sue

I wonder why the club thinks the words written on the whiteboard behind Goodwin's head around 2:15 are so top secret they need to be smeared in the video below. The pause button reveals all. If that is our top secret plan, then we are in trouble. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/743075/rd-6-game-film?videoId=743075&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1594711800001

Agree. But in D*9's defense, there are a few posters who seem to take more delight about things that go wrong with us and glee when they are proved right (and silent when wrong) than seems quite healthy.

Just re-viewed the first quarter. A lot of barracking for GCS by the commentators and stupid comments about McDonald's eye being injured, both the non-existant delay and the injury to the" retina". Now I'm no anatomist, but if someone scratched his retina they'd be little left of his eye at all. Re the kicking-out not varying, I guess if Max is dominating why would you do anything else but kick it to him? Must be highest probability of success. I'll be interested to see where it is kicked when he is not dominating. I don't think we are as regular with this as some have made out.

It's clear that players from all teams are moving to position to receive the ball after they handball to another player A, rather than providing a block to ensure the player A has time and space to dispose of it effectively. Leads to a lot of circular handballing and turnovers. But it must work or coaches wouldn't have players doing it. I'd have inexpertly thought it leads to players not bothering to block even when there would be no chance of them geting the ball back.

Umpiring! You know it is really bad when Melbourne gets a free and I shout 'that is ridculous'. Unfortunately most of the bad decisions/non-decisions went the Suns' way. This new 'interpretation' of holding the ball is absurd. Umpires may as well toss a coin. Seems if they can see the ball it is just no prior opportunity and a ball-up, but if they can't see the ball it is 'no attempt to dispose'. The AFL is run by idiots.

Maybe because the lack of numbers would make the artificial crowd noise seem laughable.

I agree about not wanting multiple changing angles. But there are far too many close-ups. Medium wide with occasional wide shots replacing the regular checks on the shaving skills of players who have marked the ball.

Agree about the commentary, but I'm surprised you are happy with the camera angles. I'm in total agreement with the criticisms listed in the article. Yesterday there was a few times when all we saw was a ball bouncing on a green(ish) background.

It seems so easy to fix. At least they should try it for a few matches involving clubs who have no chance of making the eight. I mean the camera angles. There is no way to fix the commentators.

A lot to like in this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-11/what-if-broadcasters-are-the-source-of-afl-image-problem/12437678 (Mods: couldn't find an existing topic, merge please)

If the player kicking out could signal to other that he is kicking it down the middle and all the other backs who were trying to make space for a short/medium kick immediately ran to pick up the nearby forwards rather than avoid them, then even if the ball came back in you'd be prepared. Then the odds may favour the kick up the middle being done more often.

I presume the OP's title is asking how bad we are now compared to previous years or maybe to other clubs. IMO it is madness to assume either question can be sensibly answered yet (although it is clear we are not good).

Come on. Richmond have an 'enforced' policy of appearing jokey before games. Anyway after their recent previous performances they would be unlikely to take any team lightly. There are lot os reasons for kicking us, but let's not look for evidence beyond the bleedingly obvious.

I doubt it. I think it would lead to a big hole in your life. The club will improve as it has from time to time, but it may never do better than making up the numbers and the odd final series. Sad to say I could live with that. Cue posters saying my attitude is the cause of our status. Cue me saying balderdash - I have no influence. (Cancelling membership would be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Would just lead to your disband option.)

Excellent post Deanox. One issue not addresed is the fitness of players enabling coaches to cause low-risk congestion. We've had suggestions of fewer players, less rotations etc. Here's a new one - longer quarters! And increase the length again if players continue to get fitter. Take that AFL.

There’s not much fairness hereabouts. But I see the GC who have passed us according to the doomsayers don’t seem to be losing to Cats by just a few points.

I do so often, probably more than is good for my mental health.

thanks, but the problem where I am is the other way around. I can only get the radio through digital (either through an app or on my digital radio), and the digital radio is commentary is behind the TV video. I guess I could sync them on something like Kayo where I can pause the video and let the radio catch up, but not on the unpausible free-to-air (where removing the unplausible commentators is most desirable).

I'd love to do it, but I always find the radio is well behind the visual play on the TV. Am I doing something wrong?

Yes but surprisingly they still haven’t made a collection of different crowd noises for different circumstances and trained someone how to use it.

A lot of interesting points here: How did we arrive here? Who, or what, is to blame? And is there a solution? Jonathan Horn breaks down the game’s current malaise An increasingly hard sell: just what has happened to AFL football?

Sorry to disappoint, but 4 weeks is not a fair whack compared to Spargo's 2 - a youngish non-leader got rubbed out for 2 weeks for a far less serious offence than those committed by a senior VC (leader++) of C'wood. I'm staying unrelaxed about the penalty being only 2 more weeks. If Spargo was 1 week and Koz one week or fined, then maybe 4 would be a 'fair whack'. And C'wood are still whinging, though at least they finally decided against appealing.

But it was just Malcom's pants, no?

True That's why I suggested Ralph's article was ironic. But I guess my post suggesting he didn't intend irony was ironic.

Sounds a tad ironical