tiers

Players like Mitchell became renowned for their handballing ability when in the clear and could send penetrating handballs to team mates who were positioned to receive. Clarrie is different and a type we have not seen before. He hunts the ball in close, tackles hard, wins the hard ball and delivers it with menacing purpose to a teammate who is generally close. Not for him the luxury of standing at the back of the pack and waiting for the ball to be delivered. He gets it and releases it. As for the peculiarities and perversions of the AA team selection, for as long as he works in close and his magic is not clearly evident (think of Bruce's comment in the 3Q yesterday), he will be overlooked until we achieve team success and the so called experts and commentators get on the bandwagon. For the time being, I am enjoying the private pleasure of watching him play his game while building to team success. We will then be able to say that we knew it all along. Sweet!

bt demon said that she was articulate, intelligent and insightful. I agree, much more than any other female caller. Compared to the other female (and most male) callers and commentators, her voice is more pleasant (less grating and nasally), she is definitely more knowledgeable and able to make concise, authoritative and relevant comments on the game, not on the peripheral issues that seem to be attractive to most of the boys (BT, Bruce etc).

From one who saw the Teddy Whitten inspired "flick pass" phenomenon come and go, Clarrie's handballs are nothing like a flick pass. He obviously has the most flexible, rotatable wrists that ensure that the ball is struck by a closed fist each time, not by an open back hand that was the feature of flick passes.

Watch Maxie destroy Jacobs. Numerous hit outs to clear advantage and has contributed to Chunk's renaissance and the our dominance at clearances. If the AA selectors need another influential ground level midfielder, we have plenty to recommend. But leave the ruckwork to Max.

Why has it taken so long for the so called experts to realise this simple fact? It was apparent from the start. Clayton plays his own game unlike anyone before. His vision, awareness and football smarts are outstanding but, in addition, his ability to win the ball in close and distribute quickly to advantage set him apart. His tackling, running, contested marking and strong kicking would almost be enough even without his extraordinary talents. I have noticed that his "don't blink or you will miss it" hand passes are catching on amongst his teammates who have improved greatly in their disposal. It also helps that when we are winning players are willing to run to good positions to receive.

Has anyone noticed how, with the emergence of Max and the other midfielders, Chunk spends less time fighting for possession and more time running with the ball. He is now the rover he was destined to be.

AFL had to appeal this disastrous precedent. There should a simple rule - do not intentionally or recklessly make contact with an umpire. Extending a hand or arm when not in play like Hawkins, Curnow I and Curnow II did is an obvious intentional or reckless act. Simple rule - do not extend any body parts near an umpire. The force of the contact is not a consideration. May could also be classified as reckless but, as he was only demonstrating his action and not extending an arm or hand, it could, reluctantly, be classified as accidental contact and attract a lesser penalty. Accidental should be narrowly defined as an action that would not normally be expected to make contact with an umpire eg. bending over or where the umpire was not in the field of vision and the player was not aware (note that Curnow might have been looking at Merrett but the umpire was in field of vision). Extending an arm towards an umpire in the field of vision is not accidental. The application of the rule should be a strict liability.

Monumental fail by the AFL. The intent was not there? So bloody what. The umpire is sacrosanct or he or she is not. Simple yes or no. Two consequential precedents arise: Every player who infringes will only have to say "No intent - I didn't mean it your honour" to be cleared of all charges. What happens if a player pushes a female umpire in the chest? No intent but what about consent in this metoo age? As CEO another McLachlan created fiasco, even if he wasn't directly involved.

Blocking is nothing more than what used to be known as interference - shepherding before the ball is wihin 5 metres. Think of the time it takes for a ball to traverse 5 m. Not long at all and much less than the shepherding takes. If only the umpires watched the game and did not look for "eyes on the ball" or "not genuine contest" or "fake jumper pulls" they might recognise their errors and umpire the game as it should be umpired - to create a fair contest between the players rather than a pedantic concentration on inconsequential fake rules that are open to gaming and cheating.

Clarkson's conduct in going directly to McLachlan was reprehensible. McLachlan's response is no less reprehensible and a symptom of overweening self-importance and and an example of extremely poor governance. There is a structure that the CEO should not be able to short circuit without inviting condemnation and scorn. Why is it that after a certain period of time every AFL CEO ends up suffering from hubris and losing the trust and confidence of the footu public - think of Demetriou, Jackson, Oakley, Hamilton - although McLachlan has reached that stage sooner than others. Time for McLachlan to go.

This is being over analysed. Good goal kicking is a function of a controlled ball drop and timing ie. when the foot hits the ball in the right configuration. Requires repetitions starting from close in. Looking to pass off, removing mouth guards and watching the count down clock are unnecessary distractions and should be avoided. 30 seconds to start a run up is messing with their minds. The best goal kickers from the past would kick as soon as they were settled and balanced.

Someone once said "one game at a time". Wise counsel. The only good outcome is that we have beaten the teams we should be able to beat that has not always been our style in the past. Let's just get past this week.

When tackling, Nic Nat does not seek to restrain the player with the ball but to carry him forward with his momentum. Finishing the tackle several metres away should not be accepted as a fair tackle. With one week off, he got a fair and deserved penalty. A perfect tackling technique prevents the opponent from moving or disposing of the ball legally. Watch Clarrie. NN should learn restraint and learn to restrain the opponent, not propel him.

