bing181

You have to mention injuries - especially when most have been from the forward line. Single biggest factor IMV. I don't know that we had the same forward setup any two weeks in a row. Which was never going to win us a premiership. I suspect that the master plan was to get through till 2024 with McDonald and Brown as keys, then have JVR take over with some help from Luke Jackson. Injuries and Jackson leaving have left us undermanned, with predictable results.

By definition, if we (still) need smart decision-makers and clean disposers then there are shortcomings with the list.

With the injuries we've had, hardly surprising that the forward line and connection upfield has been malfunctioning. In the back half of the year, did we manage the same forward 6 for any two consecutive matches? I believe not. One thing you need going into finals is consistency or you get found out.

A couple of forwards with decent disposal/ foot skills. Some of our losses this year: 9.17 loss by 2 +8 scores 7.11 loss by 7 +3 scores 5.15 loss by 2 +8 scores 8.15 loss by 15 +0 scores 10.12 loss by 7 +3 scores

Maturity, and everything that goes with it: discipline, hardness, decision-making, consistency etc.

Yes, 5m more and Smith was free just waiting to gobble it up.

I know one moment doesn't cost us the match, but after Viney's dump kick directly to Weitering, Holland marking in front of Hunter then McVee failing to impact the mark by Docherty, that final mark to Acres was against Fritsch, playing spare in defence. But who should have been on Acres, who'd been sitting there on his own for a while?

Another moral of the story is that players who have lengthy periods out through injury never come back at anything like their peak. Oliver and Fritsch to name but two, and applies equally to Salem and McDonald.

Perhaps because his body's shot and he can't get up to play two games in a row.

Not to mention Melksham (the way he was playing) plus Brayshaw - compare Bayshaw's output to Jordan's. Then throw in the suspension to JVR.

Ridiculous comments re Goodwin, and all the coaches for that matter. The team they put out there had the tools to win ... but the players couldn't execute.

Oliver, Gawn, Viney, Sparrow, Spargo, ANB, Tomlinson, Chandler all kicked points, zero goals.

They took their chances. We didn't. More I50, more shots on goal, still lost.

You don't take in a one-trick pony like Grundy as a sub, no matter how good the trick is.

Yes, because we're overflowing with potential subs. Laurie not up to it, Harmes & Dunstan injured, Grundy not versatile enough, etc. About the only other possibility might be Turner, but he's too green and only has form as a defender.

Not with the injuries we've had. You need everything to go right to go deep into finals

"Wanted to hit, wanted to hurt': Brayden Maynard - the guilty man found innocent." https://www.theroar.com.au/2023/09/13/brayden-maynard-the-guilty-man-found-innocent/

Don't think so. It would be an admission that the current rules are not enough to protect the head and that the game is changing. Terrible look for the AFL regardless of the legality.

Suspect we'll see some rule changes next season.

Perhaps explains why there are so many Pies supporters voting on the live blog.

Of course it is. But Maynard was reported for this, as well as giving away a downfield free. i.e., his actions were outside the rules, so not sure where "football act" comes into it.

With Curnow out there it would be like giving them a five goal start. You don't break what's working to fix what isn't.

The other other option was not to charge full pelt at Brayshaw and launch into the air in the first place. Duty of care, likely to lead to a reportable offence etc.

Just what are you on about. Post here whatever it is from that decision that illustrates the points you think you're making. Though to save you the trouble ... "Reasons for Appeal Board decision: We recognise in coming to this conclusion that the Tribunal faced the most difficult case in all circumstances and for that reason we propose to hand down written reasons in the near future. In essence, we accept the submissions made by Ihle (Giants) on behalf of Bedford relating to the evidence or the lack of evidence that was before the Tribunal. We accept it was open to the Tribunal to find that there was contact by the body of Bedford with Fisher’s head, however in our view neither the evidence nor the reasons expressed by the Tribunal in respect of such evidence is sufficient to establish that such contact was “forceful” as required by the AFL regulations. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the Tribunal."

Jesus H Christ. Not only did I read it, I posted the conclusion in this thread. There is no mention of intent in the Bedford decision, it turns on how much force was used.