On 4/29/2016 at 11:43 PM, jnrmac said:

I think I saw the worst ever deliberate OOB tonight and that is saying something. What a farce.

And did anyone else note the number of times players are now deliberately throwing the ball instead of handballing.

The umps stand in the corridor and can't see some of the stuff that happens nar the boundary.

 

The way it's going they might as well bring in the last touch rule.

3 hours ago, rjay said:

I think it's more the lack of good kicks off HB, they're not as composed going forward. They're missing some class and it does show but I wouldn't write them off yet...

I think it's a combination of both. They really do lack tall targets up forward, but their inability to move the ball quickly through the corridor by opening up the game with attacking kicks from half back, ensures their ball movement is significantly slower. In short, they've become more predictable, which is a pity, because I like watching the Bulldogs in flight. Selfishly, their injuries have come at a good time for us. We'll be a real shot against them if we bring our game.

2 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Could it be that the interchange cap has exhausted the players so much that skill levels have dropped?

Almost certainly the case...

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

Another game I've noticed where the team with more possession and inside fifties loses

dogs had 80 more touches. 15 more contested and 10 more inside 50,s. 

Ive noticed this a few times this year, not sure if this is a trend or coincidence. 

Contested possessions used to be a good marker of who will win

The way the game is being played, if you can accumulate a disparity in uncontested possessions, it means you're probably scoring more freely. A large number of the goals in 2016 seem to be coming from passages where teams get over the press. Teams are doing this with a mixture of contested and uncontested possessions, which underlines the continued importance of contested possessions. But how many goals seem to be scored 'out the back' these days? Heaps. So I'd say it's certainly a trend of the new brand of AFL footy, rather than a coincidence.

One of the worst culprits at throwing the ball tonight was disappointingly, Wells.

Umpires well, I noticed them less than normally this year.

Throwing has been poorly policed for ages.  Scott West was a major culprit in his day.  The Saints train their midfielders to shield the ball with their body and give a little one-handed flick up to a teammate as they are being tackled.  If you actually read the definition of a handball you'll see that a lot of what players do today is illegal.  How often do you see a player sling a big undehand throw and brush the ball across their knuckle as they release it?  That's not a legal handball. 

Quote

Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of the football by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand.

 

I've long since given up on throws being umpired properly. Port had it down to a fine art back in 2014; I reckon the umpires just ignored it because the footy became so much faster and exciting with their obvious throwing.

By that standard of that game, if we don't finish above both those sides I would be very surprised. I know north have an easy first half, but their run home is shocking.

go Dees!

6 hours ago, willmoy said:

Umpires well, I noticed them less than normally this year.

True but they really didn't hand out nearly enough soft frees to the Hawks for my liking last night.

Interesting reading about North and who have they played, a  lot of clubs would love to be 6 and 0. If that was us last night I would be reading today that 

- it was ugly but a wins a win

- coming back from an interstate trip

- dogs are a top 4 side 

Good sides sometimes win ugly and north are currently a good side. Their win over the Crows was t umpires assisted. In three weeks they will be 9-0 after playing Saints/Blues/Bombers over the next 3 weeks. North like us are struggling for members and exposure, whilst I do hate 17 other clubs I think some on here are getting ahead of themselves.

2 hours ago, Deeman said:

True but they really didn't hand out nearly enough soft frees to the Hawks for my liking last night.

There was one paid last night that was almost identical to the one not paid against Smith last week. I wonder how they will justify that one this week.

17 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Interesting reading about North and who have they played, a  lot of clubs would love to be 6 and 0. If that was us last night I would be reading today that 

- it was ugly but a wins a win

- coming back from an interstate trip

- dogs are a top 4 side 

Good sides sometimes win ugly and north are currently a good side. Their win over the Crows was t umpires assisted. In three weeks they will be 9-0 after playing Saints/Blues/Bombers over the next 3 weeks. North like us are struggling for members and exposure, whilst I do hate 17 other clubs I think some on here are getting ahead of themselves.

Dogs aren't a top 4 side. Finals contender yes, top 4 no.

I see a few of these top sides with old lists, struggling, when they have a mass retirement of several of their older guys. Many of them are great players who will not be easily replaced.

I predicted a Freo drop, but not as bad as we are seeing, though injuries haven't helped them, but I think that is the way of older lists that hit the ceiling.

Thankfully we now have a young talented list, that will be our platform for success. 

28 minutes ago, AngryAtCasey said:

Dogs aren't a top 4 side. Finals contender yes, top 4 no.

What I meant was that if we won some posters would be saying we've taken the scalp of a top 4 side. 

In no particular order

hawks

swans 

crows

norf

 

10 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

What I meant was that if we won some posters would be saying we've taken the scalp of a top 4 side. 

In no particular order

hawks

swans 

crows

norf

 

I hear what your saying.

Hopefully the dogs repeat last nights performance against us in a couple of weeks. We'd definetely be in with a chance

Edited April 29, 20169 yr by Sweet Puff

4 minutes ago, Sweet Puff said:

Hopefully the dogs repeat last nights performance against us in a couple of weeks. We'd definetely be in with a chance

For us to do that we need to knock them off their game with the use of pressure in the way North did last night and how we beat them the first time around on the MCG last year (as distinct from the second time at Etihad when we gave them free rein to do whatever they wanted in their own zones).

13 hours ago, DubDee said:

Another game I've noticed where the team with more possession and inside fifties loses

dogs had 80 more touches. 15 more contested and 10 more inside 50,s. 

Ive noticed this a few times this year, not sure if this is a trend or coincidence. 

Contested possessions used to be a good marker of who will win

They did bomb the ball repeatedly into their fwd 50 which didn't help.

Doggies had numbers at the contest and seemed to always win the ball in tight, but they were out numbered everywhere else and their ball use was diabolical.

North were on the rough end of the umpiring as well. That deliberate against McDonald, in particular, was a shocker.

Don't forget we've got Craig Jennings in the coaches box this year. Should make the Bulldogs match very interesting indeed, if he can anticipate Bevo's gameplan changes.

Giants giving it to Hawks at qtr time. 7.3 to 2.1.  Doubt the luck the Hawks have had the last 3 weeks will save them this time.

Are we seeing the changing if the guard?  

North v Dogs - Most amount of throws i've ever seen in a game of AFL

Would love to see the Giants get up, followed by Port over Richmond. Would make today's game a tiny bit easier to deal with.

Hawks percentage will be in the 70s or 80s after this game

21 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Would love to see the Giants get up, followed by Port over Richmond. Would make today's game a tiny bit easier to deal with.

If we don't win, i don't a flying fig about whatever-else happens in AFL for the week. Yes, i'm allowed to have my cake and eat it too.