6 hours ago, praha said:

Good turnout imo.  Considering we struggled to crack 20k against the likes of Port and Freo during our finals years in the 00s yet have managed 27k against both this year despite not playing finals for a decade says we're doing okay. Collingwood a so called powerhouse managed 35k against them. I'd say that's a good ratio relative to membership and support numbers.

These are the member numbers we had during that time...

2000 - 18,227

2001 - 22,940

2002 - 20,152

2003 - 20,555

2004 - 20,647

2005 - 24,805

2006 - 24,698

So based on that vs an interstate side, 20,000 isn't too bad.

Last time I checked though, we have almost 42,000 members and in a game so pivotal to our finals chances, against a side we are directly competing against for a top 4 spot, in Trenners first game back in ages, on what is apparently everyones preferred day and timeslot for a match... etc etc etc, 27,000 is, imo, ordinary.

14 hours ago, JTR said:

Melbourne members/supporters - where were you?

27,000 is pretty ordinary considering all the obvious good reasons to go. How much more incentive do you need?

I agree, oh well those who couldn't be bothered to go missed out on one hell o a game.

14 hours ago, JTR said:

Melbourne members/supporters - where were you?

27,000 is pretty ordinary considering all the obvious good reasons to go. How much more incentive do you need?

Gone on the ski trips early this year so they can be back for september

Edited July 22, 20178 yr by Gipsy Danger

12 hours ago, Redleg said:

Has always been his problem, poor disposal. It needs to get sorted out.

He was improving this a lot before he got injured. When he is in good form it is Ok but not elite. Yesterday he seemed in form in getting the ball and influencing the contest but his disposal wasn't great by his standards. 

1 hour ago, deebug said:

I agree, oh well those who couldn't be bothered to go missed out on one hell o a game.

Also, it was a horrible, cold and very windy day - might have put some off.

Our seats were completely sheltered from said wind, and it was relatively mild, compared with the arctic conditions while waiting for the train.

1 minute ago, demondame said:

Also, it was a horrible, cold and very windy day - might have put some off.

Our seats were completely sheltered from said wind, and it was relatively mild, compared with the arctic conditions while waiting for the train.

It was cold but it is a winter sport, i bet all of those who didn't come yesterday will show when we play in finals.

15 hours ago, JTR said:

Melbourne members/supporters - where were you?

27,000 is pretty ordinary considering all the obvious good reasons to go. How much more incentive do you need?

I agree, oh well those who couldn't be bothered to go missed out on one hell o a game.

2 hours ago, deebug said:

It was cold but it is a winter sport, i bet all of those who didn't come yesterday will show when we play in finals.

I agree, oh well those who couldn't be bothered to go missed out on one hell o a game.

I was there.

6 hours ago, JTR said:

These are the member numbers we had during that time...

2000 - 18,227

2001 - 22,940

2002 - 20,152

2003 - 20,555

2004 - 20,647

2005 - 24,805

2006 - 24,698

So based on that vs an interstate side, 20,000 isn't too bad.

Last time I checked though, we have almost 42,000 members and in a game so pivotal to our finals chances, against a side we are directly competing against for a top 4 spot, in Trenners first game back in ages, on what is apparently everyones preferred day and timeslot for a match... etc etc etc, 27,000 is, imo, ordinary.

Playing in Darwin v MCG.

Not the right thread for this, but as attendance has been brought up, I may as well continue it. 

The key point I want to make is that 27,000 was a substantial increase on previous attendances. It is likely that a game at the G against Adelaide may have had a a few more, but the pie in the sky estimates of 40,000 at the G if we hadn't played in Darwin are so far off the mark, that it is worth noting and remembering.

A number of people have brushed off the financial need for games in Darwin without being realistic about where the club is at right now.

One more thing, a lot of people become members to support the club.  They may attend few or no games, but they want to contribute financially. Yesterdays attendance was pretty respectable, mind you there were very good reasons to attend. 

 

If I hadn't been at the game and was relying solely on Joeboy's analysis, I would have assumed "Tyson - prolific but wasteful" would have been written as "Tyson - three Brownlow votes" by any other poster.

But, Joeboy, I think you're spot on with everyone this week. Well done, and might I add, "Reading Joeboy - Monday morning ritual". 

On 23/07/2017 at 7:02 AM, Clint Bizkit said:

Seven turnovers.

A lot of those were under very little pressure too.

Said it before and will say it again, Tyson does turn it over by foot too much. However his other attributes more than compensate for this. He is strong in the contest and is at the bottom of every pack - he links well and is efficient by hand. His biggest asset is he is a ball magnet. He just attracts the ball. It was only three season ago when we were scratching our heads to find any midfielders ( other than Jones) who got plenty of the pill.

Now when we can find more on-ballers that can find the ball as much as Tyson but  dispose of it better then he will not be in the first 4 onballers picked (Viney, Jones and Oliver). Until that time I focus on the positives that he brings to the team.

A question - do you think he is an asset to the team or a liability ? Does his good outweigh his bad ? If the answer is liability/bad - who would you replace him with ?

5 minutes ago, nutbean said:

A question - do you think he is an asset to the team or a liability ? Does his good outweigh his bad ? If the answer is liability/bad - who would you replace him with ?

I'm not calling for him to be dropped and yes he does add a lot to the team but I didn't have him near the top six players because of all his turnovers.