Chook

Why shouldn't I admit when I'm wrong? I don't think it's very good form to make dumb jokes about a guy when he's just said he was a little harsh. I don't have any reputation to save, and have no illusions of that. I'm just a faceless football forum geek - and so are you. So get off your high horse and recognise that it really wouldn't matter if I made good or bad calls on anything, so I don't know where you get this "good move" rubbish from. Frawley was good on the week-end, but his poor disposal at times cost us goals. That's a fact, but I guess I was too damning of those errors and didn't recognise the other good things he did. Any other smart aleck comments?

Now you're just being silly, substituting "Watts" for anything that sounds even remotely similar.

Before you lay the boots in, recognise that I've since changed my opinion and apologised for being so wrong. But he did make some crucial errors on the week-end. I'd not drop him now though.As I said above: Posted 05 April 2010 - 03:12 PM I obviously was way too harsh on Frawley after the game and should have reserved my judgment until I watched the replay on Fox. Sorry and thank you to all those people who called me out on it. I was certainly wrong about him. But he still had a couple of crucial turnovers that resulted in goals, despite his otherwise fab defensive game. I want to set the record straight and say I think Frawley is an awesome player, and if it weren't for these crucial mistakes today, I would have put him in our best. Such is the nature of being a defender that errors just become so much more costly due simple to where you're playing. I know this from experience.

That's true. He was. When Bail got it, Petterd started sprinting to the goalsquare and was just run down by Dayne Beams which put him off the mark.

The MCG is my Church, Dean Bailey my God, and Bate my Master. Amen.

His "mistake" there put the ball right in the hot-spot, where it was quickly snapped up by a player who sent it straight to Rohan Bail. Bail then put it right back to the goal-square rather than kicking a goal himself. Even if he had missed, we would have at least gotten the two points. But he put it to Petterd, who failed to take the mark. Any number of mistakes were, as you say, made in that passage of play, but Rohan Bail is touted as one of our best on the weekend. Ricky Petterd, whose turnovers cost us two goals, is widely proclaimed best-on-ground. But perennial whipping-boy Bate is condemned based on that mistake which, when thrown together with the ungainly way he looks when playing, makes him appear far worse than he is. Bail was good, Petterd was great, and Bate was also good, but he doesn't get the credit for it. The fact is that even though Bate "cost us the game" by putting the ball to the top of the goal-square rather than hitting Petterd (which he obviously should have done), we still would have won if Bail had kicked the goal, would have drawn at least if he had kicked the behind, and would have won if Petterd had taken the simple mark. I put it to you that nobody can cost you a game if, even after the mistake, you still could have won. Many mistakes are made in a game of footy, some right at the end, but that shouldn't discount all the other great things that were done by every player on the ground. I have and will continue to defend Matthew Bate because he is a great link-man in a lot of our inside 50s and he rarely turns the ball over in parts of the ground where turnovers are dangerous. And that's even when he's not fully fit. Out of curiosity, is there anyone you think had an underrated or overrated game on the week-end? I'm not asking so I can pick it apart, I'm just curious.

If the players did that, I'd be mad at them. But what's the harm in me doing it? It's not as though my attitude will affect how the players play.

It still is tough. Just not "boxing match" tough. More like "marathon while being attacked by ninjas" tough. And no I wouldn't. I worship McKenzie as much for the way he tackles as the frequency of his tackles. He knows what a tackle's purpose is: to dispossess someone of the ball. It is not to injure them.

Totally agree. As the week has gone on, I've managed to watch the game on two more occasions, and the backup that Newton gave, both in the ruck and in the forward line, was much better than I had thought after my first viewing. There's no way I'd drop him after we nearly won. I'd give Strauss a run at Casey and bring in Sylvia to replace him. If we want to bring in Rivers and/or Garland, I could see dropping Jones (because of his poor disposal and lack of speed) and/or Bennell (but only if it will help him with his hardness, not "punish" him for his mistakes). But the problems with doing that might be that we create a little imbalance bringing in two taller defenders for a midfielder and a speedy player. So I'd end up just doing the following: INS: Sylvia OUTS: Strauss

Yeah, but it's hard to break someone's leg with any kind of tackle. It's much easier to hurt their shoulder, which "Gorilla" Guerra has done before on a number of occasions. Besides, do you think Nathan Brown blames Matthew Whelan for breaking his leg. Accidents happen. But they happen more often if you're reckless - and Brent Guerra is reckless in his tackles.

He does a bit. He also looks a bit like Stephen from Survivor: Tocantins if anyone else watches that show. I've also seen him compared with that squirrel thing from Ice Age.

Yeah. If anything, Footy Classified ripped off the OP, the esteemed Mr. frank Rugolo - whoever that is.

From footywire, as edited by Chook: 2009 VS ADELAIDE Moloney, McLean, Morton Davey, Bruce, Jones Sylvia, Frawley, Petterd Rivers, Johnson, Bennell McDonald, Warnock, Bartram Jetta, Bate, Dunn Meesen, Miller, Newton, Martin 2010 VS COLLINGWOOD Grimes, Davey, Bail Green, Bate, Bartram Moloney, Bruce, McDonald Macdonald, Warnock, McKenzie Bennell, Frawley, Dunn Petterd, Scully, Jones Strauss, Newton, Trengove, Jamar INS: GRIMES, BAIL, GREEN, MACDONALD, MCKENZIE, SCULLY, TRENGOVE, JAMAR, Strauss OUTS: MCLEAN, MORTON, Johnson, JETTA, Meesen, Miller, Martin, RIVERS, SYLVIA Those in caps are who I would consider possibly in our best 22 if available tomorrow. Also note that Rivers and Sylvia, who are listed in the OUTS, both have a strong chance of returning to our team vs Adelaide.

