tiers

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.

Even when he is playing, Maxie is not the great tap exponent and our three warriors mostly win their own ball in congested and contested battles. They will prevail even without a winning ruckman. Maxie's great contribution is contesting the ball ups and throw ins but not necessarily tapping down their "throats' whilst denying the oppos ruck. It is because of his contested marking, his mobility, goal scoring and ground play that he dominates. Maxie and the boys are not the same combination as Jeff White and Todd Viney were before they changes the rules on White.

FWIIW. The last player I can recall who went from a struggling full forward into the ruck was Graham Teasdale at South Melbourne. Won a Brownlow in a dominant season. Not saying Weid is as good but what's the harm in giving him a run. He has footy smarts just not enough oomph.

My guess is that it is similar to the practice of tapering in swimming. Train hard and then rest up leading into a contest. One game in three weeks offers the opportunity to rest and recover.

As I recall, it was Malcolm Blight, when he was at Adelaide, who first adopted the concept of loading in the weeks before the finals. Because it was successful and he won two flags it should be no surprise that other teams have followed his lead. For former players since the late 90s to not be aware of this possibility, strikes me as either ignorance or simple mindedness. One the other hand, unless the commentators know the coaching regimes at each club, it is still a bit of guesswork for them and us. Nevertheless to not discuss it as a possible issue is negligent. I note that even though our bye period was not the full two weeks, playing only one game in almost three weeks with longer recovery periods in between did not seem to hurt our players last night. GO GOODY GO DEES

All this tells us is that Champion Data are NOT champions of data. Time for them to get a life or, better still,to open their eyes.