binman

I'm with you DG. I sit at the top of the Posnford at the g and is is stupidly loud pre game and during breaks. Can barely hear someone next to you . And it is mostly bloody TV ads!

Hunty said on the Demonland podcast that he 100% shanked it. And then TMac dropped the uncontested mark (Q:where was Collins, TMac's opponent? A: rolled the dice, sagged off TMac assuming harmes' kick would be on target and make the distance, was wrong and then doubled back and ran past Tmac who kicked the ball off the ground for the match winning point) Hunt said they all gave Harmsey and TMac curry

So good he can do it accidentally as he did on Saturday

Yes, absolutely. It would provide an incentive for team to keep attacking even if they were too far behind to win. And by attacking that would open up scoring chances for the opposition. ;leading to a higher scoring game. i punt on the line a bit and i can't tell you how many game basically stop once a team get say 25 points up with 10 minutes to go, with both teams going at half sped and just chipping the ball around.

Very good point sue. My idea is based on the premise we need higher scoring but like you i'm not convinced scoring is an issue. I am firmly in the camp of leaving things alone and letting the game game evolve organically. A beauty of the sport is the incredible tactical opportunities the combination of the size of the playing field and the number of players provide. I love how it seems to change and morph into something different and enjoy the high pressure, contest first game that it currently is. Tactical and strategic innovation happens less frequently in basketball and soccer because they have fewer players and less space. But it would seem you and i are in the minority sue. Most seem to want a high scoring, free flowing game. Like that god awful Essendon v Dees game earlier this year.

I think Demonland's injury is fake news. Having trouble cut and pasting it but according to the MFC site at 10:24 am this morning Lever is a test, Hannan in 1 week and Hibberd is two weeks. Unfortunately Melk is 4-5 so no joy there.

My perspective is that the 6 6 6 rule has little to no impact other than the rare game, such as ours on the weekend, that are close at the end and teams get a small window of time to get a clearance into a forward line where the opposition has not flooded back. It may have contributed a tiny bit to some teams', like the dees, scoring chances if they used players off the back of the square as an attacking weapon, but that's hard to quantity (and in any case we stopped that largely by the end of last year). I thought the kick out might have an positive impact but as we have seen (and i think Lucifer's Hero might have predicted?) teams are just setting up the wall higher. All team seem to be giving the short kick to the pocket, which just slows everything down. Coaches are too risk averse to direct players to go down the center as a turnover means a score is likely. The real reason scoring has dried up is so many teams are maintaining possession and eating up the clock crossing back and forward across their half back line until they get some space to move it forward or instead take the slower option of slowly tic tacking it down the ground with dinky little 20 metre lead up kicks. The 'goal keeper' is also back in vouge and when both teams play the extra back you get games like the Freo v Crows game that are played in between the two 50 metre arcs. The one thing everyone agrees on is the problem (which the AFL has defined as low scoring), which is that coaches will always find a way to design defensive systems that make it hard for the opposition to score. Much easier to do than design attacking systems that regularly generate high enough scores to guarantee a positive win loss ratio (though of course they also have to work on attack). Given we know what the problem it makes sense to design the solution to target the problem - the coaches. But instead over the last decade the AFL have introduced on field rule changes to try and address the problem. And the evidence is clear - rules changes do not fix the problem of low scores and defence first game. So what's the solution? Simple: create an incentive for higher scoring in the home and away season. An extra premiership point for any team that scores 100 points in a game (for both the winner and loser). Coaches would move heaven and earth to get that point as success is making finals. And a premiership point is gold. You would get higher scoring games and far less games where one or both teams put their cue in the rack early and chip it around once the result is clear. There are a number of arguments against this idea. And one is that some teams would have an advantage as they play on drier grounds. Marvel stadium can close it roof and teams who randomly copped more wet games would be disadvantaged. But that all that would even out and in any case that argument presupposes the current draw is fair, which is patently not the case. Most of all providing an incentive to score would not change footy. Sure we have had four premiership points for a long time but final systems have changed multiple times and on field it would not change the game in the way something artificial like fixed zones would. The rule changes the AFL have introduced do change footy. Let the coaches coach. Let them innovate to their hearts content. It is one the best aspects of the game. Make them part of the solution, not the problem

We were worse than downright poor against the Suns. Can barely recall a MFC team missing so many targets. Remarkable we won. But as they say in the classics - it's funny old game. Who'd of though the hawks would roll GWS or blues push the pies?

I guess so. If it is only form that is one hell off a form drop. He dos look like he is getting closer to some good form though. Took a couple of nice contested marks against the Suns.

I simply don't believe it is only form. if not injury then must be fitness. He is not moving any where near as quickly or as freely as last year. As a number of posters have pointed out can barely pick the ball off the ground and has a turning circle of an ocean liner. Isn't attacking the ball in the same was he was last year either.

