AFLW: Rd 04 vs Western Bulldogs

[kev martin 8,815]

45 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Going to miss Goldrick’s kamikaze zip out of the back half. 
is she injured or dropped? 

Information from the club.

Sinead Goldrick suffered a head knock late in last week’s clash against North Melbourne, and under the AFL’s concussion rules, is automatically ruled out.

She was important for us with her drive from the backline.

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by kev martin

[BDA 19,978]

55 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Going to miss Goldrick’s kamikaze zip out of the back half. 
is she injured or dropped? 

concussion protocols. she copped a head knock late in the game against north so has to sit out this game.

[dl4e 5,578]

Is Magee another Irish woman ? The side is fairly steady but the back line worries me a little. Thankfullly footscrays forwards are not tall. The centre line of Pearce, Paxman, Gay and Hanks I think is close to the best in the comp. Hard to win out there.

[WERRIDEE 5,198]

Goldrick is a huge blow will be interesting to see if first gamer Magee can replace her like for like.

[darkhorse72 1,718]

Looks like we broke North last week, pies in control of them at the moment.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Darkhorse72
stuffed by autocorrect!

[ManDee 7,073]

7 minutes ago, Darkhorse72 said:

Looks like we broke North last week, pie son control oil them at the moment.

Pie so control oil them at the moment! Oh now I understand. Que?

[BDA 19,978]

1 hour ago, Darkhorse72 said:

Looks like we broke North last week, pies in control of them at the moment.

North were terrible. Flat as a tack. No goals for the game!

The pies have 4 wins on the board but hard to get a read of their form. I reckon we have their measure. We won’t give their defence such any easy ride like the Roos did this evening.

[58er 5,588]

3 hours ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Going to miss Goldrick’s kamikaze zip out of the back half. 
is she injured or dropped? 

Concussion 

[Deemented Are Go! 3,581]

1 hour ago, Better days ahead said:

North were terrible. Flat as a tack. No goals for the game!

The pies have 4 wins on the board but hard to get a read of their form. I reckon we have their measure. We won’t give their defence such any easy ride like the Roos did this evening.

That was Norf’s lowest ever V/AFL/AFLW score in it’s history. 
 

The previous lowest being 1.8 (14) R19 in 2019 (men’s v Geel) 

[Cards13 9,117]

M

22 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

That was Norf’s lowest ever V/AFL/AFLW score in it’s history. 
 

The previous lowest being 1.8 (14) R19 in 2019 (men’s v Geel) 

That’s a great stat!

 

The way the %’s are we basically need to win every game from here out to make top 2 let alone top 4. Going to be a tough slog for the W team. 

[darkhorse72 1,718]

3 hours ago, Better days ahead said:

North were terrible. Flat as a tack. No goals for the game!

The pies have 4 wins on the board but hard to get a read of their form. I reckon we have their measure. We won’t give their defence such any easy ride like the Roos did this evening.

Watching their games I really haven't rated them based on their opposition.  But they have won 4/4. roos' seemed to have hit a wall at the moment, terrible footy decisions today. 

[pitmaster 3,051]

13 hours ago, kev martin said:

Women needed a "speakeasy".

Not allowed in front bar, required a male to buy the grog when in the lounge in the earlier years.

Restricted bar times created the need for sly grog shops in Australia, (closed after 6pm and on Sunday).

 

Sorry mate, it's not that I mind being corrected, but I like to be corrected correctly. Ladies had the lounge. A speakeasy was far too grungy for a ladies' lounge.

The following, I was lazy and copied it from Wikipedia, is my understanding of the term speakeasy: "A speakeasy, also called a blind pig or blind tiger, is an illicit establishment that sells alcoholic beverages. Such establishments came into prominence in the United States during the Prohibition era (1920–1933, longer in some states)."

Drinkers could ask for the illegal liquor they wanted without needing to speak in code hence the term: Speakeasy. I did some Sunday drinking in a Carlton sly grog shop. No one ever called it a speakeasy. It was always on the sly. 

