Jumping Jack Clennett

Just a minute, "Wayne", though I agree with you in not wanting Connolly to coach us, I would like to express my difference of opinion on his quality as a player. I reckon he was a champion whose career was cruelly curtailed by injury. He was courageous to fault, a very penetrating and accurate left foot kick, who was unusually proficient on his non-preferred(right ) side. He was elusive despite a lack of pace, with effective frequent use of the " blind turn". He was also a good mark for his size. I was so impressed by his skills that I contend we would have won the '87 premiership if we'd had a fit Connolly at our disposal. (I sometimes wonder if all sides have a list of potential stars whose careers never blossomed because of injury, but I would put Connolly on our list , with Dean, Jakovich, Prymke, Charles, and to a lesser extent, Schwarz. There are others whose names I can't bring to mind at present, perhaps other Demonlanders could help.) Do you remember Connolly well, "Wayne"? Do you agree that you might have under-rated him in your post? Anyway, I suppose it's irrelevant with respect to his likely value as coach. In fact, with a few notable exceptions, (Matthews, Norm Smith,Blight, Barassi,Roos etc!), sometimes I feel it's better to have been a bit of a battler in your playing days to become a good coach (Jeans, Kennedy, Hafey etc.)

[quote 'condemned 84' ........... "a few times they muxt have thought davey was 6'8 with the high kicks they put to him." I noticed that, "Condemned", and it's happened in the past quite a bit. Aaron's amidst three tall opposition, so what do they do?......... Kick a high drop-punt, to give him no hope at all. A kick to reach him at ground level(like all our passes to Bater,)or well out in front,and he'd have a fair chance, even when out-numbered. Or perhaps an "up-country", "tumble" punt, which is hard to mark, and which might give him a chance on the ground. Interestingly, once last year, they kicked him a high one when he was alone in the square with three Sydney talls(incl. Jolly and Barry) , and he outmarked the lot of them for a goal crucial in our victory up there.

Neitz, Bruce and White all barracked for the Saints. Schwarz went for the Hawks. Sylvia barracked for the Pies, and Brock for no-one. I was always under the impression that Judd went for the Demons, but a mate who usually knows these things told me that Judd and all his family supported the Hawks. Can any be definitely correct about this?(i.e. really know). By the way, I know it doesn't matter!

Couldn't agree more, Rhino.

Good old Collingwood forever! Of the '58 side that cheated us from the flag, at least 3 later spent time in gaol. I'm not sure of the histories of the other thugs. Eddie was associated with a suspicious incident early in his media career. No wonder Julian Knight barracks for them!

How exciting is 2008 looking!!!!! The Voss/McLean leadership could be anything!!!We'd have to wait a year or two, but there'd be a renewed optimism.

Wow, Deanox! What an astute and incisive analysis. I wouldn't dare attempt to enlarge on it, since my understanding of the set-ups is nowhere near so deep. I think you have a special skill. Perhaps the inability to be effective with our congested forward line was exacerbated by the absence of TJ, who has a remarkable skill at pinpointing team-mates amongst a crowd of players, with bullet-like passes.( though he's been less effective at this in '07) Another suggestion: it was obvious we were too short in the forward line and weren't going to take marks. So why kick it in high?( I've noted this a few times with "Flash"' when he's the only leading option , and the ball's delivered high.) Why not deliberately land the ball at the foot of the pack(it's too hard to go OVER the pack)? If we're smaller, and outnumber them, that should be to our advantage. Polak's a great mark, but what hope does he have with ther ball on the ground and Davey or Brock buzzing around?

[quote "Nicho"........'Big bad Bazz is a gun', "Don’t be naive." Thanks for the thoughtful assessment of my opinion on Hall's form this year, Nicho. Interesting that your "nick-name" is "Nicho", since the conventional wisdom among observers was that he wasn't a very good player. I showed my naivety again by thinking he was a very valuable player, and I think this was emphasised last Fri night when Richo tore us apart. The conventional wisdom is that Hall's a top ten player. On this year's form, I contend that he's not a top 50. Perhaps I'm naive to have a different opinion from "conventional wisdom". At no time did I suggest your ridiculous assertion that he wouldn't get a game for Melbourne.

I was watching Syd /Coll tonight, barracking for Sydney. After a while, I started hoping their midfield would look for someone other than big, bad, bustling,BUTTER-FINGERED Bazz. Not only did he drop his head when going for high marks, but spilled chest marks repeatedly ,and kicked like a lame giraffe as well. For a big guy, he moves well, but he can't take an overhead mark to save his life. He's had a shocking year, his only decent game being against us, when Brad Miller made the fundamental mistake of stirring him up from the outset. He played brilliantly in the '05 GF(a disgrace he wasn't suspended from the prelim), but it wasn't through marking, but leading upfield, Miller-like,and using the ball well. His true form was displayed in the 06 Gf, where he hardly got a kick, and since they lost by a point, it would have been handy if he did! Summing it up,I reckon he's over-rated. Especially since now players can't push in the back, a skill at which he is a past master.

