Dee*ceiving
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Dee*ceiving
-
I actually don't mind changing the rule but why not future date it? If there are potential draftees in the program and clubs have invested time and money into the program, why not at least let it reach maturity. Announce the rull change now to take effect after the 2026 or 2027 National Draft? Changing rules on the fly has hairs on it. -
Absolutely disgraceful how long SIA investigations take in this country, though I suspect i was similar in the US which lead the big leagues to seperate themselves from USADA. The AFL really should do the same and have fixed/bracketed punishments for positive tests for illicit drug use. Narcotics first offence = 2 weeks (for example). Second offence would be more, with it getting really lengthy after 3 and maybe contracts torn up at 4? Major League Baseball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_drug_policy
-
What a legend. Incredible athelete and a top bloke. I loved Wide World of Sports with he and Ken Sutcliffe on Saturday afternoons in the 90s!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not surprised at all. Fullarton and Verrall would play as ruckman and be outclassed by a very good ruckman. Petty, JVR and Turner will play a pinch hit ruckman, trying to nullify and add value on the ground. It's a big blow for TF but if he didn't know already he certainly knows now where he sits.
-
-
-
To combat the Bombers chip kick/mark non-contested footy strategy/strength would it be wise to set up a bit deeper defensively? Perhaps give them the chip kick in their defensive two thirds of the ground and fill/make small their offensive third? This will mean they will have to win contests in a smaller space to generate shots. They seem to be more dangerous in space than in one on one / two on two situations. Setting up further back defensively also gives us the potential to outnumber them in their forward line. With our recently unveiled younger players (Kolt, AMW) and ANB playing more across the middle we've got some extra pace to spread and hurt on the counter attack/slingshot than we did earlier in the year (eg. when Billings/Hunter/McAdam etc. were in the side).
-
I agree with your general sentiment Picket but I don't think you can leave Petty out just as a he starts to show signs of solid form, especially for a first gamer in a must win. He should have been dropped 6 weeks ago but he wasn't, the time has passed and his stats v Brisbane suggest he may have finally turned the corner 🤞
-
Petty's best game for the season was the Brisbane game, immediately before his injury, 15 disposals, 8 marks, 4 tackles. Thats a CHF game! Unfortunately the 0 goals 4 behinds is not a CHF game! But he'll definitely becoming back in. If Gawn misses, perhaps we pick the ruckman better at ground level out of Verrall and Fullarton, forgo the taps and focus on negating Draper/Goldstein by providing additional ground support?
-
Same Tracca, I note it made the news courtesy of Tom Morris today. The fact that it's been so quiet would make me think he's committed to stay on but they are ironing out the terms. Ed is of more value to us now in the Post Brayshay Era.
-
-
-
No one keeps him out Bub. I think the question is 'is he physically and mentally ready for senior footy or will he be better placed to succeed after a game or two for Casey?' We can only speculate. Jake will need to decide if he is mentally ready (suspect he's the type that will always believe he is!), and the FD will assess if he's done enough work to be physically ready to impact.
-
Melk will play the role Fritta played on Harris Andrews last week when he returns. Which will free up Fritsch to do some damage (& JVR & Petty 🤞). If he's physically fit and he says he's mentally ready I'd be ok with throwing him in this week. Start on the bench and can be subbed off if wavering after half time (injury permitting).
-
Jake is 32 I think. The knee does throw a spanner but for smart players that diligently maintain their fitness, 32 isn't as old as it used to be with modern high performance and medical. A lot more players seem to be still contribting at 35+ than we saw 10-20 years ago
-
Spot on. It was Stanley or Blicavs I think, v Geelong. The knee felled Max who was left rubbing his head (again) whilst Geelong whisked the ball away for a goal. Utterly ridiculous, amateur hour stuff (and/or corrupt umpiring)
-
Not malicous, but I'd query perhaps reckless and certainly avoidable. I would guess every key defender would have at least 1 or 2 chances each game to do some damage with a knee to someones back, but only 1 has managed to do significant damage, twice in the space of 3 weeks... To my knowledge Jake Lever has managed not to hurt someone with a well placed knee in 170+ games...
-
They did that last week. Fritsch played a selfless role to negate Andrews (who is a much bigger bloke than Fritta) and did damn well. To the extent that Petty clunked more marks than he has at any other time this year and Roo hit the scoreboard a couple of times. Fritsch also kicked a goal and missed a couple. That last shot was most unfortunate, didn't miss by much & he would generally nail it (and most importantly we might have managed a draw or even a sneaky win had he kicked it). Like a few others, signs were good v Brisbane. We'll know on Sunday if that form was fleeting or a sign of things to come.
-
To my eye, Darcy is choosing to insert his knee into his opponents back. I would argue he could have still spoiled effectively v Witts and Trac whilst having his knee avoid his opponents back, eg. Moore's knee passes by their left hip, or, Moore turns his body to the right so that his upper thigh/hip strikes his opponent in the back. The overarching rule and concept should be; All players have a duty of care for all other players on the ground Players taking any action, whether it be to contest the ball, in the air or on the ground, or shepherd /block for team mate must act in a manner that minimises the risk of their actions resulting in an injury to an opponent, even if this means risking their own well being Taking any action that results in an injury to an opponent, where in most circmstances an injury would not occur will be subject to investigation, repeat offence may attract discipline/punishment That's just a quick/simplistic wording trying to convey the concept... The word mimises is key for mine. This is a 180* turn from the 100+ year culture in footy where making an opponent 'earn it/feel it/regret it' has been a motivator/sign of strenght/badge of honour.
