BoBo

WOW.

I seem to remember at the beginning of last year, (about 3 rounds in?), King was using our forward line as an example of why we are so dangerous and hard to defend against. It was footage of essentially our entire forward line in constant motion which stretched out defenders so they couldn't converge on the incoming ball. Options everywhere. Why did that stop? Now I watch Melbourne and it's majority bomb it 20 meters out with very little movement on the whole. Maybe get that cracking again? Get one of Bowie/Mcvee/Salem up the ground to allow for better entries to our forwards and for gods sake go back to the method that was lauded at the beginning of last year?

Dunno, that loss to a [censored] Freo side at home certainly cost us more than Port beating Essendon….

UURRRGGHHHH, Yeah I forgot about that but was losing my [censored] at the time.

I don’t know how big of an undertaking it is, but I’d love to know what our F50 efficacy to goals is, based upon teams finishing in the top 8 against other teams also finishing top 8, since 2018. I know we have a reputation for scoring big and fast at times, but how does this stack up as an average year by year against other top 8 sides? It seems like this has been a consistent criticism of us for many, many years. I distinctly remember listening to G. Lyon talking about this problem as far back as 2018. Our 2021 year seems an aberration in this regard. All good if I’m asking for too much.

That and the kick along the ground from 40 out that wasn’t given because Toohey was within 20 meters of the ball. Not blaming the umpires for the loss but [censored] me, obvious free kicks getting let go.

Spot on. This has been a constant criticism (apart from a premiership year) of us since 2018.

Absolutely.

I wonder what our F50 efficiency against top 8 sides has been since 2018? Anybody know a way to look this up as I’m struggling to be able to find it?

Yeah he should’ve taken it obviously. Doesn’t take away that Geelong have deliberately taken him out in all other instances.

WOOOOOWWWWWWW

To be fair, there has been a tall Geelong player right on him every time it goes near him in the air. They’ve taken him out of the game aerially and it’s showing.

Surely this is on track for most smothers in a half by ONE TEAM

Genuine question, is the AFL (by threat of litigation) in 10 years time going to look more like a semi-contact Gaelic football? Is that where this is going?

Huh, interesting. Clarkson leaves the game on mental health issues a couple of weeks before the investigatory panel is finished, then once it’s finished, a week later he’s in the fold to come back.

Was a tense 2-3 seconds of silence whilst Lewis was trying to figure out what Maxy was saying.

Maxy got back into form the second half of that game I felt. Started taking big grabs again. Good signs for him. He plays well, everyone else plays well. Onwards to the pies.

Nah we got this. It’s not pretty, but we’ve got this.

I'm honestly relieved when he has the ball. You know it's going to be a good result.

WTF is with our skills????? Doesn't even look like that high a pressure game????

That's one of the softest free kicks I've ever seen.

Dropped $50 on Carlton at $2.92 to win. Can't take a loss tonight without some kind of upside so $50 to pay for a win seems like a no brainer! Go dees!

Yeah but this isn't a rule that people follow consistently. Literally NOBODY actually holds the standard of 'accusations are only accusations' in all situations. People will sway one way or the other given the information they have available to them at the time. To hold this as a standard across all situations will take you into places you don't want to go.

Yes you agree with me then. The process has been abandoned before it's completion and therefore the statement is one that is implicitly saying there is nothing provable nor is there anything exculpatory for the panel to express. Hence why I said, nothing is proven or disproven and we are at the exact same stage last year when the panel was created in the first place. Some people are misunderstanding this situation to mean 'the allegations are not true', which, isn't the case. (For what it's worth, there are high profile cases where accusations are rightly treated as substantive. I'm NOT saying that applies in this case, but that sentiment is not a consistent truism. Again, not saying that applies here.)

Given the panel was there to advise the AFL and because the panel investigation did not conclude in its process, but was agreed by the complainants to end the process, then that is for Gil to announce. The core line that Gil said that jumped out at me was ‘No adverse findings have been made’ His announcement would have been combed over by lawyers so the specific language that ‘no adverse findings have been made’ suggests that the investigation is halted before it could complete its work (from all the reasons you mentioned). He didn’t say ‘no adverse findings have been established’ or ‘there are no adverse findings at the conclusion of the investigation’. Instead the statement is: the panel is not stating any adverse findings. So essentially we are at the exact same place we were last year when the panel was announced that nothing has been proved or disproved.