Post Match Discussion - Round 15

[Redleg 37,598]

The umpiring was horrendous but the Bail deliberate was definitely there, IMO. Just stupid from Bail, a ridiculous lack of composure.

Disagree. If you look at the head on he can be seen clearly running across the goal, but is then grabbed and turns left for one step and takes it through. exactly as Dunstall described it. He is under pressure especially as he was actually being tackled by the jumper when he went through the goals.

It was a horrendous decision. Matthew Richardson descibed it as a shocker. It then affected us on 2 more occasions where we gave away goals instead of rushing the ball through.

[Pennant St Dee 11,276]

Why? We've got a raft of players on our list who haven't shown much and been given 6 years to do it. The kid is not even 20 yet.

Don't feed the troll

[titan_uranus 22,363]

There's no way in hell that was the correct call on Bail. That is not what the rule was brought in for. If you are under pressure of any sort the benefit of the doubt rests with you and you are allowed to concede the behind. The rule is there primarily to stop players kicking in from wasting time, kicking to themselves, and then going backwards, or from players who have time and space but no real intention of going anywhere other than over the line. When there's a player almost literally tackling you as you get rid of it, hounding you over the line, you are allowed to concede.

there's no way you can argue we made the right choice.

"They give the young ones time. Give the likes of Toumpas, Salem and Barry time to grow.

​That was what I was responding and the fact that there are many players that were picked around the same time as Toumpass and they are playing good football so you can't just say he needs time when all around him don't seem to need it.

Toumpass is just one in a litany of errors our recruiters have made and we have to face up to it that we don't have talent below waiting to push their way in to the side.

I'd like to see him promoted in to the team next week and given a chance to see what he's got; I certainly don't want to see him go the way of Strauss, Blease and Tapscott who are struggling after a few years in the seconds.

i was totally p1ssed when we didn't pick wines but I'm over that I was totally p1ssed when we picked Cook, over anyone but I'm over that; I just get sick of hearing that Toumpass needs time when other players of similar vintage are al performing well.

We have picked several players that have played well in the SANFL and I'm beginning to think that it is a very poor competition and that we shouldn't take much notice of the form there.

Do you believe we should be picking 18 years olds to have an impact in 1-2 years?

If so, you don't understand recruiting.

If not, then why are you complaining?

The fact that Toumpas started off a lesser AFL player than Wines or Macrae or Stringer, or that he hasn't developed as fast as them, does not mean the decision was wrong (yet, anyway). This is the 36th possible game any of them could have played. If you're willing to draw the line in a 19-year old after 36 possible games, then you don't understand, or in Toumpas' specific case don't want to understand, the realities of life.

None of this is to say that picking Toumpas was definitely the right call either. We don't know right now. But we aren't supposed to know after 1-2 years. That's not what drafting is for.

Edited June 29, 2014 by titan_uranus

[McQueen 17,863]

Yet he can't get a game, in this side, despite being fully fit.

I don't love hating Toumpas, but we're looking at a player at the end of his second season who has no confidence and has shown none of his wares.

He's now coming from a long way back.

Was a jet in SANFL and plays really well in intraclubs.

Pick 4.

[mdemon 266]

Three things seem blindingly obvious:

1. We have far too many 'ordinary' footballers on our list - Terlich, Bail, Nicholson etc.);

2. Despite his 2nd effort heroics, Dawes is, at best, a 2nd string forward - (let us hope/pray that Hogan gets on the park,this year or next);

3. Frawley should be encouraged to seek opportunities elsewhere, (but only after offering him a tempting $650k+ contract to ensure that whoever courts him pays sufficient to ensure that we get a 1st round compensatory pick immediately after the one that we are destined to receive )

[mrtwister 650]

Was pretty frustrated at our midfield constantly chasing their midfield through stoppages instead of running through to try and get the ball. We were just too defensive and reactive up until the last moments of the third quarter.

We had midfielders that were being held constantly but if they stand still, nobody sees it. If they push themselves to keep running through the stoppages with a player hanging off them, it draws more attention.

Edited June 29, 2014 by mrtwister

[Binmans PA 26,076]

It seems that if you stop Jones you cut off our midfield clearances and they did that in the first half, he needs the others to step up a bit.

We have to get at least two more quality mids and if we have to draft them in, then so be it, you don't get too many clubs giving up quality for draft picks.

I'd argue Vince has really stepped up over the last two to three weeks, RF.

And the bolded bit is interesting. Some Demonlanders seem to be happy to do this with Frawley.

