NON-MFC: Round 20

[Demonland 70,022]

13 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

 

  

[No. 31 939]

2 hours ago, pitmaster said:

Please explain.

The MCG allowed occasional football matches to be played there but there were no regular football tenants. MFC initially played on another oval just north of the actual MCG (the MCC fearing that football will damqge the turf for cricket).

Carlton become an MCG tenant in 1885 (until 1891).

After MFC became formally affiliated with the MCC then they left their oval to play on the MCG proper from 1891 onwards.

[Dee Zephyr 19,124]

7 goals in 1 quarter, 2 in the other 3 quarters.

Blues trending in the opposite direction to this time last year. 
I think people doing ladder predictors are wasting their time. 

[dees189227 11,988]

Gosh I'm really really hoping Ross Lyon can pull out all the tricks today & knock off the bummers

[BDA 22,163]

didn't watch the second half. I thought Carlton were will on track for victory. surprised they lost.

5-day breaks are a crock of [censored]. I don't understand why they are needed at all. Could be wrong but I would its possible to schedule 6 day or more breaks only

 

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,259]

7 hours ago, DEE fence said:

I don’t see Port winning as a disaster for us, great seeing Carlton fall over, I would describe Port as the SA equivalent of Carlton, mirror image of promise much deliver little. 

If Port winning is not a disaster, it’s by far not a good result for us. If Carlton held or built on their 5 goal lead and we won by a few goals tonight, then guess who replaces Port in the 8?

[deanox 9,559]

1 hour ago, BDA said:

didn't watch the second half. I thought Carlton were will on track for victory. surprised they lost.

5-day breaks are a crock of [censored]. I don't understand why they are needed at all. Could be wrong but I would its possible to schedule 6 day or more breaks only

 

I think the AFL has a long term goal of averaging only 6 day breaks. It would allow them to play mid week games, and mean you could fit say 27 games plus a bye for each club in a 24 week fixture.

I'm not sure they'll revert get there but I think that's why they want to test the 5 day break.

[MrFreeze 1,822]

Baggers really missed TDK. But they were very sloppy, showed some very poor decision making and kicking, even when not under pressure.

Horne-Francis is also a freak, he is so fast for a big midfielder.

[YearOfTheDees 3,260]

2 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

If Port winning is not a disaster, it’s by far not a good result for us. If Carlton held or built on their 5 goal lead and we won by a few goals tonight, then guess who replaces Port in the 8?

Yes it is. We play Port again so moving past them is in our own hands. It also opens up an unlikely chance at a top four spot.  

[dice 660]

8 hours ago, No. 31 said:

The MCG allowed occasional football matches to be played there but there were no regular football tenants. MFC initially played on another oval just north of the actual MCG (the MCC fearing that football will damqge the turf for cricket).

Carlton become an MCG tenant in 1885 (until 1891).

After MFC became formally affiliated with the MCC then they left their oval to play on the MCG proper from 1891 onwards.

https://www.mcg.org.au/the-stadium/mcg-history/timeline

1859
"The first inter-club game under Melbourne Football Club rules (the basis of Australian rules football) was played at the MCG over two Saturdays, July 9 and 23. The Melbourne Football Club defeated South Yarra three goals to nil."

1883
"Arrangements were made by which the Carlton Football Club played several of their best matches on the MCG."

1890
"On March 7 the Melbourne Football Club became affiliated with the Melbourne Cricket Club"

Doesn't really suggest that Carlton became a "tenant" of the G in 1883. The G was pretty much solely a cricket ground until 1890

Edited July 27 by dice

[binman 41,788]

10 hours ago, binman said:

The blues were clearly paddling from half way through the third.

One goal in the second half, none in rhe last.

On this, 5 day breaks are simply ridiculous (albeit helpful to my punting bank because their mpact is so predictable).

Yet another example of the AFL putting profit ahead of running an elite competition.

[rjay 24,523]

I do think it's funny the excuses (reasonable) being made for Carlton...injury and 5 day break.

If it was us a lot on here would be saying it was Goodwin & dismissing the injury and 5 day break excuse as weak.

[No. 31 939]

34 minutes ago, dice said:

https://www.mcg.org.au/the-stadium/mcg-history/timeline

1859
"The first inter-club game under Melbourne Football Club rules (the basis of Australian rules football) was played at the MCG over two Saturdays, July 9 and 23. The Melbourne Football Club defeated South Yarra three goals to nil."

1883
"Arrangements were made by which the Carlton Football Club played several of their best matches on the MCG."

