RalphiusMaximus

I did take note of that given the number of people commenting on his lack of overhead contest. Another sign of development from the lad.

Did you actually watch the game or are you just going on the stats? One thing that really stood out for me when I watched it was how bad the delivery to Watts is. The number of times I saw the ball being passed behind him, at his feet or to his opponent's advantage was staggering. Yes, he made a couple of errors. He dropped an uncontested mark that he should have eaten. There was a bad handball intercept, but I put that down to Jones running to the wrong spot to receive. Overall, he was everywhere, chased really hard and when the ball was passed to him properly he generally did pretty good things with it.

On the Juice front, the FD obviously see something in him that the many of us don't. Personally, I have never seen him perform at the level we need him to, but I like what he does for our forward structure. I don't mind him being looked at to come back in to the side for that reason. I'd be very interested to know why the club has stayed with him for so long. There must be things in his game that they think can be built on.

Looking at the game objectively, there was about a 20 minute period where we were on top. Aside from that, the Hawks were all over us. It was a combination of luck and good defending that so many of their scoring shots went wide. Had they been better at finishing they would have blown us out of the water in the first quarter and then we probably would never have made a run at them in the second. I think that the people who were so very upset about the turnaround in the third were looking more at the score than the game. The only difference between the first and third is that they kicked goals instead of points. We were outplayed all day by a team that could very well make the grand final this year. There's no shame in that.

Call him Bruce. (as in Banner, for anyone wondering)

I'm not sure putting Jurrah on the wing is the answer, but I agree with the notion. He seems to be all about pulling off the spectacular moves and not the basics. He jumps early and tries to take a flying one-hander against two opponents. He never spoils no matter how outmanned he is. I rarely see him chase when the ball is being run out of by his opponents. It often seems that if he has little prospect of winning the ball himself he's not really up for it. It's all about getting the ball in his own hands. While I don't have a problem with a player wanting this, he needs to work harder at making sure it gets into the team's hands.

My big issue with our side is not the attack on the man but on the ball. How often do we see Melbourne players standing off the ball while an opponent hurls himself at it and wins the thing from under their noses? We need our mids to crash in at full pace and get first hands on the ball every time. That will result in more clearances and more frees coming our way, rather than soft clearances to the opposition and a monumental high tackle count against us.

I've watched it a few times and there was no ass in there. He did everything right. Pushed back really hard to hold his spot against his man, reached to the ball and took it at full arm's length to keep everyone else's hands off it. It was a really good mark.

SEN spotted it. Thought he was in trouble but when they looked at the replay said he would be fine.

SEN reported a grade one Medial. That's a pretty minor problem apparently. They were talking one week off.

Dude, the guy only got to play for a quarter and that was when the supply into the forward line had dried up entirely. 6 disposals is a pretty good effort. I'd also say that he should never have been used as a sub. He's completely wrong for the role. Petterd was a great choice last week as he is versatile and can fill in pretty much anywhere (short of the ruck) that he is needed should there be an injury. Maric is one of the shortest guys on our list and can really only play as a forward pocket or a mid. He was never going to change the game coming off the bench. Taking into account the claim above that Morton is hammering on the door and desperate for a shot, I'd be bringing him in as the super sub. He is tall enough to play as a key back or forward, runs like a mid and can have a serious impact (didn't he once kick 4 when he was shifted to CHF?). Garland would be the obvious choice to go given the report of a medial ligament injury. Of the rest, it's not easy to pick outs. They were very good when they were good and when it went to hell there were only a couple of guys who showed any fight. Dee-luded makes a valid point on Bennell and Jetta above. Both were pretty low on output today. Jetta needs to provide a lot more grunt if he's going to hold his spot in the side, and I think he'll be on the outer once Jordie is back in shape. Bennell needs to show more than the odd flash of brilliance (I seem to recall saying the same about Jurrah too not al that long ago). I wouldn't be too surprised if one of them were to make way. Maybe for Gys or Wona, depending on who has been showing form. I don't see a place for Newton next week, unless it's to act as a lure for a certain gorilla-like defender? I actually do like him playing in terms of our forward structure, but he costs us badly in other areas.

Gold star for you. That's as good a summary as I've seen. Absolutely spot on.

Save the be-headings until we get a better look at the season. We're about where we expected to be after two games, so why complain? This is exactly what the Hawks did to us last time. We looked good until they started to bully our smaller players ad intimidated them out of the contest. It happens. Did anyone actually expect something different today? I'll be happy to call for his head if we get to the end of the season and still look like a bunch of insipid little boys, but I don't think that will happen.

We lost the first by a point didn't we?

Oh the humanity!

Has Jurrah given us anything at all today? I seem to be hearing a lot of comments that the ball comes in to Jurrah and Hawthorn take it away.

Agree. There's a time for being a good guy and teaching the kiddies, and there's a time to breath fire and give them the bake of their lives. This is the latter. That third quarter was pathetic!

I think we can say that they didn't weather the storm.

Geez the umps like jumping on a bandwagon. Suddenly they're paying everything to the Hawks.

Gee. Have the umpires made up a free kick to alter the game again? I think so!

Bruce goal. Bugger!

Al would have given them a hell of a bake at half time. We need to weather the storm right now.

Listening on SEN. They can't believe Tapscott. Have him BOG so far.

Well, lucky me, I'm working tomorrow anyway so it makes little difference. I guess it's a good thing that I can catch the whole game on the radio rather than only the last bit if it were on earlier.

Funny, I thought the umpires were terrible tonight. Richmond were given a huge advantage through the umpires constantly giving 50-50 calls their way. The Holding the ball rule is one of the worst adjudicated in my opinion. Oddly enough, it is the ones involving tackles that are most on the nose in my book. The umpires' inability to spot people playing for free kicks through high tackles and in the back is shocking, as is the absurdly soft way they call both of these offences. The number of times we have seen a player dive forwards the second they are touched and get an in the back call regardless of whether there is any pressure to the back is ridiculous. Last year we saw Mitch Robinson from Carlton deviate markedly from his course and headbutt David Hille and be rewarded with a high contact call. To make katters worse, Hille responded by headbutting an opponent in the chest and was promptly rewarded with his own free. When these are considered alongside the shockingly inconsistent adjudication of the holding the ball rule it's no wonder the fans are so disillusioned with the umpiring of the game.