Huge game next week

No excuses Demons. We have to turn it on to win...

the Saints will not be easy at all

AFL and TV must love us now. Win or lose we guarantee heaps of goals in our games. 

One team kicked 100 points this round.  One.   Thirteen teams failed to score 80.

Get rid of that ridiculous 666 rule.

Edited April 14, 20196 yr by Petraccattack

Watched the hawks/saints game terrible standard.  But that seems to be the of most games I have seen (Limited sample)

Hawks would have won with a full team, ran out of legs.

 

Two teams got 100, and Richmond got 99. I think 666 has lowered scoring mainly due to the poor skill level of most clubs.

aflua seems to have the 2018 laws of the game, but not the 2019 version: https://aflua.com.au/laws/

I think we're starting to see teams' true colours.

GC is 3-1 but they've probably had the softest opening month so far (St Kilda, Fremantle, the Dogs and Carlton).

St Kilda is 3-1 but they've beaten GC, Essendon when they hit rock bottom (and still nearly lost) and Hawthorn with a stack of injuries and only two on the bench.

Port Adelaide couldn't beat a Richmond side missing the big four plus other A-grade talent.

Adelaide is probably just a mid-table side. The Dogs are just a mid-table side (at best). Fremantle is just a mid-table side (at best).

GWS, Geelong and West Coast are standing out, whilst Richmond has already knocked off two of its five road trips, will slowly start getting everyone back except Rance, and finishes the year with seven straight MCG games. Watch out.

I'd like to say we showed in the Sydney game that we're a threat to push up the ladder, but I'm not convinced.

8 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

One team kicked 100 points this round.  One.   Thirteen teams failed to score 80.

Get rid of that ridiculous 666 rule.

Why is scoring so important (by the way, two sides scored 100, with a further two sides scoring over 90)?

Our game vs Essendon, which was two 100+ scores, had no defence from either side to speak of. Hardly any intensity around the contest.

GWS vs Geelong was a cracking game showing strong skills and determination from both sides, with a score of 79-75.

Scoring doesn't necessarily mean good, or exciting, football.

The debate needs to be framed around the spectacle, not the score.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I think we're starting to see teams' true colours.

GC is 3-1 but they've probably had the softest opening month so far (St Kilda, Fremantle, the Dogs and Carlton).

St Kilda is 3-1 but they've beaten GC, Essendon when they hit rock bottom (and still nearly lost) and Hawthorn with a stack of injuries and only two on the bench.

Port Adelaide couldn't beat a Richmond side missing the big four plus other A-grade talent.

Adelaide is probably just a mid-table side. The Dogs are just a mid-table side (at best). Fremantle is just a mid-table side (at best).

GWS, Geelong and West Coast are standing out, whilst Richmond has already knocked off two of its five road trips, will slowly start getting everyone back except Rance, and finishes the year with seven straight MCG games. Watch out.

I'd like to say we showed in the Sydney game that we're a threat to push up the ladder, but I'm not convinced.

Why is scoring so important (by the way, two sides scored 100, with a further two sides scoring over 90)?

Our game vs Essendon, which was two 100+ scores, had no defence from either side to speak of. Hardly any intensity around the contest.

GWS vs Geelong was a cracking game showing strong skills and determination from both sides, with a score of 79-75.

Scoring doesn't necessarily mean good, or exciting, football.

The debate needs to be framed around the spectacle, not the score.

I think he was highlighting the fact the 666 rule was introduced to increase scoring, but it doesn’t seem to be the case given the small sample size we have so far.

It didn’t need to be introduced and I agree with you the fact that a good game doesn’t necessarily need to be high scoring, rather than a highly skilled, physical game of football.