree however, with the generous comments about Crocker. Sure, he battles hard and always gives his all. That has never been in doubt. However, I can't ever recall him playing a good senior game for us....ever. Unfortunately, despite his great character, I don't believe he is good enough a footballer to play at the senior level. It's a shame, but he squandered every single opportunity he had last night. He laid one very good tackle on McGovern in the final quarter and managed to kick an important point, but points are what he always kicks, never goals. I feel bad, saying these things about the kid, as he seems to have enormous character and obviously is well liked around the club. Unfortunately, that's not enough. I would rather Goldsack in our forward line, or even Wills.

Anyway, none of this matters. We won and I am supremely confident that once we get Adams and Howe back, we can begin building for a major assault on the flag. Go Pies!

Unfortunately, I must say that I agree with most of this. Unfortunately, because I too don't ever like to speak in any negative way about our team and our players. But trying one's hardest is not enough...that is a minimum expectation of all players in our team. On Friday night there was not one guy in black and white who failed to try his hardest at all times. I do recall when Crocker first played for us as a small forward, he had a few good games where he showed promise as an elusive small forward and kicked a few goals, but that promise did not go further at the time. I thought that on Friday night, he was clearly not prepared for the intensity and speed of AFL football. Whether we give him another chance next week should not be based on the clear fact that he gave his all first game back. It should solely based on whether or not his inclusion is deemed to be the best of all available options to defeat GWS. The only comment I believe that makes sense in regard to Crocker (by sense I mean, in the cold hard logic of winning games, which should be our primary focus) is the one I think by Pies2016 who observed that Crocker was no doubt given a role (perhaps of creating space, or guarding space, or whatever,) a role that none of us can properly evaluate. If Crocker did fulfil that role to the satisfaction of the coaching panel, and that role is required in our plans to defeat GWS, then I agree totally with selecting him again. But I don't agree with selecting him just because he gave 100% in his first game back.

[Pies4shaw]

I don't think anybody does.