titan_uranus
Life Member
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Currently
Viewing Topic: Trade Targets
Everything posted by titan_uranus
-
CHANGES: Rd 14 vs St Kilda
- NON MFC: Round 14
Not sure they're tanking. They're three games and percentage behind 17th with 4 games to play. Which means they'd have to win them all to get off the bottom. Which wouldn't happen even if they tried, so they should really be going all out to beat Hawthorn next week or, better for us, GWS or Carlton their following two games.- NON MFC: Round 14
Essendon will pass us tonight if they go on to win, but before this board goes berserk at that fact, bear in mind that they're struggling against Hawthorn, a bottom 4 side, and their next three games are against West Coast, Geelong and Port.- Nibbler Suspended for 4 Weeks
Hold on @Skuit, that's hardly fair. I'm not justifying the act of drink-driving. The distinction between what's happened here and your example is that Dahlhaus and ANB are both guilty of the same offence, but ANB's offence did greater damage than Dahlhaus'. Your example involves ANB committing a second, separate, offence on top of the first one. That's not what happened. As I said though, I agree with the principle that it's fine for ANB to have received a harsher penalty than Dahlhaus. The issue I have is that Dahlhaus' penalty is borderline non-existent (is there any evidence to suggest $1,500 fines deter players, or are considered punishment to players?) and is too far away from ANB's penalty. That indicates to me another example of the AFL over-weighting the importance of the outcome on the penalty, when the action should be what is the key factor. When you add to that the repeated instances of the AFL saying that sling tackles are bad, the head needs to be protected, and the possibility of head damage is enough to make sling tackles bad, IMO it all points to a sign that the AFL's system on this issue is not working.- Nibbler Suspended for 4 Weeks
That's two different offences though. ANB didn't commit a second offence of "dangerous tackling while drunk". He and Dahlhaus did the exact same thing, but ANB got punished more than four times more heavily than Dahlhaus for the consequences. The concept of a worse outcome leading to a more significant punishment is nothing new nor is it wrong. The issue is when, as is the case with the AFL, the outcome is overly important in the matrix. The difference between what ANB did and what Dahlhaus did is not terribly great, yet ANB got 4 weeks and Dahlhaus no weeks at all. IMO, if ANB was a 4 week suspension (and that's arguably justifiable), Dahlhaus was 1 week at a minimum.- Nibbler Suspended for 4 Weeks
All hell should now break loose.- Fixture 2020 (COVID Edition)
That's a ridiculous comment. The current proposal isn't to extend the State of Emergency for 12 months, but to provide the government with ability to do so. And regardless, the existence of a State of Emergency doesn't mean life can't get back to "normal". Indeed, the government's argument is that it needs the State of Emergency to allow life to get back to a safe normal by providing the ongoing power to require masks to be worn or density limits in places like stadiums.- CHANGES: Rd 14 vs St Kilda
Yes there is - 17 games and 1 bye means 18 rounds.- CHANGES: Rd 14 vs St Kilda
I believe we're talking about the one in the clip in this article: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2020-melbourne-western-bulldogs-loss-christian-petracca-fox-footy-garry-lyon-afl-ladder/news-story/38ccaf7a995af7ffe59d01d770fc8ca3 Looks to me like the tap was probably always going to go to Petracca and he wasn't going to be tackled by Liberatore quickly enough to prevent him running forward and kicking it. It's always tough dissecting individual plays like this, but IMO it was a poor choice from Petracca.- Nibbler Suspended for 4 Weeks
Most of the time it's not in the tackler's control. The player getting tackled will sometimes get their hand up to take the brunt, or sometimes their shoulder will take it, or their head will take it but not on the temple, etc. All of which can be matters of centimetres' difference. The issue we should all have is with the action. If you pin an arm and sling a player into the ground you should be suspended. If we're trying to eradicate that tackle, then we shouldn't care about the outcome of it. I can see why ANB should get more weeks than Dahlhaus: both get suspended for committing the same offence, but ANB's penalty is greater because he created a more severe injury than Dahlhaus did. Makes sense (we can query whether 1 week vs 4 weeks is the right difference but the mere fact ANB got more weeks is easy to justify). Where all hell will break loose is if Dahlhaus, who is challenging at the Tribunal, gets off altogether (or reduced down to a fine).- THE RUN HOME 2020
Not sure about Collingwood yet. If they lose to Carlton this week, their final three games are against Brisbane, Port and Gold Coast. Without their injured stars, they'll be hard-pressed to beat Brisbane (in Brisbane) or Port and that just gets them to 9.5. Makes their game vs Carlton this weekend an absolutely critical match for both sides. If Carlton lose, and assuming they also lose to Brisbane in the final round, they'll need to win their other three games just to get to 9 wins. That requires a win over the Giants: hard to read them but on current form, given that game is next week, you'd back Carlton in. As you've mentioned though, Carlton still have their Adelaide game to come which will help them with percentage. If GWS loses to Fremantle this week, then their final round game vs St Kilda becomes huge, but assuming they lose to St Kilda too, like Carlton they'll need to win all three remaining games to get to . The Carlton-Collingwood game is critical. If Carlton win, Collingwood's path to 9.5 becomes really tough, and puts us in a good spot to finish the year ahead of them even with only 9 wins. But it will then give Carlton a good chance to get to 10. That's a very long way of saying that if we beat St Kilda this weekend we'll be in with a good chance, but if we lose it's almost curtains for us.- CHANGES: Rd 14 vs St Kilda
