DeeSpencer

That means a lot of players holding the ball in and a lot of ball ups. Boring. As long as the player is legitimately trying then it’s play on, the game keeps moving. Im more suss on what happens when a player attempts to dispose once they’ve had prior. Those ‘disposals’ should be policed a lot more. There’s so little jumping in the players back or high contact that’s in any way dangerous which is why the free kicks exist. There’s a lot more players drawing those free kicks than there are on the tacklers. It’s a physical contact sport, with rules to protect dangerous actions, it’s not a non contact sport policing every instance of contact. Teams getting 2, 3, 4 in on the tackle is good footy I think. I think of Jack Watts getting mauled and it wasn’t fun for us but it’s good stuff. It’s physical and intimidating but no one gets hurt.

As far as I can remember (the 90's) I think you're correct. But it's also worth remembering that pressure and tackling have only come in to the game since the mid/late 2000's. The question becomes chicken and egg. In Hardwick's scenario the ball moves faster as players will gather and dispose in to space and therefore the constant pressure and tackling is removed, but I think that's trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube a little. If you up the reward for laying tackles you only further incentivise tackling. So even if the theory is every player will become super quick and quick to dispose, with the ball bouncing out of backlines at the rate of knots, you'll also be rewarding the opposite. Teams will do all they can to flood forward again, trap the ball in and stick a tackle to get the free kick.

Without prior opportunity situation number 2 would be holding the ball, no? Isn't that what Hardwick is calling for? If you're caught and you don't dispose it's holding the ball?

I don't agree with no prior. Might work fine in the midfield or forward line but are defenders really meant to paddle the ball around when they can't rush behinds outside the 9 and can't rush it over the boundary? I think the Melb - Carl game even in the wet was nice and hot and about right for holding the ball. The Saints - Geel game was just poorly officiated. The rule itself is a conundrum and a difficulty but it's also just what it is. That's the sport. If you want clear cut rules go play chess.

Sydney have been doing this for a decade. They know where and when to let it out. It's making life very very difficult for umpires. Hayward here is a classic example

Not sure you need 'perceived' there Macca. Out on the full is out on the full. We usually target quite an inboard kick at CHF these days, but yes he could've been going more boundary. It's certainly far from the worst result but it's still an unforced error. There was a little bit of a breeze but the kicks were shanks. Maybe Gus is working on some technique changes and might come through the other side kicking much better, but so far it doesn't seem that way. Otherwise he's playing pretty well.

No thanks. If Jackson is the back up ruck that means we have 3 big forwards who aren't great defenders on the field at all times (Brown, Weid, T Mc, Fritsch). That combination would almost be better if Weid back up rucked and Jackson spent time on the wing or on ball. Which seems very unlikely. Possibly we could borrow one of the Eagles moves and rotate a key forward like they do Oscar Allen where he's suddenly filling in at half back but why mess with the back 7 that are settled.

Entirely likely they were waiting on the clearance to run and now can progress that, but it has taken a fair bit of time. I've never got hung up on the weeks because they're always a rough guide line with time frames often determined by so many factors, I'm just hoping Laurie can get back quickly. He missed all of last year as all the Victorians did so it would be nice for him to get a block of games in to build from.

Some mildly interesting things happening: Viney goes from ready to play earlier this week to now probably 2 weeks away. Bailey Laurie gets cleared to run but is bumped back to 5 weeks away. That's a long lay off with a facial fracture. Bowey doesn't even make the graphic. He's got to be a test at best if they had to get scans and he couldn't play out the game. Vanders is stuck at 2 weeks. Nathan Jones is 100 years old but somehow does a hammy that doesn't stop him training and has him right to go with just 1 game off. And finally Marty Hore has snuck away from the 'season' and to 10-12 weeks. If things go well he could be a chance of being available for finals. One to watch anyway.

