deanox

Create a new role! Neil Craig - assistant coach, player mentor

I won't dispute the bad decisions or the not attacking the ball, however woke he did have a bad match a couple of weeks ago re turnovers this week his disposal was fine.

which would be quite ironic if he was actually offended by a comment about a lesbian-looking hair style!

Interesting that Jones and Sylvia will both play their 150th this week. As far as I know, Sylvia hasn't spent much time playing in the VFL based on form. And his debut was in 2004, two seasons before Jones in 2006. He has missed around 44 games of football through injury (or suspension I suppose!) that Jones hasn't. Adam Cooney has 194 games, even Farran Ray is nearly a season ahead of him with 168. Funnily enough, apart from his first season where he only played 3 games, every year he has played more than 15 games. In perspective of why he may want to leave, in 10 seasons, only twice has he played in more wins than losses.

Soxy, love you picked this up. In actual fact, I think two simple "interpretations" would clear up a lot of the problems the AFL has (i.e. the scrums and stoppages). 1. Players are penalised for holding the man when they run in and 'lie' across a tackled player and the tackler effectively killing the ball, or if they come in and grade the tackler etc. By encouraging players to stay off the 'stacks on' type packs that form, the game will be more open and cleaner. Balls will come out of packs quicker, which means more players can stay on the outside ready for the quick hands. I'm pretty sure the current practice is designed to lock the ball in; if someone is tackled and the ball can't come out, it can't be holding the ball. If a stoppage occurs and you are outnumbered, locking the ball in allows you time to man back up. 3rd, 4th and 5th men in, are just causing the packs to pile up. 2. As you suggested, if player A is tackled by Player Z and Player B (team mate of player A) takes the ball off him, then incorrect disposal is called. Whether he is on the ground or not this is incorrect disposal.

Well he got more touches than Garland, how did he play? Kent, Davey, Rodan, Toumpas, Nicholson, all played in the midfield and got less possessions... 11th in disposals with 17 2nd in DE% at 88.2% =3rd for 1%ers with 5. =8th in contested possessions with 5 11th in uncontested possessions with 10 =4th in effective tackles with 4 =5th in rebounds from D50 with 3 (a misleading stat imo) Did not get a clearance all day, although only 13 players did. =7th in inside 50s, with 2. He gave away 1 free kick, which was his 1 clanger, but won a free kick, so that sort of evens out. He only took 3 marks, which was low (only more than Davey and Kent) although one was contested. Not amazing stats, but all up they suggest to me that statistically he performed ok.I've already said I can't remember him having goals kicked on him, and he may well have been responsible for poor defending that resulting in goals, but I seem to remember him spoiling quite successfully on mid range forwards, and not playing on the smalls. I'm not saying he was great. I'm not saying he is a must have or the first picked. BUT I would say he "continually plays his role" and that his performance was satisfactory at the worst and better than average at best. My biggest knock on him is that he is indecisive - he takes to long to pick a target sometimes and when kicking out he will often miss a clear open target, either ignore them, or not see them. EDIT: BTW I haven't selectively listed stats, that is pretty much all the AFL site carries, apart from Hit Outs...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-08/free-kicks-a-worry-voss Voss has complained about the umpiring in the Brisvegas V GCS game!

People have questioned Dunn's performance, and while I am a bit ambivolous about him in the long term, and note he had a couple of shockers a few weeks ago, he seemed ok to me yesterday. 17 touches at 88% DE, 5 1% (out of a team total of 39) playing as a defender. I can't recall him being responsible for direct goals etc, what did he do wrong?

OK finally got around to having a crack myself. Trengove - still lacks pace Grimes - time to adjust Jones - toiled, not stand-out Watts - continues to improve Toumpas - lost ground gained Dawes - impressive, only nine? Frawley - excellent until injured Byrnes - last one picked Sylvia - amongst our best Dunn - continually plays role Rodan - tackled, struggled otherwise Garland - the back-line leader McDonald - continues fine form Nicholson - kicking needs work Kent - struggled with ball Davey - starting to tire? Gawn - impressive without support Howe - not enough impact M.Jones - continues fine first year Terlich - great endeavour, effort Fitzpatrick - our best forward Clisby - pleasing rapid progression

I'd like to see that $100k outside the cap allowance apply to all players who qualify as free agents, unrestricted out otherwise. It means clubs will also be able to offer an incentive/advantage to retain free agents.

