Originally Posted by
NeonBible
Hi all,
Great reading everyone's thoughts as usual! I pretty much echo all of the sentiments. Parker has just become a magnificent leader, if he wasn't already. Dawson is so brave, Blakey's runs are exhilerating, and Bell was disappointing. What could've been if Lance and Sam had their kicking boots on!
I would like to make an observation - there was much discussion about our midfield and how we were "smashed" in centre breaks. I wonder if it was by design?? We must remember both teams were coming off incredibly interrupted preparations. They'd been in hotel rooms, airport lounges and plane seats leading into this match. I doubt either coach wanted a contested dogfight!! Adhering to defensive structures and zones is more physically demanding than a free-flowing, end to end game. This match had a lot less "general play" than most games this year (which is why I think some of those that thrive on contested/defensive/pressure games, like Bell, Wicks, Hewett had less impact)
Both coaches would've been nervous but happy to concede quick centre breaks and then back their ability to rebound to get more direct and fast footy going. Rather than try and cause stoppages. Despite the frantic nature of the game and the heavy scoring, it might've been the least exhausting and physically demanding game that both teams have played in this year!!
What do we think?? Am I barking mad? It's late here - I could be!! Have just put the replay on and it felt very deliberate. JL even resisted the temptation to put Hewett our best shutdown mid on Parish or Merrett!! It's like he did not want it to become a dour defensive, stoppage-based game under any circumstances, and neither did Ben Rutten! Were the quick centre breaks both teams conceded just a necessary evil to protect the fitness of their players after far from ideal preparation??
CHEER CHEER
Bookmarks