Goodes' backward kick

[NMWBloods]

Surprised no one has commented on this.

How was his backwards kick in the last quarter. What a brain malfunction. Did it very nicely in the Port Adelaide final in 2003, but that was really a very strange decision to make.

[Schneiderman]

Well in fairness to him, at the time he kicked it he was running at a 100% success rate with the tactic. As it stands now, he will re-think the strategy when it next presents itself as an option. Very lucky not to get deliberate OOB.

[stellation]

It was pretty odd. Not sure if he was just too tired to make a contest after getting back to help out in defence.

[Plugger46]

Very strange piece of footy.

[punter257]

should have been deliberate really and lucky it wasnt paid. crucial point of the game too IIRC but had it gone thru for a behind we might be calling him a genius

[NMWBloods]

I don't think it was even necessary to rush a behind.

[cruiser]

It was hardly worth commenting on. Overall I thought he put in a very good performance.

[NMWBloods]

It's worth commenting on because it was interesting and unusual.

How he played otherwise is not relevant...

[Wil]

Yeah, it was a bit wierd. Maybe there was something on that he saw that could otherwise cause a Carlton goal.

It should of been called deliberate. (But if it was I am sure I would be on here complaining about that decision )

[Rizzo]

Don't know if a rush was needed.

Can't see how it could be called Deliberate. He was clearly aiming to rush it.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It's worth commenting on because it was interesting and unusual.

How he played otherwise is not relevant...

You keep rolling your eyes so often they might come spinning out of your head.

How he played otherwise is relevant. You single him out for criticism for one action but give him no praise. In fact, you rarely seem to give him praise. Why is that NMW?

[adnar]

Originally posted by Rizzo
Don't know if a rush was needed.

Can't see how it could be called Deliberate. He was clearly aiming to rush it.

The rule is if you try and rush a behind and happen to miss, then it's counted as deliberate, because where deliberatly rushing it.

[stellation]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I don't think it was even necessary to rush a behind.

To me it looked like there had been a turn over, Goodes had run back to help make a contest then looked up field and did the crazy kick. My guess at the time (hard to tell on the television) was that there was nobody upfield to give a quick kick to and he didn't have the energy (I am sure he had been involved in the previous play that had got the Swans the ball to then turn it over) to take on the player coming at him so that he could try and straighten up.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by cruiser
You keep rolling your eyes so often they might come spinning out of your head.

LOL - pot, kettle, black. Did you not notice the p1ss taken out of your continued use of the rolling eyes by a few people just recently...

How he played otherwise is relevant. You single him out for criticism for one action but give him no praise. In fact, you rarely seem to give him praise. Why is that NMW?

Now this is just getting stupid.

It was an observation for crissakes. It was simply a strange event, not a comment on whether he played well or badly. Are we not allowed to make observations on players without also qualifying them by saying that such and such player is great and we love him...

Or are you trying to impugn more sinister motives? If so, then come out openly with it.


As for Goodes...

"Koutafides was also quiet, well beaten by Craig Bolton and later Goodes who both played quite effective attacking games as well."

I've also made many comments in the past about Goodes being very effective as a follower and in the centre for clearances.

As usual, some people read what they want and not what is written. I seem to attract criticism from those who are not capable of debate and instead invent what I do and don't write. Are these people intellectually challenged or threatened by someone who actually wants to debate and provide facts?

I debate and argue with intelligent people who seem to have no problems. I often disagree on a point with Liz for example, but it doesn't turn into a slanging match. We simply present our sides and hopefully we both learn from a different viewpoint and from supporting our own.

Other people here though, and there seem to be more and more, just don't seem to understand that concept. If you don't like what I write, either debate it properly or ignore it.

[floppinab]

Just had another look at it. Kick came in from Fevola, ball to back of the pack. Goodes leads the race but has two Carlton players on his hammer.

If he takes possession he gets wrapped up (it is a 2 on one) and risks holding the ball or a spill to the opposition. Probably could've tapped the ball forward and backs himself to outrun his opponents to make the rushed behind but Waite I think it is has more momentum and probably would've outrun him.

Trying to kick the rushed behind wasn't a bad option under those circumstances IMO, the execution wasn't quite right. The hands went to the head straight after the kick, expecting the DOOB, was v. v. lucky it wasn't paid.