Round 15 Negatives

[Wil]

Originally posted by barry
Yes, No.

Hmmm, I bet Buchanan and McVeigh strike fear into the opposition's full back. So much so, they man up on MOL!.

Oh, silly me. I define full-forward by the person who plays from near the goal square during the game rather than who the opposition full-back plays on. I have much to learn about AFL.

[barry]

Originally posted by Wil
Oh, silly me. I define full-forward by the person who plays from near the goal square during the game rather than who the opposition full-back plays on. I have much to learn about AFL.

It would appear so.

[barry]

Originally posted by Ruckman

Additionally Melbourne will probably be without Millar (hamstring) and possibly Holland next week, which means they'll be playing a smaller forward line excluding Neitz ~ so if we bring back Schauble we should be able to cover him.

If Miller and Holland are out, Schuable should come back in to double team Neitz with Barry.
If Holland is out, and they dont replace him with a young tall, then LRT is expendable. But leaves us exposed a bit for height still.

If Holland plays, LRT has to play too.

[Thunder Shaker]

The negatives as I heard them from the radio telecast:

* Umpiring consistency.
* 9 free kicks in the Geelong forward line.
* Geelong kicking 5 unanswered goals.
* Schauble in the MMM box instead of out on the ground.

[ugg]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
The negatives as I heard them from the radio telecast:

* Umpiring consistency.
* 9 free kicks in the Geelong forward line.
* Geelong kicking 5 unanswered goals.
* Schauble in the MMM box instead of out on the ground.

When was Schaubs on? I ony heard Saddo.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by ugg
When was Schaubs on? I ony heard Saddo.

Sometime in the second half.

[ugg]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
Sometime in the second half.

Oh, did he mention if he was coming back next week?

[Rizzo]

Manning up in general was poor. Geelong used some interesting angles and lines to run into space which caught out the defenders a few times.

I said it before in another thread but, who the hell was on Chapman? For such a potentially damaging player he seemed to have been afforded a lot of space.

If Geelong had taken their opportunities in the first quarter the game would have been a lot closer.

[ugg]

Originally posted by Rizzo

I said it before in another thread but, who the hell was on Chapman? For such a potentially damaging player he seemed to have been afforded a lot of space.

Mostly CBolton.

[smasher]

Whoever followed Byrnes around did a very good job as he hardly got the ball when he was on.In previous Geelong replays he has come on in the later part of the match and done really well.

[Nico]

My positives - we got a lot more players into the forward line with players running to space, we had players at the fall of the ball inside 50, we kicked to the top of the square, won possession in the midfield and kicked to targets leading to the 50 metre line not the wing as has been our habit previously.

We also ran harder to make space rather than always running harder to tackle. We did both effectively. In other words we made the opposition do the chasing for a change and backed our players rather than half the team having a tagging role.