2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Great game of footy at the moment.

Am I the only one that doesn't rate Ling as a commentator?  Feel like he is ALWAYS talking, sometimes during important moments that Dennis or Bruce should actually be commentating on, and most of it is drivel. 

My pet hate, it's worse when listening on the radio as you can't see the action. Just call the bloody game, commentators try to outdo each with stats/facts.

1 minute ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

My pet hate, it's worse when listening on the radio as you can't see the action. Just call the bloody game, commentators try to outdo each with stats/facts.

Listening to SEN this morning with KB (I think it was this morning?) and they were chatting about the decline in true commentators, i.e. Dennis C, Bruce Mc etc. and were suggesting that given these older statesmen were due to exit the game soon with no real strategy behind their replacements the idea would be that the visual / TVchannels didn't require 'specialist' or professional commentators or wordsmiths anymore. They would simply groom current 'commentators' to take their posts once they leave - hence the experiment with Luke Darcy and of course everyone's favourite footy caller BT or Dwayne Wussel. 

A recipe for disaster in my eyes (ears) as we all know of their flaws - and unfortunately they have very obvious allegiances that appear through every game they appear on. What a joke.

I'll be honest, I love listening to "The Saturday Rub" but when the games on just call the bloody game. 

Holding the ball every day of the week. The Hawks have truly mastered the art of sucking in umpires.

As much as I would like it to be otherwise, I don't have Melbourne down yet as a finals challenger, mostly because the spectre of the Essendon game looms so large. However, if it turns out that the Bombers' game was an aberration and our form in the others is the indicator of where we are placed in 2016, then we become a contender for the finals and the next few matches could tell the tale.

In that event, the Crows are one of our main rivals and because of their tough draw, their loss to Hawthorn might turn out more helpful to us in the long run. I don't think there's much chance that the Hawks will fall far enough off their perch to miss finals but I do see signs that they could go into decline swiftly when their current batch of elder statesmen leave the scene.

For the moment, the battle for finals places looks more open than it has been for years and hopefully we can be in the thick of it for a while yet.

19 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

As much as I would like it to be otherwise, I don't have Melbourne down yet as a finals challenger, mostly because the spectre of the Essendon game looms so large. However, if it turns out that the Bombers' game was an aberration and our form in the others is the indicator of where we are placed in 2016, then we become a contender for the finals and the next few matches could tell the tale.

In that event, the Crows are one of our main rivals and because of their tough draw, their loss to Hawthorn might turn out more helpful to us in the long run. I don't think there's much chance that the Hawks will fall far enough off their perch to miss finals but I do see signs that they could go into decline swiftly when their current batch of elder statesmen leave the scene.

For the moment, the battle for finals places looks more open than it has been for years and hopefully we can be in the thick of it for a while yet.

Jack, when was the last time we got this far into a season and were not talking about the season end draft?

How does a club like Hawthorn who's won the past three premierships and has over 70,000 members only get 45,000 people to a Friday night game?

25 minutes ago, CHF said:

Jack, when was the last time we got this far into a season and were not talking about the season end draft?

We were 2 and 2 this time last year. 

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

How does a club like Hawthorn who's won the past three premierships and has over 70,000 members only get 45,000 people to a Friday night game?

I heard they count pet memberships, is this true?

 

Both decisions were borderline, not terrible. I can't see all the fuss.

5 minutes ago, WAClark said:

Both decisions were borderline, not terrible. I can't see all the fuss.

Holding the ball and incorrect disposal  decisions were not being paid all night for both sides. Don't know why all the irrational hatred for Hawthorn. We should aspire to be like them rather than jealous.

Edited April 22, 20169 yr by america de cali

While the game was good to watch, what struck me the most was how poor Hawthorn were compared to the past. They made a lot of skill errors that I don't expect them to make.  The passing by foot was not what it was - looked liek any other good team.  May be a sign of a decline under way.  I hope so.

Edited April 22, 20169 yr by sue

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

How does a club like Hawthorn who's won the past three premierships and has over 70,000 members only get 45,000 people to a Friday night game?

Tassie members, not sure how many but they're in the thousands.

Brad Hill was sloppy early.

8 hours ago, SaberFang said:

Holding the ball every day of the week. The Hawks have truly mastered the art of sucking in umpires.

Tigers aren't far behind. A tactic they regularly employ is after picking the ball up in congestion is keeping their head down and running forward until they make contact with another player in a bid to draw a free kick. Think it was round two or three, a Richmond player did exactly that but because his head was down he didn't see that it was his own teammate that he ran into, he ran up and down on the spot before being tackled and done for holding the ball. 

