There was a lot of talk from Ratts , Jamo and Simpson about how getting close isnt good enough. How we play each game to win. How they are gutted they lost.
Ratts did say that we have made inroads with out attitude to such games. A lot of media questions were trying to get us to say we are happy to get close but no carlton players or coaches i heard took the bait.

So did we attack the ball or not? If we did, then we didn’t deserve to be thrashed. If we didn’t, then we probably would have been thrashed. I’m confused.

_________________
"I had to eat"

They did not attack the contest like they should have in the last.... I want the first quarters intensity at all times. Is it too much to ask?

I don't think it was a lack of effort by the players in the last 15 mins, I thought they were completely stuffed after putting in a pretty consistent performance. Even Collingwoods last 15 mins was not so tough. We would have beaten most teams on Friday night but the reality is we are not good enough to beat Collingwood at our best.

Unfortunately we now have to play the 2nd best team in the comp right now in Ess.

_________________
Koperek.

We're not playing Hawthorn.

Football history is littered with games where one team just had that ascendancy over the other, keeping them at arms length while the game petered out. There's no use in criticising either team for a flat ending.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

@#$%&! off giesch you potato

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.

_________________

wow .. that justification on the shannon hurn clip was ridiculous.. what a flower toss.

_________________
R A D I C A L B R O T H E R S

Inspired by the One-Minute Sculptures of Erwin Wurm

"All in all is all we are..."

Err jimmae you agreeing with the Giesch?

I watched the slo mo a couple of times and all Giesch is trying to do is cover his puny backside. Blair ran into Russell's arms. Watch closely. The arms are clearly pushed back by the force of Blair's forward movement and as Russell stands his ground the arms act like a spring, absorb the shock and then recoil, pushing Blair back. If anything Blair is the one to be penalised under Geisch's interpretation of the rules by running into Russell.

Your arms are part of the body, what are you meant to do, cut them off because another player is approaching and you are not allowed to protect yourself. How often are two players wrestling, one pushes off and marks.

The biggest problem here is the umpires are beyond criticism. Why is there not a public forum where they are made to justify themselves like every other member of the community.

What a load of crock. And after saying that, the umpires were not the reason we lost on Friday.

_________________
"Get ready, Teddy - you're on": Ron Barassi half time 1970 Grand Final

It's a simple ruck change. Brown pushes up to the wing and takes the ruck contest and Jolly runs forward. Where did they think he was going? To the bench but he got lost?
Browns opponent should have been aware of it or at the very least, one of the defenders should have called him out.

What's more dangerous? A spare defender at a throw in surrounded by 20 players or a ruckman 20 metres out from goal on his own?

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Sorry TBM, I haven't had the chance to get back to you. You're right. The defenders are still raw and they have a lot to learn in a short time however this isn't about the backs.
As I said in my initial post, we didn't push back and allowed our defenders to compete one on one. Go back and look at the defensive stoppages in the 2nd quarter where Collingwood won the game. At no stage did we have defensive cover in the goal square yet we had free players standing attacking side of the contest hoping we'd win it out. Well, we didn't and it cost us goals.

I cant remember the goalkicker (Blair or Krakouer) but I recall one of their first goals. Our defenders were man on man (they still have a lot to learn in this area) and the collingwood player span out of the stoppage 15 metres out and kicked the goal. At the same time, Kade Simpson is standing 10 metres on his own, attacking side of the stoppage. Should we be rolling the dice like that 15 metres out from the opposition goals? Not a chance. Disciplined teams will push players back on the defensive side to assist and cover for the defenders. Colingwood do it with Johnson or Thomas, whichever is their defensive winger. (usually Johnson). Their mids will quite often get there as well.

Following that, Luke Ball pulls a ball out from a defensive stoppage 20 metres out and dribbles it along the ground for a goal. 20 metres out from the opposition goal and we have no one between the stoppage and the goalsquare? Surely our set ups could allow a midfielder or half forward to push back and give defensive cover at a dangerous stoppage? Good teams who are well drilled will utilise that player to exit the backline anyway so it's not as if he's a wasted there. Bloody hell, 20 metres out from goal, directly in front! Not acceptable IMHO.

What's of more value? a spare player in amongst 20 or a cover to assist the defenders?

As jim stated, Duigan had a stinker on the night. He probably coughed up 5 goals but hopefully he'll learn from it. His concentration was poor and his lack of defensive running was exposed. But IMO, that's even more reason for us to have players push back hard to assist. I completely understand that forwards will get away from their opponents. Especially with smart players like Swan who block for their forwards beautifully near goal but from my perspective, either our structures were poor or our players aren't following instruction.

Both or either are areas we need to address immediately.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Not agreeing, just keeping very quiet. Don't have anything constructive to say about Giesch.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

DHS on SEN last night said the decision was completely wrong.

THIS x 8,000,000,000

We seem to hardly ever score those dribbly goals out of the pack 20 or so metres in front of goal; whenever it looks like we might, there'll be an opposition player hanging back in there alone to cut it off. However we appear to concede an awful lot of those types. It was noticable last year too, so we've been doing it for a little while at least.

_________________

I agree with the FWD stoppages. Cost us the match in the Sydney final I recall?

If that decision is correct because of those reasons then they got a great deal of calls/non calls wrong for the rest of the round with frees not being paid for the same reason.

If the ump paid the mark to Russ it would have never been mention again.

You cannot push or bump in a marking contest.

Does the Giesch ever go to a game of footy? Is he aware its a contact sport and not netball. And this guy is the supremo of the umpires. I am starting to feel sorry for them.

_________________
"Get ready, Teddy - you're on": Ron Barassi half time 1970 Grand Final

If that is the directive coming from the umpires boss, then footy s stuffed.

That is the most anti-football interpretation ever. It basically makes AFL a non-contact sport.

The AFL need to clarify this issue because as has been said no-one else paid it over the weekend.

If that starts being paid, I'm going to the NRL.

_________________
T E A M