I pointed this out last year but for those who do not know of Stats pro on AFL.com it is a brilliant resource. If you are a Telstra customer, in addition to having access to live pass you also have access to video of every player's involvements in each game from the last 3 years. It is great way to get an objective perspective on a players game. Watching the video of Omac's last two games highlights that a key feature of his game is how many spoils he effects. All of his 13 one percenters last game were spoils (and 9 of 10 v the Hawks). Spoils often go unnoticed by commentators but even they made comment on how many spoils we made (though of course not the fact that Omac got most of them). It should be noted that reflecting his poor start to the season Omacs one percenters were way down (averaging around 5-6) prior to being dropped, and no doubt that was a big factor in him being dropped. Omac killed Peter Wright - gave him nothing. Don't believe me, look at the evidence. If Wright gets off the chain we lose that match. Colins meanwhile gave up 3 goals to TMac, who despite those goals most are saying still played poorly. And i can't believe in the analysis on Footy Classified and AFL 360 i saw that Collins' decision to sag of TMac (his man) at the death and his failure then to get back on him and either stop him kicking the ball off the ground or stopping the ball was not highlighted (or even commented on) as it literally cost GC the game. I have no doubt Dew highlighted it in his review

Some good points. But your argument loses a bit of credibility, given the following two facts. Tim Smith did not play against the hawks. He was a late withdrawal and replaced by keilty. Hard then for him to keep us in the match. Perhaps you meant the tigers game, in which Smith was good (not great) in so far as he took a couple of contested marks. Not sure he kept us in the match though. Oscar can't win a contest? If you mean aerial contests as I pointed out in another thread omac had 13 one percenters (and 10 against the hawks incidentally), which measure defensive efforts (but basically spoils) against the suns, which is elite. 7 more than any other player. As a result his (very tall) opponent could only manage one goal - and that was from a pass Oscar couldn't stop. So whilst he is certainly slow and has other weaknesses you could have highlighted, not winning aerial contests is not an issue. Sure he doesn't win every contest and last week against the hawks he lost a couple of critical contests (none last game) but show me a defender who doesn't lose some contests. I would agree he perhaps doesn't win enough contested ground ball but his job as a tall defender is to stop his opponents marking it and he has done his job in that regard in the last two weeks. Two weeks that we have been defensively very strong and won both games. Would be a strange time to drop him then.

No question he has struggled physically this season.

Fair enough. My bad then. In my defence a confusing turn of phrase and I'm a bit over the bagging omac cops on this site.

So, he meant: To be fair to the discussions about the goal, omac was never going to catch him because he omac is slow and uncompetitive. Am I missing something? He (or anyone else for thst matter) was never unfair to Holman or the discussion about the Holman goal so why a need to use the qualifier 'to be fair'. He was unfair to omac who was injured and unable to chase. So it seems to me that a much more reasonable comment would have been: To be fair to omac I didn't realise he was injured in that tackle and that might explain why he didn't chase. Because he couldn't. The all access video should have noted that....

Huh? What is the Holman discussion? The only comment I can see about Holman from ATBOG is that he kicked a goal because omac didn't go with him.

Fair on Holman? Sheesh. You do know he plays for an opposition team. And that Omac plays for the MFC With fans like some on demonland who needs enemies.

Right on both counts od. On the second point if he were as bad as some think he wouldn't get a game with Casey let alone an AFL team. But Collins, jeez he's a gun.

Could barely walk after the game. But hey let's find another reason to find fault with omac.

Who arguably cost them the game against the dees. in a game where we scored 8 goals Collins direct opponent, who has been in woeful form, kicked 3. And at the end Collins sagged off tmac gifting him a completely free mark. Which he dropped, yet Collins could still not stop him kicking the ball of the ground for the matching winning point. Great defence. Not. Imagine if that were omac, posters would be all over him. Meanwhile omac blanketed his opponent. But sure Collins is who we need.

Why?

A positive for Omac is that he had 13 once percenters, which essentially measure spoils. The next best on the ground was Collins and Frost who both had 6. His opponent kicked one goal and that came from a pin point pass that Omac couldn't do anything about. Did nothing thereafter (Sam Collins opponent kicked 3 by way of comparison. Keeps tmac to less and they win) We kept the Hawks and Suns to under 70 points so the defence seems to be working in the last two weeks. I could well be wrong but i would think Goody reckons Omac is doing his job and on the back of that i expect him to be selected again An interesting stat is that Omac was on field 99% of the game. And frost was on field 100% of the game.

Drinks pots not pints

Dew studied st the school.of roos did he not. Employing exactly the defence first, minimise the damage, man behind the ball model goody employed in just first 2 years at the dees

Right, move the forward who kicked 40% of our goals. Makes sense.