Edited June 29, 2014 by AdamFarr

[Binmans PA 26,076]

There was absolutely no physicality to the game, boring, bruise free football.

There were 177 tackles laid! That's not bruise free footy. In fact, it goes against my rule: if your team lays 80 tackles or more, you invariably win the game. We laid a staggering 91 tackles. 91! They laid 86. Simply staggering. I'm pretty sure that's a season record. I can't remember the last time we laid that many tackles.

Things you'll find on Demonland after a loss:

• No matter how he plays Watts is potted. One possession out of his 15-20 will be a turnover or he doesn't win a one on one contest and we spend pages dumping on the bloke and focusing on that.
• Toumpas will be blamed, directly or indirectly, for the loss and for our horrid drafting, even when he isn't even in the side.
• Everyone will ask for 'Player A' to replace 'Player B', even though 'Player A' has been not been doing much in the reserves side and offers little in the seniors. But they will be 'the answer' to our pace or disposal problems.
• Our horrible drafting
• Still horrible drafting
• We could have had Wines etc etc
• If Frawley has even an average game everyone will tear him down, claim he is gone and that we can't wait to get MORE top end picks, even though 90% of the posters have whinged about how bad our drafting has been.

Some of these aren't necessarily wrong, just terribly predictable. We lost because we still aren't that good of a side. Yes, the Roos factor has allowed us to double our win tally and be WAY more competitive than we would have hoped for this year. But games like today still highlight how far we have to go and that we still need to be awfully patient, even when we have a right to demanding some success from our team.

Our time will come, even if it's still a few years from now.

Even if Frawley is in our best players on the day, some have a whack.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

There were 177 tackles laid! That's not bruise free footy. In fact, it goes against my rule: if your team lays 80 tackles or more, you invariably win the game. We laid a staggering 91 tackles. 91! They laid 86. Simply staggering. I'm pretty sure that's a season record. I can't remember the last time we laid that many tackles.

Even if Frawley is in our best players on the day, some have a whack.

And that's because of his contract situation, which is a little of his doing, but it makes him an easy target. He smashed the pants off Jones, but a blunder or two is all we see.

[mrtwister 650]

There were 177 tackles laid! We laid a staggering 91 tackles. 91! They laid 86. Simply staggering. I'm pretty sure that's a season record.

There have been 6 games this season that had more than 177 total tackles.

And one of them was ours against the Dogs in rd 8.

183

Edited June 29, 2014 by mrtwister

[Binmans PA 26,076]

Another competitive game. But we've been there for a while now, so its no longer good enough and the players have got to understand that next step is required from respectable losses. Its up to the coaching staff to get the message through. Players have to toughen up a lot and win at any cost. Don't care how, or how we go about it, the players just have to get it done. Losing is no longer an option and as a football team they must come to beat Freo next week.

There's no way today was a respectable loss though, D. I've seen the word 'diabolical' used quite a bit in the wash up. I reckon it's extremely apt.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

There's no way today was a respectable loss though, D. I've seen the word 'diabolical' used quite a bit in the wash up. I reckon it's extremely apt.

And even still we only got done by a kick. That doesn't condone the performance, just shows how much further we have come as a side. We desperately need to turn these games into wins, but a diabolical performance for us would have resulted in a 10 goal loss. Now we are in the game. It's something to hang out hat on at any rate.

[dee-tox 4,824]

Weird thread this! Enjoying a cruise down the Rhine thought and I'd get some inciteful analysis on the game. All I can guage is that every player except Jamar and Viney was rubbish. Guess that's the sad thing about footy forums.

[Binmans PA 26,076]

Toumpas will be on the firing line next year.

And what about Jake Stringer, who was taken just after him and averages less possessions, but who has played more games? Toumpas also came off a double hip surgery before his first pre season. I thin kwe certainly have to give Jimmy time.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Weird thread this! Enjoying a cruise down the Rhine thought and I'd get some inciteful analysis on the game. All I can guage is that every player except Jamar and Viney was rubbish. Guess that's the sad thing about footy forums.

Just too many 'average' players out there today. Our bottom six (guys like Kent, Bail, Salem etc) didn't give us enough and, to me, that hurts more than anything. We can match it with the other sides but it's those bottom 6 players and their inconsistent efforts that hold us back.

[Binmans PA 26,076]

There have been 6 games this season that had more than 177 total tackles.

And one of them was ours against the Dogs in rd 8.

