tiers

The only pressure stat that counts is "did the applied pressure adversely affect the player with the ball" so that he loses control of the ball, is penalised, miss-kicks, or misses a target that should otherwise have been readily achievable, or leads to an interception and so on. So long as the player is prevented from an unfettered disposal then the pressure has been effective. I will lead it to others to try and apply an objective test to the degree of pressure and try to apply some formula but for me all pressure actions are equal. The aim is the stop or prevent clean disposal.

1. Yes but how is that different to any other game this year? No walk ups allowed. 2. Depending on the attendance cap, the ballot might contain up to double the usual number of tickets. 3. Start lobbying now for special consideration, if we make the GF, for MCC/MFC members who have waited so long. 4. Those who attended the GF in 1964 should be guaranteed a seat if we make the GF (me). Go dees.

The failure of the umpires to satisfy supporters desires is not due to malice on the part of the umpires or their coaches. It is due to the failure of the rules committee and the AFL to institute a clear, credible explanation for the interpretation and application of the far too many inconsistent rules in our great game. Wayne Campbell's article this week explains some of the problem, but not all. At the moment there seems to be too much discretion allowed the umpires to "overlook" certain breaches (eg Oliver being grabbed and held back while PA kicked a goal) to allow the game to "flow". It's a breach of the rules or it isn't and, if yes, should be paid. However it might cause the number of free kicks to soar and interrupt the game. Where is the balance? As for the umpire retiring after granting a match winning free kick in the goal square to doggies against Jimmy in the dying moments of the game, he knew that he was stuffed and sensibly retired. One of the few times an egregious umpiring mistake has directly affected a result. Against weagles we got 1 free to their 21? at half times. Here it wasn't a single mistake that cost us but a full performance by all umpires. Maybe weagles deserved all 21 but surely we deserved far more than 1. So far as I know we never received an apology.

+1. In he air and on the ground the quartet would be the best I have seen in 60 years. On their day and at their best they were each capable of kicking bags of goals, if not necessarily all at the same time. They had ability, skills and footy smarts in abundance. And in that series they had Travis feeding them. 1998 - we was robbed.

They took us more seriously in 2018 when we were scoring so well. Whilst the accepted wisdom is that defences win flags, teams still need to score heavily when the opportunity arises. Sadly we do not score heavily when the opportunity arises against weaker teams. Winning by 15-25 points is not good enough when we should be winning by much larger margins to show our superiority. Percentage may also count by the end of the season and we are not as dominant as we deserve to be. Our forward line is still suspect for consistent high scores. Cats and dogs have stellar days but these are against weak opposition and are not consistent. Time for us to become consistently scoring higher. A settled forward line lineup would help. It's either BBB or Weed. Make a choice, toss a coin or flip a card and stick with it.

The best highlight for me is that we won without a functioning forward line. I don't mind winning by strangling the opposition but there will come a time when we will have to score a lot to win. Our nearest competition on the ladder have each shown that they can score quickly and big with multiple pathways to goal. There are only 8 games to go to find the magic potion. Let's use the time wisely.

Any Melbourne team that throughout the nineties had a choice of Lyon, Schwarz, Neitz, Jackovich, Farmer, Charles, Tingay, G. Lovett, B. Lovett, Prymke, Viney, Woewodin, Powell, Johnstone, White, Stynes and more would have to be the best team in our history. The tragedy is that only Neitz, Farmer, B. Lovett, Woewodin, Powell, White, Stynes of that group were ever consistently available for selection in that period and we were weakened whenever we had a real chance in 1990, 1994 and 1998 by missing players and a lack of cohesion that comes from playing together over an extensive period. That we made the GF in 2000 was a fluke at a time when the finals system worked in our favour (beating lollie blues in week 1 got us into a PF against tired roos). The 2021 team might appear to have fewer stars but those that we have are in defence and on the ball where premierships are won. Further, so far, the cohesion is building week by week so that there are no obvious weaknesses on any line. As I said elsewhere in another post, stay quiet and pray hard. Go dees.

The only time to say it will be on the last Sunday in September if it comes to pass. Until then, keep quiet and pray hard.

Percentage also counts in contest for positions in the eight. Percentage has hurt us in the past and could again. Let's not be comfortable with wins only.

M Brown is much more versatile as an emergency than B Brown. Bide your time Ben, your opportunities will appear.

I like how the changes to the team are always minimal. No more than needed. Building consistency in team selection is a feature of recent successful teams. Get the balance right and let it continue.

Sam has great judgement and gets his hands to the ball first regularly in packs. It's just that they don't stick. Maybe better resin (sticky stuff on the hands), maybe squeezing a squash ball in each hand to develop strength in the hands, maybe screaming "it's mine" to switch on his brain and body; maybe short, sharp kicks into his hands at training to build muscle memory; maybe he should stick to leading rather than pack marks. He has the ability it's just that it is stuck somewhere. Find the release and he will be good.

