Maynard unscathed

[IRW 1,387]

7 hours ago, picket fence said:

Gee you guys just don't get it, Yes NOTHING like a real war, but a war waged on a footy field, war like footy conditions, tough, brutal, if ya dont get what I'm trying to say then forget it. 

People should be cautioned for using that analogy,just as the AFL should be cautioned for appropriating Anzac Day

[picket fence 17,148]

14 minutes ago, IRW said:

People should be cautioned for using that analogy,just as the AFL should be cautioned for appropriating Anzac Day

CAARYST we really are woke and berefit

My coaches in senior mens footy ALWAYS mentioned going to war with opposition!

Sad that the inference now is seen as an sledge to War. Well my dad served in the 22nd,42 ( I think thats right) AFI battalion in WWR 2 And always said to me, mate when u go out there , footy, cricket anything, well u know the rest!

Edited June 11 by picket fence

[picket fence 17,148]

10 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

It wouldn't have been that hard to lay some heavy tackles on Maynard.

We need to go back to basics and play hard contested footy. 

This bruise free football doesn't fly in the face of clubs like Cwood who are willing to put their body on the lines.

Ironically it was Maynard doing the bumping and hard tackles.

If this was our fightback response, I'd hate to see anything else.

It's one thing on the day it happened not to remonstrate but the next game he not only gets off scott free, his hand is shaken.

Not only did we get well beaten and display a litany of poor skills, poor execution, lazy and undisciplined football, we also revealed how soft we are.

Surely we could have been much more aggressive and harder at the contests.

We had ten players with 1 or zero tackles for the entire game. This in a game we went out of our way in the media to let everyone know that a response would be made. 

Enough with the big talking please. We didn't respond at all. We were well and truly beaten. Beaten in one of the most the most basic elements of the game.....tackling.

When a player is down in form or skills, tackling is one area of the game they can use to show or do that they are making an effort.

If they are late to the contest, one can at least lay tackles. If your struggling for a possession, you can always run, chase and tackle an opponent.

It's the basic footy block to will oneself into having some sort of impact in a game.

But to have a statistic like the ten players with one or zero tackles, shows that many players weren't trying to impact the game as best they could.

Tackles create pressure. They make the recipients of them rush their disposal. They cause skill errors and if done properly and often enough, make players nervous.

They can hurt too. They should. Not in a malicious way but enough to make a player not want to be tackled again.

We claimed we would respond to the huge Freo loss. We didn't. As far as I'm concerned we failed in the most basic endeavor. We lost the tackle count.  A part of the game that is entirely in our control.

Some of our tackles were very good but many of them were well beaten. So it's one thing to lose the tackle count but I feel we also lost the "tackle effectiveness" count as well.

To talk the team up all week about responding to our Freo last loss is all well and good. But to then come out and display a big lack of physicality like we did is a big concern.

Perhaps the directive was to not get distracted by the Maynard event and play the ball and not the man. There's some reason to this.

The problem is, I thought we were really soft against Freo. I don't think we tackled well. We may have tackled more but I don't think they created enough pressure on Freo players. Tackles were often broken.

So I really felt the best response would be to come out against Cwood being much harder in the contest. And the most fundamental thing of all ...to lay harder tackles that would not get broken.To rush them at every opportunity and force skill errors.

 In short I was hopen for more aggression everywhere. Not blind wonton biffo. But hard hitting legal bumps and tackles that create fear and panic. Relentless tackling at every turn.

Turned out it was the pies applying the pressure and us turning the ball over.

Maynard would have been a good place to start. I mean surely we had the motivation to. Some hard tackles on him and then on all his mates as well. To show that we are a team that cares if a mate had his vocation taken from him.

Rather than be distracted by the whole Maynard thing it could have been a thing to galvanize, inspire and propel.

Just like an individual down in form, tackling is a great part of a team's game plan when it's down in form . It's the basic element of a team's weaponry that it can employ to lift it's performance. We may not have won with some more tackling pressure but we could at least say we gave it our all.

