Macca

It was a poor decision but the result of a game is decided over 120 minutes (or whatever it is these days) I counted at least 12 questionable decisions by the umpires but also noted numerous poor decisions by the players themselves. 50+ poor decisions by players on both sides .. wrong options taken left, right & centre That includes a soft approach by a stack of Lions players in the first half. 2nd to the ball, playing from behind etc etc. If you were the coach (Fagan) you'd be ropable. Scott shouldn't be too pleased either ... when Brisbane finally got their act together the Cats went to pieces If we're fair dinkum (and finals bound) we need to be able to defeat both Geelong & Brisbane (based on what we witnessed tonight)

It wasn't a great standard tonight. Neither team took on the corridor enough. Both teams played cute. Neither team can finish top 4 if that's what they're going to serve up. Dangerfield & Cameron might make a difference but Fagan has some work on his hands with Brisbane

The Lions blew it in the first half GV We meet them in Alice Springs mid season so here's hoping they don't turn up again

I'm not denying it wasn't a poor decision ... of course it was. I'd just prefer to look at the big picture rather than isolated moments. Besides which, the umpire might not have had a clear view of the incident But that poor decision is not the prime reason that the Lions lost the game Did you watch the game? If so, let us know your evaluation of Brisbane's first quarter and a half. Don't hold back either. A proper evaluation. Most here have acknowledged that the Lions were really poor in the first half Now, if they had have come out of the blocks as they should have, that last decision wouldn't have had any consequences. By the way, Fagan has just said that he is not concerned about that non decision ... good on him. Otherwise he gives his players an out

If we had have served up that tripe that Brisbane showed in the first quarter and a half we'd be furious That's where they lost the game ... simple as that. They then played catch-up for for the rest of the game and made it hard for themselves Soft & insipid. They weren't switched on. Too little, too late. Are they drinking their own bathwater? Mind you, our team has it all before them and we've got a lot to prove It's big league pro footy and you've got to be ready from the get-go. Otherwise you run the risk of getting a howler. Take the luck out of it Losers whinge and the winners get on with it

Lions only have themselves to blame ... they were asleep for the first quarter and a half. They were soft. If they had have come out ready to play right from the start they would have won Control what you can control Playing away from home you're always likely to cop an iffy decision. So take the luck out of it or pay the consequences Fagan should rip into them for their lack of application in the first half rather than focus on one iffy decision. That's what a good coach would do

You're right t_u The broadcasters pour in the Billions and without that revenue the game wouldn't survive. Especially last year where the bulk of the revenue came via the broadcast rights So they get to have a very big say, like it or lump it. Personally, I don't have a problem with the broadcast partners having their 2 cents worth As you indicated, more goals means more advertising space and more revenue for the broadcasters And we footy fans need the broadcasters to make good profits. Big time sport lives in a commercial world. No question But the by-product of a lot more scoring almost certainly means way less congestion coupled with a faster, more open style of footy - the way footy was played in the 70's, 80's, 90's and right up until about 5 years ago So are we just going back to how footy was played for over 4 decades? Looks like it to me With rapid-fire attacks we'll see the backmen under a lot more pressure without the luxury of their teammates flooding back on a constant basis. Something I also don't have a problem with. My wish is not necessarily more scoring though ... one of my favourite games from the past was the 1990 Elimination final where we beat Hawthorn ... 10.13 to 8.16

You may be right but our best chance remains if we move the ball into our forward line at rapid speed coupled with our forwards playing their role properly Even just being a visible target helps enormously so our forwards need to play in front as a minimum standard. Footy basics 101

We have to assume that our game on Saturday night will be played at high speed much like last nights game (especially at Docklands - fast deck) Ratten likes to coach that way anyway ... we need to match them and better them

A lot depends on T-Mac but if we make him a stationary target up forward we are asking for trouble ... he needs a roaming commission even if that means he gets as far out as the wing (on occasions) Fritsch needs to continue to stand up whilst LJ, Gawn & Petracca (as well as the smalls) need to play their roles We won't win games against the good teams unless our forward line functions well. And quick ball movement into our forward line is paramount

Cats are a bit vulnerable too ... Lions tomorrow night with Danger & Cameron out and then they are up against the plucky Hawks and a hungry Demons outfit (or at least we had better be hungry!)

They could lengthen the kick for a legal mark to be paid (20 metres?) but I'll wear teams icing the game for now willmoy as long as the attacking nature remains for the greater part of the games. I suppose an argument could be mounted that the team leading by 3 or 4 goals has earned the right to ice the game but I am with you in principle. The custodians of the AFL should always be ahead of the game and be looking to always improve the spectacle. Rugby League has that type of thinking and that M.O. works for that sport (especially with Peter V'landys running the show up there)

My memory is of the later years rather than the earlier stint ... he played under Ridley & Skilton but I was a bit young to be able to evaluate his worth from that time (although his disposal stats read well from those earlier years '73 - '75) Interesting that Carl missed 15 games through injury in '79 & '80 and we did not win any of those games ... No Ditterich, no Melbourne was very much the thinking (and the actuality) His last game against Collingwood ... 14 disposals, 9 hitouts & 8 TKO's.

