Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/01/2017 in all areas

  1. 16 points
    Tell him you want him back as soon as possible because he's a very important part of the team. Tell him he'll be straight back in and the harder he works the quicker it will be. Give him a reason to be enthusiastic about his recovery. Make him feel wanted, not a failed product for 2017. Don't put him out to pasture and take away his motivation. Tell him he can be part of something really special and finish the year on a high and achieve with the team. Give the kid something, don't take it away.
  2. 6 points
    Tell that to Hipworth from Brisbane
  3. 6 points
    Uninspiring interview really, not much insight. Trotted out the line about the past being irrelevant when asked how on earth one team can have the wool over us for 17 straight matches. Gotta wonder, how do you improve on mistakes from the past if you choose to ignore them?
  4. 4 points
    Take the red n blue glasses off mate. Zac would be best 22 and has 8-10 years of best 22 ahead of him at swans. His high draft pick and the reported 4 year deal is reflective of how he is valued.
  5. 4 points
    The only thing that essentially talks the truth of a football club is what transpires for a couple of hours on the field. Just about everything else is smoke,mirrors ,spin or just plain rubbish imho. Stopped watching pressers and interviews a long time ago. Formulative claptrap. I invite others to do likewise
  6. 4 points
    Dean Kent has eleventy hundred behnds though....
  7. 4 points
    If they were GWS kids all well and good ! Leak the story to the press.Name names. Tell all Mr Reims. Any distraction for them is a bonus.
  8. 3 points
    One thing that I think has gone a little un-noticed, and has been a large key to our success so far this year, has been our terrific spread of goal kickers this season. At the moment we have these players in double figures: Jeff Garlett - 37 Christian Petracca - 23 Tom McDonald - 22 Jack Watts - 20 Mitch Hannan - 19 Jesse Hogan - 14 Jake Melksham - 13 Nathan Jones - 10 James Harmes - 10 Alex Neal-Bullen - 10 One positive that has come out of a year without having Hogan for large parts and missing Watts for a month is that we've had to adapt and learn to find other avenues to goal. Mitch Hannan, outside of a very quiet day yesterday, has been a great acquisition to our side and we've been getting more out of our high half forwards as well. The challenge we now face is being able to learn to play smart, offensive football with Jesse in our side. Some of our best football this year has been without him in the side (Crows at AAMI, Eagles at Domain) and we need to make sure we are not just trying to bomb it on his head all the time. Regardless, it's terrific that we've been able to see this improvement and it certainly holds us in good stead for the years to come.
  9. 3 points
    That's what they want you to think.
  10. 3 points
    I assume your 22nd player is the Invisible Man. That should give us heaps of outside run.
  11. 3 points
    Finally managed to watch a clip of the tackle after reading about it here (and listening to people speak about it on the radio). For mine, @JTR above is correct. If you pin an arm, preventing a player from bracing themselves for their head to hit the ground, you take responsibility. The replay clearly shows Dangerfield pinning an arm and driving Kreuzer head first into the ground. It must be sanctioned with the loss of games. The Brownlow discussion is irrelevant. If you take an action like this and are suspended, you are ineligible. As for consistency, I think the commentators who are arguing that Buddy wasn't charged have it the wrong way around. The fact that Buddy's intentional high contact wasn't picked up on by the MRP indicates that they aren't serious about the head being sacrosanct any more. The lack of consistency here is that Buddy WASN'T charged, not that Dangerfield WAS.
  12. 3 points
    I think it's a bit too simplistic to blame the defenders (not all have I agree) without looking at the whole picture. It's much like when the Australian Cricket team kept 'rotating' the fast bowlers when they were beaten and leaving the batsmen alone. There's another article on afl.com.au today about where we've dropped off lately, and it probably shows some of the reasons why it's so easy for teams to score against us. In a nutshell, in rounds 1 - 13 we averaged over 7 more contested possessions a game, 2.7 more points from stoppages and 4.2 more points from center clearances. Since round 14 that's changed so we average 3.8 less contested possessions, concede 9.8 more points from stoppages and 10.3 less from center clearances. Put basically we're allowing the oppositions to get their hands on the ball too easy, which then results in getting the ball quicker and better into their forward line, so it's easier for their forwards (and harder for us to defend). If we win the ball in the middle and around stoppages, it's harder for the opposition to score because they can't move it as quickly. No coincidence that Jonesy has been out for all those games and Viney also missed 2.5 of them.