There are some losses you can accept quite readily. The ones where players look gassed and spent. I'm pretty sure with what we saw yesterday with the stat of ten with one or zero, we can say quite confidently, we didn't give it our all.

So enough with the talking and more of the tackling. Ok we don't have Maynard in the mix next game but we certainly have mediocrity. 

Can we please show some real fightback and start with the basics of chasing and tackling.

Just more of them. Less easy to break ones. Let the opposition be the ones afraid and error prone. Let us be the hunters and not the hunted this time.

 

 

100 % accurate MFC All Duck no Dinner

[picket fence 17,148]

10 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

It wouldn't have been that hard to lay some heavy tackles on Maynard.

We need to go back to basics and play hard contested footy. 

This bruise free football doesn't fly in the face of clubs like Cwood who are willing to put their body on the lines.

Ironically it was Maynard doing the bumping and hard tackles.

If this was our fightback response, I'd hate to see anything else.

It's one thing on the day it happened not to remonstrate but the next game he not only gets off scott free, his hand is shaken.

Not only did we get well beaten and display a litany of poor skills, poor execution, lazy and undisciplined football, we also revealed how soft we are.

Surely we could have been much more aggressive and harder at the contests.

We had ten players with 1 or zero tackles for the entire game. This in a game we went out of our way in the media to let everyone know that a response would be made. 

Enough with the big talking please. We didn't respond at all. We were well and truly beaten. Beaten in one of the most the most basic elements of the game.....tackling.

When a player is down in form or skills, tackling is one area of the game they can use to show or do that they are making an effort.

If they are late to the contest, one can at least lay tackles. If your struggling for a possession, you can always run, chase and tackle an opponent.

It's the basic footy block to will oneself into having some sort of impact in a game.

But to have a statistic like the ten players with one or zero tackles, shows that many players weren't trying to impact the game as best they could.

Tackles create pressure. They make the recipients of them rush their disposal. They cause skill errors and if done properly and often enough, make players nervous.

They can hurt too. They should. Not in a malicious way but enough to make a player not want to be tackled again.

We claimed we would respond to the huge Freo loss. We didn't. As far as I'm concerned we failed in the most basic endeavor. We lost the tackle count.  A part of the game that is entirely in our control.

Some of our tackles were very good but many of them were well beaten. So it's one thing to lose the tackle count but I feel we also lost the "tackle effectiveness" count as well.

To talk the team up all week about responding to our Freo last loss is all well and good. But to then come out and display a big lack of physicality like we did is a big concern.

Perhaps the directive was to not get distracted by the Maynard event and play the ball and not the man. There's some reason to this.

The problem is, I thought we were really soft against Freo. I don't think we tackled well. We may have tackled more but I don't think they created enough pressure on Freo players. Tackles were often broken.

So I really felt the best response would be to come out against Cwood being much harder in the contest. And the most fundamental thing of all ...to lay harder tackles that would not get broken.To rush them at every opportunity and force skill errors.

 In short I was hopen for more aggression everywhere. Not blind wonton biffo. But hard hitting legal bumps and tackles that create fear and panic. Relentless tackling at every turn.

Turned out it was the pies applying the pressure and us turning the ball over.

Maynard would have been a good place to start. I mean surely we had the motivation to. Some hard tackles on him and then on all his mates as well. To show that we are a team that cares if a mate had his vocation taken from him.

Rather than be distracted by the whole Maynard thing it could have been a thing to galvanize, inspire and propel.

Just like an individual down in form, tackling is a great part of a team's game plan when it's down in form . It's the basic element of a team's weaponry that it can employ to lift it's performance. We may not have won with some more tackling pressure but we could at least say we gave it our all.

There are some losses you can accept quite readily. The ones where players look gassed and spent. I'm pretty sure with what we saw yesterday with the stat of ten with one or zero, we can say quite confidently, we didn't give it our all.

