Chris

Just watched the final two minutes of the game again as I wanted to see a few of the mistakes mentioned in here. Four things stood out. 1: The free to Brown for in the back on the wing was soft, may not have made a huge difference though as they had the ball anyway. 2: Hunts sort pass was high risk high reward, it didn't come off as the pass itself was off line, had it been on line then who knows. 3: Who ever posted that OMac was too close to Jetta in the zone right at the end when they took the mark is spot on. 4: OMac (99% sure it was but apologies if it wasn't) did what I see many players do when taking a kick from an out on the full, but this one may have had dire consequences. Players seem not to realise that once they set foot inside the boundary again then it is play on. OMac never actually got to the outside of the boundary, took the ball that was thrown to him, and as soon as he wasn't moving to get to the outside of the boundary the ump correctly called play on. That left his kick rushed and short which fell into Daw's hands with Maxy and few others trying to make up the distance he lost. I really can't believe how many AFL players I see that miss this basic understanding of the rules. If it is out on the full boys, get yourself over the boundary and don't step back in until you are ready to kick. I have similar rant about players being called to play on while over the boundary taking a kick and it not being deemed out of bounds, but I will leave the full version of that for another day.

I don't really agree that our defense is a huge issue, although I do readily concede that it can be improved. Overall our defense has been fairly solid, where we are weak is against the big forwards, that is obvious, and is also for a few reasons. 1: TMac has barely been back all year, he has been in the ruck and forward due to injuries. Put TMac back with OMac and Frost (or even one in the VFL at times) ad things against the big boys would be different. Not completely solved but far better. 2: The games in which our big backs have struggled have been the games where our mids have boon off, which means the delivery int eh forward line is fast and generally pretty good. That is very hard to defend. In the games where our mids are pressuring the ball carrier our backs do a good enough job. Both Frost and OMac are young and will improve, unfortunately they have ad to this on the big stage, although that could stand them in good stead in future. The answer to our issue with big backs is to get another big back in there so we have some sort of depth. That could be TMac going back again or bringing in someone else. Currently we simply don't have the depth and if one of them was to go down we are stuffed. The other answer is the make sure the whole team is defending, when we do that we are fine, if the mids and forwards have an off day the backs are screwed. I actually thought all our backline did a pretty good job on the weekend. Sideshow only got 4 (yes I said only, if we had been bad down there he would have had 10), teh other talls were basically unsighted, and our small backs did a good job (with the exception of Lewis' disposal)

If that was aimed at me, I make no judgement on him from the headline, apart from that he shouldn't comment on the topic or we end up with the headline which just reminds the world of what happened.

Thanks for the update. Agree with his comments but he simply should not be making any comments with regard to tanking in any way shape or form. All it does is highlight our issues of years ago and allow the media to misconstrue what is said and slap it on the front page with a big picture of us.

Just read this headline in the Hun. Can't get into the article and can't get it on Google but the headline says enough. Can't Chris just learn to shut up and not drag this up again, especially as the headline is partnered by a pic of him in a Melbourne Polo and we are about to play a team who is currently tanking! F off Chris to the hole you came from.

hahahahahaha. I am yet to see a person argue that Collingwood isn't big, but I have seen a few, including me, argue that the argument you used failed the logic test. It is in fact you who isn't getting it.

Agreed that that is a statement of fact. Chances are very slim though as Port need to beat Adelaide, the saints, the dogs, and collingwood. Not sure they will knock them all off. Richmond also need to get over Geelong and St Kilda (50% chance), Sydney need to beat Geelong and Adelaide away (they have come good but are they that good?) As you would know we need to beat North (must win), GWS (can win), Saints (should win), Brisbane (must win), and pies (should win). At the end of the year I don't think there will be the log jam there is now. I think points will matter more than points will matter more than percentage for top 4.

I never actually said we were. Maybe try re reading what has been said and see if you can grasp the concept of what I have said.

Actually Fork it was you who said that based on one weeks attendance we aren't a sleeping giant. I pointed out, along with others, that this logic is very flawed by saying that based on your logic Collingwood is smaller, obviously a ridiculous suggestion which was used to show the complete lack of logic in you initial post. Nice try at swinging it around though.

Agreed, but the example you used fails to show this in any way shape or form.

Surely going by your logic that the crowd on the weekend is an indication of how big our club is then the same logic would suggest that they are an even smaller club. I don't for a second suggest we are the size of Collingwood, but we are bigger then people think. I was simply pointing out the error in linking the crowd at one game with the size of the club.

Did you see theirs? They aren't a giant at all based on the weekends attendance.

I could walk to the games! Bloody great idea!

Obviously Norwood (redleg connection), and the other wood one might get when we play well.

All it will take is a coach to work out how to beat it and it will change. Problem is that since Pagans paddock every change has been further and further towards 36 players following the ball around the ground.

Luckily it is only just the other side, if it was much further I would ignore its existence as I do with everything else out that way.

Not at CHF, Hogan should play there. Weird should be FF

Welcome, but I am not sure you can ever say that being a dee is a mistake, misfortune maybe, but never a mistake.

He was improving this a lot before he got injured. When he is in good form it is Ok but not elite. Yesterday he seemed in form in getting the ball and influencing the contest but his disposal wasn't great by his standards.

Can't believe this but I agree with you on Tyson. Got heaps of, was important, but gee he was wasteful.

I do a bit of work with our local Indigenous Communities and Traditional Owners and they are a varied mob, just like all of Australia. Yes there are members of the community who want to point fingers and blame people, but the ones who are getting things done and closing the gap on both sides are the ones who recognise the past for what it was as it is that past which puts the current into context and allows us to move towards a better brighter future for all. I think many get stuck in that the past is something along time ago when in fact things like the stolen generation were done to living members of the community and the general disadvantage is still prevalent today. Looking at why that is and why it has been and acknowledging that is the only way to actually truely move forward. The groups I work with now are fantastic, they will tell you about the past and teach you their stories without blame or malice but as just statements of fact, through that understanding it has made my life much easier to understand their motives and their thoughts on certain things.

Being reported that Salem is a good chance this weekend, is he going to get injured again, if you know can you let us all know when to look away!

I bet they would blame someone else for putting the shredder in the wrong place too! Pick one of Dank, WADA, ASADA, the AFL, or simply that all the other clubs were doing it too.

That came down the amount of impact, they argued there was little impact and the saw jaw could have been from anything, including Clarry running into the back of Schofield. Why would we not be able to argue that Betts had no saw jaw so there was no real impact? If they let precedent play out we would win.

He flat out punched him in the head! How that could not be seen as intentional is beyond me, although I guess he wasn't holding chopsticks so its all good (actually its all good even when he is!)