Jump to content

Demons3031

Members
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Demons3031

  1. 2 minutes ago, Demons3031 said:

    Hi Sue I guess my view was that he was handballing sideways and not in the straight ahead direction in which it ended up going from the deflection He was much further from the boundary on the side  and the slight upward direction too giving players a chance to touch it would  also have cast doubt - he could well have been vaguely aware of the Crows player on his l right ,though we will probably never know. To me the deflection(which could easily have not been noticed it all happened so quickly) and the subsequent bounce of the ball in such a split second could easily have been seen as deliberate.

    Thats why I felt the video helped clarify things-for me at least. Bet we each can see the same thing and see it differently. Cheers Sue  :)  P>S I am still aggrieved by the decisions in the final against the Hawks-against VIney and Brayshaw I think? I'm glad we won that despite those ones :)

    Good to see the AFL making a call on this. It doesnt change my mind but I'm Ok with their action.  I guess my view is that players  have to have an option- the problem for me is that any action he took could have been deemed wrong. To me he took a reasonable action to go sideways  where it could have stayed in play(when he could have handballed it straight forward) So I disagree with the AFL that the deflection was  unimportant. To me it changed the whole situation. But thats just my view.

     

  2. 18 minutes ago, sue said:

    I just read the Fox reports and report in the Age. I guess all those commentators are MFC supporters.   By live, I meant wihtout slo-mo. I expect  many at the ground breathed a huge sigh of relief when the panealty was not applied.

    In any case, the umpire did not see it in slo-mo. And since a deflection is not relevant to the player's intent unless he intended an entirely different direction and the ball suffered a major deflection, even if the umpire thought it was touched, it shouldn't change the call.  Even if it goes out 1 metre from where he intended, it is still deliberate if OOB  was his intent. 

    The one I am waiting for is a deliberate within the goal square under pressure intended for a behind which hits the point post on the full but may have shaved Gawn's beard. Enjoy slo-mo-ing that.

    Hi Sue I guess my view was that he was handballing sideways and not in the straight ahead direction in which it ended up going from the deflection He was much further from the boundary on the side  and the slight upward direction too giving players a chance to touch it would  also have cast doubt - he could well have been vaguely aware of the Crows player on his l right ,though we will probably never know. To me the deflection(which could easily have not been noticed it all happened so quickly) and the subsequent bounce of the ball in such a split second could easily have been seen as deliberate.

    Thats why I felt the video helped clarify things-for me at least. Bet we each can see the same thing and see it differently. Cheers Sue  :)  P>S I am still aggrieved by the decisions in the final against the Hawks-against VIney and Brayshaw I think? I'm glad we won that despite those ones :)

  3. 10 minutes ago, sue said:

    I'm intrigued by the number of posters who will spend hours looking at slow motion videos and splitting hairs to justify an umpire's ignoring an deliberate out of bounds when almost everyone who saw it in real time has no doubt, especially when compared to some of the dubious DoB calls we see all the time these days.  

    I suspect many of them are motivated by wishing to to put heat on the club for not closing the game down earlier, but that is not the issue. Bad inconsistent umpiring that may lose you the GF is.

    Sorry Sue, but the slow mo videos may cast light on whether it was deliberate or not. And I feel they definitely do-others may disagree but my view and opinion was  t hat the ball started t omove sideays and slightly upward then took a sudden dive south toward the ground. Thats a deflection off Spargo to me. Thats my view anyway. 

    What evidence do you have that almost everyone who saw it in real time had no doubt?

    Are you referring to Melbourne supporters? Adelaide supporters? those who were at the match on the other side of the ground;? those who were behind the goals or viewing from the pocket or half forward flank? the players? supporters who watched it on tv? Who exactly are these "almost everyone who saw it live?

  4. On 5/23/2021 at 1:33 PM, Mel Bourne said:

    New vision has emerged which sees the ball deflecting off Spargo’s hand. 
     

    This is why he didn’t complain. 
     

    case closed. 
     

     

    I am going against the grain here and nearly every poster. I have hated the "intention rule" ever since it came in. And on Saturday we got the worst of it.

    However I believe in the last incident the umpire got it right. I agree with Mel Bourne.  To my view, the Crows player handballs in a sideways direction and in a slight upward direction (for a split mini second).

