We should have lost that game by 10 goals or more.

We allowed a team to have 71 inside 50’s (AFL average is 51)
The tigers had 16 more scoring shots
28 scoring shots to 13 after quarter time
We kicked 7 goals from free kicks

If it weren’t for that first 5 minute goal blitz and the Tigers not kicking straight it would have been close to 100 points.

Charlie was a positive and so to Marchbank.
Cripps is a gun and I like the Kennedy and Cripps combo in the guts.
SPS was good early. Clean hands
I like that attacking style of play but it comes at a cost. Teams with speed will destroy us

Jack is a liability. Pickett takes his spot
Weitering is not a one on one defender. Marchbank has taken his role as that intercept defender.
Luck of pace off half back is a major problem.
2 veterans were out better players

"I call BS" on the Carlton-shoulda-lost-by-10-goals argument, it's far too simplistic.

I don't recall Richmond missing many sitters, in fact most of the "wonder goals" were from Richmond, like Riewoldt scrubbing a left-footed soccer goal from the boundary. And their set shots were very accurate, especially whatshisface who's goaled with two-thirds of his possies as a Richmond player or whatever.

Nor do I recall us slotting any 50m shots from the boundary.

The fact is, our shots were high-percentage, many of Richmond's were low-percentage, because we attacked more centrally and more efficiently, and because Richmond lacked discipline around the protected zone rule (which I expect will be relaxed in the weeks to come, but was applied consistently if harshly). Looking at forward entries and scoring shots alone only tells you a part of the story. I reckon the margin was perfectly fair: we were right in the contest until early in the 4th, and eventually overrun.

The AFL saying the 2 50s given were in error. Rule states that protected area is 5m behind and 10m beside player with the ball. If someone can tell me Caddy is further than 10m from Curnow.

Mind you, it's a dumb @#$%&! rule in the first place. If at all, it should simply be that any player within 10 metres of the player when he's called to play on cannot tackle the player with the footy.

Umpires gifted us about 4 goals.
Should have been a 6-8 goal loss. We allow way too many I50s for the opposition. That will continue as we are only just now learning offense and so defence will suffer in the short term.

The AFL saying the 2 50s given were in error. Rule states that protected area is 5m behind and 10m beside player with the ball. If someone can tell me Caddy is further than 10m from Curnow.

Mind you, it's a dumb @#$%&! rule in the first place. If at all, it should simply be that any player within 10 metres of the player when he's called to play on cannot tackle the player with the footy.

That's nice of them, but did they comment on Thomas being penalised for a legitimate handball and also not being awarded a clear mark?

We should have lost that game by 10 goals or more.

We allowed a team to have 71 inside 50’s (AFL average is 51)
The tigers had 16 more scoring shots
28 scoring shots to 13 after quarter time
We kicked 7 goals from free kicks

If it weren’t for that first 5 minute goal blitz and the Tigers not kicking straight it would have been close to 100 points.