7 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

Just saw the Daniher hugging Hibberd footage. Add that to him celebrating his one goal after 7 shots and what a cringeworthy individual. What a clown. This isn't primary school footy. 

I love hibberds face when he does that, clearly less than impressed 

8 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

OK, so that's  over. 

TMac's kicking was every bit as bad as advertised. 

Pedersen is doing a great job as the waaaaay undersized ruck, getting in the way, pretending to be a spare midfielder and generally making a nuisance of himself. 

Oliver is a freak.

We have a whole bunch of quick young mids and flankers in the squad now.  Far more than I thought.  Some of them even have skills as well. 

How good a pick was Hunt?  The kid is going to be something special one of these days. 

If we kick like that against the Hawks they'll slaughter us. 

How good was Hunt in the first qtr in particular!!! A Dons "mate" and I during the week were talking up the contest between Hunt and Tippa, it was a no contest. Hunt destroyed him in the first and it was glorious to see.

2 hours ago, Abe said:

I love hibberds face when he does that, clearly less than impressed 

Yet Joe took 13 marks and had 9 shots on goal. Clearly a very clever tactic to unsettle your opponent, and we should consider recruiting a fleet of mature-aged nannas for our forward set-up next year. If only Jesse had wiped some smudge from Rowe's cheek and given him an awkward, hairy kiss on the lips then we could well be atop of the ladder. 

Have been watching the replay and noticed that we scored five goals in the last five minutes of the third quarter.

Great result but it does remind you that although we dominated the quarter we were in danger of not getting rewards until that last five minutes.

 

16 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Evidence that it may be ineptitude rather than bias as Bernie drags a ball back in directly in front of the Bombers' goal and gets away with it. 

If that's the one I think it is Bernie tries to hit the ball out and it bounces off a leg and ends up under him. It doesn't look like he drags it in though and it would have been paid many times this year alone. 

Simply the umpiring was deplorable both ways on the weekend. 

13 hours ago, Skuit said:

It seems that you can't even critique that you can't critique anymore. I largely agree with you, and said he was in the bests. But Jack still has the capability to be a better player, and the level of criticism he has been subjected to in the past shouldn't have any bearing on current critiques.    

It was quite clearly the wrong call though.  He got equal top coaches votes, with votes from both coaches.  That was on the back of rucking single-handedly in the wet 5.5 days before and then backing up.  He played very well - tremendous under those circumstances.  Watts plays in a distinctive way, some people want him to be a different player and that affects their ability to judge his contribution.  It's a problem with the critique, not with Watts.  It seems you can't critique the critique?

6 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

It was quite clearly the wrong call though.  He got equal top coaches votes, with votes from both coaches.  That was on the back of rucking single-handedly in the wet 5.5 days before and then backing up.  He played very well - tremendous under those circumstances.  Watts plays in a distinctive way, some people want him to be a different player and that affects their ability to judge his contribution.  It's a problem with the critique, not with Watts.  It seems you can't critique the critique?

I think you are being too critical.

PS. That was not meant as a criticism.

Anyone hear the little jab Brad Johnson made at Frost after he bumped the Essendon player after he smothered it in the 3rd qtr? "It's tough bumping someone in the back isn't it"

5 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

It was quite clearly the wrong call though.  He got equal top coaches votes, with votes from both coaches.  That was on the back of rucking single-handedly in the wet 5.5 days before and then backing up.  He played very well - tremendous under those circumstances.  Watts plays in a distinctive way, some people want him to be a different player and that affects their ability to judge his contribution.  It's a problem with the critique, not with Watts.  It seems you can't critique the critique?

Oliver scores a likely 3 Brownlow votes and people say he handballs too often - fine

TMac is rock-solid in defence and people say he needs to improve his kicking - not fine

Hogan boots 4 goals and people say he needs to lead-up more often - fine

Watts gets in the bests and people say he needs to be stronger in the contests - not fine

Conclusion: often people critique the critiquing rather than the critique.

5 hours ago, Rafiki said:

Anyone hear the little jab Brad Johnson made at Frost after he bumped the Essendon player after he smothered it in the 3rd qtr? "It's tough bumping someone in the back isn't it"

I just watched the 2nd half and the whole commentary team were a joke.

They could not have given a flying [censored] what was going on. Huddo was just saying the name of the player who had the ball.

