Akum

The video showed that Cook, while lying face-down on top of the ball, had to turn his head to bite Clarrie. It was a deliberate action

Yeah but you have to do it right.

"The Myke": a limp-wristed slap with wet lettuce for doing something reprehensible.

First of all, great observations. Second, it's just so great to hear that, even in such a good performance as last weekend, they're focussing on the areas we fell down in a bit. The ideal way to use training time. Third, this matter of "inside-to-outside football", as you put it, is the absolute key to us moving up the ladder big time. We're such a good contested ball team (thanks to the likes of Gawn, Viney, Tyson, Jones et al) that if we can get the "inside-to-outside" right, we'll be really hard to play against.

... especially if we won by less than a goal!!

Is Sean Wellman available?

Thought the Scorps' tactics on the weekend were a really good illustration of this. They simply tried to keep the ball moving, even when Sandy pulled just about their whole side into their d50. They just kept trying to change the angle of attack and draw opponents out with handballs & short kicks until a space opened up. Sure, there were turnovers where Sandy took it the length of the ground & scored. But in the main, the Scorps were able to put on relentless pressure, esp in the last qtr, just by keeping the ball moving from one player to the next. Obviously both teams were replicating the styles of their respective AFL teams. Against the Saints, of course, the Dees repeatedly fell down with their last disposal into the f50, which the Saints picked off with ease and moved it fast and often uncontested around the flanks. But the Scorps were able to keep the ball in their forward half for long periods, even against a strong wind, because they were much better at just keeping up these short possessions and avoiding the temptation to bomb it in. To get it right, a number of things have to happen at the same time. For example, we have a mark on HBF. It takes one player to run past, another to block his opponent who's trying to impede him, then someone else to run to receive the give-and-get handball, then the forwards to run toward the ball while Hogan leads into the space behind them and Garlett doubles back to get any crumbs. This relatively simple movement requires about a third of the side to get to the right places and do the right things within a few seconds of each other. If any one of them is a bit off, then the runner is impeded, or there's no-one there for the give-and-get and the kick has to be a long 50-60m bomb rather than a more precise 30-40m pass, or the forwards don't create space and Hogan has nowhere to lead into. If 7 out of 8 players get it right and one gets it wrong, the whole move is more likely to break down. We're just falling down a bit at that level of co-ordination at the moment. It's one thing to practice these moves in preseason; it's another to try to execute them when there's another team out there hell-bent on getting you to stuff it up. It's the right way to go, we just need to be better at the co-ordination with each other under pressure.

These posts again point out the importance of disguising the deliberate OOB. Currently the free is paid not on the intent of the player, but according to whether they disguise it well enough to create enough doubt in the umpire's mind. And, probably, according to how many of the opposing team throw their arms in the air to appeal. The top teams like WCE have all this down to a fine art; we're still naive enough to expect umps to pay it on its merits.

Very interesting post. I've been wondering whether it points to an absolutely essential part of our training & preparation that's been left out entirely, and that's learning how to "con" the umpires. All the best teams and players do it. For example, the TV cameras picked up & replayed a blatant two-handed throw by Sam Mitchell right in front of goal, but umpires will never penalise him because he has learned over the years how to con them. From what we've seen so far this year, the most reliable path to success is to duck, dive, stage, throw your head back, hold off the ball (as long as you don't pull the jumper), hold in the ruck, appeal en masse for ridiculous frees - and, most importantly of all, to look convincing when you do it. The best way to avoid getting penalised for putting it out deliberately is not to stop doing it, but to "disguise" it so that you con the umpire into doubting whether you did it deliberately. Even the commentators say, when a dubious "deliberate" is awarded, that it's fair enough because he didn't disguise it well enough, as if the ability to disguise it is the criterion of the free being paid or not. A number of games this season seem to have been won or lost from a dubious free late in the game. We're one of the teams that seem to end up on the wrong side of those calls, while others (Norf, Hawks, WCE, Cats) have the extra skills required to end up on the right side. Maybe it's these skills we should be practising more.

Yeah OK. So the umps have reported it and the club has apologised and suspended the player. Right????? Or are they still doggedly sitting on that carpet that they swept it under at the time?

