Skuit

Can anyone make sense of this? 'He didn’t want me to stand still at stoppages and I felt that I had to be on the move…I felt that if you were on the move, it was harder to be tackled when you get the ball moving forward. We were butting heads all year,” the former Demon said.

I'm concerned there will be a little push-back from the public with the perception it may have hit the post. Stupid democracy.

Oh. We're talking about different occasions. The one I was referring to was the kick from half-back from Tyson.

It's possible then that I don't have a clear understanding of the holding the ball rule. He had prior opportunity but no chance to dispose of it once tackled and the ball was dead across the line. It contradicts when I think Jetta got a shove in the back toward the fence after the ball was out-of-bounds (my greatest bugbear - and so much more potentially dangerous than the bs frees paid for rolling onto the back in the tackle). Why is general play suspended when the ball goes out in that particular regard?

Sorry Bin - but I don't think that's the best bit of play to highlight. Tmac took quite a while to wheel around and load up when he saw Garlett on the open lead. Ended up putting it on our small-forward's head rather than a flat kick to advantage. Although Garlett can share some blame for running an angle away from the kicker - I think he expected Tmac to bomb long quicker and was hoping to run onto some of his bread and butter.

It's only passable due to our fast ball movement. The camera can't linger on that hideous logo.

If you want the umpires to not interfere with the play then you have to give them a clear exit out of the pack. This exit they have to take running backwards and blind at speed while trying to monitor the play. They need to be able to trust that no-one is in their path so they can back out confidently.

Never mind the tackle. If it's one I'm thinking of it shouldn't have been holding the ball and while the chase was fantastic the result came about because the Crows were in disarray at the time. Instead, look out for a centre clearance toward the end where he puts on a casual sidestep as he collects to release a clean handball to the open runner. A thing of beauty.

Garlett? Ankle?

It's not the Hawks and Freo games that bite. We played poorly and then couldn't get the job done in the last. We didn't deserve the wins. But the Geelong and Richmond games where we played well and dominated the majority of the game but were overwhelmed by early key injuries. Incredibly unlucky and it hurts. Those as wins might have also helped with 'belief' in getting over the line in the matches where we struggled. Woulda also meant a clean-sweep against once fancied top-8 sides.

Would love a PM as well if you have a spare moment Rafiki.

I'm thinking this comment may be a slight oversight. Though Adelaide Oval is nearly identical in total square meters to our new spiritual home of Ethiad. Which probably matters when you're running a high zone.

The other one was definitely on Nev though. Sucked into the contest for no good reason and left Betts alone with a heap of space in a dangerous spot. However, I think it may have given him a necessary wake-up.

Think Bernie may have taken a dive as well when he saw it was an ump on the ground.

Players must have been distracted by the delay.

Forgot about Melksham's holiday.

We probably need to talk about Wagner. I can't comment on his defensive efforts off the ball, but his disposal really hasn't been up to scratch since his return. Which I find odd, because I thought it was one of his stronger points last season. I would be happy to persist, as I think he has a future, but with Melksham waiting in the wings I can foresee an unforced change.

Full credit to Simon Goodwin for this one. If feels like the first time in long time that we went in against a specific opposition rather than just playing our game and hoping it will prevail. It was still our 'game', but we played it according to the opposition, and the team was extremely well-drilled and executed exactly where it needed to. Perhaps the training wheels are off, and we're ready to put all the elements together now and chase results? The flakiness at the top may have given us enough of a sniff to pull the trigger. Someone previously brought up the notion of smart vs dumb intensity (apologies to the poster who've I've forgotten). I've enjoyed our manic moments this season but this match demonstrated the difference. We dialed it back just a fraction from 11 but applied a consistent and grinding high-level of intensity almost all day to strangle them out of the contest. It felt like watching a seasoned football team apply the screws. We gave them no time and space and the Crows had no idea what to do. Everyone played their role, but we still had a number who didn't contribute all that much. The difference is what we've all been waiting for: our touted elite young talent all firing at the same time. Viney, Oliver, Petracca and Salem. I'm reminded of Brisbane of the early 00s somehow - not just a functioning midfield brigade, but a potential future midfield comprised of out and out individual champions. Yes, we have Hogan, and Hunt and other young talent, but we've shown what we can do if this core all clicks at once. And can we just leave Bernie as a full-time stopper? Is having a dedicated tagger uncouth nowadays or somehow perceived as a weakness or negative/defensive football? Bernie has proven again that he is really good at it, it works, and is probably now his most useful 'position'. Let the opposition distract themselves working out how to shake it. And Tmac. What to do? He's the type of forward we need - not just as a pinch-hitter but when Hogan is around as well. The thought of Omac and Frost leading our defence to date would have been a horrifying one. But I'm not sure that having Tmac back there makes it really any less so. The match reports have all referred to us coming back from 26 points down. This barely even registers with me anymore.

It's a puzzling one. Has the forward-line functioned better in his absences? Are we less predictable and lower the eyes going in? Do we trap it in better and disrupt opposition exit strategy? If that were the case then it would bear out in the stats - overall points for - goals/scoring shots per i50 etc. It doesn't. Nor can Hogan's absence really account for us turning up for four quarters and being ferocious in the contest across the ground. Unless we lift because we think his absence is that detrimental that we have to play out of our skins? But we've also lost matches in a crappy fashion recently without Hogan and won others in a dominant way with him on board. Coincidence can be the only real conclusion.

5) Goodwin.

Can't wait till we put together a four-quarter effort. This three-and-a-half-quarter business is seriously hurting our percentage.

Seems we have another model. Irrespective of the spare parts.

Not sure. But I could consult the Carlton Draught AFL Guidelines to find out for certain.

Is it odd that I'm disappointed this has nothing to do with beer? I feel like the brewing companies would have profited handsomely from Demons supporters over the past decade and it's only fair to give a little back. Anywho - this is surely a bail-out from a [censored]-up, right?

Could never understand why they named a cleaning product after an ancient Greek warrior. Then realised the agency must have misinterpreted the 'tough on grease' copy-brief as 'tough in Greece'.