Carl was compelling to listen to last night. I was hanging on every word. Great theatre much like when he played the game. A powerful personality was Carl Certainly a different type of player but when he played with our team our players walked taller My one regret is not seeing him play in that last game of 1980. I know people who did though and from all accounts, he created havoc amongst the filth. They were going down like 9 pins He dished it out but copped it as well. But that was footy back then. Laurie Fowler claimed that Carl was his best coach and Laurie was coached by both Hafey & Barassi. W/L record aside, we didn't have anywhere near enough talent back then.

Ben could be a real handful if the forward lines remain as open as what we've seen tonight Is he still 5 or 6 weeks off or is it more or less than that time frame? As it stands I'd have Gawn & LJ rotating deep forward with T-Mac roaming far and wide We need to stretch opposition defences with our height (that evaluation is based on the attacking footy becoming the norm with less congested forward lines)

The Pies have enough talented players to feature in the finals ... they're not a flag threat but they've got about the same chance of playing finals as what we have One could argue that they have a better forward line and we break even in the midfield. We might have a better backline Carlton lack composure & poise ... 8-9 wins max

I totally disagree though 'Betters' ... I did not see it (the first half) as a training drill in any way shape or form I see the game tonight as a return to the way footy was once played You are half right though ... I am still fuming and angry about the dross that has been served up in the last 5 years or so. You watch the ratings and crowds soar if we keep seeing footy like we're seeing tonight. Covid got the viewers back but ultimately the game needs to entertain the masses

And where's all the kicking backwards and time wasting tactics? Another blight on the sport that might be a thing of the past Anti-football and bloody boring No fights in the crowd either is my guess ... the eyes are glued to the actual game One simple man on the mark rule changes things for the better ... who would have thought? Teams are compelled to attack otherwise they lose

If you don't like it turn it off then (I'll bet you don't!) As previously stated, you've become accustomed to congested footy so much that now you miss it. We humans are like that! We are creatures of habit And it is not bruise-free either ... fast attacking footy was the norm for decades and it was never classed as bruise-free in that time. You play in front of your man in a game like this and you can still get thumped in the back of the head (repeatedly) No room for the faint-hearted out there even though the congested garbage is at a minimum

I don't how you lot kept watching the boundary hugging negative garbage that was served up for 5+ years. Scramble ball with a million stoppages. Ugh Anti-football and you kept watching? Easily pleased or just plain addicted These threads on the other games are getting a stack more traffic than in previous years. Usually full of people moaning incessantly about umpiring decisions And it's not about the extra goals either ... attacking footy slam dunks congested boundary hugging rubbish every day of the week Enjoy!

You're wrong You've just become accustomed to congested garbage (like many others) What do you want? ... 6 goals vs 5 goals for a whole match with a million stoppages and no ball movement I'd rather eat a ****t sandwich that watch scramble-ball

Entertaining game This new/old/new footy will have me watching wall-to-wall

Value Bet Saturday Bendigo R3 Mo.7 Matao Ma 7.50/2.40

The MC would want to win every game that we contest and if we can get all or most of our best players on the field (and firing) then any game is a potential win But in my view our biggest weak point is not having a functioning forward line often enough ... so the MC needs to come up with a forward line that can help us win games. Certainly against the teams where we've got a relatively good chance of winning Right now if T-Mac, Gawn and/or LJ aren't influential up forward, we're going to be up against it. Our medium talls and smalls up forward wouldn't be able to get us over the line against the best teams and even against the lesser lights it's a big ask without the Key bigs up forward firing But all the best teams can have an off day so that's a factor as well. We're going to need to win 3-4 games against the top 8 teams as we can't be expected to win all the games against lesser opposition (the teams below the top echelon generally have more 'off' days) I'd rather look at the number 8 as the magic number ... i.e. a maximum of 8 losses only 14 wins and we'll play finals ... 16 will get a team a top 4 spot but we're a ways off being that good

Hindsight tells us that we would have better off spending 4 x $10k on 4 players from other clubs (Laurie Fowler types?) Even $10k was a lot of money in the early 70's ... that sort of money would have just about bought you a house back then! Diamond Jim wasn't really the problem though ... we were very much an amateur club in the midst of league entering the professional age. For instance, teams like North Melbourne seemed to have never ending cash reserves (to bring in ready made talent) And hearing that Jim Cardwell was still our chief recruiter in 1975 only reinforces to me how poor our zones were ... its hard to go from the best ever (arguably) to an also-ran without sound reasoning