Undeeterred

28 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I am not convinced by OMac. Can see that they are trying to get games into him and he does some good things. Will he make it? Can we glimpse what the OMac of the future might look like. Too early to tell but....

1. His body on body skills aren't good. Definitely needs 12-14kgs as soon as possible...(he should try my diet)

2. His urgency is non-existent and he ambles to contests. Fails to kill contests too often.

3. His dinky 2m handballs to someone in a worse position or stationary are terrible. In fact when the ball is in close he is a liability.

4. His kick that dribbled across the ground was appalling. It was lucky it was a goal. (Sure he is not alone, Frost and Garlett both did similar dribbles).

5. He gets wrong sided too often which to me suggests he lacks footy 'smarts'

 

This one is a one off in a list of criticisms about ongoing capability. You can probably leave it off the list, really.

15 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Not the impression i get when chatting to him....but hey who really knows

I'm leaving my job soon, and I can guarantee you that up until the second I resigned, I was behaving like I'd bought in for the next decade.

Imagine he started giving off the impression he was leaving - there would be mayhem down there. He's not stupid.

15 hours ago, ManDee said:

 

Open hand, no problems, no harm done - bulltish!

#freekickhawthorn

1 hour ago, Deestroy All said:

#Gawnfacts

Marked a ball that was kicked from the ball up he was contesting. 

Seriously? I missed that, but that's frigging amazing. Love him.

8 hours ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

This is a joke.

 

firstly, I assumed Rioli got a fine for the tackle, but no nothing there, instead a fine for a perfect bump to the body.

 

secondly, Sicily was deemed as medium impact. Are they joking.

 

third, Mitchell was said to have made a pushing action, not a striking action. Now I know they are taking the p155. All 3 decisions farcical IMO

He did break Bernie's nose, didn't he? I could be wrong, but I thought that was the outcome.

9 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

 

I dont ever remember 2 frees being paid so late within the same game. Solid 2/3 seconds each so bizarre. 

From what I saw, the umpires were busy wanking themselves over how amazing Cyril is and took a while to realise there was a game going on.

2 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

How about a change of pace?

Try something like this: “A most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.”

Or this: “Methink’st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee.”

Variety is the spice of life.

Gold.

As for Mitchell:

"Contact was made by Mitchell with an open hand in a pushing motion and it was the view of the panel there was no striking motion," the MRP said in its findings.

Are they actually joking?

Cyril is just lucky Oliver didn't get carted off to hospital like a good number of players would have been after a dirty bump like that.

And we're much luckier that Oliver is an absolute frigging beast who is going to destroy the AFL for the next 12 years.

#freekickhawthorn

I'm so sick of writing sentences along the lines of: 'Those pricks are the dirtiest, filthiest bunch of snipers'.

It's just absolutely ridiculous what they get away with.

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

i have a feeling we will get the next two games and quite possibly get up to win a super close one in geelong, to finish on a roll with 5/5..but we'll probably miss out on the 8 due to %. it's so hard not to think about our loss to essendon earlier this year, out of all the losses, that's the one that hurt the most. 

Yes, but it was also the one that gave the whole group a kick up its collective bum. 

Why is it all of a sudden ok to slap someone in the face but not punch them?

Surely we're trying to discourage all head high contact?

I know open hands have minimal force, but I don't think that should make a difference in the case of contact to the head.  

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Same logic mate. Doing something once doesn't mean you have that quality.

As I said, I expect him to work hard on it and improve his disposal, but Harmes is not a classy player at this stage.

 

I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand the difference.

But go ahead, post again and make sure you have the last word as you always need to do, because I won't be responding.

23 minutes ago, deespicable me said:

Surely they won't drop Harmesy.

He and Brayshaw walking off the "G" arm in arm singing the song was one of the highlights of the day for me.

That and his brushed tackle, don't argue then kick to Kent in the first. 

Classy, huh?

33 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

Right, so Dawes has great hands then. He doesn't show it all the time, but he does have it.

 

Oh spare me.

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

Missing easy targets by hand and foot is not class, he did that more often that fending off and hitting targets.

 

Having something, and not showing it all the time, are not incompatible states. 

29 minutes ago, stuie said:

Harmes has heart and determination in spades, but he definitely doesn't have "class" (yet). I liken him a bit to Chunk when he first came in, messy and a mile a minute, but Harmes strikes me as the sort of bloke that will work just as hard on his disposal and it will greatly improve. But from being at the game and watching the replay twice, he certainly does not have class.

ANB isn't a slow inside mid either. Roos' mantra of versatility has seen him learning an inside mid role this year, but I believe he will eventually settle in a role as a high HF who can also play as a crumber. We've got a couple of handy players in Kent and Petracca currently in that HF role, but with Garlett and vB's form a bit up and down the queue is nowhere near the same length as it is for the inside mid role. I'm personally not sold on Kennedy yet and think given ANB's stellar and consistent VFL form this year he deserves more than 1 game to show if he can make the leap.