25 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Oliver scores a likely 3 Brownlow votes and people say he handballs too often - fine

TMac is rock-solid in defence and people say he needs to improve his kicking - not fine

Hogan boots 4 goals and people say he needs to lead-up more often - fine

Watts gets in the bests and people say he needs to be stronger in the contests - not fine

Conclusion: often people critique the critiquing rather than the critique.

Case in point.

6 hours ago, Rafiki said:

Anyone hear the little jab Brad Johnson made at Frost after he bumped the Essendon player after he smothered it in the 3rd qtr? "It's tough bumping someone in the back isn't it"

He should know. I believe he was once fined for shoving an umpire in the back. He was a classic cheap shot artist in his time. One of the Irish rules games comes to mind. Can anyone elaborate on this? 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-03-23/brad-johnson/2404350

29 minutes ago, Night Crawler said:

I just watched the 2nd half and the whole commentary team were a joke.

They could not have given a flying [censored] what was going on. Huddo was just saying the name of the player who had the ball.

 

Yep I commented after the game that is was poor. If Essendon had a 8 goal 3rd qtr they would have ji$$ed. Sounded like they couldn't care less.

There is a theme re: the 8 goal quarter and Clarry not getting notice... is it malicious, is it ignorance by the media? I don't care, if we're flying under the radar (which to be honest I am sure we are not in clubland) that is fine by me

Geez Jab looked pretty ordinary - not on the 'good stuff' like his Downlow year?

On 4/30/2017 at 6:14 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

Not by me.. He was very good. I actually like the Pedersen/McDonald combo better because Tommy with his huge tank gets around the ground like Mark Blicavs and he plays like an extra midfield. 

Really hope this stay because Tom's work rate and endurance around the ground could be a huge factor for us going forward.

There is a lot in your comment. but, watching the replay I wonder  whether he kicked worse than usual because he was often out of his comfort zone in the backline? Trying short passes around the centre. 

But u are dead right! If we could keep him in the new role he could play it like Blicavs who makes a huge difference for Geelong.

3 hours ago, Danelska said:

There is a theme re: the 8 goal quarter and Clarry not getting notice... is it malicious, is it ignorance by the media? I don't care, if we're flying under the radar (which to be honest I am sure we are not in clubland) that is fine by me

There is no malicious intent from the media or the AFL or the umpires regarding the MFC. Perhaps god, but that's it. I wish we had reason to take a trench-mentality approach, but we don't. Everyone wants us to succeed for the good of the game. The reason nobody cared about our 8-goal 3rd qtr., is because the match was horrible, the goals didn't translate to a thumping, and, frankly, Essendon was spent and even with 8 goals the quarter wasn't all that exciting. We are 3-3: the radar is exactly where you would imagine it to be. 

On 5/1/2017 at 2:04 AM, A F said:

From an intensity perspective, Jack Watts was very, very ordinary. He played from behind, failed to tackle stronger and probably went at about 10% all day. But he's a clever, skilful player and things went his way today.

 

14 hours ago, Skuit said:

Watts gets in the bests and people say he needs to be stronger in the contests - not fine

That's the post from AF that I disagreed with and that you are defending.

IMO it's wrong and I backed that opinion up with reasons - votes from both coaches and the context of his arduous lead-in.

Yeah - it's not fine.

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

That's the post from AF that I disagreed with and that you are defending.

IMO it's wrong and I backed that opinion up with reasons - votes from both coaches and the context of his arduous lead-in.

Yeah - it's not fine.

We'll agree to disagree, mate. I didn't say Jack didn't have a huge impact on the game. My issue was with his intensity. And just because he gets votes, doesn't mean there aren't issues with his game.

I'm looking at the grey and for me, he kicks 4 goals and was an integral part of our forwardline, but could he have played in front more? Yes. Could he have kept his feet more? Yes. Could he have shown greater tackling intensity? Yes. That's all I'm saying. 

1 minute ago, A F said:

We'll agree to disagree, mate. I didn't say Jack didn't have a huge impact on the game. My issue was with his intensity. And just because he gets votes, doesn't mean there aren't issues with his game.

I'm looking at the grey and for me, he kicks 4 goals and was an integral part of our forwardline, but could he have played in front more? Yes. Could he have kept his feet more? Yes. Could he have shown greater tackling intensity? Yes. That's all I'm saying. 

That's not what you originally said.

27 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

That's not what you originally said.

I originally said "from an intensity perspective, Jack Watts was very, very ordinary. He played from behind, failed to tackle stronger and probably went at about 10% all day. But he's a clever, skilful player and things went his way today".

