Watching the replay and the game I am sure that Jeff Garlett's second goal was absolutely brilliant. The commentators said that he fell over. I don't think he did, I think he deliberately propped to elude the guy on his hammer. What do others think?

Definitely propped!

In the cold hard light of day, I'm okay with that. Provided they learn from them. They won't learn anything from screwups in a game where we're down by 10 goals at half time and the only remaining hope is to lose by less than 15.

But in an important game, big crowd, against good oppo where we're holding our own and playing (overall) decent footy ... then they can see that if they cut out the dumb mistakes, then we're in a pretty good situation. We can win those games. Bring on the next opponent.

The trouble is Ted, our endeavor was there for most of the match, but as soon as the wick is turned up and it gets hot in the kitchen there just always seems to be 2 3 or more players that somehow manage to do the dumbest things when we can least afford it. And some of them arent new to the scene either. So you have to ask, are they actually up to playing solid footy when the pressure is placed on them which is part of the game.

I realise experience under match day pressure "should" help. But for some reason we just keep unearthing new ways of deestroying the movement of the air conveyance.

Hopefully we get into more of these situations this year so the FD can see who is up to it and who isn't and we trade accordingly.

Cant see us winning on a regular basis until the regular offenders are replaced with more reliable/talented performers. Brayshaw is one that brought a smile to my heart on Monday that we have found someone special in this regard. Bring on more Brayshaws please Roos!

I am really sorry if my preoccupation with winning as against losing is annoying you guys.

Sorry for wanting to wHinGE.

I get so bloody tired of gee we played a lot better today but we lost never mind we are better.

Agreed. I actually said the same thing about the Dunn error at the time. Still, it was so disappointing because Dunn is such a beautiful kick. It just ended up being dumb footy that he got too close to the man on the mark and then execution wise, that he didn't get more air time on it to get it over that man properly.

Dunn should't be taking the kick ins often unless we are looking to just bomb it for a change up to the regular strats IMO. He lacks the precision kicking skills required at this level to hit lead up or short targets efficiently that's why he often goes the big bomb.

Part of the blame for this has to be put on Roos & Co as this has been obvious for many games now.

How often do you see the opposition get a quick outlet kick into the pocket as first option from kick ins? Let me tell you it's pretty regular and they dont often miss either. What do we do? We continue with Dunny for pretty much the entire game and its fairly predictable. He'll often kick it to himself, play on and roost it down the line or occasionally bomb it down the middle as a change up or just bomb it out wide without playing on.

Old fashioned 80s/90s style footy from back in the day. Not saying we shld never do this or that the other way (short outlet precision kick in to pocket etc) is the only/best method 100% of the time either. But the present strat isnt working well. And if its not working...fix it.

Use better kick ins who are more accurate by foot most of the time for a start pls Roosey... eg, Jetta/Watts

The trouble is Ted, our endeavor was there for most of the match, but as soon as the wick is turned up and it gets hot in the kitchen there just always seems to be 2 3 or more players that somehow manage to do the dumbest things when we can least afford it. And some of them arent new to the scene either. So you have to ask, are they actually up to playing solid footy when the pressure is placed on them which is part of the game.

I realise experience under match day pressure "should" help. But for some reason we just keep unearthing new ways of deestroying the movement of the air conveyance.

Hopefully we get into more of these situations this year so the FD can see who is up to it and who isn't and we trade accordingly.

Cant see us winning on a regular basis until the regular offenders are replaced with more reliable/talented performers. Brayshaw is one that brought a smile to my heart on Monday that we have found someone special in this regard. Bring on more Brayshaws please Roos!

totally agree. Interesting that the likes of Brayshaw, Van da man and to a point Salem arent making these same misjudgements ( well not at the same regularity as some of the older heads !!

Thanks for the lecture. I'm one of many regular posters on the site that watch from interstate. Like others, such as McQueen, Ethan Tremblay, rpfc, Goodvibes, Billy2803 (sorry if I got the numbers wrong), Little Goffy, Pennant St Dee, grazman and Clint Bizkit, all of whom I consider to be knowledgeable and intelligent posters, I pay my membership and watch from afar and attend when I can.

Looking at that list, some of the best posters are actually interstaters.

