fr_ap

He's doing far, far more than that. He is quite literally changing games the instant he comes on. He was on the bench first 10 mins against adelaide....comes on and the game never looked the same. Collingwoods entire winning streak started once he'd taken 5 games to find his feet. Yes he's relatively uncontested - but that matters less and less the way the game is going. I love Clarry and trac and think the world of Bont, but pound for pound, no one is impacting games more than Daicos this season. He's winning the brownlow.

It happens in other sports. The difference being in those sports, players are paid so well that they can literally flip & burn houses (through agents) and pay it no mind. To that end, if the AFLPA were to ever agree with this, I would expect it would be a tradeoff to get players a larger slice of the pie & elevate their earnings significantly.

I actually like Joel Smith for the sub. Can do a job forward or back, and in either scenario we have the flankers that can move into midfield if it's a midfielder getting subbed out.

Yeo absolutely despises Melbourne. Hates us.

Just a question - who did Tommo actually play on against the pies? A combo of resting ruck and the incredibly lazy ash Johnson? Whilst he was very good, who he played on needs to be taken into account. It's hardly like he shut down a top forward and the week before, he was well beaten by McKay. If lever is to play 3rd intercepting, the 2nd key back needs to be trusted to beat or neutralise the games better forwards - the likes of Hipwood, J Cameron, etc. We know Petty can shut these players down Tommo was to some degree lucky that Collingwood don't have that player in their current line up. Geelong have quite a few...

My degree in MFCSS says 7 days

Not only that, but to have the statistical dominance we did when free kicks are 22-13 takes some doing. That equates to 9 one on one contest wins at all points over the ground - huge differential

Whilst it wasn't a particularly enjoyable game there were aspects of the Dees brand that showed up tonight. Hard to score against, contested possession, time in forward half. Was a long way from perfect but for all the moaning about forward woes and connection, we still had 15 marks inside 50 which is an ok number. A lot of our forwards lack craft though - Fritsch is really the only semi-consistent natural dangerous forward we have. I would normally include Koz but he's way off the boil post-contract. Really hate the way he's playing, flies when he shouldn't, can't find space, flops about for free kicks and no longer wins hard balls. He looks like he's being told not to play to his hard edge instincts.

That's actually a better hit rate than the 1 goal a game we are getting from JVR and Tom...

Agree entirely. My realism is often characterised as negativity. Drives me insane

Hewett is concussed is he not? Or has that changed?

You seem to have something misconstrued mate. I haven't posted anything in this thread other than at the start when I said we all felt despair. For what it's worth, I'm completely skewed to the negative and constantly clash with my brother who is the opposite. He and I sadly often reach the point where we won't speak after a game for a couple of days - so personally, the long explanations from both sides of the coin have helped me. That's all I was getting at. Think you have me confused for someone else?

Carlton are not playing that poorly. They would have beaten Sydney if McKay and a few others kicked even 50% of the shots they had. They had a really strong intercept night, move the ball pretty well and have dangerous forwards.

Wherever you sit on the negativity spectrum, I think the discussion in this thread has been both instructive (in the perspective it's provided) and constructive (in bridging the varying viewpoints). Kudos to all.

Why won't McKay play? Or do you mean Lever

You're right, but I think what we're all sensing and feeling is further success slipping away. There is immense, palpable disappointment in the air that isn't far off despair. The losses are one thing; the missed tackles, lack of appetite, shirked efforts, finger pointing, lack of enjoyment and utterly destroyed chemistry/cohesion is another thing entirely. I think this is what has people so upset.

