RalphiusMaximus

Interesting comment from the MRP: Didn't they put Jack Zeibel out for three weeks for hitting someone high while going for the ball? Good to know they are keeping it consistent.

O asked im the other thread as well, was the #50 for Casey Stretch?

I wish it was Mute. I'm sick of hearing about it.

Also of interest possibly. While sitting on the grassy knoll, Alex Georgiou came out and sat with a group of friends a few feet away. While he was chatting, a little boy walked up and stood staring intently at him for about 30 seconds, looking very much like a hunting dog on point before walking up and having the following conversation: Random Kid - "are you a player?" AG - "yes I am" RK - "What's your name" AG - Alex" RK - "Alex what?" AG - "Georgiou" RK - (after a pause for thought) "Can you sign my ball?" AG - "Sure"

I don;t mind a reality check. We got to see exactly what we are doing wrong and how far we have to improve to play with the big boys. I'd rather know now and assume the coaches were taking notes than not know and be shocked when we get done like that during the season.

Just got back. I stuck around for half of the Casey game as well to let the traffic subside a little. The AFL website is full of it. The Hawks were not in any way efficient in the forward line. The score should have been a lot worse. The differences were all further down the ground. Overall: The wind was swirly and made it hard to spot up passes. Oddly enough the Hawks handled it a lot better, who'd have thought? I suspect this also contributed to the poor set shots we saw from both sides. It died down as the game went on, and finally settled across the ground for the Casey match. I don't think we had a single player beat their opponent today. The Hawks were that dominant. The two aspects that really stood out were their cleanness and their trust in each other. Both were significantly better than ours and it showed. We very rarely took a loose ball in one grab, and this killed us at bounces and throw-ins. We very often had first hands, but the initial fumble and off0balance grab left the player vulnerable and they were swamped. The Hawks in contrast took the ball cleanly almost every time, and this gave them time to hit the next target. On the trust issue, we once again were seeing multiple Demons going for the ball and spoiling each other. We frequently saw two players come from opposite directions and crash into each other while their opponents stood back and picked up the free ball. This was also the case with the Grimes/Frawley collision, everyone flew at the ball and nobody stayed down to pick up the crumbs. The other aspect of this was in their overall setup. When the Hawks attacked, we sent everyone back to defend, leaving nothing upfield to pass to when we won the ball (sound familiar). By contrast, the Hawk forwards generally stayed forward of centre. Not only did this give them targets on the break, but it put instant pressure on our back-passes. More often than not when we went th long outlet ball to the rear the player was outnumbered and under pressure instantly. I honestly think that this play needs to be retired, as our opponents are already on to it and have an effective counter in place. It was also interesting to note how close to the line they go in terms of free kicks. I think if they were to get an Umpire in a bad mood they would be giving them away all over the ground. They lay tackles a moment before their man takes the ball, lots of holding around stoppages that they aren't getting pulled up for, bumps and tackles that you would expect to be pulled up. They seem to have a very good idea of what is going to be called and what isn't, and go as close as they possibly can to being penalised. Performances of note? I thought Fitz picked himself up a bit as the game went on and kept presenting on the wing. He wasn't much use in the forward line though, and as has been noted missed an absolute sitter. Howe was his usual self. He attacked the ball hard, marked on the lead, kicked a couple of goals. As I said above, Watts really worked hard to present and just wasn't being rewarded by his teammates. He once again failed to apply any tackling pressure, although I did see him lay a pretty good bump at one stage. Vince took a few very nice marks in defence, which is always good to see. N. Jones, as always worked his ass off in the middle. There was much more to like about the reserves, as usual. When I left they were a couple of goals up despite being monstered by a much bigger Box Hill lineup. We saw a great play where Viney took the ball on the wing, spotted up Barry at CHF who hit a nice pass to the advantage of JKH who overhauled his man to take the contested mark and kick a goal. Panozza was having a really good game (pretty sure it was him). I can't be sure as it was on the far wing, but I think I saw Hunt run from HB to HF, burning off all comers and then nailing a pass to the FP. These kids really do look like they have the class we desperately need, and I hope they can bring themselves on this year and make a spot for themselves in the firsts. Also, I have to ask. Was that Stretch in #50 playing for the scorps?

So all in all I was dead on in my analysis. DB heard that the kid was in for scans and slapped the worst possible interpretation on it to make it into news. The reality is that he has a fairly minor back complaint and is light duties until it comes good. So sayeth The Club. Is this DB's first fail of the year?

In an article written by DB.

I hate DB no more and no less than most of the other "sports journalists" reporting in the AFL. I simply find this story to be too full of holes to be taken seriously.