Yes and no. The theory that it is good to let young played develop at VFL before exposing them applies for the team as a whole. They learn a lot against lesser opponents with lower Prague and more time and gain confidence in their own skills and the plans etc. Against top sides they learn a lot of other things.

I think that view of Craig is just as cynical as the view of Neeld that says he brought nothing to the club. I think the keys is we kept coming back and never seemed to give up. Both or attack and defence still need work. When attacking our poor skills cost us in turn overs but at least now we are moving and running. When defending we lose too much contested ball at stoppages which allows easy possession for the opposition. I really think improving our stoppages will be the single biggest improvement the club can make; we start getting easy ball out of packs with clean possession and space to work in (before opposition teams can set up defensively) AND we deny the opposition the same thing. It will be the big evener.

Interesting stats: We lost the disposal count in the second quarter 120 to 69 (-51). We lost the overall disposal count 396 to 355 (-41). Therefore we won the disposal count across three quarters.

I think one of the reasons we (supporters) are so positive is because we kept having a crack. We kept the pressure on Sydney which, as Nasher pointed out elsewhere, meant many shots were hurried or under pressure. Also we had a number of encouraging displays of ball movement and effort which were observed intermittently throughout the day even when Sydney had the ascendency. We weren't smashed continuously for 20 minutes at a time we'd regain possession and reload regularly, even if we fluffed it up again. Earlier in the year we would just lay down for quarters and halves at a time.

You know Webber, I can't find anything specific in the rules about this. My take on it was that Watts had prior opportunity therefore when he is correctly tackled he needs to dispose of it immediately or it is holding the ball. My recollection is that he did immediately dispose of it after regaining the ball from the bounce, so I can't see the problem. Also of note is the distinction that a correct tackle needs to retard the player and I'm not sure it had sufficiently retarded watts to the point requiring an immediate holding the ball decision. One thing that has bugged me this year is watching played get tackled, taken to ground where the ball touches the ground, and they player being then allowed to handball off. If you are taken to ground after prior opportunity that should be a free kick. But specifically if the ball touches the ground while being tackled that is essentially the same as bouncing it and should make for an easy decision.

Guys, the whole point of a thread like this is to put forward your pinions. Anyone who dosages with joeboy should have a go at doing their own three word analysis. If you disagree, discuss and debate. Don't just denigrate the post or the page. This is a great opportunity for actual debate and analysis.

Some of the pay it once but not a second time amazed me today. Tackles that were virtually identical were treated differently, as were push in the back toe decisions. Watts was pinged for holding the ball for boxing it while being tackled but he didn't. He bounced it and then was grabbed and should have been allowed to dispose of it subsequently.

Where is the iron to selection "win the premiership"!

My understand is that it should then be a bounce on the top of the goal line.

No it wasn't. When he left we were leading, or choose to leading, the competition in play ons after marks. If it was a last few weeks thing we couldn't have suddenly surged to the top overall.

nah swans don't normally play here so their fans just turn up early to make sure they get a seat

Deemolition, did you see my post earlier? I wasn't quite as dire but said similar thing re ruck and clearances. I think they should try and do something like the following: -Focusing on neutralising the clearances- ie no fast breaks with clean possessions and look to force bombs out of packs. -Set up "expecting" to lose the clearance, and focus on winning the ball back from the clearing kick. This may involve using the differences in ground size- Sydney may instinctively kick to areas on the mcg which aren't the usually "go to" areas on the smaller ground. We need to identify these abs have soar Neen of defenders ready. -Look to counter attack whenever we win possession by having our mids run hard to make position for continued chains of uncontested possession. -Avoid stoppages as much as possible -Try and spread their backs across the bigger forward line to stop them getting back to help each other -Implement our forward press like last week. I think of we do those things we should be able to stay in touch for the first 3/4 but I can't see it lasting all day! Although confidence can do wonders!

Judd, a Melbourne supporter before his playing days, had the chance to join our club and help us rise up the ladder. He told us he was interested in playing with us and used us as part of his ruse to line his pockets. It is different than the Scully situation but if he ever had love of our club it became worth nothing when he pulled that stunt. I didn't denigrate him or carry on, I just included him in my list of people who should never be welcome at our club. I'm not sure why that qualifies you to insult me?

I wonder if the problem want what Neeld was doing but how he went about it. Maybe Craig thought his plan was sound, thought his analysis was sane. But if he lost the players there isn't much Craig can do but try and support. If his plan and tactics were all crazy like then I'd agree, Craig should have been overseeing that.

I meant us demonlanders!