3 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Wasn't entirely sure where to put this, but did anyone just see Healy on On The Couch? There is something happening with Healy, who has traditional shat all over us, but this season in particular, he seems to be showing a clear Melbourne bias. He's excited for us. Very strange, but welcome.

Saw that mate. Was good viewing. Dunstall said it was the best game we have played in years.

8 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Wasn't entirely sure where to put this, but did anyone just see Healy on On The Couch? There is something happening with Healy, who has traditionally shat all over us, but this season in particular, he seems to be showing a clear Melbourne bias. He's excited for us. Very strange, but welcome.

yup.

i also liked how he said he was disappointed in Vince's stupidity as him being rubbed out, and the pies regaining sidebottom means that they will draw closer to being even with us, as at the moment we are the better team.

7 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Saw that mate. Was good viewing. Dunstall said it was the best game we have played in years.

Dunstall was less than complimentary last night on BOUNCE. I used to like Bunghole, but his disdain and disrespect (probably fairly granted) is these days obvious. On ON THE COUCH, it has a different tone and he's supposed to be more analytical, but I suspect his truer colours are on show with BOUNCE.

9 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Wasn't entirely sure where to put this, but did anyone just see Healy on On The Couch? There is something happening with Healy, who has traditionally shat all over us, but this season in particular, he seems to be showing a clear Melbourne bias. He's excited for us. Very strange, but welcome.

I always thought he seemed terribly anti-Melbourne too, but maybe he's just objectively a good judge - after all, we have actually been pus for the best part of a decade. Could be a good sign!

13 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Wasn't entirely sure where to put this, but did anyone just see Healy on On The Couch? There is something happening with Healy, who has traditionally shat all over us, but this season in particular, he seems to be showing a clear Melbourne bias. He's excited for us. Very strange, but welcome.

Watching the replay of the first half he sure likes to still have a crack at us but I feel it's somewhat out of love. I get the same way when players are making mistakes and we are losing. 

I couldn't blame him for not liking Neeld and being frustrated at certain times of the Roos era. The end of the Daniher era as well. Not sure whether he was on or off board in the Bailey years.

He's definitely been bitter for a long time. Would be a good result for everyone if he isn't. 

 

Had a good look through the Champion Data stats today courtesy of the Herald Sun.

Not happy we lost but some super positive results (umpiring excluded).

We pretty much won every stat count including

..... yards gained;  contested; clearances (pretty sure we won uncontested but don't hold me to it...if we lost that it was only by a very small margin); Hit outs to advantage (of course); Think our tackle count was about 10 or so down on theirs. Marks i50. Tackles inside 50!

The only areas i think Norf had it over us were, like i said, total tackle count and intercepts (in general play and marking where they won quite well).

This suggests we have a few areas to improve in but in most cases we are right on track vs most teams outside of the top 4 or so. And no i'm not saying we are a top 4 challenger blah blah but i can see a solid mid field starting to build here. Get the back 6 settled and on track. Get our forward game plan and entry sorted. As everyone plays more games together, with the right leadership on a number of lines, we are on the cusp of becoming more consistent.

In order to avoid so many intercepts and rebounds we will need to work harder on aspects of our game such as  .....

• Switching off backline. Ie., when to switch and doing it effectively (hitting targets). Having the awareness of NOT switching even if you commenced one! ;

• Keep working heavily on kicking efficiency both long and short. Emphasis on short as this will help reduce intercept marks/turnovers and resulting rebound scores; and
• Transitional running off HB and through the middle. Again to reduce the number of turnovers in dangerous areas of the ground.

The other aspect is to lift our tackle work rate when we dont have it a little higher.

If we can improve on these aspects of our game i think we will start seeing consecutive wins, including some wins against teams considered top 5 to 8 prospective finalists.

7 hours ago, sue said:

Are you sure? Don't they also do it when they are trying to line up a player on an angle? If so, it should apply at any angle, even 90/0 degrees.

I think they stop the clock when the umpire is setting a player on the right angle, so that the player can't benefit from being on a better angle than he should be (i.e. by stopping the clock the player can't play on so he is forced by the umpire into his tighter angle).

Kent was on his angle and there was no need to stop the clock. With his inexperience, I think he just got a bit caught in the headlights and wasn't sure if he should take the kick himself (it was 50 meres, I think) or pass it, and he froze just a tad. The extra second or two would most likely not have mattered. In the end we got it inside 50 from the ensuing bounce. If we're going to nitpick, the bigger issue IMO was Bugg's poor kick.

On 10/04/2016 at 5:38 PM, Jesse Christ said:

Bad mistake by Watts in the last when he should have had  a shot (only about 30 out) went to pass to Hogan,  North intercepted and goaled.  12 point turnaround and would have had us 6 up. Overall good effort though and if we repeat that against pies and tiges we beat them. 

yep,  frustrated I couldn't get the video feed,  but I heard it on radio. clearly frustrated the commentators as well.

41 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Wasn't entirely sure where to put this, but did anyone just see Healy on On The Couch? There is something happening with Healy, who has traditionally shat all over us, but this season in particular, he seems to be showing a clear Melbourne bias. He's excited for us. Very strange, but welcome.

