Young Blood

7 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

But then there are opposition players in the hole in our forward 50. Much better to let them advance up the ground and then have space to go back into. IMO anyway.

I understand the logic to a point. We're generally looking to make the opposition turn the ball over in the middle and on the wings where there is space to rebound and hopefully kick to a more open forward line, sure. But I don't think any forward whose in the vicinity of an opposition player disposing of the ball should just 'let them advance up the ground'. I'm sure you didn't mean this in that way. I'd just like to see better intensity when there's opportunity to force the opposition the hack the ball out of defence as apposed to clean chains of ball movement which is happening too often.

No matter how good our team defence is further up the ground. More strings to our bow! We need to score in multiple ways and if we can cause opposition mistakes deep in forward 50 we should still be trying to turn them into scores.

I think the new game plan is great with trying to create more spaces in forward 50 but its just not realistic that we will be able to do this consistently in every game. We will need to play the forward half pressure game still at times depending on matchups, weather, fatigue etc.

6. Gawn

5. Lever

4. Rivers

3. Langdon

2. Pickett

1. Turner

4 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

We're trying to cause turnovers on the wing, so I don't think we care too much about defending high in the field unless we a protecting a lead.

Yes but you would think some better forward pressure would help as well causing poorer opposition kicks/disposal out of the backline which results in the turnovers on the wings. I do think its coming out too easily and too cleanly far too often. But part of that is playing a taller forward line as well.

51 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

OK I admit when I saw Laurie in the team I thought oh great. But he was great as a sub. Came on, made an impact & kicked 2 goals. 

On the radio after the game lever said at half time all ge could do was laugh because he'd never see us kick so badly. Glad he was amused. But I thought at 1/2 time Goodwin would get us back on track.

Can I just say a credit to our backline for keeping Shai Bolton under control & not really letting him impact the game 

Did anyone else see Lever give Windsor an absolute spray? Was it in the third I think? Lever had marked the ball around half back and wasn't at all happy with Windsor's positioning on the southern side wing/HB but I couldn't understand why. He really let him know about too following up with him after the ball left the area.

Mind you there was a lot of obvious frustration from players all night remonstrating after poor execution. I'm glad they were able to laugh it off at half time. I did notice some smiles in the huddle when they came back on the ground before the third.

8 minutes ago, 12345_54321 said:

When I mentioned the two full games I more meant that he’s played in two full matches. So it’s not as if he’s underdone. As for the continuity forward of the ball, I guess that’s up to the coaches eye.

Oh of course the coaches have best perspective and he was one of the best trainers over summer. Wasn't commenting on your summation. I just remember a time when we brought in a forward due to consistent form at that position at VFL level across several weeks, especially for someone unproven. This is whats occurring at other clubs like the doggies where they have deep KPF stocks. We're pretty thin in this area unfortunately.

As I said very happy if Disco comes in with his size and ability. Trust the coaches with this one.

11 minutes ago, 12345_54321 said:

Disco made a difference when he went forward in the second half last week. The coaches liked him there last year too. Provides a strong marking contest. 
 

He also played a VFL scratch match the week before the Port Melbourne win. So two full games is enough I’d say. 

It shouldn't be though should it? Shows the current state we're in up forward where a guy possibly gets a game on the back of one good game (half up forward) at VFL level.

Would love to have better forward depth where a player is consistently hitting the scoreboard for a few weeks before coming in with some proper form.

I'm certainly all for bringing Turner in. Just would have liked to get some form and confidence into him first. But our lack of depth means he likely comes in sooner. I wouldn't be expecting much from him based on this, just would like to see him compete well in the air and at the contest.

There were whispers McAdam would be available for Anzac eve going back a month ago or so. Was spot on!

There's no way the crows are giving up a top 4 pick for him. Dreaming

I think we'll see Disco Turner in the side if not this week then very soon. Highly rated internally as one of the standout pre season performers before getting injured and had a nice game for Casey on the weekend. Was even tried up forward where he kicked a goal and presented well. 

Could be any one of Fullerton, Disco, N.Brown or Laurie to come in (besides Kozzy of course).

Its going to depend on matchups and covering for roles. Salem going down last week really mucked us up down back as one less midfield rotation. Unfortunately its not an easy role to fill.

For mine, Disco in for Salem with Kozzy and Rivers to cover his midfield rotations.

Fullarton in for B.Brown. I feel uneasy about this one but if Fullarton can do enough playing the second ruck role it would be great to get him building some chemistry with the main squad to build upon for the season.

IN: Turner, Fullarton

OUT: Salem, B.Brown

Sub: Tholstrup

1 hour ago, old dee said:

You may well be right Binman, it is just my personal opinion. I just don't see the potential that the majority see. I see a player who will be serviceable but not a very good KPF. I will be very happy to be wrong in a couple of years time. I do remember the club and supporters being all gung ho about the Weid and we know how that ended. 

Keen to hear why you're of this opinion OD. I think a lot of us see the promising signs you look for at such a young age for a key position player. We know they usually take longer to develop.

