Lucifers Hero

This reminds me of last years grand final when a number of Hawks players lined up Buddy in the opening stages of the game and dropped him hard a few times. And at one stage Hodge went up and kissed on the cheek...a bit of fun! All still mates after the game. Then the 3qtr time melee yesterday reminded me of that 'line-in-the-sand' game between Hawks and Ess (about 2006) where the Hawks players created havoc after half time. That was the turning point for their style of play and now have 3 flags. A long time since we have had a gutsy, rough up the opp. team. Great step towards earning back on-field respect and no-one will call us 'bruise-free' again. Don't care that we lost. Respect is worth a lot more than one win. We will win many more on the back of yesterday's performance in the years to come. Our tough guys noticeably stood up yesterday: Vince, Jones, Kent Jamar. Jamar getting old but the add Viney and there is a core group of 'come and get me' players. Final observation: Dangers reputation went down a few notches yesterday...basically couldn't take the heat! Edit: one more observation...I don't get why crows supporters and Walsh are all sooking...Tex sure looked like he lined up Tommy Mc leaving him crouched on all fours and looking like he may need to be subbed out.

Sorry, but poor form Chook.

Deeluded, hey mate, this post and the op of the 'footy prohecies' thread suggests you are on a weekend-long bender. Hope it is fun!!!

Agree. We should all be over the moon about this 4 qtr effort. Let the mistakes go and enjoy what they did...it bodes very well. I'd be worried if I were the tigers!!

Kudos to Roos for holding his nerve and selecting an unchanged (except forced) side. Showed his belief. Paid off big time today with the teams confidence. Yes, some players made mistakes. Its still a young side that don't know each others games yet. The good times will come.

Brayshaw is god or Brayshaw is good? Either way I agree!!

Dee-luded is feeling a bit deluded atmo - see his opening post here http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/38240-footy-prophecies/#entry1075353 No offence Dee-luded, I found that post very entertaining. Back on topic. Breathtaking 'logic' in Dank decision. The horse may have bolted for now (unless WADA jump into the saddle) but such a fiasco can't be allowed to happen again. The gentlemen on the Tribunal may be learned men of integrity but their decisions and (il)logic are disgraceful. The sooner we have independent tribunals the better! A National Tribunal that covers all sports is what is needed.

IMO Dawes doesn't have an 'upside' or 'improvement' in him. Consider: - At the Pies he wasn't a regular top 22 player. - He played 3rd forward behind Close and Brown - His best goal kicking was 30 goals in 2010 (20 for us in 2014) - He has no other strings to his bow. - There has been no noticeable improvement in any aspect of his game over the last 3 years - Yes we can blame our rubbish midfield but that wasn't the case for pies from 2008 to 2011 - We recruited him and still playing him in a role he isn't suited for (1st/2nd forward). I for one, don't know what role he is suited for. At best he is an (expensive) 'insurance' policy while Hogan is developing. IMO Dawes reached his peak at the pies. This is as good as it gets!

Last night on FC Caroline Wilson called out Clark on this tweet: Mitch Clark @mitchjclark · Apr 10 Reports are completely false. Never named Brian Lake. Story blown way out of proportion and I wanna just get on with the footy #mightycats She said that HFC, GFC, AFLPA had all openly told her that Clark had named Lake as the ‘depression’ sledger. During the discussion it seemed pretty clear that either Clark was not truthful with GFC in the first place or the above tweet is not true. Either, way a poor reflection on Clark. Doesn't seem an auspicious start at the cattery.

Geelong didn't need top 10 pics. They got Hawkins, Scarlett, Ablett 1, Ablett 2 as father/sons with very late draft picks. 9 premiership medals right there and some of the best FB, FF and midfielder of all time. Joel Selwood was a pick 7 or 8. They also received several round 1 picks for loosing Ablett 1 They used one of those for Caddy (a top 10 pick at GC). There may be other permutations that I have forgotten but it isn't such a hard luck story as GFC like to make out!

Of course...several times I have posted about being outcoached...I just didn't want to labour the point...

Another thing which hasn't had much comment so far is that GWS used Cameron to lead Tommy away from the play out to the flanks. They didn't even look for Cameron thus preventing Tommy from stopping other passages of play. This in no way diminishes Tommy's fantastic work on Cameron for the whole day...just saying GWS were very clever about opening up their forward 50 to let their small guys charge through. The ploy worked!

There needs to be a good reason to drop a player other than a bad game. So for mine: - If Bernie can't play 75+% of time (vs 52% on sat) he is out (or else is the sub). - Dawes may be the coach's pet but he isn't contributing to games and more importantly hasn't for a long time. BTW: -Hogan doesn't need protecting, he can look after himself!! -If Dawes role is to be a decoy to take another tall, instead put Frost/Pedo/Gawn/xxx down there (who can relieve Jamar in the ruck) -Being in the Leadership Group is not automatic selection (ala Grimes) -I can't see what other effective role Dawes has played or can play so I would drop him. Grimes did a great job on Danger last year so could be considered. JKH and Toumpas are both match-fit so could come in. Really depends on match-ups. An essential change: Wake up the coaches box during the game!!!

The big surprise there is that Bernie played only 52% of the game time...effectively we were a midfielder short for half the game! No wonder we looked slow around the stoppages. That strongly suggests he should not have been selected or if that was the plan he should have been the sub and have a fit player out there.