You see the irony/hypocrisy here, don't you?- Game plans, tactics and all that jazz
- POSTGAME: Rd 13 vs Western Bulldogs
It was his offensive drive on the weekend that stood out to me. One of his opponents was Larkey vs North, which would account for the three goals BRFE mentioned. Not sure who his other opponents have been. For the same reason I wasn't happy dropping OMac to begin with, I'm comfortable with Tomlinson in the side: I think our back half is solid and developing well. To the extent we conceded goals too easily on the weekend, I put that down largely to the way in which we set up in the forward half of the ground. A combination of Harris Andrews, Luke Ryan and Steven May wouldn't have made a difference to stopping some of the Dogs' scoring chains. (I still think we can get more out of Tomlinson though).- Game plans, tactics and all that jazz
Well written, @3183 Dee. I agree that the way we play is a sustainable brand of football, with one caveat: we're yet to prove that our current list can sustain it for four quarters and/or for long enough within a season to make finals, win finals, and win a flag. When we speak about the importance of forward half pressure, we look to the same players who fail to deliver the requisite level of pressure consistently: I'd suggest Pickett and vandenBerg, and ANB when he plays, generally do well with pressure acts (where can that stat be found, does anyone know?) but players like Fritsch, Hannan, Melksham, Spargo, Hunt, Jones, ANB, previously Garlett and Kent, have all been inconsistent. None of them bring the same output on a weekly basis when it comes to defensive pressure. Some weeks they are up and about, chasing every defender, tackling hard, repeat efforts. Other weeks they look disinterested, or too slow to impact the contest, or too weak to stick tackles, or a combination of all of those. And of course, of the three I've mentioned who are more consistent pressure-wise, vandenBerg commits far too many turnovers/clangers and ANB's a poor kick and doesn't get enough of the ball. So the question for me is whether we're capable of raising the consistency across the forward half of the ground to a level which can prevent the lapses we see within games (e.g. first quarter vs West Coast, second quarter vs Brisbane, third quarter vs Bulldogs). If we can, the rest of the way we play means we can challenge. If we can't, we'll never get there.- Kozzy Rd 11 Rising Star Nomination
That's the spirit! Since criticising the selections for the Adelaide game, you've posted twice before this: once complaining about our AFLW trade period, and once complaining about our trade in of Kolodjashnij. Then we lose, and you're back again complaining about our Rising Star nominated first year player. It's posters like you that make this place so difficult to deal with sometimes.- THE LAST TIME THEY MET
- CHANGES: Rd 14 vs St Kilda
1. So the 16 clubs other than Adelaide who all fail to win the premiership this year will be poor sides like Adelaide? 2. What's that got to do with the winless Adelaide? 3. This is your best comparison between us and Adelaide? 4. What's that go to do with the winless Adelaide? And without hindsight, which were the good players we gave away? Sure, go on if you've got some better reasoning than this.- Dan Butler
You can't continue to annoy the entire board but then complain when people call you out. Each week you bump threads out of nowhere, many of which are your threads to begin with, almost always after losses.- CHANGES: Rd 14 vs St Kilda
Excellent stuff. Can't stop laughing. As to your "analysis" of the recruiting: what has any of that got to do with your horrendous argument that we're like Adelaide?- POSTGAME: Rd 13 vs Western Bulldogs
All year I've felt that St Kilda are a step behind the truly good sides. They play footy which IMO won't hold up in finals. It's too risky and fluky to try absorbing opposition inside 50s and relying on accuracy in front of goal to ensure you outscore your opponent. Still, they're playing finals and we're no better than 50/50 to join them, and the way they play is a recipe for disaster for us. I'm sure attitude is a problem for us. Whether it's a lack of confidence (self-confidence or confidence in teammates) or arrogance and bathwater drinking, I'm yet to be convinced that our players approach each week with the mindset that I'm sure Geelong, West Coast and Richmond bring weekly.- CHANGES: Rd 14 vs St Kilda
If this is your best attempt at analysis, I'd consider trying to follow a different sport.- CHANGES: Rd 14 vs St Kilda
There are a number of reasons why we are likely to lose to St Kilda. This sort of analysis isn't one of them. We lost to Brisbane by 4 points. Like St Kilda, we had fewer scoring shots but were relatively more accurate and kept ourselves in the game. Like today, if Brisbane had kicked straight, the margin would have been bigger.- POSTGAME: Rd 13 vs Western Bulldogs
Not really. They prefer to keep it uncontested. It got tight late through Brisbane appearing to run out of puff and having wasted their third quarter dominance. St Kilda rely on an open forward line and uncontested play. When it works it looks great. But they have an unhealthy and unsustainable (in the long-term) reliance on goalkicking accuracy. There's no coincidence IMO that when they're inaccurate this year they've lost (7.12 against North, 5.7 against Collingwood, 4.10 against Geelong). The way we play is capable of beating them but not if we're loose defensively and not if we don't capitalise on our inside 50s.- NON MFC: Round 13
That game played out like you'd expect our game to next week. Brisbane getting a stack of it inside 50 and a stack of shots on goal, but failing to take their chances. St Kilda keeping their forward half open and using speed and run to make the most of it. If we're going to go down the same road, goalkicking accuracy is critical. - NON MFC: Round 14