tiers

A push is a push is a push is a push.............. It is definitely not a hand on the back. Unless it is dangerous or makes an impact on the contest why pay a free kick. The umpires use some discretion regularly so why not here? It has always annoyed me that a hand on the back without any force that does not affect a fair contest is a free kick whereas two knees in the back from a specie attempt that forces the front player out of the contest is OK. Where is the balance? It's time the rules were revised so as to reflect the unique nature of our game and placing a greater emphasis on fairness in the contest.

The Lewis decision was an abomination against the game. Tackled without prior opportunity, taken to the ground and lost possession of the ball. Note how the saint rises with the ball after taking possession before the whistle. The umpiring in these situations is becoming guesswork. They should pay only what they are sure of and ball up the rest. That's fair to both sides and does not offend against the game.

Three field umpires and no-one saw it? Give me strength. Deserved at least a free kick and a more severe sanction than a fine. This was not just a common garden variety punch. This was a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage by taking out key mid fielder with a huge reputation for clearances at a centre bounce at a critical time in the match. Note how Clarry struggles to get to the contest. For $1,500 at a time it would be worth taking out Dusty or Josh K at a critical moment in a final. What an atrocious precedent by the MRP and the the AFL. Shame on them again.

In amongst the procession of poor umpiring decisions for both teams, there were at least two that changed the game. The first was the alleged infringement against McCartin on the members HFF. It was clearly not a high tackle but the umpire responded to a tackle that was laid high on the arm but not over the shoulder. Whilst he was still getting ip off the ground two demons ran past inciting the umpire to award a 50m penalty and an easy goal. Poor decisions have consequences and the umpires should be very sure before they affect the outcome of a game. The second was the free for "in the back" against Salem. There were two movements and neither should have been classified as in the back. The saint fell to the ground and Salem avoided his back, laid a tackle and then the saint projected himself forward dragging Salem with him. This poor decision led to another goal. At least two undeserved goals in a 2 point game.

Those that I can remember since 1960. 1. Neil Crompton's goal in 1964. I was behind the goals. 2. Robbie kicking the first goal v NM in 1987. Who deserved it more? 3. David Schwarz's last quarter against the lolly blues first week in 2000. 4. Alan Johnson's 11/10 game in 1988 v WC (memory?) 5. Keeping filth to 2.2 in 1960 GF.

Why this obsession with "smashing packs" ? Jesse is much too skilled to be wasted in such a role. And, in any event, without a Garlett or similar its often a waste because the opposition read our play better than we do and take the ball away too easily. It's the rapid exits that hurt us most. Watch round 1 against Geelong. I suggest Tracca should be used as the no. 1 crumber for his footy nous, strength at the contest and ability to get the ball to deny the oppos and to hold the ball in our forward line. If not Jeffy as no. 2 then ANB who runs all day, knows how to get to the ball, has possibly the best pass to advantage over short distances and loves a goal. Smashing packs implies high, slow delivery into our forward line. Jesse, TMac and Mitch Hannan have shown their ability to create space and provide dangerous targets. But the delivery and target selection has been poor for years. It's our inability to use these targets instead of long bombs that has crueled our opportunities to score heavily when we dominate the inside 50 metric. Time for the FD to step up and devise a plan.

My only nagging doubt is that, even when we smash teams in the metrics (thanks for the right words ProDee), we still lose. The worst metric is inside 50s. How many times have we lost games when the difference is 20-30 entries? We equaled the record (83) in a game this year but kicked only 20 goals and not 30. Why? 2020 can't come soon enough.

Jesse's best role is as a moving tall target with licence to roam to positions where he can present and distribute. For him to be a "front and square" crumber is a waste of a huge talent and punishes the team who lose his exquisite skills up the ground. The only time he should be near the goal square is when he is running.

Not the worst comment he has made. It is true that we don't yet have the right "balance" but, like all emerging teams in the recent past, it takes both personnel and time playing together for the right combination to arise. I believe that we have the personnel - the challenge is for the FD to find and develop the right combination. 2020 is looking better all the time.

Find an undercover seat in the stands, wear multiple layers and bring hats, scarves, gloves and warm blankets for your lap. With these precautions, if mum is from East Gippsland, she will be warm and cosy. Of course, if we are leading and playing well, you will not feel the cold and then none of these precautions will be necessary.

