Dunno, pundits still rated Ladhams' game highly. I've never seen a stat that accounts for "hurt factor" but what Ladhams did today really hurt us. He started, and seemed to be involved in, a lot of scoring chains.
I rated Ladhams game more highly myself.
I guess my whole point in this is that Pittonet is an elite ruckman in the contest. That is the hardest thing to teach.
If we can improve his game around the ground, then he will be the most dominant ruckman in the game.
He has the ability to give us first use. He has the desire to fight games out and pressure. If we could develop his outside game a bit, we are set for the next 7 years.
And despite poor umpiring, bigger PA bodies in the middle, yada yada, it came down to an exit ball 45-50 seconds from victory and instead of playing keepings off, a kick to a contest, a turnover and one of the games superstars ends up with the ball/game on his boot. Rest is history. Point is, composure was needed from the leaders and it wasnt there, especially Doc. Sounds harsh and critical, that's the reality, we never should have lost that game like that.
I don't disagree with that, as i said earlier. Just saying that Port were given a leg up of sorts.
We SHOULD be good enough to win from there. But, at this stage, i'm just happy that we are in that position.
Thats our 4 game from our last 6 that has been decided by 3 points or less. The only other games was Dogs last week (Flogged them) and saints who won by 3 goals.
That kind of experience we get from being in that position will only help us in the future.
In case you've forgotten. We haven't exactly been in many winnable positions over the past 3 years, so its still a bit of a learning experience.
What that shows is Pittonet, despite not getting the ball a lot, was not just a passenger. Excellent effort shown as pressure acts
Question i have is, did we not look for him to give him the ball because we had so many other tall forward options to kick too? Harry played well, Casboult is always an option down the line and McGovern was leaping at everything. As good as Pittonets marking is, i'd say he's 4th behind those 3 in that area.
Did Port look for Ladhams more because they didn't have the same embarrassment of riches up forward?
I see it different, Ports poor goalkicking late kept us in the game, Dixon went off and they only had two on the bench. We had a lot going for us and still couldn't win it. If Dixon had kicked straight it would have been a comfortable Port win imo.
Thats one way to look at it, sure.
But how did Port get those chances? 50-50 umpiring calls went their way......especially in the last.
Harry in a holding match in the goalsquare = free kick port. Turn that the other way and they don't get close. Better yet, don't call anything but play on....and we win that game.
Eddies tackle, dropping the ball....nah, play on.
I think we got a kicking in danger called against us in the last....at least i think it was for that as i have no idea what it was for otherwise. You get that paid about 5% of the time......or 100% of the time if its against us in the last quarter.
So sure, have that belief if you want and it is somewhat valid. But Port don't get those calls if the umpiring was consistent....or even fair.
So near and yet so far.
