binman

I thought something similar when i heard two different commentators mention how exciting we are to watch atm and that we are making the Sunday 3:15 slot our own. The Sunday games we've played thus far have been box office - and that has to be great for the club and sponsors. With the Sat night game no longer on free to air (an unbelievably stupid decision by the AFL i reckon given that for many footy fans who are not fanatics and/or can't afford kayo - or simply don't want it - watching a game of footy on a Saturday night part of their weekly routine) the late Sunday arvo game is a more valuable free to air slot than in previous years. And this year neutrals, including many kids, will often watch us play an exciting brand of footy.

Did it hit the ground - i wasn't sure

I almost had a conniption fit with that kick. It was sort of weird - instead of just running straight at the goals and kicking straight he angled the opposite direction and kicked it across his body. It must have come pretty close to hitting the post. Fitter also caused me some heartburn when he played on in the goal square and kicked it on the outside of his boot.

I didn't mind Healy's criticisms of Langford. I do mind his commentary - whether it's one of our games or two other teams playing. He's woeful - and like so many of the ex-footballers doing so called 'expert commentary' seemingly dead lazy in terms of doing their own research and keeping up with where the games is at. And i don't say this lightly or flippantly, but like many ex-footballers calling footy i often find myself wondering if CTE is an issue as his calls are full of muddled phrasing and basic errors.

I thought he was pretty good actually. 23 disposals (18 kicks, 5 handballs), 8 marks, 10 intercept and third most fantasy points (though admittedly that's a rubbish measure) is a pretty good game for a key defender. As noted in the match report: 'Tom McDonald stood tall in defence and across the ground, using his experience to intercept strongly and provide a steady presence behind the ball. He collected 23 disposals, 10 intercept possessions and eight marks'

Agree, if Demonland is any guide dees fans would never claim the umpiring was totally against them. But seriously, we did ok with the umpires. The two critical decisions were the 50 to Fritter and of course the block to Harvey. IMO both were 100% there, and good on the umps for paying them. But those types of decisions are routinely not paid, particularly late in games (which is SOO frustrating -i mean if it's there pay it for god's sake). And whilst it was there, Harvey milked the block, which often leads the umps to not pay the free.

Playing so well as a wing - and that's his role for the foreseeable future. And by foreseeable future i mean at least this season and next. As i've noted before, King is using Langford in the exact same role he used Dempsey at the Cats - a winger who is key to transition, kicks goals, and on offence pushes deep forward, often all the way to the goal square (where like Dempsey, Langford is scoring goals from) creating a match up problem inside 50. With 70% of scoring now coming from turnover, having gun inside mids to win clearances is simply not as important as it was 4-5 season ago when scores from stoppages generated the majority of scoring. Consequently, teams usually only use one inside mid at centre square clearances and atm that's Steele and Sparrow waxing, with Viney in the mix when back in the side. There's simply no spot for Langford as an inside mid atm, and as i say not for the foreseeable future. Which is not to say he won't get involved in stoppages around the ground - he is already - just that he won't be a starting centre bounce mid. Mids now need breakaway acceleration and speed, which is why Koz has become one of the very best mids in the AFL and why Windsor is one of our starting mids and is running at aprox 80% CBAs. Langford has an ok cruising speed, but acceleration will never be his go - and it's not like he has elite hands and kicking skills that very best mids have. Clearly the tall winger that supports transition and pushes deep forward role is a critical part of King's game plan and as such he needs a player who can execute it to a high level - which is precisely what Langford is doing (with his game on the weekend being the exemplar - the 9th highest rated player for the whole round). Here's my tip - at some point in the next few weeks it's going to dawn on the media how effective Langford is in the wing role. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul to move him from that spot and into the middle where we have a surfeit of players who can play an inside mid role.

Many thanks - am i right to assume we lost all of those games?