Kielty better.

We should put Clarrie on the injury list as: "Clayton Oliver - bitten fingers. Test."

So did they penalise Clarrie 50m before or after they knew they'd made a mistake? They didn't report it. I thought he got the 50m for "talking back", which would have been while he was trying to explain what happened. And I thought that the "console and put their hand on a player" was just a way of brushing him off - like "Yeah, sure mate. Take 50m" Umpires are constitutionally incapable of accepting responsibility when they get it wrong.

Yeah, wasn't subtle. And for Clarrie trying to explain to the umps what happened, they penalised him 50m. So the umps need to be held accountable too. Why else would he have done his nut towards a player who was probably going to be pinged for holding it?

Has anything been done about the Clarrie-chomping incident? Apology perhaps? Or are Sandy happy to continue with a biter on their team?

Sorry Saty, I'm not WYL. Explaining it twice is enough.

Totally agree about Kielty. He's going to be a very good tall-forward-and-second ruck for someone next year. Just hope it's the Dees.

Kill them??? No, I'm just saying that these two passages of play just showed up their limitations for AFL standard. Why they're at that "in-between" level. OK, maybe I could have said "their limitations were on show". But at the time, instead of being 3 goals ahead in a low-scoring game, which could have been 5 goals ahead, they brought our opponents back to 7 points down. AFL standard players simply wouldn't have made those errors at that time in the game. at a lower level. That's all.

Both had good games but there were two passages of play within a few minutes that just showed their limitations. Michie gets the ball in the clear, runs through the square with the ball, takes a couple of steps too many & nearly gets run down, but enough so that he scrubs the kick over about 30m. So that instead of going to the team-mate's chest it goes to the feet. He can't control it so it rebounds all the way back to Michie & his opponent both lying on the ground. Another player from each side comes in to help. His opponent sizes up the situation & jumps to his feet, with Michie slowly starting to pick himself up. The two Sandy players thus exploit the 2-on-1 & it ends by Michie's opponent Shenton getting a long goal. Couple of minutes later, a quick ball comes into the forward line about 15m out from goal. BenKen competes for the mark against I think Hulett & his opponent, instead of waiting down. Hulett wins the ball on the ground & does a good handball to BenKen. He's unopposed & in enough space so that if he one-grabs it, he's got a fairly easy snap at goal, but he fumbles it. He's got enough space to pick up the ball & handball it to another teammate, who handballs it back. Again, he fumbles it, and Sandy lock it in, getting another long goal soon after. It was a scrappy game, a difficult wind, but they both had good games; they're a cut above VFL level. But in a game when it was rare to get any clear ball, they both had great opportunities to make something, but their basic skills & awareness just weren't up to it. And these two goals brought Sandy back & within a kick.

The sort of thing that should be heavily sanctioned, not rewarded with a free, a 50m penalty (when Oliver tried to explain why he did his nut) and a goal. The player's name is Mike Cook. There's just no excuse for that, but he'll probably get off scott free - with the goal as a reward.

We should win this. It's just that this season both teams have made an art form out of finding innovative ways to lose close ones.

Just saw Michie's & BenKen's careers evaporate within 5 minutes of each other.

Sorry OD, but I think it's this attitude that's the problem. I hope it's not shared by the team. I agree with those who say it's all a mental thing. When we get in front in a close game against a good team in the last quarter, it's like we've entered territory that we haven't mentally prepared for. We clearly ARE capable of performing well enough to beat teams in the eight. But we must make that mental shift from "we can push top sides, but we're still not good enough to beat them" to "we can beat top sides". We must stop thinking we're at Richmond & Collingwood level, and start realising that we're actually on a par with Norf, WCE & Adelaide - the flaky sides of the eight. In terms of performance, we are definitely their equals. We just can't convert that performance into wins. I agree that if you perform equally or better than the other team but don't win, you get exactly nothing. But there's also a vast difference between being able to repeatedly play to the standard of the top teams, being unable to get anywhere near that level.

Come on, it's obvious! Gawn Flakes.

We've "improved". It just hasn't amounted to much.