Jump to content

Scoop Junior

Members
  • Content Count

    648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Scoop Junior last won the day on July 7 2020

Scoop Junior had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,876 Excellent

About Scoop Junior

  • Rank
    Mighty Demon
  • Birthday 11/07/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Melbourne

Recent Profile Visitors

6,187 profile views
  1. I wouldn't have thought there'd be too many Spurs fans with the nickname "Gunna's".
  2. This is reading far too much into a piece of vision that shows maybe 1% of what happened in the rooms post-game. You simply don't know what had occurred previously nor what occurred after it. For all we know one of the blokes could've sat down and had a chat with Rivers for 15 minutes at some stage. Just because they're not around him in this small sample of vision doesn't mean it didn't happen and it's dangerous to make these kinds of assumptions off such limited footage. The same when people say Goodwin in the box doesn't do A, B and C when the cameras probably pick up maybe 30 sec
  3. But it's not the same actus reus. The first offence is driving drunk. The second offence is hitting someone while driving drunk. It's not about outcome, it's about a separate action.
  4. Agree completely - outcome is a factor but it should not be THE factor. The AFL can say what they like about the importance of trying to prevent head injuries and concussion but if a decision like this is not appealed by the AFL then they're doing no more than paying lip service to it. What this decision is telling players is they can sling tackle without fear of suspension provided the player getting tackled manages to break his fall with his arm. And this after the rules were apparently broadened as to what constitutes a dangerous tackle due to the Burgoyne incident. What a shockin
  5. A very good performance for four quarters - looked superior from the start, always had the answers and never really looked like being seriously challenged. The most interesting thing to me was the manner of the win. It was very different to the usual Melbourne wins - in fact, it was almost a reverse of what the opposition usually does to us. Even in many losses we've had clear wins in contested ball, clearances and inside 50s, but just either failed with the last kick inside 50 or missed chances in front of goal. The opposition on the flip side would be more efficient and take their chanc
  6. I know there was a lot of discussion about the Richmond game but I didn't see that as one of the "shockers" I was referring to. I reckon the media completely overplayed the performance in that game. The stats in that game were level. We were never out of the game at any point. Yes the skill level and decision-making was appalling but there was good effort, we won enough of the ball, competed hard but let ourselves down with our use of the ball. The Tigers just ran rings around the Bulldogs, a team touted as a top-four chance, without Nankervis, Caddy, Prestia, Edwards, Houli and Vlaustin
  7. It was obviously a horrible performance, up there with the worst we have played in the last four years. As bad as the skill level was - and it was hardly VFL level let alone AFL level - it was not that surprising given we have seen it many times before. Perhaps not to that extent (in terms of quality and the duration of the game during which it was on show), but it didn't exactly come as a huge surprise to see us miss basic 20m kicks time and time again. I actually thought we were on top (or at worst level) in terms of winning the ball at the source and getting it inside 50 in the fi
  8. They had Suarez, Sturridge, Gerrard and Sterling in 2013/2014 scoring for fun (in fact the first three scored more than Salah, Firmino and Sane this year) but they still lost the title to City. They conceded 50 goals in 2013/2014; this year it's 25. The big money purchase of defensive reinforcements was critical for them to take the next step and win the league.
  9. Of course, but Liverpool spent double as much on VVD than they did on Salah who is their best attacking player. Without VVD I don't think Liverpool win the league. Now no one is saying a team should only spend money on its defence. But in relation to King's specific comment that "no other team in any other code does that" (in terms of spending large sums on defenders) is wrong. Liverpool had a desperate need for a gun centre back and a GK and they spent a huge sum (both club record transfers) to get VVD and Alisson in.
  10. Anyone remember this from King in early 2019: “The backline of Melbourne will be a talking point during the week,” King said on Fox Footy. “Frost and McDonald — they just can’t get the job done. It’s almost premiership kryptonite with those two. “You need someone who’s a bit more trustworthy and steady across that halfback line in particular. “They don’t seem to take intercept marks, nor can they defend as you’d expect.”
  11. Spot on. If we can just get some poise and composure in the way we move the ball forward it would not only lead to 3-4 extra goals per week but also stop the resulting turnover and the opposition then being able to rebound the ball. When you are matching or beating the opposition in most other areas of the game, this can be the difference between winning and losing.
  12. Not sure if King has done his full research on world sport. Liverpool spent 140 million euros on Van Dijk (centre back) and Alisson (keeper) in the last two years and just won their first league title in 30 years.
  13. You're talking about two different things. On the coaching issue, you are correct in that Garry was involved in hiring Neeld which ended up being a terrible decision. No one is suggesting otherwise. I am not the biggest fan of Garry's commentary about MFC generally. But I was using it as a comparison and to highlight the difference between throwing out cliches and actually forming a considered opinion that provides a degree of analysis into what our current problems are. It's pretty clear that our issue is efficiency forward of centre, yet Schwarz doesn't even touch on it.
  14. It's just completely and utterly off the mark. Full of cliches that don't even apply to our situation. Not being "hard enough" and "not playing for the jumper"? This is not an issue at all - we have plenty of hard nuts who put their body on the line week in week out for this team. He says "players only come for the coin" - does he have evidence of this or is just another inaccurate cliched emotive call? He also says people go to Hawthorn because they want to go there but they go to Melbourne because they have nowhere else. What absolute trash. Did Jake Lever have nowhere else? S
  15. When we lost to them at Geelong in 2018 by a kick after the siren Dangerfield milked that ruck infringement free against Brayshaw which cost us a goal. Again yesterday he milked a 50m penalty by diving to the ground, which led to a Duncal goal. And again we lost by less than a kick. I have huge respect for the football ability of Danger - he is a joy to watch with his speed and power and ball winning and marking ability. But he is a repeat offender in staging and that takes away from people's respect for him as a sportsman. He won't care as he has the 4 points, but you look at a blok
×
×
  • Create New...