When he went to Sydney, there was a bit of angst. Not sure what had happened but he was upset. I have been watching the show and I agree  A F but he's just told the umpires to keep up the good work and the umps have been fantastic. How about noooooo Gerrard! 

I've just noticed that we got the second highest score for the round. That in itself is an excellent result, especially as we've struggled to kick high scores for years. 

9 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

When he went to Sydney, there was a bit of angst. Not sure what had happened but he was upset. I have been watching the show and I agree  A F but he's just told the umpires to keep up the good work and the umps have been fantastic. How about noooooo Gerrard! 

Yeah, I don't think Gerard explained himself properly in that segment. I think they were all agreeing RE: it should be play on if a player tries to draw a free for ducking, but he just didn't communicate his point properly and so they ended up all arguing with each other, when they actually all agreed.

3 minutes ago, Hampton 22 said:

I've just noticed that we got the second highest score for the round. That in itself is an excellent result, especially as we've struggled to kick high scores for years. 

On the score (131), that was our highest score against anyone other than GWS since we scored 149 to beat Fremantle in Round 13, 2011 (coincidentally, the first of our last two consecutive wins).

The two GWS games were in 2012 (GWS' first season) and 2013 (when we kicked 12 goals in the fourth).

8 hours ago, sue said:

A couple of posters and even Roos (I think) mentioned the time it took Kent to kick that last goal. But why didn't the umpire stop the clock like they usually do when players line up for goal?  What is the rule (excuse my ignorance)?

 

There is no rule.

Nothing in the rules about stopping the clock, no time limit on taking a kick.

The only thing mentioned about time is that when kicking out after a behind, a player must kick it within a "reasonable" time.

4 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Yeah, I don't think Gerard explained himself properly in that segment. I think they were all agreeing RE: it should be play on if a player tries to draw a free for ducking, but he just didn't communicate his point properly and so they ended up all arguing with each other, when they actually all agreed.

Nah Gerard was saying that guys who drop at the knees have every right to in order to avoid tacklers and if it's too high it's a free kick.

Dunstall, Brown and King were saying knee droppers need to not be rewarded and high tackles should be play on.

I'm not sure where I sit. I hate knee droppers, but at the same time it's going to be hard to tell the difference between guys dropping knees and guys dipping and twisting to get out of traffic. 

I think tacklers should be very careful. Nev Jetta got a way with quite a few on the weekend. Tackling isn't the number 1 aim of AFL, getting the ball, running with the ball and then kicking/marking with it is the aim. 

Personally I think some kind of balance is right, even though that will frustrate fans. Call it play on when repeat offenders keep ducking, give the benefit of the doubt to others. And if the initial tackle is below the shoulders and a player drops after contact then call it play on.

 

15 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Nah Gerard was saying that guys who drop at the knees have every right to in order to avoid tacklers and if it's too high it's a free kick.

Dunstall, Brown and King were saying knee droppers need to not be rewarded and high tackles should be play on.

I'm not sure where I sit. I hate knee droppers, but at the same time it's going to be hard to tell the difference between guys dropping knees and guys dipping and twisting to get out of traffic. 

I think tacklers should be very careful. Nev Jetta got a way with quite a few on the weekend. Tackling isn't the number 1 aim of AFL, getting the ball, running with the ball and then kicking/marking with it is the aim. 

Personally I think some kind of balance is right, even though that will frustrate fans. Call it play on when repeat offenders keep ducking, give the benefit of the doubt to others. And if the initial tackle is below the shoulders and a player drops after contact then call it play on.

 

Correct. Adam derped on that one. His brain his full after a long day. Please forgive him.

3 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

Wasn't entirely sure where to put this, but did anyone just see Healy on On The Couch? There is something happening with Healy, who has traditionally shat all over us, but this season in particular, he seems to be showing a clear Melbourne bias. He's excited for us. Very strange, but welcome.

He's friends with Nathan Jones, might have something to do with it. 

I still can't stand him. 

Just watching passages of play and highlights, Gawn's 63 hit outs were so much more than just hit outs. How many chains of movement and/or direct goals did he set up with perfect hit outs? To do that against Goldstein, of all people, is a sure sign he is developing into a stellar ruckman.

11 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Nah Gerard was saying that guys who drop at the knees have every right to in order to avoid tacklers and if it's too high it's a free kick.

Dunstall, Brown and King were saying knee droppers need to not be rewarded and high tackles should be play on.

Nothing in the laws of the game about this. (There is a law about driving with the head.)

Naturally, even though there is no law, there is an interpretation! From the AFL web site (videos explaining how the game will be reffed this year):

"DRAWING HEAD CONTACT. 2. Ducking. Where a player ducks into a tackle, and is the cause of high contact, the umpire will call play on."

So far, so good ...

"DRAWING HEAD CONTACT. The onus will continue to lie with the tackler to avoid contact above an opponents shoulders."

Make sense of that, if you can.

On 10/04/2016 at 6:24 PM, Bitter but optimistic said:

Hate to say it but that shitfull brainfade from Watts cost us the game.