    Then the ball suddenly changes trajectory into a downward motion and bounces in front of the players toward the line. That to me is not the direction  to which the Crows player originally was sending it as it left his hand.   He had few options. He, Spargo and the other players were all thundering in the direction of the goal/pocket and to me he tried to dispose of it in the only direction away from goal that he could. In the way I see it, he directed it sideways and slightly upward. and didn't do a bad job to actually handball it legally with Spargo bumping him almost simultaneously. The slight (even if in  a mini second) upward direction followed by a sudden downward movement to me tells the story...that contact with Spargo changed the trajectory significantly. 

    Whether thats what the umpire saw or maybe wasn't in a position to see I can't say. and I cannot comment on his motives..and I don't think we have the facts to know either. There may be some validity in the "Home crowd" pressure and non professional umpires arguments put forward- quite fairly by posters in this forum-those are things worthy of consideration. 

    But I don't think there is any evidence available to any of us - to support some of the allegations made against the umpire in this case. Sure- if  you think he got it wrong and you worry about him maybe being afraid to make the call-thats fine. Put it up as a matter of concern to you if that might have been the case.  But that is a concern you have - and thats entirely different to an authoritative, factual basis to call someone a squib or a cheat.

  5. 5 hours ago, 58er said:

    DeeTox 

    Locky has all the attributes of a back pocket and IMO should mind Weightman on Friday night.

    He was cruelly discarded about 2/3 of the way into 2020 by Goody. It seemed they any error he made was totally against his selection.

    Niw that he had be played a really good game ( and regained fitness) he should be given the chance instead of Lord  Nev who is sadly not fast enough.

    If Goody had played Locky all year in 2020 he would have had another few games and be really ready for the AFL now.

    We need a smaller player with speed  as all the mediums and talls flew last week and resulted in a goal out the  back. 
     

    Hibbo May get the call up for Bont minding but has he the full tank?

    We need to look at our list and not keep going back to Melky  and Nev and give younger players a chance that will  improve our speed and run!

    This will mean  they are ready for Finals  type pressure as injuries and form can dictate selection st any time.

    Give Locky a go and I was disappointed Chandler ( yes he was not great vs Blues ) but needed at least another match to be fair. 
     

    We need to pick a running side because if we don't we will be too slow chasing the Dogs!! 

     

     

    Agree with you totally on Lockhart ..he has class speed and passion-goes 150% all the time.. Also agree on the need to bring more players through for the experience rather than waiting till later in the year if injuries occur. They need games under their belt. I would include Crawford and Daw in this too.

  6. 1 hour ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

    If fit, this guy is in the best 26 footballers, and best eight backmen, in the club. He’s consistently been named in Casey’s best recently. Amazing he wasn’t bought in to replace Salem. He’s certainly better than three blokes we put in the field yesterday. Yesterday’s game was, at least partly, lost at the selection table. 

    I agree QB. I wrote almost two weeks ago about the need to give Majak some game time now-even if only as a cover for an injury and to have game time under his belt if this were to occur.. He needs the be working with our best 22 under match conditions.

    We also need some unpredictability as the Opposition are working us out and preparing thoughtfully against us.

    Run him off the bench is we r not yet confident in him but we have tired players and need something different-at least to see if he can offer us something.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  7. There are two key reasons I feel we should be preparing player, structure and strategy options and developing and testing these from this point in the season onwards.

    One is potential injuries.-the other is others sides working us out. 

    With Tomlinson , Hore and Smith injured, we are really just one injury away from having a big hole to fill in our backline. Sure we can switch McDonald back as a last resort but as many have pointed out this can change the dynamics and effectiveness of what is currently working down forward.

    The backline has an effective system but i would like Majak Daw to be given some game time on and off from now on to learn to become a  real positive in this area if called upon. 

    Imagine if we  lose Petty, May or Lever in Round 19-22 or the finals and Daw came in as a "Last resort" without any games under his belt in defence. A bit of game time now could translate into a much more effective replacement in a time of need instead of someone trying, but not yet fully a part of the magic down back. 

    I also mentioned in a previous post about looking at Jackson as a potential inside/outside mid with his good contest and distribution and other skills.(whilst Gawn or Weid are rucking).

