Post Match. Pies lose to Power - All comments please

[Pies4shaw]

[Dave The Man]

[ronrat]

I don't think Cox was that bad. The confusing umpiring (and that is kind) didn't help him and I thought he held his own. As the commontators said Ryder should be dominating but didn't. He competes and if can continue upwards could be a nightmare if we can stop our small forwards trying to outmark each other. Daicos, and Brown need to be given the roles next year to crumb off him. Look how many ruckmen are recycled. because it takes time. Ceglar, Luenberger, Stanley, Longer, Ryder, Petrie, Witts, McEvoy, Nankervis . Mumford for starters.

[Mugwump]

1. Talent deficit - Gray, Wingard, Ryder + their bottom three >> Elliott, Adams, Cox + Blair, Brown, Fasolo.

2. Big body deficit.

3. Skill deficit - we gave them four goals from turnovers more than they gave us

Fair result, given the above. Can we get better ? No idea, and i do7bt anyone else has one either.

[Piesnchess]

[PyreneesPie]

[Mugwump]

[PyreneesPie]

[Dave The Man]

Dixon showing we don't a Proper KPD/FB

[HAL]

Yes he did, didn't he.

[Jezza]

There were no shocks with how the match played out. Port Adelaide is a finals team and we're not, and the scoreboard reflected that in the end. Although, they're not convincing and I don't think they'll get far in September anyway.

Considering the number of exclusions we had which consisted of Pendles, Grundy, Wells, Greenwood and Varcoe it was always going to be difficult to win this game, especially against a Port Adelaide team that had been humiliated the previous week against their arch-rival and wanted to make a statement.

We played better football in the second half when we took the game on and played instinctively. The high possession game plan which was implemented in the first half was rigid and the players looked uncomfortable executing it. Our ineffective use of the ball exacerbated the issues with this particular game plan.

I had some hope in the third quarter when we mounted a come back, but at no stage did it look like we would win the game. However, we didn't get blown out of the park and we fought out the match reasonably well, especially when it looked like Port might blow us away at various stages of the game.

Reid's performance was excellent as he presented in the forward contests and got reward for effort more often than not. The improvement of Langdon and Scharenberg is another positive I could identify today as well.

Elliott and Fasolo are having a dip in form at the moment, and while De Goey is still a young player, his inconsistency will continue to be a source of frustration for supporters.

It's a sombre feeling when we're mathematically gone now, as we enter four years without finals (our third worst period in the club's history), and who knows when we'll be back in the eight again.

It's going to be a big psychological test for the players to see how they motivate themselves for the final two games. I'm sure some supporters will want us to "tank", but I'd like to see us go out on a high and ruin the chances of Geelong and Melbourne who still have much to play for.

[PyreneesPie]

So, does anyone reckon that Ollie Wines will get cited for his head high hit on Langdon? Probably not, because a) Langdon is a Collingwood player and b) Tommy did not make a fuss of it.
The insconsistency of the MRP drives me mad.

[Jezza]

He should be cited by the MRP. The AFL has made it abundantly clear that the head is sacred.

[PyreneesPie]

[Piesnchess]