Not a bad result.

Some very bad disposal. Bail & M Jones could not hit the water from a boat.

I'm afraid if you can't hit a target you have no value in this game.

You must hit a target when kicking in the back 50. MUST, if you can't then go long and wide. It is not rocket surgery!.

Roos is our greatest recruit.

All players make mistakes but we have a number who are regular offenders when it comes to poor kicking .

Bail is a regular offender MD.

Because of this problem I doubt he will ever make it at AFL level.

IMO we have to ask ourselves the question "would this player get a game in another AFL team".

The answer for quite a few is no.

I am confident they will be replaced over the next couple of years.

Not a bad result.

Some very bad disposal. Bail & M Jones could not hit the water from a boat.

I'm afraid if you can't hit a target you have no value in this game.

You must hit a target when kicking in the back 50. MUST, if you can't then go long and wide. It is not rocket surgery!.

Roos is our greatest recruit.

This is true. But just about all the bad turnovers were from trying to kick across the ground into the wind. In other words, they tried to switch instead of keeping to the defensive side of the ground. In a real game with a strong and flukey cross wind, I'm sure they'd keep it on the defensive side and let the other team try to get it out, rather than switch to the attacking side and do the hard work for them.

Remember Cross's goal? Blease ran it across the ground, got a "give-and-go" from Watts and short-passed to Cross, who goaled from 40m. The commentators gave him heaps for "overusing the ball" and not going for the long kick to Cross in the first place. If he'd tried that, the wind would have blown it back and it probably would have turned over. It was actually very clever play to run it across the ground against the wind so that Cross could shoot with the wind behind him.

Bail can kick a goal

Remember Cross's goal? Blease ran it across the ground, got a "give-and-go" from Watts and short-passed to Cross, who goaled from 40m. The commentators gave him heaps for "overusing the ball" and not going for the long kick to Cross in the first place. If he'd tried that, the wind would have blown it back and it probably would have turned over. It was actually very clever play to run it across the ground against the wind so that Cross could shoot with the wind behind him.

Good get. The commentary was appalling and that was just one example but it stood out to me. In addition to your point Blease was running across the ground and to get the ball to Cross would have had to kick with his left foot or tried a check kick - and as you say into the wind. It was the percentage play to give and go with Watts but still the commentators bagged (despite the obvious fact it resulted in a goal).

Another dumb call was one of them saying that with the Roos game players who kick accurately and made good decisions would get in the team. Duh - and geez we have a surfeit of such players who just crack it for a game.

Smedts given a reprimand for his hit on Toumpas, seems like Melbourne players are fair game to taken out in pre-season. Every goddamn year a player of ours gets cleaned up and the offender gets away with it.

Was hoping with Sylvia gone that would stop.

Edited March 3, 201411 yr by Pates

Smedts given a reprimand for his hit on Toumpas, seems like Melbourne players are fair game to take out in pre-season. Every goddamn year a player of ours gets cleaned up and the offender gets away with it.

Was hoping with Sylvia gone that would stop.

Reminded me of the Jason Cloke v Tyson Edwards preliminary final whack from a few years ago.. We all remember how that panned out

Reminded me of the Jason Cloke v Tyson Edwards preliminary final whack from a few years ago.. We all remember how that panned out

Seriously I thought on the night he would get away with it, the ball was there as he hit Toumpas, when Cloke hit Tyson Edwards the ball was still on it's way to him. The Smedts & Toumpas incident was high contact and worthy of a free, nothing more IMO

Seriously I thought on the night he would get away with it, the ball was there as he hit Toumpas, when Cloke hit Tyson Edwards the ball was still on it's way to him. The Smedts & Toumpas incident was high contact and worthy of a free, nothing more IMO

Oh come on! Either "the head is sacrosanct" or it isn't. Roos hinted that Toumpas had headaches after the match and the next day.

If it was a bump, it would be held that if you decide to go in hard on someone with their head down, any impact is your responsibility, whether you have your eyes on the ball or not. The same should apply with punching (at head height) from behind, especially if you're going to punch in a "round-arm" fashion like Smedts did. It wasn't deliberate, but he got off extremely lightly.

The trouble with MRP decisions like this is that it gives the impression that some heads are more sacrosanct than others. Which is why an overhaul is needed.

Byron Pickett would have got 10 weeks for that

Tha's why Hawks, Geelong and Swans are so ahead of the rest. They hit targets. You run hard and spread and turn the ball over - you are dead meat.

Geelong have been very good at bringing Hawthorn's kicking unstuck in the past with their pressure on the ball carrier and target. Unfortunately a lot of our poor kicks the other night were not under pressure and were skill errors. One of the things we are working on by drafting and trading for elite kicks like Vince & Salem.

Geelong have been very good at bringing Hawthorn's kicking unstuck in the past with their pressure on the ball carrier and target. Unfortunately a lot of our poor kicks the other night were not under pressure and were skill errors. One of the things we are working on by drafting and trading for elite kicks like Vince & Salem.

I think part of it is as Daniel cross said, trying too hard to stick to the game plan and not playing off instincts, and there are also alot of instances of players up field not running hard enough to provide and option so the 1st or 2nd kick out of the backline is abit more dangerous than it should be

All players make mistakes but we have a number who are regular offenders when it comes to poor kicking .

Bail is a regular offender MD.

Because of this problem I doubt he will ever make it at AFL level.

IMO we have to ask ourselves the question "would this player get a game in another AFL team".

The answer for quite a few is no.

I am confident they will be replaced over the next couple of years.

It's early days but his field and goal kicking has looked better this year. He's not a top 4 quality player (but then again is Puopolo) but I'm hoping for good things from Bail this year. If a few players like him hold his spot then it will mean we can actually develop JKH and Salem. I don't want JKH and Salem at Casey if they are our best 22, but ideally if Blease and Bail do well enough the youngsters will be better for it.