    Rather than only being used  as a switch with Gawn or Weiderman etc then back into the forward line, this would somewhat alleviate what some see as an issue of an over tall and cumbersome forward structure. Rather, his height would add solidity and defence when the Opposition is kicking out from the backline as well as a weapon to quickly turn a posssesion into an attacking move. 

    Opposition clubs like Geelong Richmond, Port and West Coast will be putting a lot of planning into us before we next play them-important we are able to switch between Plan A B C and D and create stress, uncertainty and poor decision making by their players and coaches.

  8. 1 hour ago, leave it to deever said:

    I appreciate Oliver getting a lot of love this week as he was a prime mover in yesterdays win and many others

    Tmac , Trac  Gawn and May and Salem have been major contributors and rightly praised. And Kozzie is the new glamour player.

    But Ed Langdon has not missed a beat and been a major player in every single game this year.

    He does so much. I know hes appreciated here but I dont think the media has picked up how vital he has been to our nine wins in a row.

    You and In are on the same page Leave it... I have made two posts about Langdon recently although they didnt seem to get much response. Here was one on May 9th.

    " FWIW, I feel all the good defensive work is effective because of a most important link in the chain - Langdon.  His hard running to help out in defence or to create space and options on the wing is critical and is what translates the great defence into something.

    If he were out of the side I would worry that we would be getting out of trouble less often and the ball could easily be rebounding back putting immense pressure on our backs who have worked so hard to clear it. Can you imagine any replacement doing what he does. He means so much to this team."

     

     

    • Like 7
  9. 1 minute ago, adonski said:

    Yes, we're missing out playing Jackson, Salem, Rivers in the midfield in very short bursts. I understand it's easier said than done tho as you need to temporarily restructure.

    I like your thinking Adonski - even in short bursts to make it difficult for the Opposition to plan and match up.   Salem and Rivers all have something to offer in the middle and as I said we need to be planning for later in the year to have options- either because of injuries or just the flexibility to switch plans during a game. Other teams will be spending a lot of time planning for us second time around. ( e.g Richmond).

     Like others,  I don't wish to tamper too much with a winning formula but I feel that longer term planning is also important and feasible.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  10. 1 hour ago, Nasher said:

    Probably - I suspect I might have been ruined by that exercise of watching all the centre bounces last week, where I didn't see him lay hand on the ball in a ruck contest once. Need to recalibrate my views once I see him play a full game again.

    I may be having another senior "moment"- but do others see the potential for Jackson during some game time to play as our centre (even whilst Gawn is rucking)  with maybe Viney and Oliver alternating time on the wing (opposite to Langdon).  I like his distribution skills in getting the ball and feeding it out to others and might be a hard match up for some opponents with his height as well. It might also free up Viney from being crash tackled so much and take some pressure off Oliver being bashed and tagged so often. 

    Just a thought to vary things as an option. I wouldn't mind it being experimented with anyway.

    Someone on here said last week we do need to have Plan B , Plan C and I would add Plan D as other teams start to work us out - so varying things and changing things up might at least offer us options and build flexibility in the players.

    I'm open to others thoughts on this. 

    It might also be an option if the 3 talls in the Fwd line is working-Weeds, BB and Tommy Mac. It gives extra height around the ground without complicating the forward structure.

    • Thanks 1
  11. 1 hour ago, Deeminion said:

    If Tracc is out or a late out then who comes in to replace him? Sparrow?

    I might be a little left field here but I would bring in Jetta to back pocket, Hibberd to HBF and Salem into Petraccas spot in the middle or forward--basically let Salem take the role Petracca has and still cover the defence with experience.

    • Like 2
  12. To me, the biggest player loss would be Langdon. He is a key to  making the backlines efforts to get the ball out effective and to create a bit of  Opposition panic in getting the ball into our forward zone.

    I don't know how we would replace him effectively if he were to be injured. I believe there would be a significant drop off in defence effectiveness and forward delivery.

    • Like 6
  13. 3 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

    For this game, I thought so, too, deever. Whilst TMac's mark and goal in the dying seconds was very important and exhibited pure class, as well as good fortune, I really thought we won the game on Clarrie's last quarter of determined excellence. He cleared, created and carried us home - absolutely no doubt. 

