Carey, Locket, Dunstall, Lloyd, Kernahan, Tredrea, Ablett Snr and others all averaged somewhere between .7 and 1.4 tackles per game.

Tackles is a non issue for a power forward like Hogan. It should never be a topic for conversation.

It's the pressure that he puts on when they are getting cheap kicks around the backline thats the key. Would love to have a stat of "opponents disposal error under pressure"

they mostly rush to dispose of it quickly before Hogan arrives.

Carey, Locket, Dunstall, Lloyd, Kernahan, Tredrea, Ablett Snr and others all averaged somewhere between .7 and 1.4 tackles per game.

Tackles is a non issue for a power forward like Hogan. It should never be a topic for conversation.

Totally different game nowadays. You need everyone tackling. It's okay to have areas to work on. He needs to work on his tackling pressure.

Non-issue. How can you tackle blokes when you've either spread eagled them or taken a contested mark ?

FFS, we have the lowest inside 50 count in the AFL (up until the weekend). Hogan has far less opportunity to tackle than ANY other opposition forward.

As we improve as a side his tackle numbers will automatically rise. It's a non-issue.

Edited August 4, 201510 yr by ProDee

Non-issue. How can you tackle blokes when you've either spread eagled them or taken a contested mark ?

FFS, we have the lowest inside 50 count in the AFL (up until the weekend). Hogan has far less opportunity to tackle than ANY other opposition forward.

As we improve as a side his tackle numbers will automatically rise. It's a non-issue.

Pressure is the word. As long as Hogan bounces up from a marking contest and puts pressure on the ball carrier then he is doing his job.

It's up to the little fellas like Garlett to anticipate where the ball is headed from that pressure and lay the tackles. In this regard Hogan more often than not does his job.

Seems obvious to me that a bloke going for marks and breaking packs is less likely to have the opportunity to lay a tackle than a mid-fielder. From the figures people have quoted combined with our low number of inside 50's, I wouldn't worry about Hogan's tackling.

First it was his kicking action would make him inaccurate - myth busted.

Then he can't kick 50 metres - myth busted.

Now tackling...

Next week it'll be his inability to play on Eddie Betts.

Ricky Petterd once laid 14 inside 50 tackles, I reckon Richmond would do that trade if we threw in Terlich.

Hogan went on a massive chase up the middle against Collingwood (can't remember who) and I recall thinking, ffs, can someone else step in and save the boy's legs. I think he shows pressure intent quite often but is a tad lumbering and not so flexible off the mark. Anyone else see that gait of his after the game? Looked like he had rickets.

Carey, Locket, Dunstall, Lloyd, Kernahan, Tredrea, Ablett Snr and others all averaged somewhere between .7 and 1.4 tackles per game.

Tackles is a non issue for a power forward like Hogan. It should never be a topic for conversation.

got anyone from this century?

the game has changed, everyone has to be accountable now

got anyone from this century?

the game has changed, everyone has to be accountable now

Sure - Hall, Brown, Neitz, Richardson and even the hard working Nick Riewoldt at only 1.5.

But there's not many more modern ones as goals are hardly kicked these days.

As I said, it's a non-issue. The only issue is the terrible state of the game. Going to watch the average footy match these days is the pits.

Hogan went on a massive chase up the middle against Collingwood (can't remember who) and I recall thinking, ffs, can someone else step in and save the boy's legs. I think he shows pressure intent quite often but is a tad lumbering and not so flexible off the mark. Anyone else see that gait of his after the game? Looked like he had rickets.

Agree, in the weekend he looked to play his role in the pressure acts. A number of times he was putting pressure on the Pies coming out of D and into the middle part of the ground.

Today pressure acts, do they trump overall tackles as today's players are so good at getting the arms free and fishing off?

Agree, in the weekend he looked to play his role in the pressure acts. A number of times he was putting pressure on the Pies coming out of D and into the middle part of the ground.

Today pressure acts, do they trump overall tackles as today's players are so good at getting the arms free and fishing off?

I think so. To me it seemed like Watts laid 4-5 tackles against the Pies but he was only credited with 1. It seems like Watts has really improved in 'pressure acts' (where do you even find that stat?) yet only seems to lay 1-3 tackles a game. There should probably be a stat to differentiate between the really dangerous tackles as opposed to the repeat stoppages, congestion type ones.

Would love to know what actually constitutes a tackle and an attempted tackle in the stats.

First it was his kicking action would make him inaccurate - myth busted.

Then he can't kick 50 metres - myth busted.

Now tackling...

Next week it'll be his inability to play on Eddie Betts.

Ricky Petterd once laid 14 inside 50 tackles, I reckon Richmond would do that trade if we threw in Terlich.

People are overreacting. I mentioned his low tackle count in conjunction with another post. No one's perfect and I don't like the idea that anyone gets a free pass on the tackle front. If the game is more congested than ever, everyone should be able to lay at least one per game. That's not to say he doesn't chase though. Further, this doesn't take away from the fact that he's had a phenomenal first season and I'm incredibly excited about him.