Hopefully one becomes Brayshaw and one becomes Petracca. Who needs more. Leave them alone.

There seems to be a perception that "tall marking forwards" are selected only for their marking ability and any other abilities or skills are simply a bonus. It's time the term was eliminated from the vocabulary. How many pack marks do they take as a result of their height? My guess is, apart from Max, very few. They lead well and run to provide options and end up taking many marks from good positioning against opponents, All forwards, tall or short, are marking forwards and ground level forwards and defensive forwards and leading forwards and running forwards depending on the situation at any given time. What the talls do bring is a good contests to deny opponents the ball in the air and the opportunity to create mismatches all over the forward line (consider how often Max gets free near the goals - could it be that the opposition are struggling to match to our talls?) We can never have too many players like Jesse, TMac and Weid. When playing as a unit, their effect can be priceless.

What is the purpose of this thread? We have two of the best prospective genuine A-grade stars of the game and posters are splitting hairs about kicking ability, tank. Their respective abilities complement each other and the team. It's unseemly and demeaning for our boys and the club. Posters on this thread should show some respect, be grateful for our good fortune and do all to laud both Gus and Tracc. Beelzebub got it right. They're different. Happy to have both. +20 from me.

Three talls who can play multiple roles in multiple areas of the ground and who can rotate are potentially a nightmare for other defences. The mismatches that three mobile talls can create mean that, for the first time in many seasons, opponents will have to possibly weaken their structures to try and counter ours. Let them play together as many games as possible. As the late Dean Bailey once stated, to build a team they must play 50-70 games together. He was right - look at the rise of Geelong, Hawthorn and then Richmond that was built on many years playing together. Sooner or later we have to take the plunge and prepare for the future. Go dees.

Who can forget the infamous match against the Weagles in Perth several years ago when the free kick count approaching half time was 20+ to 1. Guess who had the 1? As bad as the count was, what was worse was the lack of outrage at the time and in the period after the game. Admittedly we were at a low point, but such a difference cannot be explained by any rational excuse It had to be poor umpiring. It won't change until the so-called expert commentators learn the rules and call-out the egregious mistakes. It is not an attack on the umpires but, for the good of our great game, it is vital that umpiring is not only at a high standard (as determined by the umpiring rep) but also seen to be at a high and consistent standard by the supporters. The AFL should lift its game!

The umpires rep at every game is there to record free kicks that were incorrect or missed in accordance with the prevailing rules and interpretations of the rules. Serviceable but not enough. My concern is that the rules themselves and their interpretations are the problem, not whether they are being implemented correctly. Who is recording the idiot free kicks that detract from the game and the contest but can be gamed by some players and teams and that are, seemingly, one of the most probable reasons for the enormous disparity in the number of free kicks awarded. Or the missed free kicks that, with three umpires on the field, should never be missed but because of the rules and their interpretations are toss ups at any given time and just not awarded. All the same old, same old platitudes about better teams being always in front and poorer teams indulging in scragging is pulp fiction. The game is now too sophisticated for such banal commentary and needs a more advanced analysis. But who is to do it? Again is say help?

That there is such a great disparity in the numbers between Dogs and Tiges worries me greatly. The balance of free kicks should even out over time (and I understand that a season and a bit is not a lot of time) but still +92 to -87, a 179 differential over about 30 games, cannot be both right and good for our game. It tells me that there is a real problem with the rules and also with the interpretation of the rules. It may be that the "Selwood Syndrome", where the rules and their interpretations suit the playing style of certain players, can also apply to whole teams (Dogs in 2016?). Some one who watches all games and analyses all free kicks should be commissioned to investigate. I would have liked to suggest the umpires leadership but I suspect that their analysis could be clouded by a huge conflict of interest. Help?

His run up is too straight. Have him run in at a slight angle so that when he kicks it is in line with the centre of the goals. The buddy pivot for right footer but with a lesser swivel.

To jnrmac. Having vision on a small screen without commentary about what is being shown is not the same as seeing the whole ground from the wing, not from behind the goals, with knowledgeable eyes and immediate commentary. Let's try it and see. Nothing to lose.

The time has come to adopt from the NFL the position of "eagle eye" - an experienced and knowledgeable assistant to the coaching team who sits at the very highest point of the G to look down over the whole ground to spot team structures and movements and who trusted by the coach to make SWOT type recommendations for structural changes to the team set ups. We have been out-coached as we were on Saturday so many times in recent years that its time to try something new.

To DV8's point. The old style ruck-rovers were based on RDB - hard nosed mongrels but not known for their sublime skills or versatility. In the 70s and 80s Brownlow medallists such as Blight, Quinlan and Healy improved their image as on ballers and became proven goalkickers when played permanently in the forward line. But no team could boast three who were so versatile and could rotate through the positions. To Pro Dees point. Add tackling to the list. He is only in his third season so let's be patient and hope he develops progressively and that his team learns to play off his abilities. I recall that Greg Williams, Black and Mitchell took many years to develop and they played in teams that were both strong and able to leverage off their skills to make them look even better.

Skiting time. I cannot recall a time where any team has had three highly talented players like Jesse, Clarry and Tracca who could rotate through the midfield or play as a key position forward. Let's hope that the FD can base a game plan to take maximum advantage of their versatility. Gees I am glad that I posted this on Tuesday in the Hogans Engine thread and that the boys have responded so quickly. It's good to know that they read Demonland.