Why the Saints lost on Sunday (perhaps)

[CQ SAINT]

1. Collingwood are more skillful than us. Both their kicking and handball under pressure was better. This can, and must be, worked on.
2. We looked like we were going at 90% for most of the game - except for the last 5 minutes. Dunno why.
3. We failed to make use of our ruck advantage. There was a seeming disconnect between RoMa and the rest of the onballers for too many ball-ups.
4. We made too many unforced errors. There were 10 really bad ones, but that's enough to lose a tight game.
5. There were a few holding the ball decisions that were hard to fathom.
6. It's hard to cover crucial loses due to injury forever.

The good news was that we lost by a goal, which might have been a draw if a hack kick in the last 30 seconds had gone to one of three Saints players rather than the single Collingwood player, none of whom had a chance to move. It's something that, no doubt, was not lost on either team.

1. Collingwood enjoyed 3% better disposal than us. Most of that was fluffing around in their backline while we covered their exits. This was probably playing to their strengths for 3/4 of the game, to very little advantage, other than they missed a few easy shots.
2. I agree, we looked like we were pacing ourselves. Collingwood brought their defensive wall up the field and made us go around or over. We have been cutting through with pace and seemed to stall on this until the last quarter.
3. We won the hit outs by 6, we won the clearances by 6. We don't have a mid field advantage.
4. It was a high pressure game between two very good defensive units. Collingwood only enjoyed 3% more disposal efficiency. Largely attributed to N.Daicos who ran around the backline picking up uncontested possession and he only crept up the ground a kick behind the play.
5. The umpires were inconsistent but not overly present in the game.
6. I believe we tried to play the game on Collingwoods terms but neither team was willing to attack and then lose going the other way. Collingwood didn't want a race and guessed correctly that they can't out run us.
They sat back and tried to ricochet their way our of trouble.

It was a good contest. I'm sure that we learnt more about them they they thought they new about us.

[shanegrambeau]

1. Collingwood are more skillful than us. Both their kicking and handball under pressure was better. This can, and must be, worked on.
2. We looked like we were going at 90% for most of the game - except for the last 5 minutes. Dunno why.
3. We failed to make use of our ruck advantage. There was a seeming disconnect between RoMa and the rest of the onballers for too many ball-ups.
4. We made too many unforced errors. There were 10 really bad ones, but that's enough to lose a tight game.
5. There were a few holding the ball decisions that were hard to fathom.
6. It's hard to cover crucial loses due to injury forever.

The good news was that we lost by a goal, which might have been a draw if a hack kick in the last 30 seconds had gone to one of three Saints players rather than the single Collingwood player, none of whom had a chance to move. It's something that, no doubt, was not lost on either team.

1. Collingwood enjoyed 3% better disposal than us. Most of that was fluffing around in their backline while we covered their exits. This was probably playing to their strengths for 3/4 of the game, to very little advantage, other than they missed a few easy shots.
2. I agree, we looked like we were pacing ourselves. Collingwood brought their defensive wall up the field and made us go around or over. We have been cutting through with pace and seemed to stall on this until the last quarter.
3. We won the hit outs by 6, we won the clearances by 6. We don't have a mid field advantage.
4. It was a high pressure game between two very good defensive units. Collingwood only enjoyed 3% more disposal efficiency. Largely attributed to N.Daicos who ran around the backline picking up uncontested possession and he only crept up the ground a kick behind the play.
5. The umpires were inconsistent but not overly present in the game.
6. I believe we tried to play the game on Collingwoods terms but neither team was willing to attack and then lose going the other way. Collingwood didn't want a race and guessed correctly that they can't out run us.
They sat back and tried to ricochet their way our of trouble.

It was a good contest. I'm sure that we learnt more about them they they thought they new about us.

Sounds fair.
Can't disagree.
Oppo teams will have taken notice.

I can't fathom three factors.

1) Cordy selection
2) Why N. Daicos was allowed to run wild at the start - both from the get-go, and even more breathtakingly, why he was allowed to continue?*
3) Why the coach decided to apologize to Saints fans for letting him run wild through the entire game.

* ya know when co-pilots (First Officer) have to do counter-order the Captain when something is up? They often don't because they are intimidated. I wonder which way the ducks run in the coaches box nowadays.

[Scollop]

1. Collingwood are more skillful than us. Both their kicking and handball under pressure was better. This can, and must be, worked on.
2. We looked like we were going at 90% for most of the game - except for the last 5 minutes. Dunno why.
3. We failed to make use of our ruck advantage. There was a seeming disconnect between RoMa and the rest of the onballers for too many ball-ups.
4. We made too many unforced errors. There were 10 really bad ones, but that's enough to lose a tight game.
5. There were a few holding the ball decisions that were hard to fathom.
6. It's hard to cover crucial loses due to injury forever.

The good news was that we lost by a goal, which might have been a draw if a hack kick in the last 30 seconds had gone to one of three Saints players rather than the single Collingwood player, none of whom had a chance to move. It's something that, no doubt, was not lost on either team.