    The rest of the team was important, too - supporting Clarrie to 'go for it' and enabled pathways for his efforts. A few players across the game were down but under constant pressure, some continuity of difficult games and good opposition tactics all take a respective toll.

    Great win just the same. Some focus still required to remediate weaknesses and centre clearances. Chandler might have been useful with his enthusiastic carry and attack as a teamed Chandler-Jordan assault. These two, with Kozzie nearby, are a source of talent and would be very difficult to stop. Eight  - Zero. Who would have thought?

    FWIW, I feel all the good defensive work is effective because of a most important link in the chain - Langdon.  His hard running to help out in defence or to create space and options on the wing is critical and is what translates the great defence into something.

    If he were out of the side I would worry that we would be getting out of trouble less often and the ball could easily be rebounding back putting immense pressure on our backs who have worked so hard to clear it. Can you imagine any replacement doing what he does. He means so much to this team.

    • Like 5
  14. 29 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

    IF Fritsch gets off:

    Out: Tomlinson, Baker
    In: Sparrow, Chandler

    Tommy Mc plays back. Brown/Fritsch/Jackson forward line.

    If Fritsch suspension is upheld/unchallenged:

    Out: Tomlinson, Baker, Fritsch
    In: Petty, Sparrow, Chandler

    FB: Hibberd  May  Tommy/Petty
    HB: Hunt  Lever  Salem
    C; Langers Petracca Gus
    HF: Spargo  Jackson  ANB
    FF:  Pickett  Brown  Fritsch/Tommy
    Foll: Gawn  Oliver JJ
    Int: Rivers, Sparrow, Chandler, Melksham

    I like your line up Dee Spencer. I think I would be happy with Petty down back and Tommy in the forward pocket and occasionally switching with Jackson at CHF or on the HFF.  I would like to see Rivers Sparrow and Chandler getting lots of game time. 

  15. As today's game has shown, every game from now on could be either seen as a danger game or one where we will not be favourites to win.

    There has  been some talk on the forums about  the need to be managing players. Always hard when you need your best team out on the oval. 

    But whether its physical or mental tiredness, players carrying niggling injuries and others bursting to get into the team , it is something that needs looking at. 

    Its a mix of strategic and  weekly operational planning and needs thoughtful decision making.  Chandler, Sparrow and Bedford  are three busting for game time and of course Petty now that Tomlinson is injured.

    Whilst I know this might not be popular., our defence  stocks are getting thin-maybe time to be giving Majak Daw some game time in the firsts even if it is off the bench.

    This might be of benefit instead of expecting or asking him to perform straight up if we do get another major injury down back and are forced to bring him in.. It might prepare him better with our game plan and getting used to the style and speed of the game again in the big league. Thats my two cents worth. (used to be my pennies worth until decimal currency came along). I know some will disagree with this last point but thats OK.

    • Like 1
  16. On 3/6/2021 at 5:07 PM, demonstone said:

    I think your memory may be playing tricks on you, 3031.  Big Carl debuted against Melbourne in the opening round in 1963.

    I think ur right there Demonstone. I keep going back to fixtures to see the year I saw  him and am still not sure. I only know it was at Junction oval as I was  given a free seasons ticket for the day by our school and sat right behind the goals. The S aints were so good in that game. :)

    • Like 1
  17. 3 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

    Big Carl had everything! There has seldom been a better example. Even in his sunset Demon career, he was an immense driving force. It is fully agreed that at 17 years of age, Carl was a little rough around the footballing edges but that had all vapourised by the time he reached 18 years. 

    I saw Carl  in his 3rd or 4th match totally dominate the Dees at Junction oval..with Stewart and Baldock on fire and Bob Murray kicking goals at full forward, they beat  us easily...though we did go on to win the flag later that year! 

  18. 1 hour ago, sisso said:

    We're screwed if that happens anyway as Max is worth 3 players to us - ruck, forward and defence. Daw wont help much would just be a big muscular block of wood who can't really play footy. He's bloody muscly though!

    Try this Sisso . Makes interesting watching. †here are other Majak daw highlights on youtube too.. 

     

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
  19. 7 hours ago, hemingway said:

    Interesting to look at the names in 59 & 60. 

