Macca

Lobby knew what he was doing. And the Fox crew reckon it was just an accident!! But because it was a filth player who has done his fair share of sniping himself, he got his right whack

Good game but the Saints stopped to a walk. Did well to hang on in the end

You Beauty!!!!

I'd go next year in the AFL (new boundary line rule and 16 a side) There would be less congestion and let's not forget that a ground like the MCG is 149 metres wide I much prefer corridor footy, it's just way more exciting. As for turnovers in the middle? That won't happen if a team is highly skilled We are already seeing a trend that way anyway. So if we make the boundary line the enemy, we'll see a better game Not necessarily looking for higher scores either ... one of my all-time favourites games was the 1990 Elimination final (Melb vd Hawks) End to end stuff but only 18 goals scored for the match

I reckon we'd all wear a boundary throw in if there was enough doubt about how the ball went out of bounds Otherwise, it's a turnover And your point about a 20 team comp not being watered down if we went to 16 a side is a very good one And good luck with the shopping (isn't Saturday arvo blokes time? Huh?)

Yes, it's cut and dried. But let's not forget that the league likes to remain in the news so they love a grey area (in my opinion) The 16 a side idea would almost certainly mean we'd have less congestion and therefore, less contentious free kicks There was a time (especially in the 70's & 80's) when the sport was quite open and free flowing But again, a debate for another day

Agree with all except I'd adopt the rule the league once had (1926-1939) ... last player to kick or handpass the ball is penalised if the ball goes out of bounds When the ball is rushed over the boundary line or if there is some doubt, a boundary throw in to result The above rule is apparently in operation in the SANFL and by all reports, it works quite well It's a debate for another thread, but I'd definitely go to 16 a side as I much prefer a more open game

Beveridge just made mention that his team didn't have enough forward 50 entries (43) It always felt like the Pies had their measure (albeit narrowly) I was shocked at the one-sided adjudication though More so the frees that the Bulldogs didn't get. Daicos walked the ball out and another Bulldog has his legs taken out. Both blatant and not paid. And both late in the game

I reckon it did cost us Kozzie needs to change the way he attacks the contest. He isn't in the protected species category (like some players from certain clubs are) Players need to be aware of how to tackle properly and bumping anytime (or even side on bracing for contact) is fraught with danger I understand that Moore went to ground when Kozzie contacted him but you just can't lead with the shoulder these days (unless you are Maynard or Cripps)

Got a bit of mongrel too. Cleaned up Maynard last year (Can he do it again? Tonight?)

Yep, that's a good point too, BoBo I loved the hands in the back rule and it should still be in operation. I like it mostly because it's a cut and dried rule. Use your hands and you get pinged Use of the body or the forearm to hold your ground was how it used to be (back in my day) But you are right, Hawkins just pushed his opponents in the back and because of the shoddy rules, got away with it The AFL are great at making money and marketing the sport but as custodians, they often fail

James Brayshaw blames the kicker for poor delivery when the target lost front position and played from behind!! Brayshaw has no idea. Did he ever play footy?

I'd only pay blatant high contact ... otherwise play on for incidental contact But I'd retrospectivilly rub players out for flopping Which means that Joel Selwood would have barely played a game (haha) Selwood received about 500 soft, high contact free kicks. Flopped for his whole career and cheated the game

Soft high contact frees are a blight on the game ... and so many players play for it these days. So much flopping AFL rules of the game issue, not an umpires issue Nick Daicos just got one and it's bs

I'd be rushing Melk back into the forward line as soon as he is fit ... if we can get him into 1 on 1's he adds much needed class and goalkicking power. He's a fitness freak so the age factor isn't as pronounced Some players can defy the age barrier and he seems like one of those types

The make-up of the forward line can only get better ... this is what it could look like for the Geelong game HF: Kozzie/Tracca JVR Fritsch F Hendo/Chin Jeffo or AJ Melksham That's a lot better than what we'll see on Sunday So it's not all doom & gloom. We can get better (personnel-wise)

North aren't good defensively and their better players don't track back ... they will battle to get the ball through our overall defence But you may be right, it could be close

I reckon it's more about personnel... Fritsch is still our best forward yet he is out of form and many here want him dropped! I wouldn't drop him as we need to allow him to be the opportunist that he is and also, get him into 1 on 1 situations (where he also can excel) After Fritsch? There's not much talent there, certainly not proven talent We'll almost certainly beat North but it's how our forward line matches up against the good sides which is the question And of course, Kozzie, Melk & Tholstrup will return soon enough And I'd definitely play Petracca forward on Sunday

Petracca could destroy a team like North up forward

Reckon this is a real possibility. It would be a different story if all of our 3 KPF types could be relied upon but that is not the case And it's a midfielders game these days with up to 12-14 players playing some sort of role between half back & half forward (that includes the 4 on the bench being part of the rotations) I'd much prefer if we went with just the 2 KPF's and another runner How many KPF's did the Hawks go with last night?

Schwarz is a good chance (and good odds) in the G1 William Reid Stakes tomorrow (1200m) Should lead from a nice gate and it might be a leaders track at the Valley Moonee Valley (Saturday) R9 #4 9.50/2.60 Schwarz

I agree I do not have an issue with the subject matter as the topic is well worthy of discussion But the thread name?? How about 'How can we get more people to attend our games'

My idea is a long shot but the AFL is cashed up and should be thinking of the future

We've got a soft draw/fixture which includes 7 home games against low drawing opposition teams (GWS, GC, Sydney, WC, Bulldogs, North & Freo) So there's a good chance that some of the crowd figures are going to rear their ugly head again And whenever we miss the finals we get a very similar fixture My concern is more so about how much money the club is going to make from all these low drawing home games The saving grace is that we have home games against Richmond & Collingwood so there's that to consider as well (next season we are the away team in both those games) And we should get a good crowd for our home fixture against the Hawks But no home (MCG) games against Essendon, Carlton or Geelong Collingwood on the other hand get MCG home games against Carlton, Essendon, Geelong, Hawthorn, St.Kilda & Melbourne ... they only miss on Richmond Might not sound like much of a difference but when it happens every season it adds up (from a financial point of view)

Yeah, I reckon we need a 3rd stadium and it can be multi-purpose And whilst our game had a decent atmosphere on Sunday my point was about the other 20-30 low drawing games played every season (in Melbourne) The bigger picture argument I love it that games are played in Ballarat (2 there this season) but there's a limit on how many could be played at that stadium (it's not big enough) Failing that Docklands can be used more often. I just reckon that a smallish crowd & the MCG is not a good fit. Bigger crowds is a solution too of course but against low-drawing interstate teams?