King's stats are good for discussion - hopefully they've been compiled the right way in the background. He says our general contest win rate drops to 10th without WCE, Haw and NM - presumably when calculating a #10 rank, they have also stripped WCE, Haw and NM away from other teams that have played 1, 2 or 3 of them and re-ranks them as well. In which case - for the teams that haven't played any (Collingwood), or only played 1 (Lions) or 2 (PA), their ranking includes data from a greater number of games. This won't lead to totally wrong conclusions for a % based stat like contest win rate - but when he quotes scores from stoppage that are cumulative - I'm not sure how it's been compiled and the methodology gets tricky. Presumably those are averages, but -50 scores from stoppage doesn't sound like an average. -160 from D50 stoppages doesn't sound like an average either. Long story short, pulling these rankings in the middle of the year when not every team has played one another is inherently flawed. Throw in the effect of Home Ground Advantage, uneven travel schedules and significant injuries - you get the drift. There are also a good number of positive metrics you could also mention depending on what narrative you are seeking to create. We are: #1 in Inside 50s #2 in Goal Assists #1 in Total Scoring #4 in Disposal Efficiency #3 Tackles i50 #2 Contested Possession #1 Goal accuracy #1 Intercepts Yes - we've had the benefit of playing WCE, Haw and NM which no doubt helps many of these stats. Port have played 2 of those teams and are top 4 in some of those stats, but not all. Brisbane have played 1 of those teams and again are top 4 across a different set of statistics. I agree to my (negatively biased) eyes there is a lot that looks off, but truthfully mid-season, it's all guesswork with incomparable bodies of work and evidence being gathered in entirely different circumstances for different teams. The W/L column (which itself is a result of fixture) is the only thing that matters at the moment and we are still sitting top 4. Big tests to come.

I stopped posting in this thread a couple of days ago as the more I tried to explain my contrarian POV, the deeper the hole I dug and the more I was lambasted. Some of this was on me as it was a nuanced point I probably failed to get across, but it was suggested I was out of touch, didn't understand the landscape or footy in general, or was advocating dangerous attacks on the footy that would injure players to the extent i "shouldn't be involved in junior footy". I never held the view that players should charge around at top speed head first into contests as some of you characterised. I had the view that in this specific scenario with a ball moving towards Lachie (not stationary when you really can get sideways over the ball effectively), Rozee couldn't get side on and therefore Hunter could have contested with his arms in a way that didn't put either head in danger, rather than turning and leading with the hip. This turned out to be pretty close to the finding. I support the same team as you so I'm not pleased Hunter is suspended. It is also not a good feeling to have your logic validated by what we can all agree is typically of the most illogical and backward organisations in the country. I didn't even think we would appeal, so I was wrong on that. Maybe we'll appeal again. All that said, the comments directed my way in response to what's ultimately been judged to be an appropriate assessment under the current rules were pretty disappointing. If nothing else, this shows I wasn't on an island like I was made out to be and that some of you should probably revisit your own interpretations of the incident, the rules, your assessment, or at least have some consideration for a point of view that's not your own. I originally posted my view knowing it would be unpopular but interested in having the debate. Some people responded in the right way but many of you didn't and I was pretty insulted when it was suggested I had complete disregard for head safety or that of our kids. I'll keep my views to myself next time. Until then, enjoy your echo chamber.

Right so it's impossible for Hunter to stop on a slippery night with forward momentum (even though most here say he was standing his ground, not moving forward???), but it's not impossible for Rozee to stop on a slippery night? Honestly mate, watch it again. And again. And then a third time. Rozee is trying to pick it up/paddle it and the ball is escaping him in the wet with its forward momentum. He is literally chasing it forward, arms outstretched. He was closer to the ball than Hunter and moving at higher speed. Now mimic that action in your lounge room and tell me how you would reasonably and realistically "turn your body to the side" whilst moving forward at speed in pursuit of a ball on the ground. Unless you're suggesting he pursue the ball whilst sidestepping/strafing, which would be slow, awkward and unsafe in it's own regard whilst crouching to pick it up at speed, it's basically impossible for him to do what you're suggesting. If he was to impact that ball (rather than conceding possession and letting Hunter gather it), he had no reasonable alternative than to chase it the way he did. The same can't be said of Hunter, who could have put his own head down in a similar way and tried to gather with arms, rather than stand his ground with his hip turned. Yes, this would have exposed him to a clash of heads; but he would have at least been in an equally vulnerable position to Rozee, as both would have been contesting the ball the same way. In that context, a clash of heads is an unfortunate but necessary risk in this sport. A head meeting a hip due to one player's choice, rather than inadvertently, is not necessary. Just watch it, several times, and pretend you are Rozee, or his mother. If you agree it's a free kick at least to Rozee, then unless youre arguing low impact (which is possible but debatable), you actually can't disagree with the suspension. The cause of the free kick and report are one and the same. Happy to be in the minority and hope he gets off for the Dees sake.