The first time I heard a reference to playing a role was when Paul Roos discussed the 2005 Sydney premiership team. He spoke glowingly about the role played by the CHB Lewis Roberts-Thompson who nearly won the Norm Smith. Roos explained that all LRT had to do was compete in the air and deny his opponents and it was the role of the smaller players to then win the ball on the ground. Not only did he compete but he also won more than his fair share of the ball. Finally the dees have twigged to Roos's message. Build a team and then implement a game plan and structure where each player plays his role. That's why Brayshaw, Fritsch, Spargo and ANB keep getting games even when there are perceptions (and criticisms on DL) that they don't contribute - they play their designated roles to perfection. Either get the ball and deliver with purpose and style or deny the opposition. Go dees.

If it hasn't been said in the previous 10 pages, the only venue is the Colosseum now that we are loaded up with Christians.

Yes it is predictable but it is predictable in our favour. We set up for it. The ball is kicked well outside the so-called"danger zone" into a contest near the boundary line. It plays to our strengths and minimises to risks if it comes unstuck. Regarding Dunn's kick outs. He was also highly predictable and so the rest of the team and the coaching team should have accepted and set up for it. When Maxie says that they didn't know it was perhaps their own fault. Wouldn't happen today.

+1. His main job is to kick goals not to be a pressure forward. Note how many times he is on his own as the leading, or loose, forward 30-40 out. He doesn't fly with the big guys but provides an alternative target for non-long-bomb kicks. For as long as he keeps scoring at over 2 goals a game, he is doing his job.

1. No matter how much the dees gesticulated and pleaded with the umpire he would not have changed his mind. 2. The reason it was wrong is that the deliberate OOB rule has been so badly interpreted and ruled this year that no one is sure of the correct interpretation - players, commentators and umpires. It was suggested that if a crow had been close it would have been ok. Yet there have been many decisions paid where the ball, kicked from within a pack close to the boundary and with no other realistic option, did a leg break and not an off break when it landed, as if the kicker had Warnie's control over the direction of the ball, even as a team mate was running on to the ball, and then rolled OOB. The rule is a farce, a flop and a travesty and should be immediately either abolished or very closely defined. It has cost us 4 points and, heaven forbid, it might cost someone a flag.

Have watched highlights only but the only team mate who has figured out Clarrie is Langdon who seems to receive an inordinate number of handballs because he runs with Clarrie and positions himself to assist on the outside. Clever. The rest of the team should look and learn and so should the coaches.

Clarrie's game against the crows was something that Mitchell could only dream about. There is no comparison to Clarrie's dynamic running, ball extraction from packs and inventive, literally "over the top" handballs.

TMac on a wing was, and is, a good idea. If not for his sterling performances kicking goals he would have been played there. In any event Brayshaw is now learning the craft and has become an effective interceptor and support for the backs. Langdon is in a class of his own as a wingman - runs up and down and helps out from front to back. As for the "one player syndrome", it is real when the one player is a Martin who can win grand finals by his own efforts. In any other situation, it is a myth because there is no such thing as an un-replaceable player, even one as good as Max or Oliver (or Fyfe, Dangerfield). A strong team will have multiple paths to victory and should not be too focused on any one.

Should be automatic free kick against piling in team. Obvious attempt to obfuscate.

Players are not always "dwelling on the outside". What if one player arrives at the ball first by a split second and then the second player lays a tackle. A fair contest in accordance with the spirit of the game. What is unacceptable is for players to pile in after the initial tackle has been laid to prevent a proper disposal. Consideration could be given to those who systematically and deliberately pile in being denied a free kick The spirit of the game demands that players be given, however briefly, the opportunity to dispose of the ball..

As LDV has said, a drop kick should definitely be allowed but only when the ball is dropped to the foot in the attempt to kick and the ball is kicked on the half volley as in a true drop kick. Prior opportunity must be retained as otherwise players will not attack the ball. The amount of time for prior opportunity however should be short - just enough to swing a foot or a hand in an attempt to dispose of the ball - and definitely not as long as Salem got in his 360 degree pirouette. Trying to avoid a tackle is automatically prior opportunity and should be penalised. For a tackle to be effective, it must restrain the player with the ball. Too often a solid bump and flailing arms is adjudged to be a tackle. A tackle must be a tackle.

Clarrie is not Mitchell reincarnated in red and blue. There is no comparison. He is a much more impressive and complete player. Clarrie wins his own ball in crowded situations (unlike Mitchell who used to stand at the back of packs and wait for the ball to be flicked out) and can deliver with thought, play with intensity, tackle with ferocity, run with speed, mark with the best and kick with both feet to advantage so as to create scoring opportunities galore. His hands are slicker and quicker than Mitchell and even Williams from the 90s. When the demons start to read and react to Clarrie's possessions in the same way that the dorks did with Michell, then he will be unstoppable. It is time for the team to step up to his standard. As for being lippy notice how, when he gets pinged for supposed "incorrect disposals" by umpires who have no feel for the game, he does not carry on but only shows his disappointment and gets on with the game. A model citizen yet he loses Brownlow votes because his best work is too quick and too subtle for the umpires. No grand gestures like others. Just pure footy smarts and skill.

Looking forward to never having to beat anyone above us!