45HG

exactly, the whole play, and team play, should be brought into question when deliberating on how a team wins a match, not these generalistic ascertions that tackles don't matter. but do you guys reckon games decided by less than a kick, if it has been close all day, should be included in these types of studies? given that generally, if its been close, the side that wins has not outplayed the other side, and even if they have more accurate long kicks, all that proves is that the other side are doing something else better to stay in touch.

the problem i have with analysis such as this, is the ease at which it can be discredited by certain situations. umpiring decisions are agued not to have a bearing on the game, yet a free kick in the goal square 2 seconds before the end of a match, obviously affects the bearing. just as ineffective long kicking but brilliant man on man checking, tackling and shepperding can win a game. afl is a game of many parts and i have issue with dumbing it down to long kicks and bouncing. carroll had 3 bounces in the backline on sunday night, but it wasn't going to help us win, wasn't even going to help us kick a goal. afl must be viewed holistically, without analyzing every individual part as though it is distint from the rest.

i shoudl've put a laughing face next to it, though i thought it was clear i was only having a laugh. lesson learnt!

yeah, i'm not so surprised abou the ruck taps. i remember in 2001, 2003 it seemed like we won almost every hitout, and probably did, but got killed at the clearances. even at the weekend, our meagre 16 hitouts got cleared at about 17% or something didn't they? guys that can read the tap are incredibly important, and also gifted. i was never able to read the tap! how funny is that, 738 of 740 games? which two did they skimp on? after 1500 hours of footy whats another 4?

sounds like a certain journo went to the tab pre-season, and is now spewing he lost a bit of dosh! but yeah, it's true, we all know it, they all know it, they all write about it a million times a year. at least he chucked in the bit at the end bout danners

now they know kerr's ineligible they'll probably just stop giving him votes, and starting giving them to judd instead

we had one, his name was barassi, he went to carlton.

if bruce is even close to a superstar, i'm glad we don't have any.

something good, for the love of...god?...something good!!

wow, lord travis, you have 666 posts! that's awesome, hopefully it's an omen

how insightful, and full of brilliant suggestions, enlightened approach

white definitely was. i really am one to stick with the 'champion team' philosophy, and i think that in today's saturated society, any good player in a champion team gets built up into the mould of a 'superstar.'

not so sure though, i don't buy my memberships for 'success' although i guess if i take it down to its details, that's what membership is for. but at it's most basic, footy is a passtime that we all do to make our lives less dreary. i'd prefer to see the boys play, and lose, rather than not have them play at all. (this is my most diplomatic by the way) the only people who we should all be critical of is those who don't have memberships, as you are compelteyl right, if you've put the money into the club to help it achieve its goals, you earn the right to display your frustrations however you want

yeah it's true ey. sounds so crazy when a number is put on it, but if you add up all the merchandise and memberships etc. it is quite an insane amount of money. but we do it, and we'll keep doing it...god knows why

tens of thousands of dollars? what do you mean?

i'd go with: 6 Johnstone - ran all day 5 Sylvia - tried his guts out, made something from nothing 4 Junior - ran all day and tried his guts out 3 green - got the ball... 2 bell - versatile and tried hard 1 godfrey - had the guts to go onto judd, and get a few handballs/clearances himself jeepers, that's shocking! wouldn't wanna give the bests in a newspaper!

cousins?

why do people think that because the coach/entire coaching panel hasn't been sacked then the whole board must be doing nothing? it's a ridiculous thing to say, clearly the whole club is working to get out of this trouble, but i for one am glad they're not throwing us back into the mess of 96.

fan, i agree a lot with what you say, and have said as much on this site, though not so articulately. however the only thing that has frustrated me about this year with danners and/or the leadership group is our persistence on a gameplan that does not suit out team, especially with injuries involved. the games where we were affected by injuries last year, we managed to stick with out gameplan that the players could understand and execute because it was suited to the players' styles. i agree entirely that our side shouldn't really be judged too harshly to date, save for round one and part of round 2 when the only real excuse was a poor gameplan and/or delivery of it. however imo, injuries brings with it a necessity to get back to basic footy that the players seem to enjoy anyway. this being a game based around quick movement and long ball movement. with neitz and robertson out, and many of our more skillful midfielders, we knew we would not be able to implement the gameplan based around perfect footskills that otherwise would've worked, and instead the players should have been instructed to kick long and get the ball moving. if the ball is moved quickly, you don't need superstar forwards to do the job, as the task becomes easier with less numbers crowding the forward line. persisting with the chip and chop game we've seen at the g so far this year, has only resulted in a depleted forward line being further exposed because they have been forced to fight outside their weight, and our defenders have been forced to play the wrong gameplan without many of its best players, and even guys like bell, who have god disposal, have come under criticism for poor ball use, simply because of the mount of times theyve been brought into the play. if they had the freedom to run forward, and still had players up the ground to kick to (which we had v port and dogs with bater and sylvia), they would not be forced into looking silly with short kicks in the backline.

geez for another viney!! and stynes and ox. wish we had half of this team now and half of 94. fantastic!

yeah to be negative about it. not many victorian teams go on runs like us either though, which is easier to forget. 11 of 12 last year. 9 of 12 year before. 14 of 18 year before. 10 of 11 in 2000 before the granny. 8 of 9 before prelim 98. we definitely have some shocking losing streaks, but we shouldn't forget that we have got on rolls pretty well under danners. the roller-coaster ascertion is true though. richmond have not had the roller-coaster we've had, though not saying that that's a better thing, at least we've had finals action.

we weren't smashed, but lost by 12 scoring shots, their kicking was a joke. we kicked the first 3 before they'd even woke up as well, and then i think they kicked the next 4.8 or something.

yeah so true. though they got to come from 3 games to 0 down against the yankees to win 4-3. that's like doing it against the pies! my girlfriend's mum is from chicago, had grew up her whole life without winning a 'world series' so them winning was massive.

for christ's sake, not for christ sakes!

there is a definite curse on us. good news is, the white sox and red sox both broke their respective curses in 2005 and 2004 respectively, so our curse shouldn't last forever. the bad news: they had to wait over 85 years for the curse to end! double our waiting time