Edited August 4, 201510 yr by AdamFarr

People are overreacting. I mentioned his low tackle count in conjunction with another post. No one's perfect and I don't like the idea that anyone gets a free pass on the tackle front. If the game is more congested than ever, everyone should be able to lay at least one per game. That's not to say he doesn't chase though. Further, this doesn't take away from the fact that he's had a phenomenal first season and I'm incredibly excited about him.

You could be right that it's his only weakness, looking at all the other young big forwards tackles per game, Hogan is coming last. Even to dinosaur Boyd.

But I'm in the non-issue camp.

We play an openish (sometimes nonexistent) forward line and have less inside 50's than anyone, so he has less time and chances to lay tackles. Also a lot of his contemporaries do some ruck time.

He just needs to lay 1 this week that Scott Thompson doesn't get up from and he can forget about the tackle column for the rest of the year.

You could be right that it's his only weakness, looking at all the other young big forwards tackles per game, Hogan is coming last. Even to dinosaur Boyd.

But I'm in the non-issue camp.

We play an openish (sometimes nonexistent) forward line and have less inside 50's than anyone, so he has less time and chances to lay tackles. Also a lot of his contemporaries do some ruck time.

He just needs to lay 1 this week that Scott Thompson doesn't get up from and he can forget about the tackle column for the rest of the year.

Hahaha. Will be interesting to see the pest going up against Hoges.

People are overreacting. I mentioned his low tackle count in conjunction with another post. No one's perfect and I don't like the idea that anyone gets a free pass on the tackle front. If the game is more congested than ever, everyone should be able to lay at least one per game. That's not to say he doesn't chase though. Further, this doesn't take away from the fact that he's had a phenomenal first season and I'm incredibly excited about him.

Demonland overreact? Never!

People are overreacting. I mentioned his low tackle count in conjunction with another post. No one's perfect and I don't like the idea that anyone gets a free pass on the tackle front. If the game is more congested than ever, everyone should be able to lay at least one per game. That's not to say he doesn't chase though. Further, this doesn't take away from the fact that he's had a phenomenal first season and I'm incredibly excited about him.

You only get a tackle stat if it ends in a stoppage, direct turnover or the ball comes out in the tackle.

To use an example I can remember a chain where Melbourne laid three very strong tackles all resulting in a handball that put the next recipient in more trouble than the last. This all wouldn't receive a tackle stat but clearly had an effect on the eventual turnover. Our pressure was clearly better than Collingwoods regardless on the stats

Edited August 4, 201510 yr by Arrow

The specific question asked in my email was: When a person buys a membership for home and away games in Victoria does all that money stay with MFC or does some or all of the ‘away’ game money go to the other club?

As you saw from the response the money stays with the MFC, same goes for Collingwood et al.

Think about it. Using the QB game as an example, how would MFC know how many Collingwood members come to the game to claim revenue from Collingwood. Yes, Collingwood's computers could tell them but there are so many classes of membership apportioning the right $$ to each different member type for the QB game would not be easy even with computers. We may not like it but Collingwood keep their members money when they come to our home QB game. As we do in reverse.

I contacted the club and asked specifically whether the revenue for away games in a membership package all stayed with the MFC. ! was told that the MFC paid the home club for the number of Melbourne members with away memberships who attended that game. The specific example used to illustrate it was the Collingwood game.

As has been mentioned in an earlier post, there is no problem determining how much to charge the MFC, all entry is scanned through the gates and it is very easy to determine who should be billed. The same happens with AFL memberships.

I contacted the club and asked specifically whether the revenue for away games in a membership package all stayed with the MFC. ! was told that the MFC paid the home club for the number of Melbourne members with away memberships who attended that game. The specific example used to illustrate it was the Collingwood game.

As has been mentioned in an earlier post, there is no problem determining how much to charge the MFC, all entry is scanned through the gates and it is very easy to determine who should be billed. The same happens with AFL memberships.

I think there is a different situation with Collingwood though as they have the whole Ponsford Stand reserved for all home AND away matches. Therefore while an away member to Queens Bday may cost the club a GA ticket towards the gate receipts they are able to sell it as a "reserved/social club" seat. Therefore they are charging more than they have to dish out an hence making money off that ticket. Not to mention all the people who buy a reserved membership ticket and don't turn up, that money is pocketed.

Any other club who sells away game memberships only get access to the GA areas of the ground and therefore there is no new benefit to selling those tickets (other than for people who purchase the membership and then don't attend all games).

I'm looking forward to the arrival of Gurrumul's new album ( on order) and have been listening to one of his old ones at work this morning.

Beautiful music, very spiritual and yet full of nostalgia, angst and melancholy.

Reminds me so much of the waves of emotion emanating from the Collingwood Cheer Squad last Saturday during the third and fourth quarters