183

Thanks, mrtwister. That's surprising, although I remember their tackling being absolutely ferocious in Round 8. They would have out tackled us that day, would they not? And I meant MFC games, not necessarily the whole comp. But that is an interesting stat.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

I have just watched the Bail deliberate rushed behind clip - it is something that one sees several times every game of every round: why pick that one??

How many have been paid this year? Last year? Ever?

It seems so unjust, but typifies the pathetic inconsistent state of umpiring at AFL.

Not saying it cost us the game, but it certainly put more indecision into our deep defenders especially in the dying minutes, who may otherwise have rushed it through.

I have looked at the replay too and Bail could have made it a little less obvious by twisting and turning to avoid the tackle and then taking it over the goal line. He did appear to run the ball over the line very deliberately. He just headed for it in a straight line. Deserved to be pinged IMO.

[Buzzy 931]

There's no way in hell that was the correct call on Bail. That is not what the rule was brought in for. If you are under pressure of any sort the benefit of the doubt rests with you and you are allowed to concede the behind. The rule is there primarily to stop players kicking in from wasting time, kicking to themselves, and then going backwards, or from players who have time and space but no real intention of going anywhere other than over the line. When there's a player almost literally tackling you as you get rid of it, hounding you over the line, you are allowed to concede.

Do you believe we should be picking 18 years olds to have an impact in 1-2 years?

If so, you don't understand recruiting.

If not, then why are you complaining?

The fact that Toumpas started off a lesser AFL player than Wines or Macrae or Stringer, or that he hasn't developed as fast as them, does not mean the decision was wrong (yet, anyway). This is the 36th possible game any of them could have played. If you're willing to draw the line in a 19-year old after 36 possible games, then you don't understand, or in Toumpas' specific case don't want to understand, the realities of life.

None of this is to say that picking Toumpas was definitely the right call either. We don't know right now. But we aren't supposed to know after 1-2 years. That's not what drafting is for.

I saw it live and haven't watched the replay, but my first thought was that when he first picked it up was that he wasn't under too much pressure - but then subsequently he ran himself into a pressure situation. He could have easily taken another option earlier - and of course if you wait long enough you are ALWAYS going to be under pressure - to use that as an excuse 100% is too simplistic a view.

So there goes his benefit of the doubt.

I don't mind if they pay those as deliberate. Bad luck Bail. Bad option.

[Nasher 33,047]

We've come a long, long way when a 6 point loss can be described as "diabolical".

[Clayton van Oliver 1,675]

Every single player out there contributed to that pathetic effort. Dawes needs to mark a [censored] ball just once. Tyson needs to stop being clever and just dispose of the ball. Dunn needs to learn when to just take the bloody ball over the line instead of gifting the goals to the opposition. Watts just needs to kick those goals when it matters. Matt Jones and Bail are just dumb, dumb, dumb players. Even Nate Jones had a stinker and Bernie's horrible kick in the end cost us that one goal difference.

Every single player clunked that one and we lost it collectively. Not good enough, but if we'd won that it gives the team false hope. Didn't deserve it one iota.

Well, at least they did it as a team... -cough-

[DemonOX 8,530]

If Roos can't turn us around then no one can IMO.

This is one of my biggest concerns.

[jackaub 1,402]

How good was Jamar I for one was ready to write him off last year !

Standout game Minson was done over big time fantastic

Our mids need to be more aattacking at the stoppages Bulldogs ran through the ball all day we were more worried about them than the ball It was horrible

[Dr. Gonzo 22,415]

I have looked at the replay too and Bail could have made it a little less obvious by twisting and turning to avoid the tackle and then taking it over the goal line. He did appear to run the ball over the line very deliberately. He just headed for it in a straight line. Deserved to be pinged IMO.

Rubbish. You're allowed to rush it through deliberately if you're under pressure, which he clearly was.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,415]

We've come a long, long way when a 6 point loss can be described as "diabolical".

The first half was diabolical. The second half was just OK to poor.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

The VFL is obviously of such a high standard, just look at Casey. Bendigo Gold reek of talent. You have players standing at the interchange gate with arms folded watching the birdies fly past and not wanting to go out onto the ground when it's their turn to go. Wow, Robbie, your post could actually rank up there with one of the more ridiculous. And that's saying something because you have quite a bit of competition on DL.

I wasn't suggesting that we pick players from the VFL, not sure where you get that from my post. What I was saying is we should rethink picking players based on their form in the SANFL, Terlich, Georgiou, Tapscott, Toumpass and even Trenners.