I call BS on his story for two very good reasons. First, his claim of stress fractures caused by a knee to the back is clearly incorrect. http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=a00112 Secondly, if he has a source, he says so. While he will never admit to not having spoken to someone in the club, if he has he will give us a "sources in the club" line. The only thing he attributes to the club is the following: Added to this is the fact that it has been six days since the match finished and they are only now getting his back looked at. Indeed he was in sufficiently good health that only hours ago he was named in the squad for Saturday's match. Thus my assessment of his report. I believe that Hogan has a back injury caused by a knee to the back. I believe it is severe enough to warrant them ordering scans. I do not believe that Barrett has a source within the club's coaching and medical staff who has told him that there are fractures. I do not believe that Stress Fractures are going to form in the space of a week due to a knee in the back. I'll add the obvious also. Besides being highly inaccurate, the use of the term "stress fracture" is clearly a scare tactic to make things seem worse. Fans accept that impact injuries occur. If a knee to the back caused a fractured vertebrae we would be upset about the bad luck but shrug it off as the sort of injury you get in an impact sport. Stress fracture on the other hand implies an underlying fault. To the fans, the term means a player may never play again, that there may be some issue which will cause this to recur endlessly until the club is forced to let them go. Again, it's a hack trick trying to make more of a story than actually exists.

He's probably putting that out as a result of the report on TFS.

The problem isn't him reporting an injury, it's the fact that he is declaring it to be fractures with no supporting evidence. He's declaring the worst case scenario to be the reality so as to make a story out of nothing, and then referencing himself as a source. Even worse is the sad fact that not only is this accepted practice in the industry, they even give him awards for it. If he were to stick to the facts and not promote his speculations as reality I wouldn't have a problem. What is wrong with going on TFS tonight and saying Hogan has pulled up sore from a knee to the back and they are doing scans to see if there are any serious issues? That may not be a sensational, but it is good solid journalism and would still have been breaking the news before anyone else.

Look at the author of the article. He reinforces the validity of his story by putting it out in multiple forums. Still doesn't make it accurate. What we have are scans on a bruised back caused by a blow during the game. The results aren't in, so the bit about fractures is speculation. You will also note that he has tried to add validity to the print article by stating that the Footy Show reported this earlier in the evening, conveniently failing to mention that it was him reporting it.

Even if there is a fracture, it isn't a stress fracture. They were pretty clear on the FS segment that he copped a knee in the back during the game and this is where the concern is. Obviously they were getting scans on it today to see if it's anything more than bruising, hence the tweets about waiting on the results. For all I know DB may have fluked one and there is actually some structural damage, but my take is that he found out about the scans and added a worst-case spin to make a story out of nothing. We all know that his strike rate is somewhere below 25% on these so-called news segments. This is simply another case of him being an obnoxious little troll trying to bignote himself by making a sensational claim on very little evidence.

I find it hard to believe that this has only just come up today and nobody at the club knew about it. He was named this afternoon in the squad to play on Saturday, therefore at that point he was considered fit having been through recovery and at least one training session for the week. I call this a rumour at this point.

Bail. I have a feeling he's going to play a lot this year.

He was with Lend Lease? They seem to be a fairly decent bunch. I was thrilled to see them pull out of the Abbott Point mess.

Weren't they explorers? Crossed a desert or something didn't they?

Honestly, I've never had a problem getting a park at Casey. Getting out can be a pain because of the volume of traffic, but you get that a pretty much any venue. If you're really worried about it leave partway through the Casey game and you should have no issues. I do advise caution with the canteen though. I've had some terrible results from eating some of their cooking in the past, in particular the egg and bacon rolls.

Looks like one of the papers has copoed your ladder. http://mobile.news.com.au/sport/afl/nab-challenge-barometer-how-the-18-clubs-are-shaping-up-ahead-of-round-1/story-fnelctok-1226843084927 See the end of the article.

No problem. I have an awesome sense of direction.

Someone posted the quote from Cross earlier that sums it up exactly. We have quite a few players who are trying so hard to stick to the new structures that they are completely missing the opportunities they should be taking and would be if they were playing more naturally. As he said, it's going to take some time for them to be comfortable and confident enough in the game style to be able to make that call on when to stick to the rigid structure and when to take the opportunity to attack quickly when something presents. The good news is that the structure they are falling back on is pretty solid, so it won't hurt us too badly if they stick with it. Unless they keep kicking directly to opposition forwards that is.

Sounds like a good day. Count me in.

You're not loosing your mind quite yet. He actually pulled down some really good contested marks and used it pretty well linking up through HF. One of his better games for us.

Add to that an awesome almost from the Fitz. Ran on to the loose ball, won it ahead of a couple of mids, handballed down the line, ran on again, kicked it in and then couldn't quite get the clean possession. Still put on enough pressure that we got the turnover and a 9 point goal.