Dunn should't be taking the kick ins often unless we are looking to just bomb it for a change up to the regular strats IMO. He lacks the precision kicking skills required at this level to hit lead up or short targets efficiently that's why he often goes the big bomb.

Part of the blame for this has to be put on Roos & Co as this has been obvious for many games now.

How often do you see the opposition get a quick outlet kick into the pocket as first option from kick ins? Let me tell you it's pretty regular and they dont often miss either. What do we do? We continue with Dunny for pretty much the entire game and its fairly predictable. He'll often kick it to himself, play on and roost it down the line or occasionally bomb it down the middle as a change up or just bomb it out wide without playing on.

Old fashioned 80s/90s style footy from back in the day. Not saying we shld never do this or that the other way (short outlet precision kick in to pockeg etc) is the only/best method 100% of the time either. But the present strat isnt working well. And if its not working...fix it.

Use better kick ins who are more accurate by foot most of the time fkr a start pls Roosey... eg, Jetta/Watts

I prefer the kick to himself and roost it as far out of the defensive zone as possible. The short kick into the pocket means our next kick either has to be pretty precise or it ends up being a similar result to the first option.

Definitely propped!

superbly done too I thought. Plays with flair and aplomb. Granted some commentators might not be used to that currently in red and blue...hence their mistake

Looking at that list, some of the best posters are actually interstaters.

And they're just the ones I remembered off the top of my head. Then there are some like bing181 and Sylvia Saint who are overseas.

There's no doubt you have to be at the game to pick up certain details about what happens, but I think you can get the gist on TV. Some broadcasts are better than others, too (depends on the producer, perhaps?) - I've watched a number of games where the cameras regularly pan to a point where I can see most of what's happening ahead of the player, which is the most important thing. I've also seen others where the broadcasters seem intent on me seeing the boogers in the players nose and that's about all, which is frustrating.

There are also disadvantages to being at the ground, like when you get people who seem hell bent on standing up and/or walking up and down the aisles obscuring your view, or when play is at the opposite corner of the ground to where you're sitting.

Another disadvantage of being at the game is that some have no idea what they are looking at...

And they're just the ones I remembered off the top of my head. Then there are some like bing181 and Sylvia Saint who are overseas.

There's no doubt you have to be at the game to pick up certain details about what happens, but I think you can get the gist on TV. Some broadcasts are better than others, too (depends on the producer, perhaps?) - I've watched a number of games where the cameras regularly pan to a point where I can see most of what's happening ahead of the player, which is the most important thing. I've also seen others where the broadcasters seem intent on me seeing the boogers in the players nose and that's about all, which is frustrating.

There are also disadvantages to being at the ground, like when you get people who seem hell bent on standing up and/or walking up and down the aisles obscuring your view, or when play is at the opposite corner of the ground to where you're sitting.

One of the other big disadvantages is the game style, with so many players around the ball it is often difficult to see what's going on.

So yes you get a good overall view of the ground but you often don't get a good view of the play.

might be just me but even when at the ground I often end up needing the replay up on the screen to figure out some of the close in play stuff...lol

And they're just the ones I remembered off the top of my head. Then there are some like bing181 and Sylvia Saint who are overseas.

There's no doubt you have to be at the game to pick up certain details about what happens, but I think you can get the gist on TV. Some broadcasts are better than others, too (depends on the producer, perhaps?) - I've watched a number of games where the cameras regularly pan to a point where I can see most of what's happening ahead of the player, which is the most important thing. I've also seen others where the broadcasters seem intent on me seeing the boogers in the players nose and that's about all, which is frustrating.

There are also disadvantages to being at the ground, like when you get people who seem hell bent on standing up and/or walking up and down the aisles obscuring your view, or when play is at the opposite corner of the ground to where you're sitting.

there's a bit both ways

being at the game certainly gives you a wider perspective than the tv. you can also track certain players, watch interchanges, structures and match ups easier

tv gives you the detail better and the close ups you miss at the game, specially when the play is distant. you also notice the "invisible" players better.

i like being there and soaking up the atmosphere then watching he replays on tv

there's a bit both ways

being at the game certainly gives you a wider perspective than the tv. you can also track certain players, watch interchanges, structures and match ups easier

tv gives you the detail better and the close ups you miss at the game, specially when the play is distant. you also notice the "invisible" players better.

i like being there and soaking up the atmosphere then watching he replays on tv

If we aren't 18th in the league when it comes to efficient interchanges then I'd be shocked.

