RalphiusMaximus

I'm not a huge fan to be honest.  I know he's done well against us, but we play to his strengths.  He's fast and can do some damage on the outside, but I think his disposal is suspect under pressure (so doesn't fix one of our big problems) and I think he's a bit soft.  Let North keep paying his salary and poach their #2 pick from this draft in two years. 

I don't know if this has been mentioned here and can't be bothered reading back to check, but there was an age article a few days ago that said we have had the least membership refunds of any club this year.  Less than 100.  We may not have the biggest membership base, but we have the best. 

I just have this feeling the the Hawks are going to pick him up for a fourth round pick... 

Well, we have one forced change in Sparrow.  Easiest would be to just bring Jones back on, but if he's not quite right with his quad maybe it's time to give Jordan a look.  The coaches have been saying for a while that he's ready, so this looks like a good chance to get his feet wet. 

The other thing is that traditionally the Saints have troubled us with outside pace by simply belting the ball into space in the certain knowledge that all of our mids have come in to the contest and they will have free players on the outside to run away with it.  We need to get some outside run into the side for balance.  Hannan might be able to fill that role to some extent, so maybe no other changes.  If we do see more, it needs to be pace. 

21 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I think the AFL could stamp it out by saying if a player is punched behind play, then they are are given a "free punch back" where they can retaliate with an equivalent hit, and avoid suspension on the basis that the other player punched them first. 

Simple.

But that punch they are retaliating for (from a prominent player) wasn't classified as a "real" punch, so the retaliatory punch (by a no-name player) is now deemed to be the first punch and therefore indictable. Given the players blatant abuse of the system, we will be doubling the penalty.

So they wait until the favoured few have cashed in then decide to change the system before anyone else can?  Is that about right? 

I do think that Melbourne hasn't done enough with our zone though.  There's a huge African migrant community that we haven't tapped into at all.  We should have put a lot of time and effort into clinics in the SE region to identify and develop the best of the talent we have access to.

OK, I just want to get this out first.  Preuss did a great job.  His first game for the season coming up against one of the big AA rucks and while he didn't break even he certainly put in a good contest.  24 Hitouts to 35 and 12 disposals to 15.  That's a really good game against Grundy, especially keeping his disposals down. 

I'm pretty sure Melbourne is happy with the list at the moment.  We have depth across the board with the possible exception of the ruck.  Could probably do with drafting another project ruck to bring on for five years and there are a few people who will be cut loose, but overall we're looking solid. 

I think he'll poll, but not at the top.  Generally it takes a year or so for the Umpires to catch up.  Lachie Neale had a huge season last year, and now he's no doubt well ahead in the voting.  Next year we can expect Petracca to get some love. 

6. Oliver

5. Petracca

4. Brayshaw

3. Weideman

2. Lever

1. Pickett

Brayshaw - Allergic to Viney. 

What an absolute crock.  His only other option was to let the guy go.  No AFL player is ever going to do that. They like to talk about the tackler having a "duty of care" to the person they are tackling.  What about the person being tackled and their "duty of care" to themselves?  If Hammill had just dropped to the ground and accepted the tackle then he wouldn't have been hurt at all.  It's no more absurd than telling us that the tackler has to let him go rather than forcing him down when he fights to escape the tackle. 

I really hope the club stands up here and challenges this verdict.  Precedent and consistency don't mean anything to the AFL, but they do to the courts. 

Well, I'm happy with a comprehensive win, but we need to remember that Adelaide are setting new standards for a bad season. 

I was really happy with the way Oliver was hitting the packs at pace and breaking away with the ball rather than dishing off.  It's what the dominant mids do while he has tended to look for the really quick dish off which often gets us into trouble.  I do wonder if he saw the media speculation from certain individuals about his trade value and felt the need to make a point.  We haven't seen him dominate like that before. 

As for Jackson, I'm reminded of a pre-season game I went to.  I was chatting to a random fellow supporter on the fence about how Jackson had played so far.  Consensus was that there was something there, lots of speed and agility and good ground-balls, but his two-grab hands were a problem.  The young lady who does running was in front of us and she piped up and told us that Jackson was going to be fine and "Burgo" calls him The Ferrari.  It's looking like she was spot on.  He and Weideman are getting some nice chemistry going now and the forward line is looking functional with them working together. 

It was also a bit of a thrill to see Gus playing some decent football again in the second half.  I don't know what it is with his game, whether it's a position thing or he and Viney get in each other's way, but while Viney was off the ground Gus dominated. 

6 hours ago, CHF said:

• It’s just hit me. The realisation that the best player at our club could be a 35yo mother of two, if we had one.

Ours is 32

9 minutes ago, A F said:

I don't understand the praise for Sparrow tonight. He's a young kid trying to make his way. He took a really important contested mark at one point, but other than that he did very little.

Why are we crowding our midfield set up when it's clear as day that Brayshaw is damaging (and has proved to be A grade) when he plays in the midfield and is completely lost when he's outside of it.

Playing Sparrow also meant that someone like Petracca played less midfield minutes tonight in order to give Viney and Gus their minutes as well. It doesn't make sense unless they're trying to keep the mids fresh.

Sparrow looks really uncertain to me.  He's capable, but every time he gets the ball he immediately looks for a senior player to give off to rather than trying to make something happen himself.  Once he gets it into his head that he's allowed to try things for himself I think his game will improve out of sight. 

Was also really happy with Gus in the second half.  Did Viney cop a knock or something?  It looked like he was off for a lot of the last and Gus thrived with the inside role. 

WTF is Langdon doing?  HE sees the turnover on our HF line and for some idiotic reason every single time he starts stalking forwards towards the ball carrier and leaves his man wide open on the wing.  How many times have they gone over his head tonight? 

So at the opening bounce Viney is held off the ball to the point of being dragged to the ground.  Without a call, Sparrow comes in to try to get the ball Viney would have, is tackled and wrapped up and it's HTB to Port.  WTF are these Umpires doing? 

I really wish Jackson would just take the shot himself.  He's so intent on passing it off that he's ignoring his opportunities.  He was wide open there with all the time in the world to wheel and line up a shot, and he passed back out of the 50 to a teammate under more pressure than he was. 

No HTB for Melbourne... 

And saying that we get one finally. 

Lockhart is showing a lot of fight.  We have a couple who are putting in and trying to lift the team. 

FMD, Viney bombs to the Hoff in the goalsquare... 

Got away with one there.  Good contested work from Brayshaw. 

It's not looking good.  There's no spark there tonight.  They're going through the motions but the tackles are half-hearted, they're not crashing in to get the ball and disposal is loose.  We won't win this one. 

1 minute ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I spoke to Steve Hocking after the game, who disagreed. Although he did ask for clarification as to which ones were the umpires, and what sport was being played.

 

Bearing in mind the umpires don't know the rules they're refereeing to, it was a pretty good go. Walk a mile in their shoes: what if you were asked to referee a sport where you didn't know what you were supposed to do? If they get some guidance from higher ups at some stage, they might give it a really good shot eventually.

I suggest giving them each a copy of the  rules and telling them to adjudicate the game according to those rules. 

Those last few minutes, the umpires did everything but kick the ball themselves to prevent us from scoring again.  Inexcusable.