Good post. Totally agree with Point number 1 and 3 and 4

I think our midfield was well beaten. Crouch and Sebby had plenty of the footy, but Collingwood slaughtered us at centre clearance and they looked cleaner at stoppages.

Total Disposal efficiency differential doesn’t paint the full picture. We lost our composure and we definitely butchered our disposal more than they did. They were especially clean when it counted to create scoring chains

There’s a thread called Bytel with some discussion there about some of the reasons we lost. If I could have given Jade Gresham negative votes in the vote thread, I would. He was putrid all day. He was another reason our midfield clearances and our mids in general were ineffective

[asiu]

2) Why N. Daicos was allowed to run wild at the start - both from the get-go, and even more breathtakingly, why he was allowed to continue?*
3) Why the coach decided to apologize to Saints fans for letting him run wild through the entire game.

ross's answer to that was ... wanted to see if the 'system' stacked up

he actually asked saints fans to NOT get testy about it
more than apologised ... imo of the listen

[Yorkeys]

On reflection I have noticed Collingwood have the ugliest group going around. It must be very disconcerting playing against them.
There were a lot of scrums, that's a lot of ugly in your face.
Can you see Sidebottom, Murphy, Pendlebury, Maynard getting a curtain call for the Bachelor.
No coach would ask a young impressionable player to tag Sidebottom, hence he is often in space.
Apologies, its Thursday and I have had to resort to personal comments to rationalise Sunday.
But they have had a fair caning with an ugly stick.

[The Fireman]

On reflection I have noticed Collingwood have the ugliest group going around. It must be very disconcerting playing against them.
There were a lot of scrums, that's a lot of ugly in your face.
Can you see Sidebottom, Murphy, Pendlebury, Maynard getting a curtain call for the Bachelor.
No coach would ask a young impressionable player to tag Sidebottom, hence he is often in space.
Apologies, its Thursday and I have had to resort to personal comments to rationalise Sunday.
But they have had a fair caning with an ugly stick.

have you had a good look at their supporters ?

[Scollop]

1. Collingwood are more skillful than us. Both their kicking and handball under pressure was better. This can, and must be, worked on.
2. We looked like we were going at 90% for most of the game - except for the last 5 minutes. Dunno why.
3. We failed to make use of our ruck advantage. There was a seeming disconnect between RoMa and the rest of the onballers for too many ball-ups.
4. We made too many unforced errors. There were 10 really bad ones, but that's enough to lose a tight game.
5. There were a few holding the ball decisions that were hard to fathom.
6. It's hard to cover crucial loses due to injury forever.

The good news was that we lost by a goal, which might have been a draw if a hack kick in the last 30 seconds had gone to one of three Saints players rather than the single Collingwood player, none of whom had a chance to move. It's something that, no doubt, was not lost on either team.

1. Collingwood enjoyed 3% better disposal than us. Most of that was fluffing around in their backline while we covered their exits. This was probably playing to their strengths for 3/4 of the game, to very little advantage, other than they missed a few easy shots.
2. I agree, we looked like we were pacing ourselves. Collingwood brought their defensive wall up the field and made us go around or over. We have been cutting through with pace and seemed to stall on this until the last quarter.
3. We won the hit outs by 6, we won the clearances by 6. We don't have a mid field advantage.
4. It was a high pressure game between two very good defensive units. Collingwood only enjoyed 3% more disposal efficiency. Largely attributed to N.Daicos who ran around the backline picking up uncontested possession and he only crept up the ground a kick behind the play.
5. The umpires were inconsistent but not overly present in the game.
6. I believe we tried to play the game on Collingwoods terms but neither team was willing to attack and then lose going the other way. Collingwood didn't want a race and guessed correctly that they can't out run us.
They sat back and tried to ricochet their way our of trouble.

It was a good contest. I'm sure that we learnt more about them they they thought they new about us.

Just on point number 3 and the interpretation and opinion from the original post compared to what you have highlighted;

It's not about pure clearance numbers, it's about where the footy goes to and whether as a mid you are creating opportunities for your team mates to break free and get involved in scoring chains or clean inside 50 kicks.

Pendlebury, Adams and Tom Mitchell did their job. Our guys didn't. They were clean where it counted.

Seb Ross and Hunter Clark battled hard all day. Seb's opponent and Crouch's opponents beat them. Gresh was a liability instead of being a net positive and Sincs got most of his touches as a receiver

Marshall was more effective than our other mids. One coach gave him 2 votes. That's due to his contested marks and clearances rather than his ruck work imo

Brad Crouch scored 1 vote from one of the coaches but if he hadn't scored those 2 goals I think he would have rated a pretty average sort of game.

I still say our inside mids were slaughtered

[CQ SAINT]

1. Collingwood are more skillful than us. Both their kicking and handball under pressure was better. This can, and must be, worked on.
2. We looked like we were going at 90% for most of the game - except for the last 5 minutes. Dunno why.
3. We failed to make use of our ruck advantage. There was a seeming disconnect between RoMa and the rest of the onballers for too many ball-ups.
4. We made too many unforced errors. There were 10 really bad ones, but that's enough to lose a tight game.
5. There were a few holding the ball decisions that were hard to fathom.
6. It's hard to cover crucial loses due to injury forever.