 

confidence my dear Bbo,  he has now shown he will  'go' when he wants to...  so now,  when they all start to click together,  we need this side to have a kill.  to get the blood on they're lips.

I just hope it isn't  'hardwik'  we kill off.   but do want to win that game.

 

please Dees,  lets put the sword to e'd's club,  & leave them Buckley's chance.

1 hour ago, AdamFarr said:

Wasn't entirely sure where to put this, but did anyone just see Healy on On The Couch? There is something happening with Healy, who has traditionally shat all over us, but this season in particular, he seems to be showing a clear Melbourne bias. He's excited for us. Very strange, but welcome.

 

Gerards always got a soft spot for the Dees.  Even if he doesn't show it.  But his best memories by far,  are up in Sydney,  surf & all.

Bit like Schwarta,  some years back.

1 hour ago, Rusty Nails said:

Had a good look through the Champion Data stats today courtesy of the Herald Sun.

Not happy we lost but some super positive results (umpiring excluded).

We pretty much won every stat count including

..... yards gained;  contested; clearances (pretty sure we won uncontested but don't hold me to it...if we lost that it was only by a very small margin); Hit outs to advantage (of course); Think our tackle count was about 10 or so down on theirs. Marks i50. Tackles inside 50!

The only areas i think Norf had it over us were, like i said, total tackle count and intercepts (in general play and marking where they won quite well).

This suggests we have a few areas to improve in but in most cases we are right on track vs most teams outside of the top 4 or so. And no i'm not saying we are a top 4 challenger blah blah but i can see a solid mid field starting to build here. Get the back 6 settled and on track. Get our forward game plan and entry sorted. As everyone plays more games together, with the right leadership on a number of lines, we are on the cusp of becoming more consistent.

In order to avoid so many intercepts and rebounds we will need to work harder on aspects of our game such as  .....

• Switching off backline. Ie., when to switch and doing it effectively (hitting targets). Having the awareness of NOT switching even if you commenced one! ;

• Keep working heavily on kicking efficiency both long and short. Emphasis on short as this will help reduce intercept marks/turnovers and resulting rebound scores; and
• Transitional running off HB and through the middle. Again to reduce the number of turnovers in dangerous areas of the ground.

The other aspect is to lift our tackle work rate when we dont have it a little higher.

If we can improve on these aspects of our game i think we will start seeing consecutive wins, including some wins against teams considered top 5 to 8 prospective finalists.

IMO the footy dept is working well...  we are seeing results.  But it will start to show on the scoreboard,  soon.   When it clicks,  & we get confidence individually,  & team wise,  we will launch.

Agree dee-luded. In a month if we have added Brayshaw, Petracca, Dawes and Trengove without significant injury, we should be motoring and ready to monster some teams. 

And Jeffy... of course.

 

On 10/04/2016 at 5:55 PM, ding said:

Trying to reply to Sue, but it seems this site performs as well as our club. Will SOMEONE find a way to fix it ???

 

Anyway Sue, i have read you apologistic nonsense for ages, so i already know you are happy to accept mediocrity. it is obvious my standards are much higher than yours.

We lost

Again

Thats 16 in a row to North.

Knock yourself out trying to find excuses for losing.. Meanwhile i will be watching the Dogs take Hawthorn to the wire.

 

We can only DREAM of doing that.

 

 

I wasn't making excuses. I was questioning your arrogant, supercilious attitude that had a shot at people who support Demonland financially. If you don't like what you read here and aren't prepared to chip in to meet the costs of providing a forum for supporters you should just go away and sulk somewhere else.

15 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Agree dee-luded. In a month if we have added Brayshaw, Petracca, Dawes and Trengove without significant injury, we should be motoring and ready to monster some teams. 

And Jeffy... of course.

 

And Oscar and Hunt maybe! 

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Nah Gerard was saying that guys who drop at the knees have every right to in order to avoid tacklers and if it's too high it's a free kick.

Dunstall, Brown and King were saying knee droppers need to not be rewarded and high tackles should be play on.

I'm not sure where I sit. I hate knee droppers, but at the same time it's going to be hard to tell the difference between guys dropping knees and guys dipping and twisting to get out of traffic. 

I think tacklers should be very careful. Nev Jetta got a way with quite a few on the weekend. Tackling isn't the number 1 aim of AFL, getting the ball, running with the ball and then kicking/marking with it is the aim. 

Personally I think some kind of balance is right, even though that will frustrate fans. Call it play on when repeat offenders keep ducking, give the benefit of the doubt to others. And if the initial tackle is below the shoulders and a player drops after contact then call it play on.

 

Easy.  A player can duck, drop the knees, twist, whatever.  However, if in doing so that player causes high contact, it's play on.  Thus the infamous Selwood arm-lift and twist would be considered an attempt to evade the tackle and play-on.  Ducking under an arm, turning into the tackler headfirst, dropping the knees...  All play-on.  Only call it a high tackle if the action of the tackler creates the high contact. 

Any doubt that David King hates Melbourne can be dispelled by this tweet before the game on Sunday....