The only reason to have four umpires on the field at the same time is to find more infringements. One of the most beautiful features of our great game is that the rules should not be rigid and inflexible and not be applied as a strict liability (compare with the whistlethon that is netball or basketball or the sport destroying off side rules in many sports) but should allow for some discretion based on circumstances eg who can tell which player started the jumper pulls at marking contests, when is a nudge a push, how long is 15 metres and what is prior opportunity. What we supporters rail against is the marked inconsistency of decisions and four umpires can only make it worse. The best consistent umpiring I have seen in recent years has been in the ammos with 2 umpires. They blow the whistle quickly and often for ball ups when the ball is in dispute to both clear the play and protect the players from scrums. Their decision making is at least as good as senior umpires when the differences in their training and the speed of the game is factored in. Go back to 2 umpires on the ground and, if it is too taxing, then introduce umpire interchange to rotate the umpires as well as the players. What would really help would be to codify the rules to allow for better decision making and fairer play. But I fear that the footy intelligence of the powers that be is incompatible with good decision making for the benefit of our great game.

His body positioning is exquisite. Watch how he monstered his Carlton opponent (think it was Thomas) to protect the ball space and then and ran in to score an easy goal. Sadly Lyndon Dunn also had this ability but when zone defence replaced one-on-one he became a dinosaur. Still sad to see him playing for that team.

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

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.

Re Pettracattack's support for Todd Viney. My criteria in selecting the team was to include those players that I considered to be skilled, courageous, attacking match winners. They had to possess both magical footy skills as well as the ability to win a match "off their own boot", so to speak. While Todd Viney was undoubtedly courageous and attacking, I never saw him as skilled or as a match winner. More tenacious and determined. In any event, there were only 22 positions available and someone had to miss out.

On 23 October I posted this comment: The very best team of the past 50 years must include the following (excluding current players whose careers have still to blossom): Alan Johnson, Steven Smith, Sean Wight; Brett Lovett, David Neitz, Gary Hardeman; Stan Alves, Greg Wells, Robert Flower; Garry Lyon, David Shwarz, Adem Yze; Gerard Healey, Allen Jakovich, Jeff Farmer; Jim Stynes, Shane Woewodin, Brian Wilson Int Gary Baker, Steven Tingay, Alan Obst, Glenn Lovett Skilled, courageous, attacking match winners. Unfortunately, the month of October coincides with the end of the footy and the onset of daylight saving and I reserve the right to review all decisions in that month. How could I have forgotten Travis Johnstone? His inclusion would make this team infinitely better as he would have the delight of playing with his peers and we would have the joy of watching his smooth, silky skills being used to advantage. Imagine Travis passing 50 to Jako. Apologies to Glenn Lovett - great player but not in the same league.

Steven Smith was a champion. Unfortunately had to play full back at a time when our team was poor and clubs were not restricted by the draft and the salary cap.. He deserves to be In any of the above teams where he would make a great contribution. Danny Hughes was all guts, strength and effort but not the same skill as Smith. Both deserve to be considered.

The very best team of the past 50 years must include the following (excluding current players whose careers have still to blossom): Alan Johnson, Steven Smith, Sean Wight; Brett Lovett, David Neitz, Gary Hardeman; Stan Alves, Greg Wells, Robert Flower; Garry Lyon, David Shwarz, Adem Yze; Gerard Healey, Allen Jakovich, Jeff Farmer; Jim Stynes, Shane Woewodin, Brian Wilson Int Gary Baker, Steven Tingay, Alan Obst, Glenn Lovett Skilled, courageous, attacking match winners.

Just proves that trying to analyse performances by consulting a plethora of subjective statistics is a waste of time. If you know and understand footy, then you should be able to determine performance based on observation. That's what the umpires use for the Brownlow and they have never picked a dud. Clayton Oliver's game is based on winning possessions in tight spaces and disposing the ball quickly to advantage. That he does this better than anyone else is not the point. Compared to his peers, he has not yet developed his game to the extent that he not only fulfills his role but he is also a game breaker. Think of how his peers such as Sloan, Selwood, Shiel and Kennedy are often credited with match winning or match turning efforts eg a contested mark, a "captains" goal, a crunching tackle. That Clayton is so good at winning the ball after only 2 seasons and at 20 bodes well for his development but he is not there yet. It will come and he has the potential, when he builds a tank and learns where to run, to be better than them all. Let's all chill and enjoy his development over the next few years. He is a once in a generation player. Notwithstanding the above, the selectors make a grievous error by not including him in the favoured 40 on exposed ability and form and on promise. But what do we expect from any agency of the AFL?

Patrick Smith is a first class PITA on most issues. Pompous and prissy all at the same time. But his assessment of the sad Hird saga is spot on. Hird offered to take full responsibility and then sought to evade any responsibility. Says a lot about character. He sought and received the most awful legal and PR advice that sank him further into the mire. Self destruction and self delusion at its saddest. No one deserves to lose his will to live but there are others in this saga who are more deserving of our sympathy.