Dr. Gonzo

What kind of detail? Detail like players unavailable (TMac, Lever, Melksham etc)? Having to play Petty as a KPF when he had never played there in his life? The fact we were up by 38 points late in the 3rd vs Carlton (should've been 10 goals if not for poor goal kicking again) and hung on with only 1 fit player on the bench? The fact we would have beaten West Coast on the weekend if not for poor goal kicking (again!) The post I responded to stated nothing had changed since the bye when that is clearly not the case. Our form has been better, our gameplan has been adjusted, our personnel is still in high flux and our execution (particularly in front of goal) remains poor.

Since the bye we've beaten Freo and Carlton, pushed the reigning premier and the Bulldogs and got Run over playing away against the team sitting 2nd on the ladder.

It's Lyons way of trying to fire a rocket under them. He's basically saying "prove me wrong" which I don't disagree with but not sure how it's going to do much at this stage of the season. Maybe 5-6 weeks ago would've been better timing.

Did you watch the game today? We did not "persist with the manic chaos game for the entire match".

Do you blame Goodwin for today's loss?

I can forgive Vineys miss, hell even Petty due to inexperience especially up forward (even though both his were absolute sodas). But the two misses from Lewis were inexcusable.

How many Prelims have those teams made in the last 12 months? Anyone who puts this loss on Goodwin is just plain dumb. He coached well today, it was the execution of the players which lost us the game.

Exactly, not only we did miss multiple sitters early (Viney, Lewis x2, Petty x2, Gawn, Fritsch) the Eagles were kicking them out of their [censored]. Umpires were pathetic we got a few our way but overall I thought we were extremely stiff, constantly got blocked out of marking contests, rubbish 50 to Darling, another rubbish free kick to Darling. Still we had enough chances to win.

Just open it in private tab in your browser

Great win by the Bombers undermanned and on the road Adelaide are a joke of a team, seem to have all the pieces but something's missing. Just never trust then to win a competitive game.

Oh I agree completely. Was just having a light hearted dig at how bad the MFC is traveling. The game hasn't lost me yet, but it's getting there. I used to think no game in the world could top Aussie rules but now I think American football might actually be a better game (for all its faults and issues with the current administration).

As true now as 3 months ago We miss Hogan more than I expected. Can't blame the club just a fact if life but it sucks even if he has underperformed this year and now had the ongoing foot injury. Still wish him all the best seems like a decent bloke who had had way too much [censored] to deal with

I thought he plays off half back as a running defender but I could he wrong - I don't watch much of Freo really

Article linked above says Hill still had 2 years on his contract so would be difficult to pry him out this year.

To he fair, if all you're watching is Demons games it might skew your view on the current product ?

The TV production is absolute rubbish in all aspects. That has to have an impact too.

I'm not saying reduced interchanges can't be trialled or used in conjunction. But I'm not certain it will automatically lead to a more offensive free flowing game. Are you fundamentally opposed to reducing the number of players on field? If so, why?

Footy Classified

Look at the difference between when Gil is on 360 vs when he is on Footy Classified. Say what you will about that mob but at least they make him sweat.

It's not rubbish. Even if you reduce interchanges coaches will still train players to run all day/recruit athletes over footballers. I don't disagree that interchanges should be reduced but can you guarantee coaches won't go even more defensive and stack the backline, trying to win off a fast break? 18 players allows the defending team to create an effective zone within kicking distance of the player with the ball. Reducing numbers breaks down the zone because the gaps between defenders makes it too difficult to cover by the time the ball is kicked to an opponent. Players are now full time professionals, infinitely fitter than the days of the Victorian era but the ovals remain the same size. The only way I can see congestion being reduced is to remove players from the field. It makes sense, I'm not sure why so many people seem opposed to it. It would reduce congestion without actually changing any of the rules which determine how the game is played. What is your reasoning for not wanting a reduction in player numbers on the field? It's reduced before, it used to be 20 on the field in the late 19th century (and even early 20th from memory). VFA had 16 a side without much issue, I don't see the problem with having anywhere between 12-16 a side on the field.

Prior opportunity is fine as long as they pay a free kick if you fail to dispose of it by hand or foot. Too often now a player has prior, gets tackled but no free kick against him because the ball spills free. The holding the ball interpretation was fine 15 years ago, not sure why the change.

The people running (ruining?) our game are politicians now mate, nothing more.

The only thing that stopped us getting the double chance last year was our 2x games vs Geelong. We lost both on (or close to) the siren. It sucks but if those games go our way, were top 4.

They need to reduce the number of players on the field. It's the only way to reduce congestion and bring it back to a more man on man style game. Everything else is just shuffling deck chairs.