[Lucifers Hero 36,983]

Am beginning to think North aren't as good as many thought.  Track record so far is:

• Rnd 1: vs Cats.  Win 11.5.71 vs 1.3.9
• Rnd 2: vs Saints.  Win 5.6.36 vs 1.4.10
• Rnd 3: vs Mighty Dees: Loss 8.3.51 vs 9.6.60
• Rnd 4: vs Pies: Loss 0.8.8 vs 4.4.28 

I don't think they are as bad as the score vs Pies suggests (bad kicking) nor as good as the first two wins vs newbie teams.  Are they becoming the 'flat track bullies' of the AFLW?

Hopefully today's game gives more insight on where we sit in the comp.  It is also a classic '8-point game'.  Win and we go two games up on North, Bulldogs, Carlton and maybe Crows, if they lose to Lions today who are playing at home.  I know it is early in the season to talk of '8-point' games but with 5 rounds after today a win gives us a foot on the top four of the ladder.

I've now made myself more nervous about today's game.?

Edited February 21, 2021 by Lucifer's Hero

[george_on_the_outer 6,942]

We will miss Goldrick big time.  She saved the bacon a couple of times last week on her own.

Welcome to Lauren "speccie"McGee for her first game.  If she plays as well as what we saw in the All Ireland final, she will fill the gap left by Goldrick.  

[BDA 19,978]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Am beginning to think North aren't as good as many thought.  Track record so far is:

• Rnd 1: vs Cats.  Win 11.5.71 vs 1.3.9
• Rnd 2: vs Saints.  Win 5.6.36 vs 1.4.10
• Rnd 3: vs Mighty Dees: Loss 8.3.51 vs 9.6.60
• Rnd 4: vs Pies: Loss 0.8.8 vs 4.4.28 

I don't think they are as bad as the score vs Pies suggests (bad kicking) nor as good as the first two wins vs newbie teams.  Are they becoming the 'flat track bullies' of the AFLW?

Hopefully today's game gives more insight on where we sit in the comp.  It is also a classic '8-point game'.  Win and we go two games up on North, Bulldogs, Carlton and maybe Crows, if they lose to Lions today who are playing at home.  I know it is early in the season to talk of '8-point' games but with 5 rounds after today a win gives us a foot on the top four of the ladder.

I've now made myself more nervous about today's game.?

Form lines still hard to read but I’m glad North have dropped the 2 games. They’re still a danger team and may well take points from the other contenders.  

It is an 8-pointer today. A 2 game advantage is big in a 9-game home and away season even this early.

One advantage we have as well is we’re the only Victorian team to have played an inter-state game thus far. 1 less trip for us could be a factor later on as teams tire through the season.

[Lucifers Hero 36,983]

28 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

Form lines still hard to read but I’m glad North have dropped the 2 games. They’re still a danger team and may well take points from the other contenders.  

It is an 8-pointer today. A 2 game advantage is big in a 9-game home and away season even this early.

One advantage we have as well is we’re the only Victorian team to have played an inter-state game thus far. 1 less trip for us could be a factor later on as teams tire through the season.

Not sure how much of an advantage as not all teams play each other so the fixture depends on how the AFL manipulates it to help the teams they want in the finals.  I've mentioned it before but Carlton is one such team.  Since they lost their first two they have played newbie teams; Saints and Tigers. 

I would expect them to get a lot more of the low teams to help them to finals.  On the other hand we will get Freo, Crows, Lions and GWS making it harder for us to finish up the ladder/top 4.  How many of those 4 games are i/state who knows but we need to win i/state because of 'Home' finals. 

tbh, I'm not worried by the travel.  I'm more worried by the AFL manipulating the fixture to favour teams and to help broadcasters with 'blockbuster' games.

I will be filthy if we or one of the other 'top' teams' miss finals or the top four because a fixture 'fix' gets teams like Carlton in. 

The fixture is already distorted by not all teams playing each other.  This week-to-week fixturing adds to the farce.  Time for the AFL to set out the next five weeks and if covid lockdowns interfere then amend it at the time.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Lucifer's Hero

[Neil Crompton 4,672]

Good luck today ladies. By the end of the day, I hope to see the following headline:

”Devastating Demons Destroy Disappointing Dogs”

[Dee Zephyr 17,302]

6 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

“Devastating Demons Destroy Disappointing Dogs”

Dee-lightful headline Mr Crompton. 

