21 minutes ago, binman said:

Huh?

What is the Holman discussion?

The only comment I can see about Holman from ATBOG is that he kicked a goal because omac didn't go with him.

I see your "huh" and raise it.  Given a choice between a poster actually meaning that we need to be fair to an 'innocent' oppo player (as you assumed and seemed outraged by) and the more likely interpretation that the poster meant the "discussion about the Holman goal", rather than the man himself, I'd go for the latter. 

Edited May 13, 20196 yr by sue

the stupid thing is we are only 1 game out of the 8. Anything can still happen - but probably won't.

4 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

the stupid thing is we are only 1 game out of the 8. Anything can still happen - but probably won't.

One win.... and a little matter of 37%!

4 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

One win.... and a little matter of 37%!

tis  but a scratch.

51 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

So many wind socks on Demonland, and so much wind

Have you had this problem long? 

47 minutes ago, sue said:

I see your "huh" and raise it.  Given a choice between a poster actually meaning that we need to be fair to an 'innocent' oppo player (as you assumed and seemed outraged by) and the more likely interpretation that the poster meant the "discussion about the Holman goal", rather than the man himself, I'd go for the latter. 

So, he meant:

To be fair to the discussions about the goal, omac was never going to catch him because he omac is slow and uncompetitive.

Am I missing something? He (or anyone else for thst matter) was never unfair to Holman or the discussion about the Holman goal so why a need to use the qualifier 'to be fair'.

He was unfair to omac who was injured and unable to chase. So it seems to me that a much more reasonable comment would have been:

To be fair to omac I didn't realise  he was injured in that tackle and that might explain why he didn't chase. Because he couldn't. The all access video should have noted that....

1 hour ago, At the break of Gawn said:

To be fair on Holman, I don't think OMac would have been able to go with him anyway even if he wasn't injured. OMac is usually slow to react and wouldn't have made up the gap, at the very most he may have put pressure on the kick. 

Having said all that, all is well that ends well, and who knows, if that event hadn't of transpired, we may have actually drew the game and only got the 2pts. Gold Coast scoring that goal invoked the 6-6-6 formation which cleared out our forward line. It was with an open forward line with two quick entries that allowed us to win the game.  

He wouldn't keep up with him...  But when the ball was called back,  he should already have been up and moving forward of they're play,  getting numbers ahead of they're ball.

i think he''s so used to being covered for.  He needs to start thinking for himself of the game situation...  rather than just his immediate opponent.  

 

He's old enough now,  to be taking responsibility within the team.

19 minutes ago, binman said:

So, he meant:

To be fair to the discussions about the goal, omac was never going to catch him because he omac is slow and uncompetitive.

Am I missing something? He (or anyone else for thst matter) was never unfair to Holman or the discussion about the Holman goal so why a need to use the qualifier 'to be fair'.

He was unfair to omac who was injured and unable to chase. So it seems to me that a much more reasonable comment would have been:

To be fair to omac I didn't realise  he was injured in that tackle and that might explain why he didn't chase. Because he couldn't. The all access video should have noted that....

I for one was at the game and thought it was clear he (OMAC) was hobbling - I thought the narrative on the access all video's that he was on his haunches - thus stuffed/unfit - was disappointing - and also quite misleading or at least not taking into account some obvious hobbling going on from OMAC.

4 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

There's a great insight on Access All Areas (on the afl app/site) where they break down that last 1 minute of play. Oscar McDonald is a very lucky man that we won that game. He jogged a long in the middle rather than man up on Holman who ended up kicking the goal that put them in front.

They also highlighted the smarts of Marty Hore - he didn't play a great game but his second half and that goal was really something. 

It goes without saying that AFL is a tough gig.  Crap happens all the time, especially when you are under pressure in a nail biting situation like this.  Everything looks easy in hindsight and especially from the comfort of a lounge room.  Rarely do things happen the way we might want in these scenarios.  The random uncertainty factor is what makes our game, and other codes, so interesting for fans to watch.

However, just because AAA.(Lloyd) highlights Oscar as the main offender, doesn't mean he is necessarily correct.

What Lloyd fails to highlight is that Oscar was still recovering from a sling type tackle after taking a hospital handball from Frosty.  He was also manning the mark!  Clarry had a chance to coral from what i saw but a split second decision to instead attempt to attack Holman front on saw Holman slip past with the old one/two and resulting goal.

Frosty's decision to play on immediately after marking a bail out kick from GC was the catalyst.  Needed to go back quickly behind the mark, assess and (if possible) try to maintain possession by foot to run down the clock as much as possible with some classic stall ball, the clock at that stage sitting at 1:24

By playing on he played into the hands of GC, with a turnover on the arc.  The worst case scenario at that point was a turnover with us on the attack and so many pushing deep up the ground. 

At the very least, if Frosty couldn't hit a target short by foot to maintain possession or for a decent shot at goal by hitting somone up inside 50, he needed to eat up the 8 seconds off the clock and then pump it to the top of the square with a low raking dirty ball kick, in the hope it fell into the hands of one of our boys and, failing that, give those players who were inside 50 ...the chance of locking it in. This would allow us to eat up more time off the clock, as well as a good chance of edging ahead with a point or major, being so close to goal.  It would also lesson the chance of a GC response, with the ball being deep in our forward line and a wall set up one kick behind (plus a sweeper behind that!) If we happened to score a point or no score at all for a draw.

A series of unfortunate events.

Highlight the error of Frosty.  Highlight Clarry's split second decision to attack vs the coral option (if /where possible) for next time (yes a coin flip decision and even the best may have done the same!).