Thanks for adding clangers @WheeloRatings . And i love the quarter by quarter breakdown Interesting we had 8 less clangers than them given their kicking skills. Notable too that the 48 clangers we had is well under the AFL average of 57.9 clangers per game. Given we had fewer clangers than them, it's really curious they scored 80 points on turnover. That's crazy high number any way - 80% of their total score from turnovers - that's nuts. From memory Freo smashed us on turnover last year, but outside of that i can't recall the last time we gave up as many as 80 points on turnover - and never anywhere near that close in win (normally, giving up 80 points on turnover would be recipe for a smashing). That seems a really anomalous number - i wonder if King's tactics played a part and if yes what tactic?

You weren't far off!

True dat.

Is that a euphemism?

It's Jeffo time.

I'm giving up guessing selections.

Yep. Great test of character.

Noone cares about confidence and arrogance. Good on him. What worried me when I went and watched him against the Dogs at Whitten Oval was his body language was poor, as was his intensity amd second efforts. It looked much better against the Box Hill Hawk, and no coincidence he was one of the best thst day.

Agree, The lions game plan is more aggressive than the Bombers in that yes, they use lots of short kick mark plays but they usually go forward, and once an opportunity to go quick appears go quick (or long) whereas the Bombers go sideways and back heaps. The lions have the skill to hit those forward 20-30 metres kicks whereas the bombers don't. The only way to beat the Lins method is to pressure the kicker and press right up on the receiver and either spoil, intercept or at the very least hold them up so they cant quick and/or long. Much will depend on whether we have the gas in the tank.

Spot on. My use of the word attitude was probably ill advised in this context as it might be read as a perjorative - ie XL has a 'bad attitude'. How you've described it above jnr reflects perfectly what I meant - a young, super competitive fella, used to being one of the best players in every team he lines up with itching to live his dream and get selected in the senoirs and like any uber competitive person frustrated not to have got the call up.

Yep, that was a good game

I reckon the Blues will win as their weakness is their leg speed and ability to spread defensively, particularly as the games goes on. The Pies are also dead slow running wise, and are not playing fast, instead using lots of the sort of chip kicks that the bombers used against us, which both mitigates their weaknesses and helps them defend (eg the bombers had an extra in defence, meaning when we did finally get the ball of them and go forward they had an outnumber, which was no doubt a big factor why we couldn't score from our back half the way we have done in other games). Short version - the Pies won't exploit the Blues weaknesses and will do well to match their key strengths, their contest, clearance and stoppage work. And i suspect the likely wet weather will suit the blues given their strength in the contest. And whilst the Blus are under the pump, like us last year they are playing better than the result suggest - again like us they are running out puff late in games. Conversely the Pies form is flattered by the results - thy don't look like a team that made prelim last year. The 2.40 for a Blues win looks great value, with the safer bet being they make their 8 point line.

So many rubbish games, including most of the Gather round games (not helped by the weather of course, but still). For neutrals, i can only think of two great games this season - for the drama, our comeback win against the blues (but not a great game skill wise) and the Cats hawks Easter Monday game. I might be missing some, but geez that's a pretty poor return for box office games after 5 rounds and OR.

Finally, a semi decent round of footy. Nine games, most competitive. How the AFL could have cocked this season's fixturing up so woefully is beyond me.

And we lost Salem early too. Two down can't help with the total number of clicks the team has to run.

Good call. You're spot on, we could use the burst of energy XT will bring - straight swap for Salo you'd think; high half back kicking inside 50. I fear we'll struggle big time defensively against the Lions - hardly a big call their talent and skill level. Much will depend on our intensity and capacity to press up on their kickers and receivers and pur them under pressur. Any hint of last weeks 'fatigue' and they'll cut us up.

That's awesome- on two levels. One, who doesn't love it when a new draftee debuts? Two, it's clear from comments made by King that XT had some things to work on, and I suspect attitude was one such thing. If King is picking him I assume XT has worked on those things to King's satisfaction. XT's leg speed won't hurt either.