Have to 'fess up. I had a good whack at Hawks at $1.40.

2 hours ago, CHF said:

Jack, when was the last time we got this far into a season and were not talking about the season end draft?

We have traded away our first round pick already. There will be only a few of us who will look forward to the draft.

Many have already started discussing the trade period though.

11 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

And Sloan being clearly held off the ball In the Hawks forward flank during a boundary throw In (just before Mitchell kicked It to Puopolo for the free that won them the game...which was probably there).

Hawks are a very protected species and almost have an extra man on the field every match.

Makes them super hard to defeat. Not only are they super drillled and skilled but  they can also pretty much do a number of things many others can't. Throws, scoops, Incorrect disposals, setting their own marks, creaping over the mark. I hope we are learning all of this as well!

 

We are learning the "craft" as above, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we will be allowed to get away with it. Coaches would be saying "we have got to be the best and sneakiest at cheating." At the moment to offset against any drawbacks they have like a slight slowing down now, they can actually dictate the rules to the umps who in my opinion are not only intimidated by Hawthorn, but they seem to be able to almost have a ongoing soliloquy with them.

If I was on the Board of Umpiring I would be inclined to stop, replay and give that game a jolly good going over to just find out just who is in charge.

10 hours ago, Eyes on Red & Blue said:

Listening to SEN this morning with KB (I think it was this morning?) and they were chatting about the decline in true commentators, i.e. Dennis C, Bruce Mc etc. and were suggesting that given these older statesmen were due to exit the game soon with no real strategy behind their replacements the idea would be that the visual / TVchannels didn't require 'specialist' or professional commentators or wordsmiths anymore. They would simply groom current 'commentators' to take their posts once they leave - hence the experiment with Luke Darcy and of course everyone's favourite footy caller BT or Dwayne Wussel. 

A recipe for disaster in my eyes (ears) as we all know of their flaws - and unfortunately they have very obvious allegiances that appear through every game they appear on. What a joke.

And in truth they don't. So many TV commentators do the old radio "horse race" calling thing ... "Smith kicks it to Jones who now handpasses to Brown, takes a bounce and short passes to Green, Green spins around looking for options"  ... Yes, we can see that. We don't need you telling us much more than the players names.

Good soccer commentators don't say a hell of a lot ... players names and some observations to explain the context.

Aussie rules commentators have been trained to fill the airwaves with noise. On radio, that's only to be expected. On TV, not so much.

The specialist commentators try too hard to either be super analytical, which takes time, so hard to do in play, or they try to be entertaining. I had thought the game was entertaining enough by itself ... crowds every week in the tens of thousands ... would seem to indicate the game doesn't need any sizzle on it.

Not to mention the scourge of commentators having a known allegiance to a club. They seem to think that's part of the entertainment. It's not. Just give us impartial descriptions of what's going on and no fluff. Is that so hard? It used to happen every single week. Some commentators went for years and years without anyone knowing who they supported.

1 hour ago, sue said:

While the game was good to watch, what struck me the most was how poor Hawthorn were compared to the past. They made a lot of skill errors that I don't expect them to make.  The passing by foot was not what it was - looked liek any other good team.  May be a sign of a decline under way.  I hope so.

Yes, I'm wondering if all these close finishes are a sign of a team that always prevails when the heat is on, or a side that can be challenged more easily than in the past.

Time will tell ... would be nice to answer that by beating them.

12 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Go Hawks!  

Very cheeky, Wiseblood.

1 hour ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Tassie members, not sure how many but they're in the thousands.

It's fair to say that a club with 70,000 members is "more popular" than a club with 30,000 members.

The numbers don't really tell the story. A three-game member counts the same as a platinum legend 22-game with bells on member.

Total revenue dollars from memberships would be a more reliable stat.

2 hours ago, sue said:

While the game was good to watch, what struck me the most was how poor Hawthorn were compared to the past. They made a lot of skill errors that I don't expect them to make.  The passing by foot was not what it was - looked liek any other good team.  May be a sign of a decline under way.  I hope so.

I think they were playing similarly 'poor ' this time last year. Unfortunately, I think they'll ramp up in the second half of the season.

11 hours ago, SaberFang said:

Holding the ball every day of the week. The Hawks have truly mastered the art of sucking in umpires.

No it's not.

No prior opportunity and he attempted to dispose of the ball.