jnrmac

I watched the game with a mate a we specifically watched the back six. They kept their structure for nearly all of the game and were brilliant. When Port got a fast break our buys ran back pretty much in formation and were rarely penetrated. They have trust in each other, know when to run off and in most instances didn't over-commit to a contest. If one of their team mates was there they hung back to provide an option having full faith that thier team mate would win or halve the contest. It was a very impressive performance. The one blight came from Oscar who otherwise had a terrific game; on a number of occasions he went to spoil and missed completely or he spoilt the ball into a very dangerous location in the corridor or into the goal square. I have seen Frost do that regularly but not so this week. Oscar need to clean that up. It didn't actually hurt us this week but had the potential to do a fair amount of scoreboard damage. If you are committing to a contest them make sure you hit the ball and kill it to a spot that won't bite the team on the backside. The first half dominance was incredible but we should have been 7-10 goals up. The game should have been over at half time but for our inability to really put our foot on their throats. But coming out of the blocks like they did it was one of the most satisfying and enjoyable wins I have seen, particularly given the circumstances of the week after Darwin, the number of players that were coming back into the side and the quality of the opposition.

wow. FYI JOnes has been able to run, a quad mainly affects the ability to kick. So fitness shouldn't be a great problem for him.

Anyone know why that spud Dixon was giving it to Nev on the ground?

You mean Charlie Dixon is a spud who could enter the Kent Kingsley hall of fame and score 5 goals against the Dees? Fair call I guess altho I would hope the Dees of 2017 are better than the teams of the last decade...

Ron When it comes to Brownlow 'favourites' or incubator teams like GWS, Sydney and GC it is hopelessly biased and compromised. You may be right with the inconsistencies but if it happens enough it is bias IMO. And if the media jump on an incident or conversely ignore an incident the MRP usually follows suit. Its almost like they don't want to suspend any player unless they really have to. The Zak Jones Hannan hit was a disgrace and bias in my view as were the Martin and numerous Cotchin jumper punches. Cunnington not getting cited was seen almost as a payback because Vince is a niggler. Ditto Bugg who was not afforded the 'good bloke' status of Houli. If the umps were consistent and paid frees and 50m penalties when they should the game would be in better shape with less tribunal cases to worry about becuase behavoural change from players would be rapid.. But they won't because they are under instructions from head office to keep the game moving.

Not sure whether that is right. In fact I'd be certain it isn't

The weakness of the club in defending its players - not the players actions per se - is galling. Even a murderer gets a defence yet we roll over and throw ourselves at the mercy of the MRP. Good luck with that. Bugg was treated like a leper and didn't deserve that. No-one went into bat for Bugg as a good bloke who stuffed up. It was frankly appalling. Our counsel, Findlay, didn't even try to argue a case for a reduced sentence based on precedent and the fact he had never been reported before. Vince is the same, no one from the club went into bat for Bernie, The club didn't argue insufficient force, intent or relativity to other incidents involving Melbourne players such as: Oliver getting elbowed from Schofield Hannan getting elbowed from Zak Jones and not even being cited Vince himself being punched in the guts that forced him to throw up on the boundary line and miss 11 minutes of the quarter. The club has got a lot of things right but the only tribunal hearing I can recall where they argued hard was Jack Vineys appeal. They need to review their set up for defending players pronto and they need to be way more public in their defence of their players. Its so freaking obvious the MRP is biased and that noise in the media dictates what sanctions get handed out. Cotchin and Martin are two prime examples. Brad Scott immediately went on the offensive when defending Cunnington over his hit on Vince, Where the hell are we?

Not in my view, Regardless of what ppl thought of the coach and the turmoil that was engulfing the club you simply couldn't have a player blatantly ignoring coaches instructions AND willfully co-opting others to go with a different plan which is how I understand the situation was. Notwithstanding gave his all for the club and played 166 games more than me..

I like your thinking...

Am thinking that Port will be somewhat confused with this side. Watching our tapes of the last month or so won't help them a lot...

Any word on Kent's injury? Is he having surgery?

We promised Tom Rockliff a rookie spot and instead took Liam Jurrah. As good as Jurrah was and as much as Rockliff is said to be a prat, Rockliff would have been a much better pick.

Said all year our defence is the weak link. Leaks goals too easily. Poor one on one pressure and key fwds like Tex, Buddy and Daniher kill us. Having said that our delivery to the fwd line was abysmal against Adelaide.

Gee thanks for that. The hypocrisy of the MR knows no bounds. From Dusty to Cotchin to Zak Jones elbowing Hannan and not even cited. They are the things that rile Demonland (and no doubt other supporters)

Apparently Dean is still in Darwin in the cool room. They forgot him completely. Its a little embarrassing but because he was looking so sad no one wanted to go in and speak with him. As a result the rest of the players have travelled back to Melbourne without him and in addition to Dean's shoulder injury he now has frostbite and will lose three limbs. He is hoping to return in round 23.

I stand corrected. From Wikipedia: After each round of the regular AFL season, three "mark of the week" nominations are determined by a panel of football experts. The general public can then vote for a weekly winner on the AFL website.[1][6] After the regular season's end, the title is given to a single mark, which is chosen by the All-Australian selection committee; the public is not given a say in the final outcome. The selection committee is not restricted to choosing a winner from the mark of the week winners; indeed, in 2010, the two favourites both came in round 21, and although the public voted Brendon Goddard as mark of the week, the selection panel named Jurrah as Mark of the Year. The winner is announced during grand final week.[6] GOTY Any one of the goals of the round is able to win the official Goal of the Year.

Wow only 3 players the same.

Oh it's mrs sanctimony back again. How's the view from the high horse?

Its Jack Watts like....

Tim Watson? A guy that was bets mates with all of those invoved in the EFC drugs saga and who brought up a child who took drugs and has been suspended fro 12 months and who has been campaigning relentlessy for the EFC to get off....? That Tim Watson? Goose.

How did Zak Jones get off for elbowing Hannan? Not enough force in the Betts incident. But if its a Melbourne player.... Did we use that useless beak Findlay again?

This sadly has a lot to do with it.

I gave up long ago trying to work out the MRP and its disgraceful bias. But this is [censored] outrageous.

Agree with both of these points. At normal speed you caould almost see the indecision in Bernie's eyes as he though "do I go for the ball" Do I bump" "do I jump out of the way" It's terrible that players are having to second guess these things and get penalised. Its a split second decision. I understand trying to protect the head (altho this is now unclear after the Schofiled incident) but it is taking a lot of instinct out of the game. My particular beef is the one where a player jumps on a ground ball only to be penalised for taking out a players legs. This rule was designed to stop the Goodes and Lyndsay Thomas' of the world sliding into players legs. I agree with that interpretation. But now any player that gets caught 'below' a players knees is in danger of giving a free away. While we are on it, TWICE on the weekend I saw a Melbourne player play opn from a mark only to be impeded by a Crow player that was within 10m of the mark. This is a clear 50m penalty and was not paid on either occasion. Happened last week when Hibberd played on and Silvagni was about 3m away. The umps are being selective about when they pay frees and it is damaging the game.

Holy fark I have read some dumb stuff on this website but this almost takes the cake. You really should see someone about your PC disease.