The good news was that we lost by a goal, which might have been a draw if a hack kick in the last 30 seconds had gone to one of three Saints players rather than the single Collingwood player, none of whom had a chance to move. It's something that, no doubt, was not lost on either team.

1. Collingwood enjoyed 3% better disposal than us. Most of that was fluffing around in their backline while we covered their exits. This was probably playing to their strengths for 3/4 of the game, to very little advantage, other than they missed a few easy shots.
2. I agree, we looked like we were pacing ourselves. Collingwood brought their defensive wall up the field and made us go around or over. We have been cutting through with pace and seemed to stall on this until the last quarter.
3. We won the hit outs by 6, we won the clearances by 6. We don't have a mid field advantage.
4. It was a high pressure game between two very good defensive units. Collingwood only enjoyed 3% more disposal efficiency. Largely attributed to N.Daicos who ran around the backline picking up uncontested possession and he only crept up the ground a kick behind the play.
5. The umpires were inconsistent but not overly present in the game.
6. I believe we tried to play the game on Collingwoods terms but neither team was willing to attack and then lose going the other way. Collingwood didn't want a race and guessed correctly that they can't out run us.
They sat back and tried to ricochet their way our of trouble.

It was a good contest. I'm sure that we learnt more about them they they thought they new about us.

Just on point number 3 and the interpretation and opinion from the original post compared to what you have highlighted;

It's not about pure clearance numbers, it's about where the footy goes to and whether as a mid you are creating opportunities for your team mates to break free and get involved in scoring chains or clean inside 50 kicks.

Pendlebury, Adams and Tom Mitchell did their job. Our guys didn't. They were clean where it counted.

Seb Ross and Hunter Clark battled hard all day. Seb's opponent and Crouch's opponents beat them. Gresh was a liability instead of being a net positive and Sincs got most of his touches as a receiver

Marshall was more effective than our other mids. One coach gave him 2 votes. That's due to his contested marks and clearances rather than his ruck work imo

Brad Crouch scored 1 vote from one of the coaches but if he hadn't scored those 2 goals I think he would have rated a pretty average sort of game.

I still say our inside mids were slaughtered

I won't argue your point of view, however, I will question the efficiency of a team with supposed superior skills, and 20% more entries, who only had 2 shots on goal, in the last 20 minutes and scored only 1.0 goal to 3.6 when the game was on the line.

Collingwood apply pressure well. Well enough to strangle most teams. I think there ability to absorb it and maintain their structure leaves a little to be desired. They were steering from CHB and got most of it coming straight back at them.

Marshall achieved 7 clearances, there is our midfield advantage. We didn't have a ruck advantage and their mids weren't good enough to leave us behind.

Taylor Adams got 8 clearances for the but only 7 disposals in the last 3/4 combined.

Pendlebury was very good in the third but to no avail. He was average for the rest ofthe game.

Crouch had the most clearances, the most inside 50's, the second most disposals and scored 2 goals and split his efforts across 4 quarters but had an average 2nd quarter.

[Scollop]

I wasn't going to point out that Crouch had the most inside 50's for us. There in lies the problem

[CQ SAINT]

I wasn't going to point out that Crouch had the most inside 50's for us. There in lies the problem

Yet those magnificent magpies had 20% more than us and some how the logic reverses. There's a strange bias at play, not sure why?

[Scollop]

I wasn't going to point out that Crouch had the most inside 50's for us. There in lies the problem

Yet those magnificent magpies had 20% more than us and some how the logic reverses. There's a strange bias at play, not sure why?

Callum Wilkie and our coaches may have something to do with our excellent team defense

It's an outlier for them, whereas it's the norm for us

We have been great defensively and scoring from turnovers. We are 7th for total inside 50s and we are not efficient once it gets in there

The AFL average is 44.3 scoring shots per inside 50. We are 16th out of ALL teams. For shots on goal per I50 (excluding rushed behinds) we are 15th

wheeloratings.com

[spert]

We got done around the stoppages- too sloppy, not defensive enough. I think there were a few too many with big heads who got caught out early in the game and didn't put on the physical pressure

[Toy Saint]

Ross Lyon went with the same game plan that's been successful all year, which has a lot of run and overlap. Collingwood managed to block of run into the forward line and put our ball carrier under pressure. Rather than 'bomb it long' our guys were forced to take greater risks and to try and break tackles to penetrate their defense. Unfortunately we couldn't get through and were pressured into errors. Our game style requires a lot of running and I feel we finally managed to 'break' them late in the game. But alas it was too late in the game, we were a bit too far behind and we missed a few shots. Another 5 minutes and we probably would have won.

[shanegrambeau]

Ross Lyon went with the same game plan that's been successful all year, which has a lot of run and overlap. ....

I felt we were in a spot right from the get-go.. In the first quarter there were a couple of mistakes and wasted opportunities. It wasn't going to get easier. I know its futile, but if only Paddy Ryder played, we might have snatched it.