How's Geelong's kicking at goal this week? Bloody hopeless in comparison to last week. That'd be right.

Their 2.7 this week would have been 7.2 last week or even 9.0.

17 minutes ago, A F said:

How's Geelong's kicking at goal this week? Bloody hopeless in comparison to last week. That'd be right.

More proof the MFC is cursed

18 minutes ago, A F said:

How's Geelong's kicking at goal this week? Bloody hopeless in comparison to last week. That'd be right.

Was our defensive pressure as strong as Hawthorns though? Though admittedly a lot of it is perceived pressure with their rivalry. Geelong play a little looser against Hawthorn.

Edited April 17, 20178 yr by DominatrixTyson

8 minutes ago, DominatrixTyson said:

Was our defensive pressure as strong as Hawthorns though? Though admittedly a lot of it is perceived pressure with their rivalry. Geelong play a little looser against Hawthorn.

Yeah, they got some easy goals, but they also kicked goals from everywhere across the arc and from distance. They've missed them from everywhere, including Hawkins missing from 15 minutes out, pretty much directly in front. Gives me the shits.

9 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

More proof the MFC is cursed

Don't believe in curses, but it's certainly [censored] frustrating. 

10 minutes ago, A F said:

Don't believe in curses, but it's certainly [censored] frustrating. 

It's probably a good thing that a team contending for the top 4 misses shots and drops a game, rather than a team fighting to get a win though.

Edited April 17, 20178 yr by DominatrixTyson

7 minutes ago, DominatrixTyson said:

It's probably a good thing that a team contending for the top 4 drops a game, rather than a team fighting to get a win though.

I reckon Geelong will find it hard to miss the top 4 after today. I think they're nowhere near as good as their record suggests, but I think given their start and their wins now, they'll be able to do enough. Whereas, Hawthorn may well be competing with us for a top 8 spot. One less contender for us is better.

Both teams look awful.

We should really beat Hawthorn in a few weeks. 

8 minutes ago, Demon Jack said:

Both teams look awful.

We should really beat Hawthorn in a few weeks. 

We should have beaten Geelong too... except they pulled the straightest goal-kicking you'll see, out of their arses.

Hate both these teams.

Edited April 17, 20178 yr by A F

4 minutes ago, A F said:

We should have beaten Geelong too... except they pulled the straightest goal-kicking you'll see, out of their arses.

Hate both these teams.

watching cats goalkicking today, i'd like to know if cats were swabbed after our game

9 minutes ago, A F said:

I reckon Geelong will find it hard to miss the top 4 after today. I think they're nowhere near as good as their record suggests, but I think given their start and their wins now, they'll be able to do enough. Whereas, Hawthorn may well be competing with us for a top 8 spot. One less contender for us is better.

Freo loss and our glaring weaknesses aside, i still hold some hope that our full strength team can go on a winning run and challenge for top 4 with a year 2000'esque type of youthful speedy and aggressive style of game plan where everything clicks. And that Hawthorn will not compete at all and are only up and about today because of their ability to get up for a Geelong game. But with so many games at Skilled stadium, it's an almost certainty that Geelong will be top 4 i agree. 

Edited April 17, 20178 yr by DominatrixTyson

Terrible game.

Poor quality football. Hawks are in a lot more trouble than I thought. Poor things

9 minutes ago, DominatrixTyson said:

Freo loss and our glaring weaknesses aside, i still hold some hope that our full strength team can go on a winning run and challenge for top 4 in a year 2000 type of youthful speedy and aggressive style of game plan where everything clicks. And that Hawthorn will not compete at all and are only up and about today because of their ability to get up for a Geelong game. But with so many games at Skilled stadium, it's an almost certainty that Geelong will be top 4 i agree. 

I think we could still see a run of wins this year too. Had managed to win the Geelong and Freo games, I would have had more faith. I'm a little worried now that those two losses could cost us come the end of the year in such a tight competition. Clearly, going by Roosy's comments on Triple M, he fears the same.

Have Hawthorn given up their first rounder next year as well as this year's?

2 minutes ago, A F said:

Have Hawthorn given up their first rounder next year as well as this year's?

doesn't matter, afl will change reinterpret rules

AFL has a problem with the bump. Cloke gets broken ribs, LeCras bumps Allir and they both get off, and now Ruggles gets concussed brutally.

If they are ALL about the impact on players they need to adjust. The players are now getting lower and rising up into the centre of the body which is really dangerous but nothing specifically 'illegal' under the current rules.

I was really shocked about the Zeibel/Cloke one. He could have tried to smother. Instead he bumps and costs another player 6 weeks. Can't see that being right.

18 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

AFL has a problem with the bump. Cloke gets broken ribs, LeCras bumps Allir and they both get off, and now Ruggles gets concussed brutally.

If they are ALL about the impact on players they need to adjust. The players are now getting lower and rising up into the centre of the body which is really dangerous but nothing specifically 'illegal' under the current rules.

I was really shocked about the Zeibel/Cloke one. He could have tried to smother. Instead he bumps and costs another player 6 weeks. Can't see that being right.

It seems strange that they're over protective of the players in some instances and then in others they have a complete blind spot.

The MRP clearly are impacted by the media attention that each incident receives.

28 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

AFL has a problem with the bump. Cloke gets broken ribs, LeCras bumps Allir and they both get off, and now Ruggles gets concussed brutally.

If they are ALL about the impact on players they need to adjust. The players are now getting lower and rising up into the centre of the body which is really dangerous but nothing specifically 'illegal' under the current rules.

I was really shocked about the Zeibel/Cloke one. He could have tried to smother. Instead he bumps and costs another player 6 weeks. Can't see that being right.

Nothing will come of it but just wait until one of our players do the same thing, then the book will be thrown at them and rules will be changed.

Sling tackles happened for ages, then Trengove slings Dangerfield and all of sudden we're changing the rules and your copping it.

Edited April 17, 20178 yr by boydie

17 minutes ago, A F said:

It seems strange that they're over protective of the players in some instances and then in others they have a complete blind spot.

It's all about concussion and medical insurance. 

Ribs mend

If you don't laugh, you'll cry. Make no mistake, if we threw either of the last two games in the bin, it was the Geelong game.

We battered them, but remarkable inaccuracy from us, and remarkable accuracy from them kept them in it. They have looked pretty average this year imo, but will somehow still be 4-0.

8 minutes ago, Forest Demon said:

If you don't laugh, you'll cry. Make no mistake, if we threw either of the last two games in the bin, it was the Geelong game.

We battered them, but remarkable inaccuracy from us, and remarkable accuracy from them kept them in it. They have looked pretty average this year imo, but will somehow still be 4-0.

Interesting to hear one of the commentators say before that Geelong were dominated by us last week, but their accurate kicking kept them in it.

28 minutes ago, A F said:

It seems strange that they're over protective of the players in some instances and then in others they have a complete blind spot.

I'm assuming these comments are partly related to the Melbourne incidents. There are differences though aren't there?

A punch - to the head - off the play vs a bump - to the body-  in play (or just a little late).

 

8 minutes ago, xarronn said:

I'm assuming these comments are partly related to the Melbourne incidents. There are differences though aren't there?

A punch - to the head - off the play vs a bump - to the body-  in play (or just a little late).

 

You assume wrong.

My comments are directed at seemingly outlawing a lot of the contact in the game, but then you can have two guys that get their sternums broken, but potentially legally.

Edited April 17, 20178 yr by A F