tiers

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.

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?

Is a misleading statistic. Does it mean getting rid of the ball or does it mean advancing the ball to the goals or does it mean delivering to a contest or does it mean delivering it lace out. Until it is defined, it is of limited value. Midfielders often have to dispose of the ball under pressure in limited space with limited visio and moving the ball forward to a contest is a good outcome. Defenders often, but not always, have more time and space to select a target. Turnovers in these circumstances are disappointing but I am pleased that TMac and OMac at least look and try to pick out a target. The intent is good and they deliver well more often than is recognised in these columns One feature that is overlooked in these discussions is the importance of players forward presenting to advantage to the player with the ball. Our forwards have been guilty over the years of standing still and waving rather than moving to space. The great teams of the recent past have had developed a playing style where the receiving player is both moving and clear of his opponent. For all of his other limitations, Simon Godfrey was a running machine who ran to space to offer. The best current example is Jack Watts who, having run to good positions, is often overlooked or ignored when on his own in the forward line as the ball is kicked elsewhere. A seriously underused talent. When commenting on this topic, please state your definition of DE.

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.