Akum

We were right in line with Jack's kick for goal, right up in the clouds, so we had a bird's eye view of it, and it never looked like missing. I was on my feet and yelling my lungs out before I realised it, as was my son and everyone around us. As, to my great shock, were my wife and stepdaughters right beside me, who are African. This was only their 2nd live game of AFL, and Jack's their favourite player. Finally might have won them over.

After watching this replay for the umpteenth time, I just noticed this. I'd thought Watts just happened to be hanging around in space somewhere at half forward when the ball came down. But no, he was near the back of the centre square in the middle; he was in a totally different part of the ground. But as soon as he saw O-Mac's dribble kick break the Collingwood line, he sprinted - because he had to get to where Harmes was going to kick it before any Pie defenders - towards the boundary line about 60m out, then ran in another 40m to make sure of the goal. A 100m sprint at the end of an exhausting game ... ... after which he somehow mustered up both the energy and the composure to slot the goal. Watts has been criticised for his level of intensity, but this was intensity with a capital "Holy S***!!" If he'd just stayed where he was at the back of the square, Harmes would have had just Garlett against 3 defenders to kick to, nobody would have blamed Watts or anybody, and we might have been treated to the alternative scenario of Fasolo kicking the winning goal after the siren in a triumphant comeback! But it was just as much his ability to dial that adrenalin down from 100 to about 20 in a few seconds that made him able to settle himself enough after that massive physical effort to actually get the execution right. Some don't like the fact that he's not full-on intensity all the time, but the ability to quickly control that intensity can be absolutely critical at the right time.

Love this post RB.

Almost looked like a basketball bounce, didn't it?

This was so true. One passage in the 2nd Q we managed to move the ball from our forward pocket all the way to their forward pocket. We managed to move the ball backwards almost the length of the ground by "dinky too-smart kicks and stupid handball overuse".

And, to be fair, his one behind was a poster.

Had a great passage of play in the first quarter where he made three or four great efforts in succession and was rewarded with a free. Made a couple of mistakes in the first, hacking it about 30m up the ground with his left foot under pressure, instead of kicking it with his right foot out long to an unguarded flank. Then again, if he'd done that and it had rolled out, prob would have been pinged for deliberate OOB, and this might have been on his mind. Some of his other kicks under pressure were very good. Kicking it to space in front of Harmes (instead of kicking it straight to Harmes) was the perfect play, to allow him to run on to it and move it on to Watts for THAT goal.

I get the impression that after however many weeks without Gawn, this is the best combination for team structure and balance - Pedo rucks the first half, T-Mac rucks the second, they both play forward in the other half, and Watts stays forward the whole game. It saps huge amounts of energy for these guys to keep jumping and smashing in against much taller opponents. Even someone with the tank of T-Mac can't keep it up for more than 2 quarters.

I remember seeing on the scoreboard that he had 11 possessions to half time and 22 at 3/4 time. He was fantastic in the 3rd Q, that breakaway and pass to Melksham was absolute A-grade*, especially considering he's known more for his contested ball work. He's actually a very very good kick, his kicking was a standout at the draft combine in his year. (* trying to avoid putting "elite" - don't like that word!!)

I thought Pies were sailing very close to the wind with HTB a few times in the first half. One of them would try to beat a tackle, and when they were grabbed would just go to ground and make no effort to dispose of ball. As in, should have been HTB. I'd say the umps just decided they needed to tighten up on this in the second half, and they did. If the player made even a weak effort to get rid of the ball, they'd let it go, but if no effort, or fake effort, they'd pay it - correctly. In other words, they were trying to game the umpires the whole game. Got away with it in first half, didn't in second half. Our tackling was sensational after half time, and I can't remember a game with so many smothers.

Just before their day finished at 7pm, heard the guy on AW say, after 20-30 minutes of Collingwood rants and whinges from his fellow commentators, "And in late news, the result of the game has been changed: Collingwood 15-10-100 defeated Melbourne 15-14-104". Says it all.

