binman
Life Member
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by binman
-
I think it is an important question. Because really the only rebuttal I've heard against banning is a variation of it's an exciting element of a brutal game. Part or the game. But so was hitting and sniping players behind play in the 70s and 80s. And getting off because there was no video review to catch hits thst were missed or a blind eye was turned. But the VFL was increasingly out of step with community values. The level of violence in games was no longer accepted by the community. It took matthews sickening hit on Bruns to trigger a video review and start reducing the number of striking reports. Few would argue the game is not better for it. I'd argue the bump is similar in some ways. The difference is it is legal violence - a football act. One that until relatively recently was legal even if a head was struck. The similarity to striking behind play twofold. One is a bump, even if a head is not hit, is also brutal. Two it achieves nothing positive for your team - unless you consider taking out and/or hurting an opponent as being a positive (and in any cade you can hurt with a tackle). Unlike kicking, marking, tackling and handballing the game would lose nothing the bump, currently a football act, was outlawed. The sport is plenty brutal without taking players out with a bump. As for two players running at each other, personally in such scenarios ie to protect yourself from inevitable contact I'd allow bracing for contact which is a natural, instinctive action. Some head injuries are inevitable in such a chaotic 360 degree sport. For example in marking contests, which I wouldn't ban by the way as unlike bumping high marling is a fundamental of the game. -
Perhaps a better question is why not ban the bump?
-
Which was ridiculous. Broke his jaw. Should have got 6 minimum.
-
Ban the bump. That was a text book example of why. And of my point about the game not losing anything by doing so. Even if he hadn't flushed his head, and just say hit him shoulder to shoulder, what would have that action achieved for Webster's team, other than hurting an opponent? Nothing. He had already disposed of the ball. Even a non reportable 'hit' would likely have been a free. If the bump was not legal he likely doesn't do it - or goes at him hands out, which still might hurt him but not as bad. Simpkin apparently had two concussions last year, one of which was apparently a bad one he struggled to recover from.
-
No food outlets at Goshs, although on Punt road there is servo (though with a young un you will probably need to cross the road at tge swan and putn road intersection) Pretty sure there is a toilet in the park somewhere. Players seem to be fine with post season happy snaps and autographs after training, partic for little kids.
-
Yes, that is very true - he can be a brilliant kick, particularly those penetrating 60 metre bullets that can be so damaging and set up so many scoring chances. His vision is also brilliant. Those kicks are incredible when they come off (but as we saw against the blues, can give the opposition good turnover scoring opportunities when they don’t). Few players in the AFL can hit kicks like that - a factor in the halo effect no doubt. And you're right, his technique, in particular the ball drop, is the issue. Ironically those 60 metres darts are often off one step and slightly accross his body. And his technique is heaps better. He should stick to those kicks. People have talked alot about our forward 'connection" - weird footy speak for the critical last kick inside 50. Tracc acknowledged that kick is an issue for him in the interview posted a few weeks back. And it is - for average kick to score ratio for the kick inside 50 tracc was dead last for us last season. Nibbla was #1. With better kicks like Windsor and billings we will be less reliant on tracc kicking inside 50, which will help with our 'connection' issues. But I'm not really wanting to bag tracc. My initial point was that nibbla is held to a different standard than say tracc. Nibbla is a much better kick than generally given credit for. The data and eyes bear that out. Yes, like tracc and every other player, he miss targets. But also like tracc he is capable of brilliant kicks that set up gilt edged scoring opportunities.
I think tracc is safe from becoming a whipping boy. Of course he is a star. One of the best six players I have seen play at the dees. His score involvements is terrific evidence of how good he is, and how important he is. But that isn't particularly relevant to kicking skills (all players in a scoring chain are credited with an SI). And doesn't change the fact he is a terrible kick.
Absolutely. And it creates a problem for the opponents, which we saw last night. For better or worse, analytics is a big part of the game now. For example the risk reward equation taking on a high risk kick into the corridor (or last year for us trying to pick out a plsyer inside 50 as opposed to bombing long). The risk reward equation is different for each player. For example the blues are desperate to get the ball into saads hand down back. He had the green light to go for the kick to the corridor. But what if they can't get it to Saad? Instead it ends up in the hands of a less skilled player. Do they take the kick to the corridor on? What's the team rule? You could see that hesitation and confusion play out last night. And they didn't really take the corridor on because the risk reward was skewed the wrong way, as evidenced by the 2 or 3 times we intercepted in the middle and scored (I doubt it was more often than that). So, the blues were slowed down and often forces to kicked to an outnumber.
I'm in the same boat. I think. The reason I say that is I feel like I have developed a bit of a set against him. Perhaps because I was surprised they picked him ahead of spargs late last year. So, I wonder if I sub consciousness underrate him. For instance I was really surprised he had 17 possessions against the tigers. Less surprised that he got 17 yesterday, but he seems to have the knack good players do of accumulating disposals unobtrusively. And crucially, he doesn't waste them. A neat kick who reliably hits targets and makes good decisions. I think he is competing with spargo, who is also a good kick but probably doesn't get enough of the pill. The other thing about Laurie that makes me think I maybe underrate him is the coaches, and goody obviously think highly of him. And of course have all the gps amd orher data we don't have access to. On the gps data, Laurie looks really fit and had slimmed down. We saw last night how effective our all team defensive grid is. The blues looked stuck st times- even when they were desperately trying to get speed on the ball. That defensive grid (which by the by seemed to be set up to invite the corridor kick) requires many players getting to the right spot and heaps of unrewarded running - particularly from the utility types like Laurie, nibbla, langdon, Sparrow etc. Such players need a good tank ability to cover the ground at speed and discipline. All hard attributes to "see". I'm guessing Laurie has developed them.
Agree. I thought he was pretty good. There were a couple of marking contests where he scrapped hard enough to bring the ball to ground. And his two goals were class kicks. On his rucking, i get the knock that he struggles with the physicality aspect, but it's a specialist skill that takes time to develop. It certainly did for JVR. In fact, a better comparisons is probably Joe Daniher, who was woeful in the ruck when they first started using him there, but is now more than serviceable. Happy for him to play forward, and continue to build his ruck craft, with JVR helping out in the ruck occasionally as he did last night. The alternative is flogging JVR and/or brining Fullarton in. The shackster has earned first crack at the forward ruck role IMO.