What aspects of his game do you think he doesn't have to become a very good KPF?

Wow! Huge

Another Perth boy signs on!

I'm calling this the fatigue round. Seems a trend this weekend so far.

GWS and Carlton both fatigued badly in the last quarter. Only one of them was able to hold on somehow.

I'll include us in this category but we seemed to fatigued as soon as the ball was bounced on Thursday.

I hope we can settle into this game a bit earlier then the last two games. More for our collective nerves then anything else.

We certainly don't want to let them get the clearance/stoppage dominance they got in the first half of last years game!

Dees by two goals 

I know I know. It was Soligo's fault!!!

Kozzy gets off :)

34 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Kossie's humerus bone is almost vertical at the point of collision, so his elbow is pointing down. He raised his wrist to 90 degrees, in a half brace action. A full brace would have brought the elbow down lower but also tensed the biceps and made the hit harder.

The action to half brace has little or no impact on if Soligo got a concussion or not. But failing to do this action might have seen Kossie with a shoulder injury, broken ribs or losing a kidney. 

Did Kossie jump with any intention to bump Soligo? No, he was trying to smother.

Could have he done anything to prevent a collision with Soligo's head whilst in the air? No. The trajectory of both players' prior to the incident was always going to result in contact, as Kossie was initially running a path to tackle Soligo.

Did Kossie's actions make the collision with Soligo harder than it needed to be? Not really. Kossie did not fully tense his biceps. If he had have kept the right wrist down, there still would have been a similar force collision and Kossie might need a shoulder reconstruction.

I wish I knew the inner workings of Kozzy's biceps like you do 😉

There's two actions there and both replay angles show it. Yes the first is to spoil but after that he has an opportunity to brace with arm out on Soligo's shoulder. He could have kept his body aligned with the trajectory he was going instead of turning his body and pushing out with the elbow/shoulder (general area) to Soligo's head.

Regardless of whether we believe Maynard went to spoil the kick, once he was in the air he could have put both hands out to brace and push off or land on Brayshaw. Yes this alternative could have caused injury to both players bodies but at least one wouldn't have a champion player retire far too early after one last horrible concussion. GET RID OF THIS ACT.

11 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

If you just looked at that photo and nothing else you would think it's worth 3 weeks, but a photo doesn't tell the whole story and just captures a split second.

If you watch the video in real time he goes to smother the ball and then clips him very lightly, which you can't tell from a photo.

The media have been running with that photo because it suits their narrative.

Cool but I'm not the media. Just someone who is sick and tired of concussions due to careless acts from opposition players.

Here's another angle. If an opposition player lightly clipped a demon player in this same act I would be furious. Especially if they have a history of careless/reckless behaviour like Kozzy has. Its not the impact, its the act! Why did he need to turn and knock his head with the elbow? Its unnecessary. 

28 minutes ago, deanox said:

And I think the issue is "how much duty of care is enough?".

In this case Kosi could have hit him hard (or medium) but did lots of things to mitigate it to a low impact glancing blow.

On one hand, that's exactly what the AFal want to see: potentially dangerous situation reduced to low impact due to the actions of the offending player.

However maybe the AFL goes further and says "regardless of how much you mitigated it, you could have mitigated the risk more by running the other way (for example) so you could've done more.

Its the turning and tucking of the shoulder with elbow out (yes I know he eventually extends the arm to push.. quick thinking from Kozz). But its this action the AFL wants to stamp out and the recent history shows this player has a habit of not showing duty of care when they leave their feet. Like the Peter Wright incident its split second stuff and so so hard to think quick but this action/instinct has the potential with head contact to cause damage and this action is why he won't get off tonight. The AFL need to make a stand (unfortunately for us... Should have been with Maynard last year).

Where's the duty of care of the players head here? And don't tell me this [censored] of 'he could have hit him so much harder' like thats going to stand up at the tribunal. Yes I know its the back angle which looks worse but it shows him turn his body and tucking.

Was pleased to see Trac was giving him praise in a post-match interview on Fox. 

Trac looked very sore and stiff after the Port game and by reports carried over the next day or two. I think there were even doubts over availability for a second there.

For him to get up and be easily best player on ground running out the game so well is credit to himself, Selwyn and the rest of the medical/high performance team.

1 minute ago, hardtack said:

I would have thought that once the player’s feet have left the ground and contact is made with the head, then there is no consideration for low impact…unfortunately, it’s probably going to be an automatic suspension, as that is the action they are trying to get out of the game.

Its a bitter pill to swallow as I love Kozzy and this club. But he deserves the week. Its the right decision. I want the AFL to start punishing the 'action' as opposed to the consequence. Its the only way we might take some of these unnecessary injuries out of the game.

The attempt to spoil was fine but following through with shoulder/elbow to a players head in a vulnerable position was not. I understand its a split decision and its going to be difficult for players who play on the edge like Kozz.

The AFL have an opportunity to get it right here. It sucks that we're the ones who will pay the price for it (should be Collingwood for pure karma). But yeah it will be upheld.

