45HG

Yeah sorry about that. All good now.

TBH I think this means pretty much sweet FA for Melbourne. As with any game nowadays, you can't really play the x beat y and y beat z so x should beat z (or something like that). Port were up by just as much as we were nearing 3/4 time. They're a flimsy rabble who are bottom 4 material. They would also have been coming down from the emotional euphoria of their showdown comeback the week before (which would've made them softer as they're easily pleased it would seem). I vaguely recall a stat about Port the week after the Showdown being putrid.

Ah! I just wrote a response to this but lost it. I'll write another one but it won't be nearly as in depth. You just have to see the way the ball is angled when it is dribbled along the ground to see why it will spin a certain way. It will lean the way the ball is sticking out at the top (yes, I'm sure your physics mate could describe it MUCH better than I could). If you hold the ball the opposite way and use the opposite side of your foot, it will go the opposite way (just like a snap and a banana). Likewise if you hold the ball end on end and kick it along the ground dead in front it will bounce pretty much perfectly end on end (though that's more of a party trick). Obviously I'm not saying players should always use this type of kick, but it is a very good option in certain situations. Yes. Obviously this is one of the things that an attacker has to keep in mind when going for goal. However, often there aren't defenders nearby (or close enough to get there) and the attacker needs to decide between a very difficult airborne shot that angles away from the goal and a shot that will be slower but will have a much greater chance of going through. Again, I'm not saying a player should always do this type of shot. It can obviously go horribly wrong, but then again so can a standard drop punt or even a skimmer. You're right though and I'm certainly not advocating players try things they're not comfortable with. I'm just saying that I know it's a pretty easy way to kick the footy once you figure it out (possibly even easier than learning how to kick in the first place) and increases the likelihood of the ball going through the goal face rather than away to either side (whether it's touched or not is another story!).

It's something that's much easier to show rather than explain. But if you imagine a right footed player at the city end of the G in the right forward pocket facing the city. To snap a goal in the air, the ball will swing away from the goal face - meaning that you have less of the goal face to work with (because the ball works right-left). A dribble goal works left to right, about halfway through a dribble "snap" the ball will straighten up meaning that the goal face is open. Basically, the only think you have to worry about is getting the ball to ground as soon as possible. I find it easier than kicking straight sometimes as you've got the whole length of your footy to work with basically, rather than the narrower width. Anyway, it's something that's much easier to show someone.

It has nothing to do with wind, it has everything to do with angle. A "dribble" goal is far safer than a skimmer. A talented kicker of the ball will not make the ball go in "any direction," it's really not that difficult a skill.

And I thought that before the game!

Westhoff shot after the siren 45 out tough angle.

Make that 5 points up with 1 minute 10 seconds left.

Well, well, well. After all the whinging and wrist-slashing that has taken place on here this week, I wonder if a few people will change tact after today. Now, I'm well aware that it's only Port Adelaide. But they are currently 9 points down with 9 minutes left, having come back from 40 points down late in the 3rd term. This is a very difficult venue to play at (as we well know). They're a good bucnh of kids who are hard to beat at the clearances and marking contests with their talls. Matthew Primus stay tuned...

This has been a bit of a bugbear of mine for a while. No, it's not players doing it. Rather, it's commentators obsessing over it. The first thing that gets me is how crazy they go when it goes through - it is usually completely disproportionate to how difficult it is to achieve (similar to how baseball commentators drool over bare-handed pickups). The main thing that gets me is when they say it's a form of lairising. Dwayne Russell just described it as a "look at me" kick after Harley Bennell attempted a right footed dribble goal from the right forward pocket. This basically sums up many commentators view on the technique. It is, however, illogical. He claimed that the goal face is wider the higher up you go (I assume he is alluding to the lack of padding higher up the post - but who knows what goes on in that mind). What he, and many others, ignore is that the dribble goal opens up the goal face and, in fact, greatly increases the chance of scoring a goal. In the Bennell example, a flighted shot at goal (snap) would have meant that the ball would have been curving away from goal and the margin for error would have been very slight. Dribbling it, however, massively opens up the goal face and is a pretty risk free kick. The problem, however, comes when the player ignores a defender nearby who can touch the ball over the line. This is obviously something the attacker should be aware of and something they need to weigh up. It's just something that'd annoyed me for a while now, not sure if anyone else has noticed it.

You're joking. You're doubly joking.

Surely it gets to the stage where posters realise that Hannibal is happy with his source (right or wrong) and isn't going to change his mind based on people speculated about him or Caro. The fact that people don't realise has just made this go around in circles.

Huh?

I'm just confused. I'm pretty sure I read that same article a few days ago, by the same journalist? Didn't I?

There's only one person that comes to my mind. I think you should consider modifying your post so, if nothing else, you don't implicate the wrong person (let alone the right one!).

Agreed. I can't see why anyone would have wanted to delist him and can't recall anyone wanting to do so. As for him, I still wouldn't be against a trade if a good one came up.

Mmm I just find it tacky. Especially as you saw it on one match, found the same song from a different game and I myself heard the song played after the Rangers scored a goal a few months ago. When you also consider that that was after a playoffs overtime goal (one of the most intense finishes you can have) I think tacky music overrides the natural joy that people would have. That damn horn also drives me insane.

Was it from a horse's mouth?

I've been wondering lately, with the amount of other coaches about, how important is a coach? I'd love to see it from behind the scenes. I look at Essendon's set up and see great footy brains that are probably running the team together (along with the other coaches). Would it be that bad if the club was to get, say, a Mick Malthouse and keep Bails as either a development coach, or as main coach and create a position for MM? (I'm not necessarily advocating this position, just hypothesizing)

So we're all in agreement. A young team whose best players are all under 23, who's mid range players aren't really stepping up and one that contains a handful of 100+ gamers will have ups and downs.

It's Mckenzie who I really think we miss - he's out engine IMO. Last year when he played, 8 wins a draw and 10 losses. Without him 3 losses. One of those was the first game against North. Obviously he's just part of a team, but in a way I think he's a little more than that. I think we'll see an increase in performance when he comes back.

It often gets overlooked how woeful Sydney were that day.

I literally can't tell if some people here are being serious.

Since posting this thread we've lost 6 on the trot. I follow the ABL a bit mate, just found it a bit hard to get to (soft, I know, but the passion isn't really there for a team that's existed for one season). Good fun there though, did you go along?

One of the biggest problem's I've seen with the rule is when a player gets the "advantage" after standing still after a free is called from a marking contest. The player has little way of knowing which way the free is going and usually go to a standstill because they are in fear of giving away a 50 metre penalty. I don't think you can have the players deciding on the advantage in conjuction with such a harsh 50 metre rule. The main reason I don't like it is that I really don't think players should be umpiring the game. Not sure why the Martin "decision" is being pulled into this however. It was a mark, he played on. He was allowed to do so because he was behind his mark. The umpire didn't have time to signal the mark, let alone blow time off and therefore Martin is allowed to play on under the rules. Martin would've known if it was touched, and if that's why he decided to kick the ball he probably shouldn't have been awarded the mark anyway.