The other thing is that forwards are very reliant on the work of the midfield and the work of other forwards. The likes of Toumpas and Bail using their top quality endurance to get out in space and drawing the ball means Hogan and Dawes have more room to lead in to. Which then means more fast play or more crumbs for the smalls again. It's all a vicious cycle that getting our 30 inside 50's a game has badly disrupted.

Oh come on! Either "the head is sacrosanct" or it isn't. Roos hinted that Toumpas had headaches after the match and the next day.

If it was a bump, it would be held that if you decide to go in hard on someone with their head down, any impact is your responsibility, whether you have your eyes on the ball or not. The same should apply with punching (at head height) from behind, especially if you're going to punch in a "round-arm" fashion like Smedts did. It wasn't deliberate, but he got off extremely lightly.

The trouble with MRP decisions like this is that it gives the impression that some heads are more sacrosanct than others. Which is why an overhaul is needed.

The head is sacrosanct for players who put their head over the ball. A player is still allowed to spoil.

If it was a bump - end of story

The head is sacrosanct for players who put their head over the ball. A player is still allowed to spoil.

If it was a bump - end of story

normally agree with you psd but i think you are wrong here

this wasn't a normal attempt at a spoil gone wrong. this was a "round-arm" swing at ball/head height. very dangerous and reckless

......and it connected high

i've seen a lot less get punished heavier

Good get. The commentary was appalling and that was just one example but it stood out to me. In addition to your point Blease was running across the ground and to get the ball to Cross would have had to kick with his left foot or tried a check kick - and as you say into the wind. It was the percentage play to give and go with Watts but still the commentators bagged (despite the obvious fact it resulted in a goal).

Another dumb call was one of them saying that with the Roos game players who kick accurately and made good decisions would get in the team. Duh - and geez we have a surfeit of such players who just crack it for a game.

I gotta disagree. The direct kick to Cross was the correct play imo. It was not difficult and unless he totally miskicked it, it would have been the better, less risky play. From memory, Watts was under some pressure getting the ball back to Blease. The consistent problem kicks were more the ones 90 degrees to that one.

The only player who I think would have got a small cross next to their name from Friday was M. Jones. Missed more than any others and probably didn't nail too many pressure possessions. Still a work in progress.

Nicho on the other hand missed very few (I noticed one that wasn't a massive clanger, but can't recall too many others) and also had a few very nice, long kicks that got us through the congestion and out into space.

normally agree with you psd but i think you are wrong here

this wasn't a normal attempt at a spoil gone wrong. this was a "round-arm" swing at ball/head height. very dangerous and reckless

......and it connected high

i've seen a lot less get punished heavier

You could be right DC, just think it's one of those a defender can get away with and if I was in Smedts shoes I would have done the same and made Toumpas earn it and think twice next time

You could be right DC, just think it's one of those a defender can get away with and if I was in Smedts shoes I would have done the same and made Toumpas earn it and think twice next time

haha. just like crackers keenan or david rhys-jones eh?

The head is sacrosanct for players who put their head over the ball. A player is still allowed to spoil.

I don't think that is quite correct. You do not need to have your head over the ball for your head to be sacrosanct these days. For example a jumping bump into a player standing up.

However in the current case the Geelong player did seem to be looking at the ball and not Toumpas, which together with the fact that his hit was not outrageously late, probably got him off from a severe penalty.

it's the "round-arm" action from the side that is the issue for me

eyes on the ball or not this a reckless and dangerous way to go for a spoil

he was going for the spoil and not the mark

with this type of spoil if you make head contact (highly likely) then you should be gone. arm only contact then a free (and a warning from ump)

no place in a marking contest for this type of spoil

IMO

Reckless, high contact. I can't remember the formula, but one would have thought that it should be at least a game.

Yet King's reckless, high contact, severe damage kick on Jeff White was after all, according to Bomber Thompson (who I never liked and now loathe), just a bit of a joke :-((

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-03-02/we-shouldve-defeated-cats-georgiou

just a tiny thing.. it is nice to see someone at the club saying 'we should have won'

the reality is that most of us are content with a narrow lost with an undermanned side against a top team, but you don't like to see that defeatist attitude coming out of the club, like we have seen on occasions in the last few years

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-03-02/we-shouldve-defeated-cats-georgiou

just a tiny thing.. it is nice to see someone at the club saying 'we should have won'

the reality is that most of us are content with a narrow lost with an undermanned side against a top team, but you don't like to see that defeatist attitude coming out of the club, like we have seen on occasions in the last few years

Yes it is nice C&B

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-03-02/we-shouldve-defeated-cats-georgiou

just a tiny thing.. it is nice to see someone at the club saying 'we should have won'

the reality is that most of us are content with a narrow lost with an undermanned side against a top team, but you don't like to see that defeatist attitude coming out of the club, like we have seen on occasions in the last few years

I agree. Indeed it seems the ban on players talking about anything other than the process has been lifted

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-03-02/we-shouldve-defeated-cats-georgiou

just a tiny thing.. it is nice to see someone at the club saying 'we should have won'

the reality is that most of us are content with a narrow lost with an undermanned side against a top team, but you don't like to see that defeatist attitude coming out of the club, like we have seen on occasions in the last few years

That's what coming from a winning team does. I think he is a good pick up, whether he plays a lot of senior footy or not his attitude is a real bonus...and he can play.

Georgiou seems a no- nonsense down to earth hard working defender who, to date, has far exceeded expectations.

Good luck to him. I like his attitude.

Somewhat reminiscent of Anthony Ingerson.