1890
"On March 7 the Melbourne Football Club became affiliated with the Melbourne Cricket Club"

Doesn't really suggest that Carlton became a "tenant" of the G in 1883. The G was pretty much solely a cricket ground until 1890

https://blueseum.org/tiki-index.php?page=Pre VFL Fixtures

[binman 41,788]

12 minutes ago, rjay said:

I do think it's funny the excuses (reasonable) being made for Carlton...injury and 5 day break.

If it was us a lot on here would be saying it was Goodwin & dismissing the injury and 5 day break excuse as weak.

And we'd have plenty of posters saying that despite sitting 2nd on the ladder we are shot, having lost 3 of our last 5 (which is Carlton's  record in their last 5 games - with their two wins being against the 18th placed tigers and a lucky 19 point win over the 17th placed roos).

The blues actually provide a good objectivity test case. 

Do posters think, with their record, that the blues are toast now?

[Ollie fan 2,894]

2 minutes ago, binman said:

And we'd have plenty of posters saying that despite sitting 2nd on the ladder we are shot, having lost 3 of our last 5 (which is Carlton's  record in their last 5 games - with their two wins being against the 18th placed tigers and a lucky 19 point win over the 17th placed roos).

The blues actually provide a good objectivity test case. 

Do posters think, with their record, that the blues are toast now?

Binman, this is a ridiculous post. You assume logic, intelligence and self-awareness on the part of Dland posters. Are you crazy?

[fr_ap 2,425]

49 minutes ago, binman said:

And we'd have plenty of posters saying that despite sitting 2nd on the ladder we are shot, having lost 3 of our last 5 (which is Carlton's  record in their last 5 games - with their two wins being against the 18th placed tigers and a lucky 19 point win over the 17th placed roos).

The blues actually provide a good objectivity test case. 

Do posters think, with their record, that the blues are toast now?

Depends - have they been loading? 

[whatwhat say what 21,858]

1 hour ago, binman said:

And we'd have plenty of posters saying that despite sitting 2nd on the ladder we are shot, having lost 3 of our last 5 (which is Carlton's  record in their last 5 games - with their two wins being against the 18th placed tigers and a lucky 19 point win over the 17th placed roos).

The blues actually provide a good objectivity test case. 

Do posters think, with their record, that the blues are toast now?

would you hate me if i said yes?

i'd have them behind all of bloods, bears, flagmantle, and gw$ as a top four side

however, their early- and mid-season form sees them a strong chance to maintain a spot in the top four, and perhaps behind footscray and hawthorn as the next 'form' team

and, once finals hits, the season starts again, particularly with the week's break between the end of the home and away and the finals start

[binman 41,788]

20 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

would you hate me if i said yes?

i'd have them behind all of bloods, bears, flagmantle, and gw$ as a top four side

however, their early- and mid-season form sees them a strong chance to maintain a spot in the top four, and perhaps behind footscray and hawthorn as the next 'form' team

and, once finals hits, the season starts again, particularly with the week's break between the end of the home and away and the finals start

No, but that's because as I said early in the season the blues' defence was suspect (an opinion that by the by I copped some heat for) and teams with suspect defences don't win flags 

And the blues still haven't sorted their defensive issues.

[monoccular 17,253]

OMG - did Carlton have a goal review against them??   

The AFL will have to change the outcome

 

[OhMyDees 1,820]

Not having another major target up forward would have hurt with McKay a late withdrawal.

I hope those frauds do nothing in September. Their fans were putrid after our Semi Final loss 😡

[DubDee 24,106]

3 hours ago, binman said:

On this, 5 day breaks are simply ridiculous (albeit helpful to my punting bank because their mpact is so predictable).

Yet another example of the AFL putting profit ahead of running an elite competition.

Agreed. Especially with no thursday games, there is no reason for a 5 day break ever.

Aside from KB and Anzac day etc

[ANG13 1,960]

Kangaroos have started well. 

[BDA 22,163]

fast start north melbourne. hopefully they can keep this up

[jnrmac 19,873]

4 hours ago, binman said:

On this, 5 day breaks are simply ridiculous (albeit helpful to my punting bank because their mpact is so predictable).

Yet another example of the AFL putting profit ahead of running an elite competition.

Whats the record for teams off a 5 day break?

 

[DiscoStu17 658]

3 hours ago, binman said:

And we'd have plenty of posters saying that despite sitting 2nd on the ladder we are shot, having lost 3 of our last 5 (which is Carlton's  record in their last 5 games - with their two wins being against the 18th placed tigers and a lucky 19 point win over the 17th placed roos).

The blues actually provide a good objectivity test case. 

Do posters think, with their record, that the blues are toast now?

Yeah. They’re cooked. 
Maybe.