Just now, Deestar9 said:

I just find it unbelievable to be comparing Kozzy with the action of Maynard. About the only similar thing is the word “smother”. There was a stat (I think the Richmond game where it was 10 smothers ! & they were lauding this ) in nearly every case where you attempt to smother the ball ..your feet leave the ground. His intention was to smother the ball & it absolutely should be graded low impact . 

Cool but its the action that the AFL are trying to reduce. Where's the duty of care Kozz has for the player in the vulnerable position? Does he need to raise his elbow? Football act?

48 minutes ago, sue said:

Regardless of one's view on what penalty Kozie should get (and I haven't seen anyone say he should get off scot free), I cannot let that pass.  Maynard's action was quite different.  He lined Gus up pretending to smother, had plenty of time to not clobber him.  Even if you take the most negative view of what Kossie did, it was nowhere near as bad as Maynard. 

As much as I absolutely detest the man, I don't think Maynards action was premeditated before he left the air. He jumped to spoil/smother. Its once he was in the air he decided to turn his body and make full contact with his shoulder with the intention to hurt the player (Gus). I know its a lost cause but it still baffles me as to why old vision of the hundreds of times a similar situation occurred where the player in the air simply put their arms out to brace/push off the kicker was not enough to influence the decision. This is the duty of care we're talking about, not a thug taking advantage of a player in a vulnerable position.

Unfortunately while the impact is so different, the act is somewhat similar with Kozz. Leaves his feet to intercept/spoil the handball then decides in that split second to clip the players head with elbow. It was a split second but unnecessary. This part was not a football act.

Any other year he gets off. But not this year 😪

12 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Obviously the optics of it not great, but overall (not this specific instance) still find it funny you can punch a bloke in the stomach off the ball and get a lesser punishment than a clumsy football action. 

Kozzy hit player head = bad

Pendles hit player stomach = good

Me AFL make decision

Why are people so keen to drop Billings? Because he doesn't rack up possessions? Doesn't appear on our TV screens as much?

Apart from not converting on the two easier shots (of his three) and lower pressure acts I thought he played his role well last night. He's certainly putting himself in positions to score and still good for score involvements.

Do we just want to change for the sake of change?

Maybe someone from Casey is knocking down the door to come back in. Some people suggesting Laurie. Did he have a big game?

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

This is going to be a much harder game than most people think.

Adelaide are not a bad team, and they are under the pump. 

With May sore, Viney possibly sick, Clarry with a bung hand and Trac and Chandler also sore, I think it will be a tight contest.

 

And they're just the players we know of with niggles...

Five day turnaround, intense crowd, hungry team who always plays better at home.

If their forwards get going and they can get enough entry we'll be in trouble.

But I'm backing our system to prevail still and win a tight one!

Go mf'n Dees!

30 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Slow start and the bad 3rd quarter were concerning, made us grind back to even with good footy and good luck a couple of times before kicking away twice in the last.

The big question is how much of our lack of speed on the spread defensively was due to covering May with a tall slower backline in the first half?

Or how much was our midfield and half forwards probably being a step slow and disorganised?

Similarly, was reverting to more bomb and chase down the line - a tactic I mostly supported to get the job done on the night - just pragmatism?

Or are we still needing to work on skill execution under pressure to play a more expansive style when facing heat?

Because there were a string of bad decisions or shoddy kicks coming out of the backline early and especially in the 3rd - hello Mr Lever - and also a lot of handballs that went back in through traffic rather than clearing to the fat side.

Fantastic win, but one that raises a few questions too.

Fantastic win sounds like a stretch considering your assessment of the game.

Definitely not the best start as they had momentum pure clearance dominance early on. We just couldn't get our hands on it and when we did we wrestled it back.

The free kicks definitely kept us in it and we were very luck to still be in the games at times especially in the third when they really got on top of us in the midfield.

Care the elaborate on the lack of speed on the spread? I thought our backs were back in position quite often and didn't seem to get caught out, out the back. They created genuine contests in the air and Lever was able to play his intercept game nicely once the game settled down. The easier goals they got were probably more to do with the mids and wings not filling the holes in the shallower parts of defensive 50...

Take your point about shoddy kicks out of the backline, they too were very poor with execution which levelled it out. But this is what happens when you player better opposition and they bring the pressure and better structure. The handballs back into the corridor is something you'll have to get used to with the new game plan, its going to be hit and miss while they work it through the early part of the season.

While the new game plan is around the sling shot of half back changing the angles by hand or foot through the corridor. You're still going to see SOME kicking down the line. It's what every team does when the corridor is manned up and you have numbers at the contest. We generated quite a few scores from this :) You might be right that were reverted back to it at times but this might have also been to take the heat out of the game and use the boundary to get stoppages in more neutral parts of the ground where we could set up better.

Skill execution under pressure is what won us the game. Port were messy with the ball with so much hack kicking out of contest resulting in turnovers. I thought thats where they lost the game and we won, skill execution. They may have won the clearances but those clearances were not as quality as ours