Great shots. 'Tack, was Gus wearing headgear of some sort under his beanie?

With Adams, get the feeling that saying & thinking are entirely independent of each other. Strong touch of the Mitch Robinson's.

And again we have a Whinge Twin whining to the MRP. And watch Chickenhawk get off Scott-free. For an organisation as spineless as the MRP, putting pressure on them works every time. No choice but to break a long-held rule tonight and barrack for Richmond to smash a team to smithereens.

Just as an aside, for some reason we often seem to struggle if there's a strong wind. Even at the most basic level, we don't seem to get that it will drop short kicking into it and go over the back kicking with it. Even an inexperienced team like the Suns got us on that a number of times in the first half. Someone made a comment that we seemed to come to life when the lights went on; maybe it was more the wind dropping.

Again, a lot of very good posts on this thread. The coaches (collectively) are looking for things that we're not looking for. They pay far more attention to "structures and endeavour" and whether or not players are playing their assigned roles, and far less attention to clangers (unless the clangers are caused by going against team instructions), than us supporters do. Supporters don't see structures because we're not looking for them. So if Goody says our structures were good but we were let down by our execution, you start looking for structures and watch the game through different eyes. And find out he's right. Myself, I like anything that makes me look at the match in a different way. Which is why I like Joeboy, even if I don't agree with him - with Joeboy's analysis, if everybody agreed with him, there'd be no point to it. The worst parts of post-match "analysis" are posters just getting stuck into their favourite scapegoats. Rarely if ever contributes anything useful.

I reckon Garlett loves playing alongside Watts, I think they've got a great chemistry. He's our one player who is able to anticipate what Jack is going to do, and Jack seems to realise that Garlett's usually going to be exactly where he needs him to be. Garlett's 4th goal was a great example. I think Hogan is included in this chemistry too. Of course they all have flaws - like every single player who's ever played the game does. But the combination of Watts's intelligence, Garlett's instincts and Hogan's sheer footy nous, and the understanding they seem to be developing between them, is going to be great for us to watch over the next few years.

Great to see a succession of thoughtful non-hysterical posts on the previous page or two. I agree that it's easier on the nerves & voicebox to watch when you know the result. But everyone needs to understand this RBG post. Our game plan is about sustained pressure in our f50, which should end in a goal. Our radically aggressive forward press creates this sustained pressure. But the payback is that if a team gets behind our forward press, which is going to happen several times a game, they will take the ball forward more or less unopposed in what's virtually a training drill for them, and unless they mess it up, there's a high chance of them goaling. It's impossible to chase as fast as they move the ball, and even if we leave a couple back, they'll struggle to stop 4 or 5 pacy attackers bearing down on them with uncontested ball. Our defence, probably more than any other in the league, will often be faced with speedy open attacks while being not quite in position, and they'll be made to look stupid at times, collectively and individually. This is simply the price we pay for such an aggressive game plan. So we just have to get used to it. But it will pay off for us far more often than against us. If we're playing well, we'll get two or three times the amount of goals than they will from breakaways, and we will do what we've done several times already this year and score a number of goals in succession. Other teams won't be able to stop us, they can only hope that we don't finish it off. Because if we don't finish it off (especially if we're an AA big man and a Rising Star KPF short), we're vulnerable to breakaways and we'll struggle. But as this team gets to play more together, we'll only get better and more consistent at finishing it off. Composure and consistency come mainly from experience and from time playing together. I really like what I'm seeing, though I've hated some of the results (North, Richmond, aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrggghhhh!). But it's taking us to a very exciting place.

Agree, but I reckon their thinking is that they can cover losing T-Mac from the defence better than they can cover losing Watts out of the forward line. Watts has a good tank for running all over the ground & making repeat leads etc, but not to stand up to the physical battering that happens in the ruck, and it's starting to show. T-Mac and Pedo are better with standing up to the physical toll.