I didn't say he wouldn't be missed. I said he doesn't kick to our advantage. I also said he's very good positionally. Agree on the need to play more younger physical defensive midfielders.

What he should have done is what happens hundreds of times a game when two opposing players both try to pick up the ball at the same time. Arms outstretched at the ball, head down. As arms are longer than necks, the contest is between arms rather than clashing heads. Just go watch any game this weekend, any contested ground ball situation. I agree that leaves both heads in vulnerable positions, but that's exactly the point - it's only vulnerable if other players enter that contest in the wrong way, either with a hip, a shoulder, an elbow etc - which is why Hunter has been cited. If you're head down, trying to pick up the footy, you're protected.

What? Where did I suggest that? Take the week and move on was an acknowledgement of it being relatively clear cut (in my opinion). Hunter not adding significantly to the current side anyway is a separate issue and only goes to the impact next week of his absence, which is something that is worth discussing. Let me be clear - it wouldn't be worth challenging regardless of who it was. Sure, the impact grading could be debated. I could see the rationale for that. Not sure our case is strong, but it's debatable. As for me apparently not understanding the game - this year they have moved from penalizing the outcome to at least attempting to penalise the behaviour (as it should always have been). They've done a poor job, but the shift has been evident. Were you aware of that? Do you pay any attention to things outside the MFC? I agree Rozee not being concussed helps a potential case to make the impact grading low, but people need to get past this "No concussion = no suspension" thing. It doesn't work that way anymore. It is beyond laughable you think Rozee "made no effort at all". If you're capable (I doubt it), put yourself in his shoes for a moment. He was literally bending over to pick up the ball. That's his effort, he is playing the ball as he should. Its wet and he fumbled it along the ground for a metre or so. As he pursues it, his head is greeted with the point of Hunter's hip. Yes Hunter was relatively stationary, but it doesn't matter - Rozee has a right to be able to pursue the ball on the deck without risking his head and neck meeting the point of a hip. There are several other things Hunter could have done and he had plenty of time to do so. Petracca or Clarry would have bent down to try and pick up/paddle the ball on their own, and this is what the current rules encourage. They would not have turned to lead with the hip. If the club wants to challenge the impact grading then great. I hope we win. It honestly makes for ridiculous reading though in here week after week when you claim that there is some secret agenda against the MFC or that every report or suspension 'challenges the fabric of the game' or something similarly dramatic. We can all be parochial in our support of the club, but at least try and insert a modicum of objectivity. If Clarry was pursuing the ball along the ground and met an oppo player's hip, you'd all be shouting from the rooftops. It is no different to yelling for every free kick for MFC at the footy and thinking the equivalent ones paid the other way weren't there. I'm not suggesting all umpiring or MRO decisions are beyond reproach - far from it - only that if you've been paying attention and can take off your Dees jumper for a moment, it's not a surprising suspension. It's as clear as Sparrows was. Neither player got concussed. There was a similiar outcry when his suspension was first announced. Whatever though - I don't need to waste any more time when all I get in response are jokes about my forum name (who cares?)

Pretty clearly elected to bump in my view..had plenty of time to put his head down and contest. Chose not to, lead with the hip and the player contesting the ball in the right way was collected high as a result. Protecting the player with his head over the footy is literally why these rules exist. Umpire immediately reported so must have thought similiar Pretty cut and dry imo, the outrage & bleating is not justified and only shows that most here do not take notice when players on other teams cop their whack for this

Don't know about that but I know he is the player we were prepared to trade 2 firsts to get

I don't agree with you and neither will the club. Anyone who has been paying attention to these things over the last 2 years would see it as a clear suspension. If he didn't play for the Dees you would too. As for his performance - I'm aware he was our 2nd highest ranked player statistically but my eyes tell me he is poor for our overall cohesion and cleanliness. Not dissimilar to the decision the club made on Frost - in his own right an OK key defender, but just detracted from our overall system. Hunter is nowhere near as headless and I said he is strong positionally, but his disposal is very rarely to our advantage I don't disagree on the sea of mediocrity though