Fitzpatrick trotting off when the ball was turned over on the far wing was a classic example of us volunteering to play with 17 men (and sometimes 16).

It's amazing how frequently we stuff it up.

superbly done too I thought. Plays with flair and aplomb. Granted some commentators might not be used to that currently in red and blue...hence their mistake

He's been a rare solid reycled player for us so far BB. The blues really have buggered themselves lately. I can only hope we've finally turned the corner in this regard thx to Roos. Been a long time coming. Now to fill in the rest of the gaps!

Another disadvantage of being at the game is that some have no idea what they are looking at...

Can u blame us RP? We haven't looked anything like what normal AFL teams look like for nearly a decade with the exception of the odd rare gem here and there (eg, Monday) so when we do look like it at times like that it's all a bit strange O.o

might be just me but even when at the ground I often end up needing the replay up on the screen to figure out some of the close in play stuff...lol

Not alone there BB. Me and bro are often turtle necking the big screen to try and work out how we managed that last diabolical F.U! :-O

......... and work out how we managed that last diabolical F.U! :-O

practice !!!

I agree with these examples but where in the hell are the other eight?

So we kick the ball to Howe who marks it and kicks a point. They kick it in and with a chain of unbroken kicks and handballs score a goal at the other end. Therefore Howe's miss is counted as a turnover? Come off it jnrmac! Surely turnovers can be classified into two categories. Forced and unforced. Much the same as tennis has unforced errors and forced ones.

You have to get the ball from somewhere. There are four ways, and only four ways - a stoppage, a kick in from a behind, a free kick, or a turnover.

The stat that says Collingwood scored 13 goals from turnovers indicates they obtained the ball from a turnover instead of one of the other three. They might have kicked it between themselves 50 times around half-back without us touching it for 10 minutes in between. But they got the ball to start with from a turnover.

It doesn't have to be a glaringly awful howler of a mistake to count as a turnover. Just needs to be a situation where they got the ball to start with off us.

Maybe what that stat indicates more than anything is that they didn't get their goals from stoppages, for example (i.e. this wasn't a game where they were breaking free of us at stoppages repeatedly and scoring at will in that regard, which has happened before to the MFC).

You have to get the ball from somewhere. There are four ways, and only four ways - a stoppage, a kick in from a behind, a free kick, or a turnover.

The stat that says Collingwood scored 13 goals from turnovers indicates they obtained the ball from a turnover instead of one of the other three. They might have kicked it between themselves 50 times around half-back without us touching it for 10 minutes in between. But they got the ball to start with from a turnover.

It doesn't have to be a glaringly awful howler of a mistake to count as a turnover. Just needs to be a situation where they got the ball to start with off us.

Maybe what that stat indicates more than anything is that they didn't get their goals from stoppages, for example (i.e. this wasn't a game where they were breaking free of us at stoppages repeatedly and scoring at will in that regard, which has happened before to the MFC).

When you think about it, giving away a free kick could easily be classified as a turnover. Confusing isn't it?

And they're just the ones I remembered off the top of my head. Then there are some like bing181 and Sylvia Saint who are overseas.

There's no doubt you have to be at the game to pick up certain details about what happens, but I think you can get the gist on TV. Some broadcasts are better than others, too (depends on the producer, perhaps?) - I've watched a number of games where the cameras regularly pan to a point where I can see most of what's happening ahead of the player, which is the most important thing. I've also seen others where the broadcasters seem intent on me seeing the boogers in the players nose and that's about all, which is frustrating.

There are also disadvantages to being at the ground, like when you get people who seem hell bent on standing up and/or walking up and down the aisles obscuring your view, or when play is at the opposite corner of the ground to where you're sitting.

Schooled him. Well done, Nasher.

Are you kidding, you've been writing rubbish on this forum for so long and now you tell us you rarely go. That's what frustrates we regulars. We have to put up with rubbish from those who don't go. It is different a far different experience being there. For starters you see the whole game unfold, not the minimal picture of the screen. For example if you had been going you would know by now toumpas is one of the better team kicks, that he is a team player and is improving weekly.