 

Sorry, but fending off two blokes in traffic, then kicking it 50 metres and hitting a bloke in the goal square on his hands, is class. He might not show it every time he touches the ball, but he definitely has class.

41 minutes ago, stuie said:

My view is that ANB deserves more of a chance to prove that one way or the other.

 

Next year. Harmes isn't getting dropped any time soon.

And the Oracle has spoken.

Of course, in a new thread, not the zillion others we have for this exact topic.

Just now, Abe said:

Harmes does everything ANB offers and more, his outside pace, marking around the ground and so on definitely put him a few spots above ANB for mine.

we're definitely trying to play ANB as a mid, and because of that you just have to look at who he's competing with to understand why he can't get a consistent run of games.

I suspect he's a pretty strong chance to request a trade at years end

I agree, I would if I were him. He's never going to get into the midfield as an inside mid with the players we've now got up and running.

10 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

It's not the popular opinion but I'd be looking at resting/dropping Weideman, not Pedersen, to bring Hogan back.

Weideman is going to be a player, but right now he is nowhere near fit enough. He was spent by half time and couldn't move in the fourth quarter. I want us to give the game against Port our absolute best crack and I'm not sure Weideman is going to afford us that opportunity given his fitness.

Won't be fussed either way but just a thought.

It's not just the high-risk stuff he is messing up though, he's missing targets 20 metres away and/or when under no pressure.

His kicking is becoming a liability and he needs to work on it if he is going to stay in the side long-term.

I'm not sure he's adding enough otherwise for him to be a lock at selection.

Probably an easy way out for the selectors too, who won't want to drop Pedersen.

Having said that, pretty hard to drop a debutant after a good game and we've seen earlier in the year that the FD is more than willing to sacrifice the short term to get games into the young players they rate.

10 hours ago, stuie said:

Yeah I do tend to agree with that outlook you have too, but these are the changes I would make, not necessarily the ones I think will happen. Really think ANB should come in one way or another, and after being at the game and watching the replay twice I've just though Harmes' turnovers were pretty costly at certain stages. I love his energy and the way he's really adopted the run at all costs game plan, but there were times our disposal was still really poor yesterday.

 

My view is that Harmes makes us better, ANB doesn't.

3 hours ago, Akum said:

OK, what Gibson did is exactly the same as what happens with tunnelling in basketball. It just is. Anybody who knows about basketball knows that you need just enough "incidental" contact to push your opponent off balance while they're in the air trying to catch the ball. You think tunnelling in AFL is restricted to taking out the legs. Well, you can call it what you like - what Gibson did would be deemed illegal in all sports because it risks causing serious spinal or head injuries if a person lands the wrong way. The umpire explained to Gibson that "it's illegal, and it could cause a serious injury". If you don't agree with that - well, it IS illegal, and it DOES risk causing serious injury. Again, it just is.

Of course footy's a contact sport, and there's plenty of ways to hit someone hard, and hurt them legally, without risking serious injury. Increasing knowledge of sports medicine means that all sports are trying to stamp out any type of contact that could cause serious injury by making it illegal. It's not trying to "ruin a contact sport", it's about doing what can be done to control the play to lessen the risk of serious injury, which is actually part of the umpire's job.

The umpires had a shocker in that game (and something they definitely didn't do is protect both our first-year players from the risk of serious injury from a high shoulder (Oliver) and from being lifted off the ground in a form of spear tackle (Weidemann)). But this is one of the few they got exactly right. And that would have been true even if it were Watts or Petracca (both ex-basketballers by the way) who had done what Gibson did. 

I simply have a problem with those in sport who condone any contact (however "incidental") that risks severe injury. Which is what you seem to be doing. I haven't seen you actually "put an argument" for condoning this type of contact yet, except to keep repeating that you believe that Gibson's action - which in most other ball sports is called "tunnelling" and is banned because of the risk of causing severe injury - should not be penalised in AFL.

So I sincerely want to know: what sports medicine knowledge do you have, against the weight of evidence in all the sports that have banned this sort of contact, that leads you to believe that tunnelling doesn't risk causing severe injury? Or if you do happen to agree with the weight of evidence that it could cause severe injury, why should it be OK in AFL despite it being banned in other sports?

Do you have any actual points to make here? Or just abuse and blind prejudice?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

38 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

Do I think some incidental contact with the hips in a marking contest could cause serious injuries?

Highly doubt it, but it is a contact sport (until people like you ruin it completely).

 

What Gibson did was different to what happens in basketball, as I have pointed out a few times, but obviously comprehension isn't your strong point.

 

keep trying with you lame attempts at put downs, you do them better than make an argument.

 

 

 

Pretty wimpy way to win an argument, just quietly.

Lucky you're so much tougher than the rest of us namby pambies.

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm with Joeboy. If Garlett was tagging, then one tackle seems like an ineffective performance. 

Cool. Let's agree to disagree.