"Frees for" count: Dangerfreeld + 2 Duckwoods - 12 Other 19 Freelong players - 14 All 22 Port players - 17 The umps must surely be aware that they've been gamed. You know, that sickening feeling in your gut that you've just realised that someone's made you look like an absolute idiot and there's nothing you can do about it. What beats me is why they keep coming back for more.

Surprised this hasn't come up more. I never did understand why the AFL ruled that we weren't allowed to use Lumumba's spot on the list, despite having paid out his contract and him having agreed too. I still can't escape the feeling that if it was one of the AFL-preferred clubs, they wouldn't have dared to not let them use the spot. We copped it sweet at the time, didn't even ask them to justify it. In hindsight, maybe that was - once again - naive.

You list one of your interests as "hypocrisy". You're clearly a master practitioner.

I'm not saying Cunnington should have got the same penalty, by the way, but he clearly should have got a week. Higgins likewise. And I'm not saying that Lewis & Hogan shouldn't have been given what they got, though I think the Carlton doctor did "over-egg the pudding" an extra week in both cases. Clearly, too, when Carlton came out after half time, they clearly had instructions to get under our skin physically and verbally. I'd just love to know what was actually said. And surely somebody just yapping & niggling & being a pest (which was what Bernie was doing and what Hogan in particular would get every week without punching anyone) is different to someone saying something way out of bounds that provokes a reaction, along the lines of the Marc Murphy sledge which was clearly over the line. I suspect that what was said to Hogan was clearly over the line too, but we just didn't stick up for him at the time the way that Carlton stuck up for Murphy. Cunnington gut-punched Bernie just to get Bernie out of his face, and because he knew he could, because he believed he wouldn't get penalised or suspended, and because it was a team instruction to gut-punch, throat-punch and jumper-punch (and not go the head).

With Hogan & Lewis, I just wondered at the time what could possibly have been said to them that made them react in such a bizarre way. Every one of Hogan's opponents says things to him to try to put him off. He might complain about not getting frees, but he just doesn't hit back off the ball. I wondered what Rowe might have said to him that made him snap, and the only thing that occurred to me was something about his family. But the club was silent so there's no point in pushing it. The thing about Lewis on Cripps was that Viney, who was within earshot, ran past Cripps after Lewis decked him and pushed him to the ground, so he wasn't happy with whatever was said either. Lewis has a chequered past with the MRP, but not for hitting someone off the ball after they said something (more for high tackles or hits in the course of play). Again I wondered what might have been said to rile him enough to punch him off the ball rather than just throw him to the ground. But again the club was silent. They were both "heat of the moment" incidents where something was clearly said to them that caused them to react, in a way neither of them had done before. To me, North used illegal physical force as an orchestrated strategy, indicated by Scott saying after the game that Cunnington was safe because of the MRP precedents about jumper punches (and gut punches and throat punches). When Higgins decked Bernie and Bernie got a free, Higgins complained to the umpire, seeming to indicate that it was a throat punch (so, by implication, it shouldn't be penalised). Likewise, Higgins decking Oliver early on wasn't an accident, it was part of a deliberate strategy to target our young players. That they got away with it Scott-free makes me disgusted (as does the failure of the club's leadership to stand up for its players), and I'd be equally as disgusted if we went after young players in any side as an orchestrated strategy, even if we got away with it and won. Bernie was hit not because of anything he said, but to get him to "back off".

Lethlean is too gutless to do anything because if he did, Brad Scott would be all over the media whinging about it, North would saturate the media with current and ex-players and legal opinions and god knows what else. And that's the AFL's greatest fear - bad publicity! Nobody at the AFL has the strength of character to do what's right if they think there's the slightest possibility of bad publicity. They've demonstrated that again and again, and the above quotation exemplifies it. And (as Brad Scott fully understands and knows he can exploit it) in that sort of weak-character environment, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. One thing I can guarantee - if it was one of our players in Cunnington's position, Lethlean would have had him suspended by now. Because he knows that Melbourne Football Club will always buckle under and never raise a peep.