Which 'you regulars' are you talking about?

Just watching replay for first time. I note that with 8 minutes to go in 2nd quarter, after Oxley takes his 2nd intercept mark in close succession, Timmy is already asking the question "Melbourne now have a decision, do they let him go back there as that free player or do they man him up?"

Pretty clear in hindsight that our coaching panel stuffed this one up badly. If Timmy is seeing this as a neutral observer so early after the move was made by the Pies, surely we should have as well. Had all of half time to mull over it and get it right as well.

Unfortunate that Roos couldn't admit that they (him and coaching panel) got this horribly wrong on the day. In addition we continued to roll an extra man in Crossy back even when we were a few goals or more behind with plenty of time left. What were we trying save at that point?

Had they made the correct decision with Oxley, the players eliminated some of their horrid clangers, defended better in transition, hit up more leading targets to work our way up the field instead of just bombing it up the line most of the time, and pulled the trigger to go inside instead of up the line around mid field more often, I think we win this match well.

Examples of players who are either incapable of pulling the trigger to hit lead up targets "inside" or just don't look and instead "panic" bomb it up the line from a marking situation (which indirectly resulted in turnovers to the Pies and 2 late goals to them in the 2nd term) were Fitzpatrick, who had a wide open Brayshaw in the middle, and Garland, who was roughly on HBF members side and had a leading Riley coming through the centre square to offer a nice lead.

Unfortunately we did none of the above.... and lost (again). A pitty because our midfield won their contests for the most part :-(

Just watching replay for first time. I note that with 8 minutes to go in 2nd quarter, after Oxley takes his 2nd intercept mark in close succession, Timmy is already asking the question "Melbourne now have a decision, do they let him go back there as that free player or do they man him up?"

Pretty clear in hindsight that our coaching panel stuffed this one up badly. If Timmy is seeing this as a neutral observer so early after the move was made by the Pies, surely we should have as well. Had all of half time to mull over it and get it right as well.

Unfortunate that Roos couldn't admit that they (him and coaching panel) got this horribly wrong on the day. In addition we continued to roll an extra man in Crossy back even when we were a few goals or more behind with plenty of time left. What were we trying save at that point?

Had they made the correct decision with Oxley, the players eliminated some of their horrid clangers, defended better in transition, hit up more leading targets to work our way up the field instead of just bombing it up the line most of the time, and pulled the trigger to go inside instead of up the line around mid field more often, I think we win this match well.

Examples of players who are either incapable of pulling the trigger to hit lead up targets "inside" or just don't look and instead "panic" bomb it up the line from a marking situation (which indirectly resulted in turnovers to the Pies and 2 late goals to them in the 2nd term) were Fitzpatrick, who had a wide open Brayshaw in the middle, and Garland, who was roughly on HBF members side and had a leading Riley coming through the centre square to offer a nice lead.

Unfortunately we did none of the above.... and lost (again). A pitty because our midfield won their contests for the most part :-(

I actually think we were backing ourselves to win it irrespective of Oxley. Our coaches thought, as I did, that we were winning all the key stats, it was just a matter of making sure we limited Cloke's output. So we put Cross back in front of him. Unfortunately, Gawn ran out of puff in the last and here the midfield ascendancy was lost. Still, had Howe goaled early in the last, it would only have been a two goal game. Had we not made so many crucial errors throughout the match, I think we would have won the game and we wouldn't even be talking about Oxley's intercept marks. I'm on the coaching panel's side with this one.

I actually think we were backing ourselves to win it irrespective of Oxley. Our coaches thought, as I did, that we were winning all the key stats, it was just a matter of making sure we limited Cloke's output. So we put Cross back in front of him. Unfortunately, Gawn had run out of puff by the last and we lost the midfield ascendancy. Still, had Howe goaled early in the last, it would only have been a two goal game. Had we not made so many crucial errors, I think we would have won the game and we wouldn't even be talking about Oxley's intercept marks. I'm on the coaching panel's side with this one.

If Cloke had been in his regular kicking form we'd have probably won