Woewodin didn't play 100 games for the Pies. The issue of father-son is in many ways separate from the issue of a past player's relationship with the club. Brad Green with Neitz and others seem to be lifting the game on past player relations, and like a lot of things winning helps. Obviously there's a link but whether or not Shane has any great relationship isn't a huge factor on whether he thinks the club will be a good fit for his son. Especially if he's a marginal prospect and doesn't have a lot of interest from the WA clubs (that's not my opinion, just a hypothetical). I'd imagine as long as the relationship isn't actively bad Shane would want him to come to the club where he won a Brownlow and a club that seems to be doing well with development, especially with a couple of East Freo boys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_AFL_draft#Mid-season_rookie_draft Pickett and John Noble have been the biggest success stories from 2019. With Snelling handy too. Gardner was looking improved this year as well. I don't know how many picks the club plans on using but I'd be seriously interested in a mature key defender for some depth for the rest of the season, and using at least 1 pick on the best 19 year old we can find too.

Ben Brown did a nice job as both a step ladder for Tom who dropped it and a space blocker for Tom to fly in front of. Shame he was spoiled by Max who didn’t return the favour. Otherwise I reckon Max played the kick behind perfectly and floated forward only when there’s a need or opportunity. One thing I’d like to improve on is our kick out zones. If we’ve got the 3 tall forwards at least one of them should take the spot in the zone opposite what ever spot Max takes up. Other teams should be forced to pick their poison for long kicks out of the backline. It’s either long to Max or long to Sam/Brown/T Mc.

Brayshaw’s lack of leg speed, pressure and skills would be flaws no matter where you put him. I reckon he’s actually pretty quick once he’s rolling, it’s the change of direction that’s the issue. The wing suits that running as much as any position and his inside game still gets used at stoppages. Also let’s stop pretending he deserved to finish 3rd in the Brownlow. He swallowed up all of Oliver and Gawn’s votes because both talk back to the umps and ones a ruckman. Not much point worrying about list management now, for the time being he’s clearly our best option opposite Langdon. Apart from 2 ridiculously bad kicks he played well.

I was glad he wasn’t stuffing around with it, although he probably had more time on one of them. He also wasn’t helped by Ben Brown freelancing and dropping all the way back inside d 50 when he needed to be the outlet target. As long as it’s long, wide and high I don’t mind the dump from the backline kick. It’s on the forwards to be in the right spot. And even if it’s deliberate or out on the full it should be defensible

Chandler replaced Melksham who was playing a fair bit of midfield anyway. So it restores the balance to 5 inside mids which is the right number. Instead of 4 guys playing 75% we can lower it down to 5 guys playing 60%. Allows Petracca to play more forward time and for more rotations forward and on ball for all those guys. If they're really clever they might be able to rotate the backs and small forwards more frequently and keep them fresher.

I agree. You can't allow players in to the space then penalise their opponents. That's ignoring 1 rule then enforcing the next. Poor Chandler had a choice to follow Saad and disturb the play or to go boundary side and get out of the way. He ended up getting penalised for going to the boundary which didn't disturb McKay at all. The problem with the stand rule and protected area is if it was umpired to the letter of the law the mark would have to be reset constantly. And/or players would have to be moved back on their line. And don't even start me on the defenders being stuck on set shots. Forward takes a set shot has to mean the defender can move sideways with them. It's only fair. McKay was getting a stack of extra metres going to the side of the mark on his set shots.

Footy has a way of sorting out those who try to sneak free kicks. We got a similar 50 soon after. Saad’s best play was a fortunate kick off the ground. Otherwise we kept him stuck on his left foot going down the line. I’m still surprised Essendon got a top 10 pick for him.

I don’t think we’re playing possum as such TT. But I definitely think the focus has shifted to stopping the opposition winning the ball cleanly rather than win at all cost ourselves. Thats a model that’s worked for Richmond for 4 years now. Though they certainly step it up for September. If there’s one player that’s potentially holding back a little I think it’s Gawn. He’s never jumped much in the ruck and Hickey’s often troubled him with his reach and craft. He has been adapting to Jackson taking time too. I wasn’t surprised he bounced back a bit with the main share of the job again. I’m hoping the big guy has some cards up his sleeve.