Goody then has them practice/train these same scenarios drilling what to do when marking a similar bail out kick on or around the arc from various angles.  Go back assess, no obvious options inside then stall ball around the arc and/or if uncertain of remaining time...get it in to the top of square with a flat dirty ball.

I'm sure the FD has the post-match fixes and corrections well covered, this is just my amature take on it.  Train for scenarios like the last 2 minutes as Goody said we do, but, also add in training to 'show' the boys the better alternatives using the same NQR set play that we muffed on Sat so we have that part covered more comprehensively next time,  which hopefully prevents the last 48 second miracle comeback from being required at all.

Edited May 13, 20196 yr by Rusty Nails

50 minutes ago, binman said:

So, he meant:

To be fair to the discussions about the goal, omac was never going to catch him because he omac is slow and uncompetitive.

Am I missing something? He (or anyone else for thst matter) was never unfair to Holman or the discussion about the Holman goal so why a need to use the qualifier 'to be fair'.

He was unfair to omac who was injured and unable to chase. So it seems to me that a much more reasonable comment would have been:

To be fair to omac I didn't realise  he was injured in that tackle and that might explain why he didn't chase. Because he couldn't. The all access video should have noted that....

I never stated that OMac is uncompetitive, all I stated was that on a level playing field, I don’t think Omac would have kept up with Holman in that chase. That’s why I said, to be fair on Holman, he didn’t just get away because Omac was injured. 

I don’t mind Omac and never call any of our players uncompetitive. I trust Goodwin (for the most part) so if he’s playing him then it’s for a good reason.

 

10 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

I never stated that OMac is uncompetitive, all I stated was that on a level playing field, I don’t think Omac would have kept up with Holman in that chase. That’s why I said, to be fair on Holman, he didn’t just get away because Omac was injured. 

I don’t mind Omac and never call any of our players uncompetitive. I trust Goodwin (for the most part) so if he’s playing him then it’s for a good reason.

 

Fair enough. My bad then.

In my defence a confusing turn of phrase and I'm a bit over the bagging omac cops on this site. 

 

Edited May 13, 20196 yr by binman

28 minutes ago, binman said:

Fair enough. My bad then.

In my defence a confusing turn of phrase and I'm a bit over the bagging omac cops on this site. 

 

All good. Your positivity is appreciated on this site (and on the podcast). Some of us can go overboard with the negativity so it’s a good to call it out. 

Edited May 13, 20196 yr by At the break of Gawn

5 hours ago, binman said:

Could barely walk after the game. But hey let's find another reason to find fault with omac.

Yeah I find the scapegoating of Omac in this situation unfair. On watching the replay again, he got crunched and was trying to get back but just didn't have the energy. He was wrecked

Well, I just watched the replay. Hard to know what to say about what I just witnessed. It’s actually amazing that we have 3 wins playing like hot garbage. 

There were culprits everywhere but Stretch and Oliver in particular should be embarrassed by some of their ball use in the forward half. Absolutely ridiculous for AFL players to be kicking the ball like that.

We now have the worst conversion from inside 50s since the stat has been collected. If historians ask how that happened, they need only watch a replay of that game. Shameful. Fix up the skills for god’s sake.

On 5/12/2019 at 5:06 PM, Redleg said:

David King said something we should look at. He said if we want to win, stop kicking it to the other side.

That simply put is what we need to do. Problem is we can't, because most of the players are poorly skilled and under pressure or even without it, our poor disposal just leads to turnovers and ultimately easy goals, as we struggle to run back the other way.

If we did that yesterday we would have won by a minimum of 5 goals.

Its our structure. We make it so easy for the other team to pick us off because we are so predictable. We arent doing too badly except for our kicking inside 50 and conversion of inside 50s to scores because we either hack it forward or move too slowly forward so end up with kicks down the line to hot spots/key forward targets. The key defenders just tangles up the key forward allowing the intercept defender an easy chop off.

We need to learn how to move the ball more efficiently forward (greater skill and flow rather than the haphazard panicky scrum/hack it forward footy) and how to spread the field. It always feels like we have no space, we need to spread the field, particularly the forward 50. Part of it is wanting to go down the corridor but sometimes the best play is to go over the corridor to the "fat side" and spread the field more. We did it several times on the weekend, we're so focused on attacking through the corridor we don't see that the next kick after that makes it easier to defend. If we go over the top of the corridor onto the fat side it spreads the field, creates more space for the forwards to work in, spreads the defense and forces them to work harder.

 

Edited May 14, 20196 yr by Dr. Gonzo

On 5/13/2019 at 5:29 PM, Rusty Nails said:

What Lloyd fails to highlight is that Oscar was still recovering from a sling type tackle after taking a hospital handball from Frosty.  He was also manning the mark!  Clarry had a chance to coral from what i saw but a split second decision to instead attempt to attack Holman front on saw Holman slip past with the old one/two and resulting goal.

Lioyd is a hack with little idea about the ygame, highlights what he wants everyone to believe, this is the  bloke who said Clayton Oliver did not have a strong enough year to make all Australian last year

5 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

Lioyd is a hack with little idea about the ygame, highlights what he wants everyone to believe, this is the  bloke who said Clayton Oliver did not have a strong enough year to make all Australian last year

I don't think he's a big Demon fan DMM

On 5/12/2019 at 5:37 PM, DemonOX said:

Yep I would rather see Petty in and give him a good go at it like Omac has got and see what he can do. Put it this way Petty ain’t gonna be any worse that omac. 

Might as well try and get something out of the season

On 5/13/2019 at 2:06 PM, old dee said:

I think I can safely say he is the clear favourite whipping boy of 2019 binman.

He ain't as bad as a lot think.

The guy regularly fresh airs when going for spoils. I've given him chances (about 2 years worth) but he just isn't up to league footy.