So enough with the talking and more of the tackling. Ok we don't have Maynard in the mix next game but we certainly have mediocrity. 

Can we please show some real fightback and start with the basics of chasing and tackling.

Just more of them. Less easy to break ones. Let the opposition be the ones afraid and error prone. Let us be the hunters and not the hunted this time.

 

 

100 % accurate MFC All Duck no Dinner

[picket fence 17,148]

10 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

It wouldn't have been that hard to lay some heavy tackles on Maynard.

We need to go back to basics and play hard contested footy. 

This bruise free football doesn't fly in the face of clubs like Cwood who are willing to put their body on the lines.

Ironically it was Maynard doing the bumping and hard tackles.

If this was our fightback response, I'd hate to see anything else.

It's one thing on the day it happened not to remonstrate but the next game he not only gets off scott free, his hand is shaken.

Not only did we get well beaten and display a litany of poor skills, poor execution, lazy and undisciplined football, we also revealed how soft we are.

Surely we could have been much more aggressive and harder at the contests.

We had ten players with 1 or zero tackles for the entire game. This in a game we went out of our way in the media to let everyone know that a response would be made. 

Enough with the big talking please. We didn't respond at all. We were well and truly beaten. Beaten in one of the most the most basic elements of the game.....tackling.

When a player is down in form or skills, tackling is one area of the game they can use to show or do that they are making an effort.

If they are late to the contest, one can at least lay tackles. If your struggling for a possession, you can always run, chase and tackle an opponent.

It's the basic footy block to will oneself into having some sort of impact in a game.

But to have a statistic like the ten players with one or zero tackles, shows that many players weren't trying to impact the game as best they could.

Tackles create pressure. They make the recipients of them rush their disposal. They cause skill errors and if done properly and often enough, make players nervous.

They can hurt too. They should. Not in a malicious way but enough to make a player not want to be tackled again.

We claimed we would respond to the huge Freo loss. We didn't. As far as I'm concerned we failed in the most basic endeavor. We lost the tackle count.  A part of the game that is entirely in our control.

Some of our tackles were very good but many of them were well beaten. So it's one thing to lose the tackle count but I feel we also lost the "tackle effectiveness" count as well.

To talk the team up all week about responding to our Freo last loss is all well and good. But to then come out and display a big lack of physicality like we did is a big concern.

Perhaps the directive was to not get distracted by the Maynard event and play the ball and not the man. There's some reason to this.

The problem is, I thought we were really soft against Freo. I don't think we tackled well. We may have tackled more but I don't think they created enough pressure on Freo players. Tackles were often broken.

So I really felt the best response would be to come out against Cwood being much harder in the contest. And the most fundamental thing of all ...to lay harder tackles that would not get broken.To rush them at every opportunity and force skill errors.

 In short I was hopen for more aggression everywhere. Not blind wonton biffo. But hard hitting legal bumps and tackles that create fear and panic. Relentless tackling at every turn.

Turned out it was the pies applying the pressure and us turning the ball over.

Maynard would have been a good place to start. I mean surely we had the motivation to. Some hard tackles on him and then on all his mates as well. To show that we are a team that cares if a mate had his vocation taken from him.

Rather than be distracted by the whole Maynard thing it could have been a thing to galvanize, inspire and propel.

Just like an individual down in form, tackling is a great part of a team's game plan when it's down in form . It's the basic element of a team's weaponry that it can employ to lift it's performance. We may not have won with some more tackling pressure but we could at least say we gave it our all.

There are some losses you can accept quite readily. The ones where players look gassed and spent. I'm pretty sure with what we saw yesterday with the stat of ten with one or zero, we can say quite confidently, we didn't give it our all.

So enough with the talking and more of the tackling. Ok we don't have Maynard in the mix next game but we certainly have mediocrity. 

Can we please show some real fightback and start with the basics of chasing and tackling.

