binman

Chopper straight from Portsea. Understable mix up. We should have the week off.

He did a solid job as a mid for a black of time allowing tracc to go forward

Sure. But most opposition rucks are pretty tall.

This was def a factor in why we couldn't get more goals from our inside 50s. We have been really good at scoring from stoppages in the last 6 weeks. But could only manage 2 goals 2 this week (they only scored 2 points from stoppages!) Lets say 16 of those rich contests were inside 50. And we'll be generous and say both hit outs were inside 50 too. Pretty hard to scrounge a goal from a stoppage inside 50 if we cant win a ruck contest.

Quite a lot actually.

Jvr did terribly in the ruck. 15 ruck contests for one hit out. Tmac nor much better. Nine ruck contests for one hit out. Two hitouts from 24 ruck contests from our two back up rucks. Not great.

The Maynard hit is in my rear vision mirror now. But it will come into sharp focus when we next play them. We will see in that match the truth about his innocence and mindset. Or at the least what the dees think about that. If the dees players go after him we will know for sure the dees believe it was, if not premeditated, at the very least opportunistic and deliberate to iron Gus out.

Forward? He's been training with the forwards and slots in for JVR. Our very own Dermie. Disco.

Of course we don't plan to be down at quarter time but my feeling is that is how we have approached our last 5 or six games. Let the oppo take their shot, work out what they doing, respond and run over them with superior fitness. But i don't think we can risk another slow start this week. And i don't think they will. Go hard and fast early and get a break on them. And take the crowd out of the equation.

I think we will come out and play fast in the first quarter. We need to get some pace on the ball and have the ball in transition a lot more. And we need a quarter time lead which will help the game not becoming a low scoring arm wrestle. The first quarter against the Pies was that sort transition game, its just that we didn't have out head in the game and couldn't create enough chances or take enough risks. The Pies did both and deserved their match winning lead. In a funny way it would have been better if weren't so dominant after that becuase they couldn't get it out of our half and it turned into a grind. If the they were able to play their normal transition game a bit more it would have put some speed on the ball. They would have scored more, but so would have we. All that said, as the Swans proved, if we kicked as inaccurately as we did last Thursday night it wouldn't have changed the result playing a faster, transition game (that would have meant less inside 50s and therefore les shots at goal).

8 pressure points from 4 pressure acts. Season average is ad you say 30 pressure points Had to check it, coz it's so low. That's terrible for any game let alone as a final for a pressure forward.

Very disappointing. Let's see how serious the AFL is about concussion. But doesn't matter for us. Guilty or not guilty, gus isn't playing this week. We've got a game to win.

That's a good point. To get back into the match we needed to dominate around the ball, which we did. Hard to see us doing so without tracc in there to cover for Gus. I focused on the first quarter in terms of where i thought we lost the game. but really giving up four goals against the run of play and only managing 2.5 (Jesus wept) in the third was also huge factor. if we could have gone in at 3 quarter time only, say, two goals down they might have been more prepared to risk throwing trac forward and perhaps rivers onto the ball.

Had to do a mountain more work in the middle against the pies than what they would have planned for. Can't help. I'm surprised they didn't use Laurie on ball at all. Even 5 or 10 minutes would have given tracc a chop out and chance to play forward. Laurie played as a mid at casey all season after all.

Exactly. It absolutely had a major bearing on the result. I mean c'mon how could it not? Leaving aside the very real impacts you've noted (I mean our worst cp diff in a quarter since round 8 in the first quarter of a QF for the number one cp team in the AFL? - please) the bottom line is we lost one of our best 5 players in the last six games on player ratings, and a key part of our midfield, for nearly an entire match. A player who averages aprox 90% TOG, top 5 for possessions and top 5 for pressure acts out for an entire match and replaced by a sub who only played 50% TOG, played no time on ball and could only manage 5 possessions for an entire match. Of course we could have, should have won. Shows how good we are. Just needed to kick straight. But I mean how could that not impact the result? It's old school nonsense to suggest otherwise. They were slight favorites to win that game at 1.86. Some bookmakers have in game betting. After Gus went down (noting we scored a goal and so the pies lead was only 6 points) the pies would have come into something like 1.40 prohibitive favourites to win. We would have blown our to 3.00 outsiders. Thought experiment. Let's say coming into the game you knew that Gus was going to do a hammy at the 3 min mark of the first quarter (meaning none of the emotion or psychological impact of the head trauma). Would the consensus be that we have less chance of beating a very evenly matched opponent? Or that it likely would make no difference to the outcome? Or alternatively, you know the pies are going to lose Adams after only 3 minutes. Would the consensus be that we have a greater chance of beating the pies? Of course it would.

No coincidence she is a lawyer. And leaving the legal dimension aside, as football manager she knows that the white noise of ex footballers and media that only care about numbers (viewers, listeners, clicks, mentions etc etc) is a dangerous furphy in terms of the future of the game. The 'optics' on this could not be worse. Particularly given the success of the Matildas at the world cup and the buzz they will generate at the Paris Olympics. How many parents of young boys and girls will want their kids to play a sport that gives short thrift to serious head trauma? Kane has earned my respect that's for sure (not that i didn't respect her before).

Try: 'Tell me, what do you think it means?'

Damn, you'd hate me me then.

Serious question. Two actually It's youwho accidentally knocked out a player. You want to go around to see him asap to apologise. But of course you are aware emotions are running high, particularly only two days since the incident. And given the seriousness of the injury, being a reasonable and relatively smart person (or at least having such people around you giving you good advice) there is every chance the player you have knocked our cold for two full minutes may not be well enough to receive visitors or may have medical staff, family, friends or teammates with him who a very likely not wanting to see you. So two questions: Do you drop in unannounced ie without calling ahead? Do you ensure the visit is kept secret because you don't want people to misinterpret the reason for your visit, question your sincerity or create any more media noise that could be upsetting to the victim? Oh, and one more question. Do you bring a bottle of wine when you visit as a gift for a player who has had a significant head trauma?

Herein lies the disconnect. Bracing for contact with a hip and shoulder is reflexive in the circumstances? Maybe reflexive for someone putting their own health and well being over the victim over someone they are about to land on having run and jumped at them. Not reflexive for someone dong their very bets to protest the victim over someone they are about to land on having run and jumped at them. Again i'd point to Kozzie's efforts to not poleaxe Hoskin Elliot. Funny how his reflexive instinct was to do his best to avoid contact

Are you ok?

Really?