  13. 3 points
    On the couch showed a graph with Danger and Martin on 27 with Clarry third on 18. Will be top 5 of he plays well in last 4 games. Needs to work on using his kicking oppressed to turning backwards looking for a handball every time.
  14. 3 points
    Both of those stats point to the midfield. The game is all about pressure. If you allow the opposition mids to kick without any pressure, they can put the ball exactly where they want (hands of their forwards). Lever is just a more aerial Hibberd. Both are very good defenders, but both won't stop the likes of Brown, Daniher, etc. if playing man on man. Omac will again put on muscle in the off season. He will be a Talia or May and will be able to handle the gorillas, but that will be in time. There is no one else coming through, and if Garland were fit, I think I'd prefer Omac.
  15. 3 points
    If Geelong appeal Danger gets OFF! 100% The AFL will be telling Geelong to appeal and the AFL will be telling the MRP to down grade the suspension to a fine. It will happen... No red faces on Brownlow night! Rule change for Brownlow will be made for next season...
  16. 3 points
    I'll back Pedersen in against GWS over Weideman.
  17. 2 points
    Gotta talk to the AFL about the embarrassing look of a Brownlow medallist presenting a brownlow to the second place getter because he was rubbed out....
  18. 2 points
    Hogan is a two to four goal a game forward. The others are three to six goal a game forwards.
  19. 2 points
    The more of his face that's covered the better Biffen, regardless of colour
  20. 2 points
    No we won't get him. Just a trifling issue but why does that ugly big [censored] get to wear a black headband and Hunt gets forced to wear the AFL lisenced product. If they are going to be pathetic and petulant they should do so uniformly or not at alll.
  21. 2 points
    Ben reminds me of an enthusiastic young Labrador with boundless energy and the equivalent trainability. If North tell him to stay, he'll stay.
  22. 2 points
    I would agree but being at the game can only say his was not the only very poor performance in such an apparently important match. Trengove also contributed some useful moments as did others. What he lacked was the "impact" play but again he was not the only one who failed in that. There were a number of players who cost us goals and every player would be dropped if the criteria applied to JT was universal. JT should not be the scapegoat nor should his career be defined on this game. But he may miss this game due to structures and the roles that are needed for this weeks competitors
  23. 2 points
    No I want them all
  24. 2 points
    I disagree that the glaring weakness in our side is our defence. But am very keen to get Lever as he will fit perfectly into our zone strategy . As some have noted just as is the case at the Crows he won't be taking the Browns etc. He will do what he does at the Crows and knock up getting intercept marks and set up attacks with smart kicks. He doesn't address a need so much as value add. Funny week to raise this as yes brown played well (he is almost leading the Coleman so no surprise there) but the reality is that whilst the zone had its moments where there was a mismatch the defence did really well given how poor the pressure from our mids was (which as discussed last week will always cause problems for a zone defence as aggressive as ours, just as it did against the crows). What stat can i find to back my claim up that the back six did well? Let's see - how about the score. They only scored 7 goals with the wind and 11 all day. Like they have done for much of the season the whole back six did their job (which has meant Tmac can go up forward and actually get a mark in our forward line) and kept the roos to a score we should have easily been able to eclipse. I mean come on, the roos only scored 76 points in total. The glaring weakness in this game was our forward line and forward entries. We scored TWO GOALS for the entire second half. Pathetic. We were level at 3 q time thanks to a terrific effort by the back six after the Roos had the wind in the third. We should have smashed them but could only manage two goals kicking with a gale. Hopeless, just hopeless. Not on the back six though. But i 100% agree we have a huge issue with contested marks. We simply do not get enough of them. And it is a long standing problem. The last really good contested mark, with the possible exception of Hogan and Gawn, was Clarke. It is one reason Tmac has been so great to watch up forward. He clunks marks. For me our poor contested marking is one of our two real glaring weaknesses, the other being how few 'elite' kicks we have in the side. Salem, Watts , Hibberd, maybe Brayshaw, maybe Garlett and funnily enough perhaps Jones are our only elite kicks. That is simply not enough and a huge barrier to sustained success, particularly given our game plan relies so much of aggressive use of the ball. When you add that we have a number of players who are poor by hand you have a serious issue.
  25. 2 points
    I was a bit surprised TMac wasn't played in defense when we were going into the wind. We were playing tempo footy and basically trying to limit their scoring ability, so why not put your most experienced KPD on one of their 3 talls. Fair enough to maximise the wind advantage with him forward in the other 2 quarters. I thought it was a bit odd.
This leaderboard is set to Melbourne/GMT+10:00
×