I was surprised Chandler got the call up before Sparrow to begin with and I’d probably make the swap to give Sparrow a chance now before Viney is back. That said, I reckon Chandler was stuck in the no mans land pocket a bit which meant Pickett, ANB and Spargo all got more involved up the ground. None of them had big disposal games because we didn’t move the ball well but they were fresh and pressuring. We kept the balance of 3 talls and 3 smalls. His holding the ball was a bit unlucky, he bounced out of the pack nicely but ran in to a good tackle. And his 50 was rubbish. Saad was in the protected area and mucking around to draw a free. The correct umpiring is to reset the mark and remove Saad from the 5m area or just ignore it. Our players adapted afterwards and bullocked Saad away from the mark to prevent a similar incident. The metres gained doesn’t mean anything either. His backwards handball cost a few metres and led to a Spargo goal, and otherwise we probably need forwards willing to share it sideways and backwards more often. We’re still too direct to goal.

Looked more to me that he was telling his other forwards to set up for the kick in. Same as Spargo's. That's smart team play to make sure we aren't caught on the counter. When in comes to sportsmanship in regards to touched balls and those kind of things I'm not fussed either way. Take what you can get because you'll always get bad decisions the other way. But when it comes to good structured team footy and high footy IQ stuff then the more the merrier. Also let's not bother with goal reviews if both sets of players aren't arguing it!

Some similarities, but we didn't have the backline talent that Carlton do. Or the forward line - but most of those are injured at Carlton. We had too many mids, Carlton have far far too few. After Walsh and Cripps it's left to poor Ed Curnow to drive the engine room.

We won the centre clearances 12-11 today. A clear bounce back. Gawn much better. Oliver less flat footed. Harmes not trying as much. Petracca more switched on. And Carlton just aren't Sydney. Of the ones we lost a lot were free kicks that looked dubious to me. Probably our plan was to lock on. Cripps always gets a free ride and it seems Walsh gets the same whistle. We lost the around the ground clearances but I think a lot of that was because we dropped a defender off the back all day where as Carlton favour man on man. How many of Carlton's clearance kick landed in the hands of Lever, Petty or Brayshaw?

Agree we were boring today but we had 3 big forward in and it was wet. The plan seemed to not give Carlton an inch because they can take a mile. Personally I don't mind that. Why give them a chance? Disagree that we don't get clean clearances. ANB, Petracca, Jordon, Oliver x 3 all got some brilliant centre breaks. About the only one that really worked out was the Oliver mongrel kick to ANB that landed on his chest, we certainly have to do better there. But overall I thought from the centre square at least we ended up winning 12-11 and had the best quality of clearances as well. It wasn't perfect but it was a big bounce back from last week.

Caboult apparently isn't 100% right and obviously there was a lot of team stuff but I thought Petty held his own in a number of contests too. The thing about Petty from what I've seen with him at VFL is that the upside in terms of ball use and intercept marking is really strong. He has work to do on spoiling when out of position, backing himself to be assertive to impact contests and making sure he's solid over the ball under pressure but all that stuff is easier than doing the rare things. It might be a bumpy ride as it is for any key defender but if he keeps improving the basics I'm excited to see the upside.

I think Rivers and Hunt were the unheralded stars of todays win. Both make a few mistakes at times but they both cover a heap of ground to fill the gaps that allow the talls to drop back and outnumber. If generating a spare behind the ball was easy then every team would do it. Rivers had a number of crucial intercepts and Hunt made a great spoil on McKay that led to a goal in the 3rd to consolidate the break. Probably the same thing goes for ANB and Spargo at the other end. They also cover a heap of ground. Spargo's crucial quick hands were delightful and ANB put in another great shift of running. We were too tall and short up forward when the ideal set up is more mid sized players (Jackson and a resting mid for me), but the extra small in Chandler did a nice job making sure the pressure lifted in the 3rd. Nice return to form for Fritsch as well. A couple of bullet passes and if he was umpired the same way Harry McKay is he could've kicked 5.