    These teams had something. They were great teams, with team spirit, belief, grit and determination and mobility. They loved Norm who was inspirational and a great tactician. It only took a Norm Smith roast for the team to come out and lift after half time. 

    They had great players and leaders on the field.

    However, what strikes me is that the teams were also made up of good ordinary players. Not stars but players clearly playing a role. Players like Alan Rowarth, Dennis Jones, Trevor Johnson, Fenton Smith,  Len Mann, Clyde Laidlaw, John Lord, Brenchley etc. Some like Lord, Trevor Johnson and Fenton Smith were good overhead but slow on the ground. 

    I guess I am just thinking that you don’t have to have a team of stars to win a flag but you do need a champion team (sorry for the cliche). We sometimes think that the great Melbourne teams were composed of champions but this was not the case. 

     

    Well said Hemingway. I liked Alan Rowarth..Could play half forward flank and kick goals and the swing to full forward and do likewise.  I guess he really filled in after Athol Webb retired. Norm Smith seemed to use him abit like he did wth Barry Bourke a few years later-a small decoy full forward but one who could still kick goals.

    Thoose were the days of black shorts for home games at the G and I remember Alan coming out one day in shorts that must have been bleached as they had lost their black colour and turned  grey.

    Dad got Denis Jones' signature for me on his photo which also said "Keep your eyes on the ball Tim "

    All of the players you mentioned hold memories for me. The versatile John Lord who was such a strong mark.and Clyde Laidlaw-great CHF.

  20. Hi P2J   Yes-legends for sure. I was born in 1950 and sop lucky that Dad used to take me to matches at the MCG to see these guys-they have given me so many memories to carry through the years. I would love to meet some of them before we all pass on. :)

    • Like 5
  21. 22 hours ago, The Stigga said:

    I know last year was a right off but last year was 60 years since the 1960 premiership and I'm unsure if they still have these events with the surviving members.

    I can't recall any mention of it last year, not criticising, but thought I'd open it up for discussion.

    In my view, line by line, perhaps our greatest ever team?

    Thanks The Stigga-you got me keen to go back and look at  the selected sides and stats-gee 1959 and 1960 teams were so good. I can't pick between them. Was also amazed when I saw the emergencies for 1959 - players who didn't make the team-what a  line up:- Athol Webb  Trevor Johnson and Neil,Crompton :)


    Team
    B: John Beckwith (c), Tassie Johnson, John Lord
    HB: Geoff Case, Dennis Jones, Ian Thorogood
    C: Ian McLean, Laurie Mithen, Brian Dixon
    HF: Geoff Tunbridge, Clyde Laidlaw, Hassa Mann
    F: Ron Barassi, Alan Rowarth, Ian Ridley
    R: Bob Johnson, [censored] Fenton-Smith, Frank Adams
    S: Don Williams, Peter Brenchley
    Emg: Trevor Johnson, Neil Crompton, Athol Webb
    Coach: Norm Smith

    Scoring
    Barassi 4.3, R. Johnson 3.1, Tunbridge 1.2, Rowarth 4.1, Adams 3.1, Ridley 1.0, Mann 1.2, Rushed 0.3

    1960 

    Melbourne

    B:John Beckwith Tassie JohnsonTrevor Johnson

    HB:Geoff CaseJohn Lord b1937Ian Thorogood

    C:Brian DixonLaurie Mithen Bryan Kenneally

    HF:Geoff TunbridgeClyde Laidlaw Hassa Mann

    F:Bob B JohnsonAlan Rowarth Frank Adams

    Foll:Len Mann Ron Barassi Jnr  Ian Ridley

    Reserve(s):Brian Leahy Ray Nilsson

    Coach:Norm Smith

     
    • Like 1
    • Love 1
  22. As a boy we struggled a bit financially-for many years I kicked a plastic footy when my mates with their real "footies:"were not around. I didn't have a footy jumper so I wrote to the great man asking him for one of his. I posted it addressed to Ron via the club -in a scenario akin to sending a Christmas wish to Santa at the North Pole! 

    I received a lovely photo with his signature saying:- "Sorry no jumper Tim - I hope this will help." This has become more poignant now as I received this a week before his big move to Carlton was announced.

    He must have had a million things on his mind at the time. But thats Barass-he knew how important things like this were to young kids. A great man Ron-always an inspiration to me. :)

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...