tiers

Since Jack overcame his foot injury and is now playing pain free he has become a much more rounded player able to run and provide drive with ball instead of bullocking and getting caught. He is a much better contributor to the team. But still doesn't offer what Maxie offers as captain. An on field leader, great speaker and promoter of the club, imposing figurehead and all round good guy makes him the perfect choice at the moment. Oh, nearly forgot, Maxie is still the best ruckman in the league. Impressive credentials.

The champions St Kilda got from Ballarat were Lockett and then Frawley. Not much for nearly 20 years. From Bendigo the lolly blues got Southey, Ashman and a couple of others but, from their pre zoning success in the late 60s, they had the money and the George Harris cheek to raid WA and SA sides to collect Kernahan, Bradley, Bosustow, Dorotich to toughen their squad. Nobody wanted to go to the sainters.

Who tagged who? Wasting a player like Aish on a Clarrie tag when the team is getting smashed seems like a mistake. Clarrie kept him occupied and out of the game. OTOH how come the multiple umpires could not pick up the holds and jumper tags on Clarrie at ball ups. A couple of free kicks would have quickly stopped the tag.

Finally some statistical evidence for what has until now been based on anecdotal evidence only. There have been a number of posts on 'Land on this topic over the years but only now are there numbers to support the story. Note that this only covers country zones that were fruitful at the time but the dorks' zone would today be mostly considered metropolitan (Mornington Peninsula, Berwick). It is the main reason that the dorks got ahead in the footy world. When gifted the calibre of players from their zone to the exclusion of all others (not just 100 gamers but 300 gamers) it is clear that zoning was unfair. Lolly blues did second best.

Why is this a topic of discussion in the world of Aussie footy and the mangling of our language by commentators, coaches, players, umpires, supporters and administrators? We all know what is meant no matter what syntactible and idiomatic usage errors they make. It is, after all, our great game and we can describe it however we want so long a we kick sausage rolls and lemon skins.

If this is so, then get him out of the team NOW. But I don't believe it is so. He, like Maxie, is still recovering from injury or illness and will only get better, we hope.

I note that Dogga's form recently has not enhanced his value. Does this affect his re-signing?

Not as much as I had hoped. With a 10/10 start I was hoping that we would have some big wins where I could relax and just watch us dominate and add percentage. Most of our wins have been solid but not dominant. Maybe I got spoiled by the PF and GF.

One of the benefits of being more than 57 years old is that I have seen so many coaching styles and team game plans that it becomes overload. However one theme that has succeeded many times in the past is repositioning a player. If a player who, one the face, has ability and potential but is not succeeding in any position then it is time to either pass him on or try him out elsewhere. Weid seems to lack the ability/drive/positioning/physical attributes to succeed as a key follower/forward. Where else might he offer something? He is tall, has good agility, can mark when on a lead (but not in a pack) and can kick long and straight. I suggest try him as a half forward/wingman with licence to roam and present when clear. Can't hurt.

There seems to me to be a disconnect between the final result and these overwhelmingly negative reports, GOTO's review and JoeBoy's three word summaries. Yes we lost but by only 10 points and had the same number of scoring shots. They threw everything at us, changed their game plan, got the rub of the green from the umpires and and just squeaked home. Could it be that we are still building for the finals both in fitness levels and in returning from injury. We know our game plan will work when we are all fit and well in six weeks time. GO GOODY GO DEES

What I remember most about the images of Goody coaching through the grand final was his calm and consistent approach to each player when they came off for their interchange. He seems to coach a system where each player knows and understands his role and his comments were a reminder that this was the correct approach. That it is not working as well this year is probably attributable to other teams planning against the system and, possibly more importantly, our inability to retain a consistent team due predominantly to the disruptions caused by injury. For me, I waited the full 57 years so I am sated and can take a more relaxed view. For most others, the season is not over yet and there is still time for the bits to come together. GO GOODY GO DEES.

All three are free kicks as, in each case, the initial tackle was high and Kozzie's ducking did not move the tackler's arm to over the shoulder. The test is always where the initial contact was made.

Good to know that they read Demonland.

So now that U has been found, and names starting with V, W, X and Z are too easy, is there a player whose names starts with Y?

Angus to the midfield.

Surely the solution is for the umpires to make their decisions based on where initial contact was made and by whom. For example, a legitimate tackle high on the arms of the tacklee that then slides to the shoulders by the actions of the tacklee? Play on. Simple. Any attempt to wriggle into a high contact is to be ignored. Who made the contact? If the tacklee drives his head into the body of the tackler, play on. Simple. So long as the tackler was stationary as is mostly the case. It was always the rule that the frees were won from the contest, not from trying to con the umpires. With three umps on the field this should be easy to stamp out. If this doesn't work then I would agree with Macca that there should be consequences for cheating and bringing the game into disrepute. The stagers should be staged out of the game.

If an ostensibly legal side bump can become a reportable offense if the recipient falls on his head, then kicking in danger when the ball was not even on the ground, was being contested and caused a serious injury should also be a reportable offense. AFL wake up!

What is truly offensive is using offence (a foreign usage) as a substitute for attack. Our great game demands its own terminology.

How many flags will it take to get rid of these pathetic responses? For me it is one. After 57 years it will now sustain me to the end.

Tracca and Clarry are nothing but class. We should be honoured to have them represent us.

You might be right (statistically) but it seems to me that the distribution is abnormal in that we always end up on the wrong side of the bell curve.

1. Of course there is no rule that the free kick count has to be even but in any contest between two reasonably even teams it is not an unreasonable expectation that the free kick count will be less unbalanced. 23 to 9 is a margin of 150%, far too high for any two party contest. 2. The heavy reaction is to hopefully alert the umpiring coaches that there is a problem with their coaching and interpretation of the game. I accept that this will be an unlikely and forlorn hope but so what? It needs to be stated.

We seem to have lost the ability to take strong pack marks (note not contested) around the ground and get outmarked regularly. Even with Maxie. Why. There seems to be a theory that we don't care so long as the ball hits the ground. If the only two options are that the oppos take a mark or the ball hits the ground then we lose control of momentum and an easier path to goal. Let's find a fix.

Weid did what he had to do - he contested hard in the ruck. Goody made the sage comment that although was lost the tap count by 40 we won the clearances by 5. Admittedly that is mostly due to Tracca, Clarry and Viney but without Weid's constant challenges it could have been much worse.

I watched the replay after reading about these umpiring decisions so watched a bit more carefully. This is my take. Mitch Brown - a clear and obvious mistake. The umpires seem to have been instructed to look at the eyes and automatically assume that if eyes are not on the ball then something illegal is about to happen. Displays a compete ignorance of the needs of contested footy at boundary throw ins. Of course Brown has to check where his oppo is to prepare for the contest. Clarry - even more obvious than the miss on Kozzie in the GF. What game are they watching? May - high tackle against the texan. After several rewinds it is clear that May's tackle was OK but another crow's arm was visible over texan's shoulder. May's tackle was righteous. Brayshaw? - dragging the ball in. The replay clearly shows that a crow tapped the ball in with his foot and Angus did nothing wrong. The umpires often use the excuse for missed free kicks that they were blindsided by the multitude of players around the ball but taking guesses when they are not sure is even worse. If not sure, then ball it up or play on. No matter how the frees are analysed, there is no escaping the fact that a 23-9 count is seriously unbalanced and should not happen in our great game. It is a sign of poor coaching and application of the rules by the umpires and perhaps, more significantly, a poor understanding of the game.