Go Dees!

[BDA 19,978]

12 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not sure how much of an advantage as not all teams play each other so the fixture depends on how the AFL manipulates it to help the teams they want in the finals.  I've mentioned it before but Carlton is one such team.  Since they lost their first two they have played newbie teams; Saints and Tigers. 

I would expect them to get a lot more of the low teams to help them to finals.  On the other hand we will get Freo, Crows, Lions and GWS making it harder for us to finish up the ladder/top 4.  How many of those 4 games are i/state who knows but we need to win i/state because of 'Home' finals. 

tbh, I'm not worried by the travel.  I'm more worried by the AFL manipulating the fixture to favour teams and to help broadcasters with 'blockbuster' games.

I will be filthy if we or one of the other 'top' teams' miss finals or the top four because a fixture 'fix' gets teams like Carlton in. 

The fixture is already distorted by not all teams playing each other.  This week-to-week fixturing adds to the farce.  Time for the AFL to set out the next five weeks and if covid lockdowns interfere then amend it at the time.

Valid points LH. The mysteriousness of the draw and Covid uncertainly could all work against us yet.

The conference system was a joke last year and Carlton fluked their way to the final. It won't happen again this year because they are very average imv. Prespakis and Harris is all they've got. They made Richmond look decent yesterday!

I wouldn’t discount the travel factor though. We were very sluggish out of the gate v gold coast and tired badly in the last quarter. A better team would have run over the top of us. Granted we travelled up and back same day which other teams probably won't do. 

Anyways I have to get myself organised and head to Footscray.

Go Dees!

[kev martin 8,815]

6 hours ago, RigidMiddleDigit said:

Sorry mate, it's not that I mind being corrected, but I like to be corrected correctly. Ladies had the lounge. A speakeasy was far too grungy for a ladies' lounge.

The following, I was lazy and copied it from Wikipedia, is my understanding of the term speakeasy: "A speakeasy, also called a blind pig or blind tiger, is an illicit establishment that sells alcoholic beverages. Such establishments came into prominence in the United States during the Prohibition era (1920–1933, longer in some states)."

Drinkers could ask for the illegal liquor they wanted without needing to speak in code hence the term: Speakeasy. I did some Sunday drinking in a Carlton sly grog shop. No one ever called it a speakeasy. It was always on the sly. 

I didn't realise that you were talking about the origin of the word and not its meaning. 

You also indicated that Australian liquor laws were reasonable and we didn't need the sly grog places. So I pointed out the inequalities (prohibition) for women, given this forum is about the women's team.

"Too grungy" for women. Should be their choice, though males patronise and take that decision away from them.

Here is a Wikipedia cut and paste about women and the need for male supervision in the lounge area.

The main bar of the typical Australian pub, usually the largest, was the so-called "Public Bar". However, this title was an ironic misnomer, as until the early to mid-1970s (1969 in Queensland), only men were permitted to drink in Public Bars: most pubs included a "Ladies' Lounge" furnished with chairs and tables where women and men could drink together, but women were usually not admitted to the Lounge Bar unless accompanied by a man, and were usually not permitted to buy their own drinks.

Sorry about derailing the thread.

Go Dees.

Edited February 21, 2021 by kev martin

[Lucifers Hero 36,983]

That was rather selfish (by Zanka, I think?) trying to kick a goal form outside 50!  Didn't even look for a team mate.  Low percentage play.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Lucifer's Hero

[Brownie 5,121]

Geez that out on the full mark was amazing before.

[Little Goffy 12,507]

Anyone else feel like we never actually gain from the wind?  Strange quirk; possibly a tactical coaching oversight?

Wonder if Zanker's "ambitious" long shot on goal was a product of a general instruction to try to use the wind?

[dl4e 5,578]

I did not see Hore out there. Big loss if not playing.

[Brownie 5,121]

Yeah another "men's tradition " the women have picked up.