Fairytales...

[penga]

Originally posted by lizz
I thought B2 had a pretty good game. I'd have put him in our top half dozen or so.

u forget lizz, the RWO-adopted scale of what is a good game, that if u get outmarked once, youve had a crap game, if u get outmarked twice you should be delisted

[NMWBloods]

Oh, what a load of unadulterated bull@@@@!!

[penga]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Oh, what a load of unadulterated bull@@@@!!

how is it?

[sharp9]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
*Dreams of Sam Mitchell in a swans jumper*

Did anybody have any clearence stats?

About 36/32 to us!!!

Hit-outs about 40/22 to them. (from memory)

[dendol]

Originally posted by penga
how is it?

you're defending Saddo. Its not allowed on these boards.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by dendol
Yeah, Christi Malthouse reported it as a corky, though I would take that with a grain of salt. If its serious enough to keep him out for the rest of the game, Im expecting that he wont be fit to play Freo next week.

I forgot to mention Brett Kirk in my earlier post. He seemed to get alot of the ball, so Im not sure if he was playing an exclusive tagging game, or allowed to go get the ball as well.

On Bazza, I thought Michael had the better of him in the end. Not alot of his leads were honoured, and Brisbane managed to block up our forward 50 very quickly.

Micky O looked like he was on song - showed flashes of his brilliance, and one would think he will get better with a few more games under his belt - as long as he doesnt get hurt.

O'Keefe was ok as well. A few missed shots at goal, but presented himself very well and took a few good grabs on the lead.

Im just left wondering how it would have been with Lynch and Brown playing. I suspect the score would have been drastically different, and our outlook for the season wouldnt be as rosy. Freo will be another test for us next week.

It makes no difference who was in or out. If Lynch and Brown are in the equation, then you have to factor in Schauble, Kennelly, Power, Davis and Schneider for a start. I really reckon there is no such thing as being affected by injuries unless you have a team with a couple of stars and no one else. This (clearly) does not apply to Brisbane, Sydney and Port.

So, amend my first statement to "it makes no difference to good sides whether they are a couple of first choice players down or not." Full strength teams on Saturday would have seen pretty much the same game, I reckon.......now when Rocca or Buckley go down....that tells you all you need to know about Collingwood.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by Charlie
Any reason why Goodes won't get the 3 Brownlow votes? He didn't do my back-to-back expectations any harm last night.

If Ball had kicked straight Goodes would get the three. That's how it works. As it is the 3 will go to Pike or Black (or anyone from Brisbane). Goodes will get 1.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by penga
how is it?

You said - "the RWO-adopted scale of what is a good game, that if u get outmarked once, youve had a crap game, if u get outmarked twice you should be delisted"

because some people observed that Saddington played a sub-par game, although I don't recall anyone saying that he should be delisted.

Are we not allowed to note if he plays an ordinary game or if his man beats him and is a key factor in the win?

[dendol]

Originally posted by sharp9
It makes no difference who was in or out. If Lynch and Brown are in the equation, then you have to factor in Schauble, Kennelly, Power, Davis and Schneider for a start. I really reckon there is no such thing as being affected by injuries unless you have a team with a couple of stars and no one else. This (clearly) does not apply to Brisbane, Sydney and Port.

Brown and Lynch would have given us huge headaches. Add Leppitsch and Pike down forward and we would have struggled to contain them. I don?t know where you are drawing your conclusions from, but I would be seriously worried about our chances of winning games if we had the likes of Goodes, Bazza, Willo and Mickey out for a lengthy period. I agree we are an even side without many stars, but how can you say we wouldn?t be affected without our top players?

[liz]

Isn't who was in and who was out of each team irrelevant?* We beat Brisbane last year at the Gabba with both Lynch and Brown in the team (and without Ball). We lost to them at the weekend with both Lynch and Brown missing (and with Ball).

I know it's a cliche but premierships are won by squads not teams, and you can only face the 22 who turn up on the park to face you on the set date.

* Except to the extent of monitoring a team's potential to play better or worse - ie we can take some heart from the fact that we did not lose while playing our strongest possible squad so that performance doesn't represent the "best" that we can expect, even ignoring early season rustiness?

[chammond]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You said - "the RWO-adopted scale of what is a good game, that if u get outmarked once, youve had a crap game, if u get outmarked twice you should be delisted"

because some people observed that Saddington played a sub-par game, although I don't recall anyone saying that he should be delisted.

Are we not allowed to note if he plays an ordinary game or if his man beats him and is a key factor in the win?

Are we not allowed to disagree with you? (I assume this is the royal "we", or are you speaking for all of RWO now?)

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by chammond
Are we not allowed to disagree with you? (I assume this is the royal "we", or are you speaking for all of RWO now?)

Yeah, I'm actually speaking for all the world now... FFS...

No, I'm actually now the King of the Universe and no one can disagree with us... crissakes - how about you deliberately twist things just a little bit more to be just that bit more difficult and argumentative...

Of course people are allowed to disagree, but the disagreements are not in the form of discussion, but rather weak attempts at ridicule or trying to squash any negative comments. The 'we' was in regards to anybody who wanted to say anything negative about a player's performance. This is actually allowed, or should we ask permission first from one of the Council Elders?

[chammond]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Yeah, I'm actually speaking for all the world now... FFS...

No, I'm actually now the King of the Universe and no one can disagree with us... crissakes - how about you deliberately twist things just a little bit more to be just that bit more difficult and argumentative...

Of course people are allowed to disagree, but the disagreements are not in the form of discussion, but rather weak attempts at ridicule or trying to squash any negative comments. The 'we' was in regards to anybody who wanted to say anything negative about a player's performance. This is actually allowed, or should we ask permission first from one of the Council Elders?

Ah, but it's gone past all that now, hasn't it. It's now become the great RWO witch hunt, where a group of 'experts' repeat the same anti-Saddo mantra ad-nauseam.

And when anybody tries to take a contrary view, you ridicule them, whilst at the same time complaining about being ridiculed.

How about someone in the clique explaining exactly what Saddington did wrong - facts not opinion - specifics not generalisations. Then we can have a real debate about how good or bad his form is, rather than just making him the whipping boy.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by chammond
Ah, but it's gone past all that now, hasn't it. It's now become the great RWO witch hunt, where a group of 'experts' repeat the same anti-Saddo mantra ad-nauseam.

How's it a witch hunt? He played a fairly poor game on the weekend and his opponent beat him and was pretty important in the win. It simply reinforced what has been said before.

And when anybody tries to take a contrary view, you ridicule them, whilst at the same time complaining about being ridiculed.

Who did I ridicule?

How about someone in the clique explaining exactly what Saddington did wrong - facts not opinion - specifics not generalisations. Then we can have a real debate about how good or bad his form is, rather than just making him the whipping boy.

It has been commented on before. He was easily outmarked on a number of occasions by a smaller player in Pike. He tried to outmark Keating from behind. These were exactly the sorts of weaknesses that were commented on in the pre-season.

[bloodboy]

I can't understand why anybody would be blaming Bally for the loss. How many points did we kick in total? If we were good enough as a team to win on the night, we would have done so already...we should not have to rely on one kick to win a game and it was the first game of the season anyways. We will only get better!

Go BLOODBOYS!

Oh, yeah, and by the way NMW Bloods, you do think you are king of the hill on this board and ridicule people at every opportunity. You need to get the pole back outta your keister.