Just more of them. Less easy to break ones. Let the opposition be the ones afraid and error prone. Let us be the hunters and not the hunted this time.

 

 

100 % accurate MFC All Duck no Dinner

[mrnolsy 9]

Viney should have gone out there to give a reminder to Maynard what he did to Gus was gutless and weak. Shame on Melbourne not working on a strategy to psychologically defeat Collingwood. Collingwood won the game based on ruthless tactics and antagonising our players Karma will come back to bite them

[Jaded No More 68,912]

50 minutes ago, Bates Mate said:

Was a tough week for bruzzy apparently. 

How this bloke is the victim makes me sick 

 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2024-craig-mcrae-postmatch-press-conference-brayden-maynard-issues-in-personal-life-nathan-kreuger-collingwood-magpies-defeat-melbourne-demons-big-freeze-at-the-g-10-on-kings-birthday-comments-latest-news/news-story/341c52c87324cf9429a42ed0f70e4b9a

This is the [censored] that makes my blood boil. Just [censored] OFF mate. 

[jane02 3,748]

15 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

This is the [censored] that makes my blood boil. Just [censored] OFF mate. 

Couldn’t agree more. 🤬

[Redleg 40,903]

1 hour ago, mrnolsy said:

Viney should have gone out there to give a reminder to Maynard what he did to Gus was gutless and weak. Shame on Melbourne not working on a strategy to psychologically defeat Collingwood. Collingwood won the game based on ruthless tactics and antagonising our players Karma will come back to bite them

Not on past results it won’t.

[dpositive 1,665]

On 11/06/2024 at 08:19, 48 Year Now said:

Tough to watch but maybe the players moved in. We have no one to rough him and if we did what would they do, Rhys Jones hit on Banks, running elbow like many of the so called tough guys, let alone a bump which would earn our players 3 weeks. For now Maynard is the toughest kid in the blocks until we get Lukar in the side.

Trac is our Burgoyne

Viney our Jarman

Clarry our Ablett

Kozzie our Rioli

May our Scarlett

Fritsch our Gunston

they re the first to come to mind   I hope we dont waste them.

 ???? others but I cant see our Mathews, Brereton, Maynard.

Its changed times but wheres our thug and would our coach use him?

[dpositive 1,665]

On 10/06/2024 at 18:59, hardtack said:

I’ve seen you post his close to half a dozen times already… sorry, I believe that to be nonsense. Moore flew for the mark no differently to the way in which most players do; it was an unfortunate footballing accident; there is no way that he targeted Trac in that contest. Sure there’s a lot to hate about the Pies, but Moore is one of the only players of theirs that I actually admire as a hard but fair player.

If you’re suggesting that the ‘knee out’ position in marking contests should be reportable, then you can pretty much kiss the ‘speccy’ goodbye.

Not delete the speccy just make it a more athletic action.

No need to destroy the game, just penalise a dangerous and or unnecesary act.

There is already an unrealistic attempt rule. This is like most rules sporadically and unequally applied, so need to improve umpiring. Perhaps the off field umpire monitoring the game can advise the on field umpire if they are blindsided or miss the bloody obvious.  

[dpositive 1,665]

McRae said we knew they would come out breathing fire and thanked coaches.

How about came out to play football, to attack the ball not bump and tackle the guy off the ball or going for the ball.

Arrive at contests too late to participate but just knock it out and destroy the contest.

Of Krueger he said you know you will get effort. We seemed to have a lot of effort but was more directed at playing the ball. Those saying we were weak are not correct. we did have players with less tackles. when you have or are playing the ball you cant tackle and are tackled. Our tackling was certainly deficient as we were giving our opponents too much latitude. Not close enough to contests to make a tackle. Not enough pressure on player with the ball to get turnover,

Im not negative about our game plans and strategies. We did have as many shots at goal ours were always under pressure. Even a set shot has the pressure of fans barracking against you . The pies had huge loud support for set shots. Its a confidence thing as well.

