Gawndy the Great

We will lose at least 1 game in that run. Heck even if it’s just to get the loss we have to have out of the way. The perfect season just puts to much unnecessary mental pressure on the group.

I think the entire game plan was to negate. It was a bit of a shame they didn’t take it on more. Those dinky kicks from HB are very much Geelong like and we know that brand doesn’t stand up. I think Noble is in a bit of trouble tbh - Every rebuilding team should be modelling their game on ours (defensive) in the first few years (ala Roos) and build offense from there. They play a different style each week - today was one-on-one and uncontested. Two things you don’t see in finals footy.

I tend to agree. The head is sacrosanct but the ribs are fair game. He got the free which is just about what it is worth. If it was concussion, then it’s 2 weeks.

We’re either any good in junior footy? Who else do we have up and coming?

I think he’s role changed after the Lingers injury to the defensive wing, hence the numbers. Viney in for Dunstan If no other injuries.

Would happily swap him for any one of TMac or Weeds. Naughton will be a star he just doesn’t have a partner in crime atm.

His technique is poor. He needs a bit more momentum in his run up to correct his bad habits. even his snap was shocking, which should at least get a score. Something to work on with choco .

6 Clarry 5 Trac 4 May 3 T Mac 2 lever 1 Sparrow and Spargs

I’m hearing ribs for Lingers. Probably won’t know more until he has some scans. If it’s just bruising he could still miss a week or two.

The instructions from Noble are to hurt us and make it physical. Some old school coaching when they know they can’t beat you with talent alone. Im surprised that Norf have lasted this far into the game.

And one thing you can count on in finals is defensive pressure and a hugely contested performance from the Dees across all 4 quarters.

Yep I’d lose my 💩if that was Melbourne playing. You pay that, as it should have been, It’s 3 points with about 3 mins to go and the Swans probably win it from there. Blues got away with it tonight.

I’d say the Blues are choking more.

Umps terribly one sided. They are gifting this game to the Blues.

Bold prediction: Kennedy won’t come back this year. That hammy looked serious. Swans need to lock this game down and make the Blue defend more than 10 seconds. Blues will run out of gas but it’s a bit too out of reach for the Swans.

I get where you are coming from and if there was no televised coverage where thousands of impressionable kids were watching, then i wouldn't have too much of an issue with either. Fact is, it is televised and as such AFL players (whether they like it or not) have a responsibility back to the community to behave in a way that promotes good sportsmanship and acceptable behavior. Most workplaces would also have a code of conduct, which promotes acceptable behavior and treating colleagues with respect. If Luke Parker doesn't like that, then he can get out of the kitchen.

Eddie McGuire was the host of Footy Classified no? Is that who you meant or Hutchy?

Culture is everything. Good cultures can help those players going through tough times - think Dusty @ Tigers as a recent example. It is not really surprising to see Walla depart the sinking ship of the Bombers. Some might see this as a sign of weakness, but if he is going through some tough times, then this is the last place he needs to be. Hopefully he finds some balance and happiness outside of footy.

I know it’s not the intent of this thread but I wasn’t a big fan of Parker’s antics for a couple of reasons. 1. If we are serious about bullying then this behaviour qualifies. Many will say it’s part of the game and game of men etc etc. But I always come back to thinking about the kids that see this and how that behaviour can be used against more vulnerable children at school or on the footy field. I’m sure Dylan can handle the heat but after watching u10s was shocked as to how much the kids mimic afl players from umpire abuse, diving, etc. 2. it’s disrespectful and unprofessional behaviour that has no place on the footy field. I’m sure Horse has told Parker off that this isn’t what footy is about and you must respect your opponent no matter the circumstances.

A quick summary of the first 18 pages. Reasons stay 1. Chance of a Dees dynasty 2. happy wife / happy life. They’ll get married I’m sure but same rules apply for GF. 3. Golfing Mecca (RMGC, Peninsula etc). Only golfing tragics will understand why this places so high. I contemplated putting this at #2 but he is not married yet. 4. Family is here (albeit this could also go in the reasons to go) 5. Gets to play different roles (let’s face it in the common workplace doing the same thing week in / week out , is usually reason to go) - cheeky I know 6. in the leadership group. Future Captain after Max ? Reasons to Go 1. More $$$ 2. Get to play inside mid. It’s never a guarantee. We all know what happened to Howe. 3. Get to play with bro. Only if a deal with Freo can be reached. Not sure if I missed anything.

My guess is that we will not challenge because its Chandler. The MRO is broken and we have seen several times this year some very contentious calls. Id go as far as saying that at least 1/2 of the MRO decisions have warranted some level of scrutiny by fans and the media. That is not a very reassuring sign of a smoothly operating department.

Can’t we pull out the old cliche ‘it was a footy action’ ? which is how Hawkins got off. As many have said no issue with the suspension- you don’t want concussion in the game. But someone needs to explain how and why Hawkins one was different.

Goody absolutely gave Viney the 5 as Goody puts defence first and Viney nailed the defensive role all night. I can understand Simos 0 because he would only see the offensive damage caused and Trac lit up with his score involvements 29 touches and 2 goals, which should have been 4.

We can definitely use the Hawkins as precedent. That is very similar, the only main difference is that Chandler left the ground. I can see that [censored] of a QC Gleeson taking this line of argument.

You are right, yes it did - but does that make it ok? Its the action that should be scrutinized.