Why would we not play Curnow, our best tagger on Pendlebury?
That would make sense
The only issue I can see is that Pendlebury could be too strong in the air. Still, if Curnow does his job, Pendlebury may not get too many opportunities.
I certainly wouldn't be sacrificing the ball winning ability of Cripps by playing him in a shut down role.
Playing on a smaller ground means less space to kick too and more handballs result. There was always going to be more handballs especially since the numbers of stoppages skyrocketed as well.
Different ground + Different conditions = Different style of play.
Doubt you'll see the same handball:kick ratio next week back on the 'G.
Persuasive, but well off the mark.
For a start, we had around the same total kicks as in our three previous games but our handpassing increased by about 30%.
St Kilda must not have realised that the ground was smaller because they had their lowest number of handpasses for the season.
If Malthouse goes back to the kick at all costs approach, we'll cop an absolute flogging next week.
G. Healey today during the game suggested that we are already well into our rebuild.
There was a major rejuvenation of the list at the end of 2010 when ten players were moved on. 2012 was a bit of an aberration but we have continued to turn the list over and it seems that some of the changes may bear fruit. A little bit of fine tuning, and a couple of guns, and we'll be right up there. We don't need another massive clean out and to do so will see us go backwards.
@DJC potentially saints weren't able to cut off our close options like other teams are, leaving the handball option to players in better position open..... but maybe someone at the ground can comment more informatively
Possibly IOT but my impression from our other three games is that we didn't look for close options, by hand or foot.
I have been critical of Murphy as a leader but if he can back up week in week our what he did today I would complain.
He was in hard at every single contest when the game was drifting away from us early. He got hammered by the opposition but still ran his heart out and was pivotal in 'leading' us back into the game. Played a Selwood type game today.
Was the closest I have seen from him to the pre shoulder injury days.
Hats off to him today challenge now is to back it up next week.
Malthouse spoke very well about Murphy's leadership in his press conference today. While I don't always agree with what he has to say, I reckon he's a lot better at judging Murphy's leadership than most of the armchair critics
Never said it did. Just as i never said our losses where Micks fault.
All i'm saying is people were happy to bag out Mick and his gameplan and 'the house that mick built' ad nauseum throughout the first half. Do those same people who believe he was to blame for the first half think he is responsible for the turnaround in the 2nd?
They are all one-way. Bag him when something goes wrong. Silence when something goes right.
I'm not putting that win down to Mick. I'm putting it down to the players pulling their fingers out and doing what they are supposed to be doing every week. Of course it helped it was against the Saints, but put in the effort against any team and results will come.
I disagree. There was a dramatic change in the way we used the football. Against Richmond we had 196 kicks and 129 handpasses, against West Coast it was 192 kicks and 128 handpasses, 200 kicks and 136 handpasses against Essendon and today it was 193 kicks and 182 handpasses. You can't tell me that the players all decided to handpass more today.
Clearly, Malthouse has realised that the kick at all costs approach results in too many turnovers and he has instructed the players to handpass more. I haven't seen the game yet but the radio commentary gave me the impression that our ball movement was better and was set up by creative handpassing.
Another marked difference from our previous three games is the fact that almost all of our goals were scored from directly in front and there were relatively few shots from the pockets.
The players may have controlled their arousal levels a little better but Malthouse definitely changed the way we played and he deserves credit for that.
Great to see a list with some genuinely exciting new talent
Add young guns Whiley, Menzel, Byrne to the team that played today + Kreuzer/Warnock, Judd, Yarran, Thomas & things don't look so bad. That's one third of the team.
And that's why I disagree with the rebuild. Our list has deficiencies and we lack depth but we don't need to make wholesale changes.
Not sure too many are knocking his game, just didn't think he was THE bog.
Cripps vs Murphy Pos 33 vs 34 CPs 23 vs 24 Mrk 4 vs 1 CMs 1 vs 0 Clr 8 vs 10 Tkl 11 vs 3 GAs 2 vs 0 Gls 1 vs 0 R50 1 vs 0 I50 2 vs 6 1%s 3 vs 1 Clg 2 vs 5
Murphy pretty much had him covered in every area.
And I don't believe Cripps was tagged or belted from arsehole to breakfast time.
I wasn't expecting us to go handball happy. I wonder if it will be a feature of our game now or will we revert back to kick at all costs?
It is great to get a win but that was sounding doubtful in the first half - I listened to SEN's coverage.
Apart from the win and the form of some of our young and not so young players, Simpson's hit on Newnes was one of the most pleasing aspects of the game. I hope other players take note and do the same to Murphy or Judd's tagger often and preferably earlier in the game.
It was good for Malthouse to get a win in his record breaking game!
Interesting observation from Wayne Carey tonight. He said that Richmond and Carlton supporters were noteworthy for the way in which they unfairly blame Cotchin and Murphy when the team performs poorly.
I'm not that familiar with Cotchin's treatment by Richmond supporters but I reckon Carey has a point when it comes to Murphy.
Have faith mate. We hadn't won one for 21 years before that 68 success, and we did our best to kick ourselves out of it. Nothing has changed in that regard, has it. Also, I reckon Geoff Blethyn who played for Essendon and was the only Full Forward, and possibly player that I have seen playing in glasses, probably should have been paid a mark in the 10 metre square which would have won the game for Essendon. Glad it wasn't, of course!! It's only been 20 years, this time, so we have a year to go before we start panicking that like my missus, who is a demons supporter, we will never see another flag in our life-time.
Rod Macfarlane, who I played with at Coburg Ammos, wore glasses and was on the Essendon list. Not sure he cracked it for a game. He kicked the ton for us.
Carlton had a bloke who played in glasses; Tony Southcombe. He could have been a key forward for many years but opted to go home to Bendigo.
Curnow, Armfield, Ellard, Bell and Tutt. Would any of these guys get a run at Box Hill?
Tutt might struggle, the others would be walk up starts.
But, back to the side selected to play the Saints. Jaksch has been one of the few shining lights among our new additions. If he is fit, he should be in the 22. If he is going to come into the side for Jamison, Henderson will have to play in defence.
It will be interesting to see how Boekhurst goes. Hopefully he doesn't frequent this site and won't be under additional pressure to perform.
Buckley's selection is good news. I know his form hasn't been great but he really has a dip and you can't ask for more.
I'm a little surprised that Jones and Ellard got another run. Well, I'm not really surprised about Jones; he has to get a few more games to justify the trade. Who knows, everything may click for him this week and I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Finally, Ed Curnow's strength is his ability to run his opponents into the ground. Don't play him as a half back where he can't use his tank and doesn't provide the run and carry that is necessary in today's footy.