So I was only knocking his intensity. I didn't include him in my best players, because he wasn't in my best players, but I can understand why the coaches had him there, for his scoreboard impact.

 

Scoreboard Impact.

Now there's an interesting realm.

Maybe , in the interest of conforming to new footyspeak it might be referred to as Numeric Pressure Acts 

On 02/05/2017 at 6:55 AM, Abe said:

I love hibberds face when he does that, clearly less than impressed 

 

On 01/05/2017 at 11:15 PM, Deestroy All said:

Just saw the Daniher hugging Hibberd footage. Add that to him celebrating his one goal after 7 shots and what a cringeworthy individual. What a clown. This isn't primary school footy. 

I watched the replay again, and Daniher actually did that at the beginning of the third quarter.  I thought it was the start of the game.

Either way it is equally cringeworthy.

4 hours ago, A F said:

I originally said "from an intensity perspective, Jack Watts was very, very ordinary. He played from behind, failed to tackle stronger and probably went at about 10% all day. But he's a clever, skilful player and things went his way today".

So I was only knocking his intensity. I didn't include him in my best players, because he wasn't in my best players, but I can understand why the coaches had him there, for his scoreboard impact.

 

And again i think that the facts do not bear your assertion out that from an 'from an intensity perspective, Jack Watts was very, very ordinary' and frankly it is ridiculous to suggest he went at 'about 10% all day'. And suggesting 'things went his way' implies he was lucky to get four goals rather then the reality of it being as a result of his hard work

5 of his 19 possessions were contested. Of  his 5 marks, 1 was contested  (a ripping effort where muscled his way to the front to take a chest mark and kick a goal). It is worth noting only Pederson, Petracca and TMac had more (2 each, with TMac's coming from 12 overall). He laid 3 tackles (and his season average is 1.8), with only Viney and Oliver laying more. Plus he ran hard all day. All of this after a five day break and having to shoulder rucking duties for 80% of last weeks game.

But even if you are one to discount stats watching the game tells me his intensity was where it needs to be. And i i would argue Goodwin came to the same conclusion.

I reiterate that there is no way Goodwin gives him votes if his intensity was down. No way. Goodwin could not have made it clearer intensity is a complete non negotiable in his team. Lack of intensity was the reason Watts wasn't played in the first two pre season games and is the reason Kent is not currently in the team. As if he gives votes to a player who runs around 'about 10% all day'. Get serious. 

And you think Goody gave him votes 'for his scoreboard impact'. Why then didn't Hannan or Garlett get votes?

 

58 minutes ago, binman said:

And again i think that the facts do not bear your assertion out that from an 'from an intensity perspective, Jack Watts was very, very ordinary' and frankly it is ridiculous to suggest he went at 'about 10% all day'. And suggesting 'things went his way' implies he was lucky to get four goals rather then the reality of it being as a result of his hard work

5 of his 19 possessions were contested. Of  his 5 marks, 1 was contested  (a ripping effort where muscled his way to the front to take a chest mark and kick a goal). It is worth noting only Pederson, Petracca and TMac had more (2 each, with TMac's coming from 12 overall). He laid 3 tackles (and his season average is 1.8), with only Viney and Oliver laying more. Plus he ran hard all day. All of this after a five day break and having to shoulder rucking duties for 80% of last weeks game.

But even if you are one to discount stats watching the game tells me his intensity was where it needs to be. And i i would argue Goodwin came to the same conclusion.

I reiterate that there is no way Goodwin gives him votes if his intensity was down. No way. Goodwin could not have made it clearer intensity is a complete non negotiable in his team. Lack of intensity was the reason Watts wasn't played in the first two pre season games and is the reason Kent is not currently in the team. As if he gives votes to a player who runs around 'about 10% all day'. Get serious. 

And you think Goody gave him votes 'for his scoreboard impact'. Why then didn't Hannan or Garlett get votes?

 

I'm not one to discount stats, but I did think they were misleading this week as he wasn't hard enough at it IMO. I'm not really sure what else I'm supposed to say, but agree to disagree. I thought he was much better the week before, but because he had to shoulder the ruck duties, he couldn't play majority minutes forward and therefore get on the scoreboard like he did this week.

There is also a difference between work rate to get into position to receive or win the ball and intensity at the contest. But I'd prefer not to keep labouring the point, because it's being blown out of proportion the more we talk about it.

It's as simple as this. I didn't think his intensity where where it should have been this week and you did. End of story.