One of the things I loved about the game against the Hawks was seeing Pickett getting frequently involved and getting to good places in support, whether or not he was rewarded or even got a stat out of it.

It shows a little in the 'goal of the week mini-video on the main Demonland page at the moment - he was weaving in and out of the action ready dragging players with him and even closing in on the hot spot as the goal was being kicked.

But the moment for me that really shone (and made me feel like we were definitely going to win) was a passage of play I think late in the third quarter where through sheer manic attack and slapping and bundling along Pickett was largely responsible for moving the ball forward about fifty meters despite Hawks outnumbering Demons for the length of the scramble.  He must have physically touched the ball five times in ten seconds but statistically wouldn't have had a 'touch' to his name.

Sums up why I think we've got a winner in this kid and why I'm going to enjoy watching him for years.

Can I make a special request to anyone with editing skills for a mini-video of that ridiculous passage?  Might be hard to find because it didn't result in a goal or anything special as an outcome, except Hawthorn once again were knocked back up the ground, out of an attacking position, and left with no options except to kick long to Gawn!

It is also the perfect reminder that Pickett's stats are completely ignorable - he's doing his thing and it is definitely not bureaucratic!

Came for the video.....  now disappointed.

Agree with all you said, LG.   Also he will be better than Jeff Farmer,  bookmark it.

If you can give me an approximate time (or exact) I probably can assist.

I think I found it.

6 minutes ago, Demonland said:

I think I found it.

Great trawling there @Demonland - well done.

2 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Great trawling there @Demonland - well done.

Thank @binman for putting me on to the AFL's Stats Pro. Only reason I found it so quickly.

Incidentally Pickett received a one 1%er for that passage of play.

he's terrifically exciting anytime he's near the contest

very cyril

That was a terrible handball from Brayshaw.

Had he hit the target Pickett probably would have kicked a goal or passed it deep into the 50.

I said he was a mix between a Cyril and Charlie Cameron.

He just makes defenders nervous when he's around and that itself is a win.

1 minute ago, Lefty said:

That was a terrible handball from Brayshaw.

Had he hit the target Pickett probably would have kicked a goal or passed it deep into the 50.

Yeah, but he had a nice hip n shoulder on to O'meara. so that was a 50/50 I rekon.

9 minutes ago, Lefty said:

That was a terrible handball from Brayshaw.

Had he hit the target Pickett probably would have kicked a goal or passed it deep into the 50.

I’m still curious as to what caused Goody to slam the desk. Maybe it was a result of the Gus handball. Just a guess though. Hawks took it up the other end after that and the ball finished out of bounds with the camera then turning to an unhappy Goody.

Cannot wait till he fills out a bit. Will be a wrecking ball. Has a nice blend of hardness, explosiveness, with a touch of class. Plays on instinct. I can see why we gave up so much to get him. I personally wouldn't have, but it may be a really good outcome for us. Kid looks super, already compliments our side. It was a needs fit that is immediately paying dividends. He is our desperately needed Liam Patrick. 

Edited July 23, 20204 yr by Pickett2Jackson

Have a look at the faces on the Richmond blokes ?

Edited July 23, 20204 yr by Fork 'em

3 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

I’m still curious as to what caused Goody to slam the desk. Maybe it was a result of the Gus handball. Just a guess though. Hawks took it up the other end after that and the ball finished out of bounds with the camera then turning to an unhappy Goody.

My guess would be that the attack could have broken through for a goal with just one little extra thing going right - If Jackson had been able to tap the ball with his feet to move it forward even a bit, or if Pickett had realised he still had Brayshaw running with him on his right, it could easily have been a goal.  And then of course there was the rebound, which came back a bit too easily,

I imagine that coaches do sometimes get worked up when they see brilliance not quite come together and then the team system not quite cover the risk.  Sometimes.

Or maybe he was just really wishing it had gone on for the goal because it would have been goal of the week and made everyone celebrate Pickett and save him from being compared to Weightman!

33 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

If I’m not mistake Richmond somehow got a free kick from this even though he flew over a Melbourne player. 

4 hours ago, Lefty said:

That was a terrible handball from Brayshaw.

Had he hit the target Pickett probably would have kicked a goal or passed it deep into the 50.

Yet people on here think brayshaw has good disposal lol. Its junk

8 hours ago, Pates said:

If I’m not mistake Richmond somehow got a free kick from this even though he flew over a Melbourne player. 

This is one of the most inconsistent rules in the competition. Just prior to this free we were not given a free kick in or goal square for an "unrealistic attempt" to mark. Since then it has happened to us twice without a free most recently in the game against hawthorn.

He'd be my favourite player to watch without the ball at the moment. Whenever the ball is near him you just want to watch and see how he influences the contest. Has some serious presence. 

10 hours ago, Pates said:

If I’m not mistake Richmond somehow got a free kick from this even though he flew over a Melbourne player. 

Unrealistic attempt, despite not actually touching an opposition player AND getting a hand on the ball.  I was filthy about that decision.

Is "unrealistic attempt" actually a rule? If so, why? Why not let players fly for unrealistic attempts and penalise them only if they push an opponent in the back or if the ball is not within 5 metres while doing so? That would mean the rule being broken would not be the "unrealistic attempt" but instead a push in the back or whatever the rule is called when a player is pushed when the ball is further than 5 metres away. 

 

Edited July 24, 20204 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia

28 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is "unrealistic attempt" actually a rule? If so, why? Why not let players fly for unrealistic attempts and penalise them only if they push an opponent in the back or if the ball is not within 5 metres while doing so? That would mean the rule being broken would not be the "unrealistic attempt" but instead a push in the back or whatever the rule is called when a player is pushed when the ball is further than 5 metres away. 

 

Far too sensible for the AFL LDvC

53 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is "unrealistic attempt" actually a rule? If so, why? Why not let players fly for unrealistic attempts and penalise them only if they push an opponent in the back or if the ball is not within 5 metres while doing so? That would mean the rule being broken would not be the "unrealistic attempt" but instead a push in the back or whatever the rule is called when a player is pushed when the ball is further than 5 metres away. 

 

The Umpires must feel  as though  their consciences are collectively scarred for life after doing MFC games....

...and i don't bear any animosity.

This is brilliant effort based output from Kossie. Another highlight from Kossi last week for me was his ste shot. He has a compact, simple kicking action with a set shot and absolutely nailed it...there is a lot to like. More than happy we traded to get Number 10 and draft him

There’s a lot of 04/05 Aaron Davey about him.  May have a higher ceiling, but that tenacious efforts and agility is very early-Davey.