At least you READ my post, Deanox, though I'm devastated that you ridiculed it. As you know, there's a rule against "piggy-backing" on the mark. Anyway, it'd be "play-on" and end of quarter if the player ran round the man on the mark and the kick was after the siren. You didn't deride my suggestion about deliberate juggling, or taking a couple of bounces to waste time. Are they worthwhile suggestions,or just not worth commenting on?

I reckon Belly is one of the best middle-sized defenders in the AFL now.

I know most Demonlanders aren't the slightest bit interested in this topic, but another "one-percenter" was mentioned by G. Lyon on his Ch 9 Footy programme on Mon night. He said how basic it was for the tallest man to stand the mark when a guy's shooting from the 50 m. line. If you do the geometry, it makes a huge difference to how big the kick's got to be with a 200cm bloke on the mark cf. a 185 cm player. I have noticed that WE DON'T DO THIS. Other sides do. I know that talls are needed at the fall of the ball, and each opposition tall must be manned up appropriately, but in my opinion , the over-riding necessity is to make the player kick from as far out as possible, by having a very tall man on the mark. This is ESPECIALLY true with longshots for goal after the siren. (See also my previous post on one -percenters where I discuss practising torpedoes for the 55m. set shot after the siren.) I reckon we could collect lots of one-percenter suggestions, which, if followed by our coaches, could make a discernable difference to our results.

Can you bet on Tribunal hearings? I'd love to bet Hille gets off.

I noticed another possible one-percenter while rewatching our triumph v. Coll. Remember when Godder's long kick found Robbo with a chest mark in the left forward pocket? He goaled after running off from an acute angle. When Robbo marked it near the boundary line, there was no opponent within at least 10 m.. What if he deliberately juggled it while running round, reducing the angle??!! In this case, it would have made no difference, since he goaled anyway, but it could be a useful tactic, esp. with a mark near the goalpost, but not in the square, where a metre difference could reduce the angle by more than 50%. Another, possibly more usable opportunity for this tactic could be to "fudge" your way from 51 to 45 m. by deliberately juggling, bringing yourself into range. Obviously, this tactic could only be used when the opponent was about 10m. away. Any more, and "play on" would be the tactic . If the opponent was less than 5m. away, it could give him a chance to spoil.

Wheatley must be one of the best two lor three in the Afl at 50m. passes.

Sounds like your Dad barracked for Collingwood, if that's his greatest memory. It was the worst day of my life.

Cameron Bruce's kicking is getting worse and worse.He must seek advice from a good exponent of kicking(eg Paul Wheatley). He must listen to his advice, and practise, practise, practise. He has fantastic hand-eye co-ordination. He should approach it like a pro golfer who's not swinging well, temporarily. He should just watch himself on video, listen to experts, and practise , practise, practise. It's all that's lacking in his game, and is eminently fixable for someone with skills like his.(not like Richo or Dutchy, who are NEVER going to be good kicks and never were, whereas Cam USED to be a good kick).

I noticed a tactic used by Collingwood that I'd like our guys to use. A couple of times we got a free, but they had possession, and pretended not to know whose free it was, and to continue on with the ball ,run, and take 2 bounces, but NOT kick it (avoiding a 50m. penalty). The result was a deliberate delay getting the ball back to the free kick recipient, allowing the defenders, and midfield running back,to crowd the forward line before the free could be taken.

quote name='Fan' "I don't think it is that simple Jack" But what if it IS that simple, Fan? Perhaps we've been blinding ourselves with science. I sometimes wonder why it is, in Australian football, that when one side gets right on top,it's hard for the other side to get a SINGLE possession. I think that it's because a team going into damage control holds no fears for the opposition. They can try anything. Even when it doesn't come off, they don't pay for their errors.The defensive team is too busy anticipating effective manoeuvres from their opponents to take advantage of their mistakes. The end result is often a blowout,as the attacking team's confidence rises, and v.v. I think in our game the best method of defence is attack. It seems the umpires rule in favour of the pro-active team in 50:50 decisions,too, which helps the cascade.

Last week we played defensively for 3 quarters and were shocking. We attacked in the last quarter and were brilliant. Today it was the reverse. The moral? We play better when we attack!

I watched Coll. play Freo tonight. Both sides kicked in quickly, and usually ended up in attack after opposition points. Players on both sides also played on at every opportunity. They didn't stop, go back, and take ages to seek an option upfield. I guess it's a matter of confidence. We'll never regain confidence by playing "carefully", the way we do.