What in God's name are those? Some sort of artificial sunlight generators or something?

I nearly fell for that trap, but notice the "a". This is just the poster's subtle suggestion that people get Ricky PettErds name right.

Excellent. I was scouting them on TV on the week-end, and noticed that he was not right. Something wrong with his knee. Burton was poor too, so that should go in our favour as he's killed us many at time over at AAMI.

I'd say that it's up to the players. If the Adelaide players think they have the wood over us because of last year, and our players sort of agree with that, then we'll go backwards, but if the Crows are worried about their current form and how they played against Sydney, and we go into the game confident about how we played against Collingwood, then we might have the edge. And another thing could happen. We could go into the game worried that we'll revert to how we played against Hawthorn, causing us to get nervous. Any one of these things will happen, and maybe a combination of each. So you all might be right.

Wow. Brad Miller was a star. Brock McLean was going to win a Brownlow and Captain the Club. What else were we thinking would happen at the end of that year?

I thought Matthew Bate cost us the game. Or maybe it was Bail. Or Bailey. Or the umpires. Or Bennell. Or Bruce. Or McDonald. Or Jamar. Or . . . A hundred things happen in a game of footy. Why pick out the bad things a person does at the end of a game when they did so many good things earlier? And this goes for everyone. And besides, I don't count a handball over the 50 metre line to the opposition as a "clearance" anyway. If you gained anything by getting it out of scoring range, you almost immediately lose it by giving the ball straight back to your opponents so they can set it up again or waste time. That's why I really judge people harshly if they're inaccurate when kicking for goal. If you kick a behind, you essentially cost your team a goal that they worked so hard to set up, and you give the ball straight to your opposition so that they can get it out of your dangerous area and set up their own attack. Sometimes, it can cost your team 11 points (5 for the goal you missed and 6 for the goal your opponent might score on the rebound). I'd much rather hang on to the ball if at all possible. But of course then you risk losing possession for no reward.

Rohan Connolly? Joke.

I thought that too until the weekend, but I made him a focus of my attention and was surprised at the number of defensive 50 clearances he was involved in. Not just "clearances," but productive, creative, goal scoring rebounds. For me, it was actually Frawley who surprised me by his rock-solid defensiveness.

This is what I think too. As long as you have something that tells you whether you missed or not (could even be witches' hats), then that's good enough. Obviously not preferable though.

LOL! GOLD. "Whoever reaches the carpark first gets a free validation. Ready, set, go!"

I think that comment was directed at me. I've been his only real supporter this week, it seems, and have said a few things about him in the Lynden Dunn thread. But the basic gist of what I was saying there is that he got himself involved in a number of our goals, and when he screwed up, I didn't feel that his mistakes cost us in terms of goals or inside 50s (whether they be turnovers that cause the ball to leave our 50 or enter our opponent's), which I value more than anything else, since if you don't get the ball close to goal and keep it there, how can you expect to win?

Competitive: 1 Reasons we lost vs Hawthorn: Good first five mins, but slow, confidence dropped, second to the ball, didn't take risks, didn't switch the footy. Second half: Broke even, but that doesn't matter when you don't start well. When you're a young team, early opportunities and scoreboard pressure = you gain confidence. That's what happened vs the pies. Unbelievable effort from Moloney to win the ball back vs 2 pies in the last 30 secs. Gave props to Grimes for his composure to find Green to get the ball out of our d50 in the last minute. Effort fantastic. Disappointing not to get 4 points. Spoke to leaders today about setting that standard for effort for the next 20 games. Reasons we improved: Much better games from players w/<80 games. Going to be inconsistent, but we have to be close to the mark we set on Saturday. Satisfied with leadership of Bruce and McDonald (knowledge and advice), Green (leading from the front w/broken jaw last year/KO'd last week), Rivers. Davey really set himself 18 months ago to make something of his career. Leaders do great work with our younger players. On Lyon's comment last week: "Not disappointed with comments. Not distracted by anything." "Was extending your contract wise?" "Absolutely, because of my background and the amount of debate and work I do with Cameron Schwab. Taken a huge risk going down draft path and we'll stick by it because we know it will work." "Grant Thomas said you'd be a good assistant coach." "Win/loss don't mean jack when looking at a coach. My work with the young players is why I'm a good coach. When you change a footy club like I have, that's brave + bold, which is the best form of leadership." "Crappy facilities?" "Yep, but we're doing the best with what we have. Gettting new facilities soon, and goal posts next week. We have the posts, but no net." GARRY: "Yes the facilities are crap, but they are doing everything they can to fix it." Young kids: Scully, Trengove, Grimes good. McKenzie awesome. Jack Watts: First real pre-season, attitude, work ethic great. Takes a while for taller players to adapt to work load. Played two halves at Casey. Will play senior footy this year but won't play until 3 or 4 good VFL performances. Bailey sits down and talks with Jack about comparisons with Naitanui and Jack has a good, mature attitude about those comparisons. Frustrated not to be playing, especially when he sees Sculgove and some of our other guys. VS ADELAIDE: Went and saw them play. Huge chance to win. 1 day extra break, in good form, but need the same application as we had against the Pies.