Newton received a pretty heavy head knock and had to take the 20min concussion rule and was temporarily subbed out. It was close to a sling tackle and he hit the turf hard. That he came back on and stayed on is testament to his toughness and the knock probably slowed him up a bit. We should cut him some slack.

Yes, GWS were faster but they weren't that fast and we weren't that slow. They made us look slower becasue we: - had poor positions at the stoppages/centre bounces. - didn't adjust our stoppage play when Jamar lost dominance. - had too many players trying to get the ball at stoppages and competed with each other - didn't have players blocking the exits at stoppages (ala poor positions) - didn't learn to read Mummy. In a nutshell they got the ball at stoppages/centre bounces and ran and ran. We were in the wrong positions, couldn't catch them and looked slow. Won't bang on about it but this had as much to do with poor coaching as it did with poor play.

An interesting point, 'Bonkers'. Roos introduced something like this at Sydney and nigh perfected it in their premiership year. It was known then as 'tempo' football. And as you say we did it to some extent last year. Something went seriously wrong yesterday with our version of 'tempo' footy when we (players and coaches) lost all elements of a defensive game. Yesterday we did not try hard enough to stop them getting the ball. As you say extra players down back and blocking exits from stoppages would have helped slow the game and maybe get it back to our 'tempo' footy. As for the OP's question on trend? Lots of pressure from AFL and Port success to play fast, flashy, attacking (slingshot) football. At the end of the day it will be a balance but being able to control the game is where it is at. I'm ok with us playing 'tempo' footy as long as we start to get the attack/defend balance right.

I may be going out on limb here but IMO we were out-coached. If we didn't go in too tall we were certainly too tall when Tomlison went off and Wilson came on in the 2nd qtr. They then played outside footy while we stuck to inside footy. Momentum swing started here. But by the end of the 2nd qtr we should've figured out that wasn't working. 3rd qtr we stuck to inisde game. Momentum swing becomes an avalanche. 4th qtr players and coaches looked anaesthetized. 2nd half coaches box options: - taking off a tall for Brayshaw - a bit of old fashioned flooding the backline to stop the momentum - putting speedy player(s) behind the ball. (Watts & Garlett maybe, God knows they were wasted in the fwd line). - heavily tagging the more damaging GWS players (a bit of a heavy knock to them maybe ) - getting our players to feed off Mummy - blocking the exits from the stoppages - etc These wouldn't have saved the game but would have saved the massive embarrassment, loss of confidence, belief etc. Added to the selection of players underdone/recovering (Howe, Vince, Dawes, Kent - head knock last week) the coaches had a poor round 2. I hold coaches as responsible as the players.

It seems that wherever Mitch walks, controversy is his shadow!

This is rather Over-The-Top Saty, especially 3...no where has anyone, let alone me said anything remotely like what you are claiming. Completely unnecessary and inappropriate comments. You are, rightly a highly respected and valued DL poster but that doesn't give you the right to indulge these types of comments nor to regularly deride/insult fellow posters. That post is the last straw for me. In one minute you will be on 'Ignore'. And, I don't care that you don't care. Bye

1. Not 2nd hand - described by his captain 2. I have 3. Hyperbole is always a good red-herring as is insulting other posters.

Saty, it is one thing for you to be defender of the faith when it comes to our players and our club. But please to defend a player that left to go to another club in less than amicable circumstances! Seriously! ...if he let it (the sledging) pass then who the hell told (complained) to his captain? Nah mate at some point Mitch has to be held responsible for what he says and does. At GFC one way or another they will hold him to account if he 'imagined' the 'sledging'. Good on them I say...reap what you sow...

Maybe it was all a furphy: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-wont-investigate-mitch-clark-sledging-claims-until-geelong-lodge-complaint-20150410-1mi6xw.html Some extracts: AFL: "...the AFL was hesitant to act before the Cats came forward. "It's hard to investigate without a complaint. There's little to go on," HFC: "Hawthorn and Geelong Football Clubs have been in contact this morning regarding reports of an on-field verbal exchange in the Easter Monday clash," the statement said. "We have found it difficult to get clarity on what was said and by whom..." Cook: "We just don't know whether it was true or false. We don't like the possibility that it may have happened." GFC: A Cats spokeswoman said "the club has nothing to add on the issue." It is up to Mitch to tell his club who the player was and what was said. On the above this appears uncertain. I hope for Mitch's sake it was true otherwise he has dropped his captain into a bucket of poo and made him look a public fool! If not true Mitch is in for a world of pain with his new teammates. Can't say that I feel sorry for him. Something about 'just desserts' comes to mind

Quite right! And, if he wants out of the limelight he should deal with 'sledging' like any type of vilification, through official channels. According to SEN, Hawthorn have said the TFS was the first they knew as no complaint had been made to them or the AFL. HFC believe it could have been one comment from one player and if so said player will apologize. One wonders about Clark's motives to allow this to come up in the media rather than official channels. Someone from GFC leaked it. Of course none of that has anything to do with crowd booing...which was not 'sour grapes' as it wasn't the Dees booing. It was a bit like Sydney supporters booing Hird. The footy public is informed and know when morality has been breached. Both Hird and Clark can expect the booing to continue from neutral crowds.

My apologies...could moderators please change title (or advise how).