Im concerned about the loss of Trac but its now time to get a few others to get used to the pressure. Maybe we need to coach for that.

[Sydee 4,416]

On 11/06/2024 at 09:28, Superunknown said:

Not yet buying and quitting aren't the same thing.

Anyone not buying a membership probably doesn’t truly belong on hear tbh 

[Demon17 5,188]

15 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

This is the [censored] that makes my blood boil. Just [censored] OFF mate. 

Depends on his issue. What was it?

[Jaded No More 68,912]

47 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Depends on his issue. What was it?

It's irrelevant. If he has something personal going on off the field, and they want to keep it private (which they clearly do), then by all means don't discuss it.

But this constant need by the Collingwood PR machine to make Maynard the goddamn victim, and paint him as Mother Teresa, is putrid.

He was upset after what he did to Gus? Good, so he damn well should be. At least he still gets to play football.

 

 

[Mel Bourne 4,515]

On 11/06/2024 at 13:38, picket fence said:

Gee you guys just don't get it, Yes NOTHING like a real war, but a war waged on a footy field, war like footy conditions, tough, brutal, if ya dont get what I'm trying to say then forget it. 

If we don’t get what you’re trying to say….WRITE CLEARER POSTS. 

Edited June 12 by Mel Bourne

[sue 9,102]

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

It's irrelevant. If he has something personal going on off the field, and they want to keep it private (which they clearly do), then by all means don't discuss it.

But this constant need by the Collingwood PR machine to make Maynard the goddamn victim, and paint him as Mother Teresa, is putrid.

He was upset after what he did to Gus? Good, so he damn well should be. At least he still gets to play football.

 

 

If you want to keep something confidential, then why mention it at all?  The only justification for doing so would be if the player had a public breakdown or something 'off' that was obvious to a spectator and you wanted to explain why he was under pressure (with the player's permission).

[RedLegs23 932]

On 10/06/2024 at 18:35, layzie said:

Leave it alone. The goal was to win today not to take Maynard out.

If people want to rip their memberships up over this then they can [censored] off

Why not both.

[dees189227 12,391]

Just saw ch10 sport & saw him talk about playing his 200th this week.

Said he wasn't great at school. Well knock me down with a feather. Who would have thought. 

[Demon17 5,188]

3 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

It's irrelevant. If he has something personal going on off the field, and they want to keep it private (which they clearly do), then by all means don't discuss it.

But this constant need by the Collingwood PR machine to make Maynard the goddamn victim, and paint him as Mother Teresa, is putrid.

He was upset after what he did to Gus? Good, so he damn well should be. At least he still gets to play football.

 

 

My point exactly. Collingwood playing the PR 101 card.

Let's make Maynard a victim. Similar to the tried and tested Aussie male defence "... she made me do it..."

Put up. Or simply don't bring it into the public domain.

Weak effort by McCrae that he would buy into this strategy -  which is what this is.

[Superunknown 4,217]

20 hours ago, Sydee said:

Anyone not buying a membership probably doesn’t truly belong on hear tbh 

Lol good one

[leave it to deever 17,511]

17 hours ago, dees189227 said:

Just saw ch10 sport & saw him talk about playing his 200th this week.

Said he wasn't great at school. Well knock me down with a feather. Who would have thought. 

Was probably good at bullying though.

[Bates Mate 4,486]

Got puff pieces in both major Melbourne papers today. 🤮

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,733]

It was obviously a coaching directive to not go for him, thinking it may cause the players to lose focus.

I think it was the wrong call personally, as it would've been a way to get some emotion and energy up in the group.

Always easy to judge in hindsight, but it was a pretty limp performance from a physicality perspective.

[Roost it far 8,263]

When he stuck his hand out to Petracca, he should of been pushed over onto the ground, free kick to him at that point is really unlikely and who cares anyway. Our response to him was pathetic We have an ever so slightly soft underbelly and teams know it.