Free kick prediction v D's

[barry]

Sydney 12
Melbourne 25

[DST]

With the pasting the Dees are getting in the press down here in Melbourne (all downhill skiers) you would have to think they will come out very hard at the man and ball this week. If they do they are going to give away plenty of frees if their aggression is over the top.

I reckon it will be close this week decision wise, which will be the first time in many weeks.

DST

[TheHood]

So far in 2005, Sydney have "given away" 328 Free Kicks and "earned" 251.

We're 77 over par and I reckon nearly 50 of that differental has come from the past 3 games.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by TheHood
So far in 2005, Sydney have "given away" 328 Free Kicks and "earned" 251.

We're 77 over par and I reckon nearly 50 of that differental has come from the past 3 games.

Hawthorn are the only team ahead of us in the against dept.

[swan_song]

Depends if we get those 3 d*ckw*ds from the wobbles game...or a combination of them plus Goldsphincter...but seriously, I'd reckon 25 to 14...with at least four demon goals from frees. Well, never mind the wobbles being kept goalless for a half, apart from two silly but soft free kicks in front of goal in the last minutes of the second term, the cats would only have scored only one in a half... great job from our backs (cept LRT that is). In fact through actual play, they did only score one in a half of footy, and that's just plain pathetic...more like us than them!

[TheHood]

Originally posted by ScottH
Hawthorn are the only team ahead of us in the against dept.

How is it that a team that is equal 3rd on the ladder can be so regularly second to the ball causing every in the back over the shoulder you can imagine?

How the heck do we win at all with that free kick ratio?

It's not so much the frees paid against us as the ones that are not paid to us for identical infringements during the same game.

I have this sinking feeling The Sphinkter or McLaren are looming in the shaddows over the next week or so to have another go at us.

[liz]

Originally posted by TheHood
It's not so much the frees paid against us as the ones that are not paid to us for identical infringements during the same game.

Yup. There were two or three frees that Geelong got on Sat that were completely bewilderingly soft but the majority 'were there'. It was the in-the-backs that we didn't get, the holding the mans that were missed in our favour that was frustrating. Few of them were blatant but were there as much as half the Cats' ones.

[ScottH]

Kennelly had 4 against in the 1st half, IIRC.

[Wil]

Originally posted by TheHood
I have this sinking feeling The Sphinkter or McLaren are looming in the shaddows over the next week or so to have another go at us.

I nearly (or did) scream out "Bring back Goldspink". Him and Mclaren are better than the clowns we have had the past couple of weeks.

Anyone know how many non-vic umpires there are in the AFL?

[Jeffers1984]

The ultimate worst trio to umpire us in a game would be:

Darren Goldspink, Brett Allen, Scott Mclaren

One of the umps from the Pies game can be emergency.

Shudders at the thought.

[Chubby Muffler]

Originally posted by liz
It was the in-the-backs that we didn't get

Can I ask you guys for a bit of clarification here? We got pinged on Sat night for a push in the back. To me and my mate, it just looked like a solid tackle being laid from sort of side on. Really good tackle, but when I watched the replay the commentators were saying there was a free kick there. Cannot remember who it was exactley but it was in front of Geelongs goal. Might have been Chapman (just about every kick of his came from a free).

[ugg]

I think the one you are referring to is Leo Barry on Cameron Thurley. It was harsh because Barry tackeld him from behind and Thurley fell forward and Barry just went with him. However, these ones do get paid because it is what the rules specifiy (a stupid rule IMHO). As liz said, it was the ones we didn't get that irked me more.

[NMWBloods]

One of the problems is that Kennelly and Barry are very untidy tacklers (and Bevan when he's in), and a few of our other players can be too. Certainly I notice more in our games than watching others how much we jump into people's backs or grab them around the head.

That's not to say we don't get a bad run at times, but our reckless tackling doesn't help.

[Chubby Muffler]

Originally posted by ugg
I think the one you are referring to is Leo Barry on Cameron Thurley. It was harsh because Barry tackeld him from behind and Thurley fell forward and Barry just went with him. However, these ones do get paid because it is what the rules specifiy (a stupid rule IMHO). As liz said, it was the ones we didn't get that irked me more.

Stupid indeed - thanks for the reply.

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
One of the problems is that Kennelly and Barry are very untidy tacklers (and Bevan when he's in), and a few of our other players can be too. Certainly I notice more in our games than watching others how much we jump into people's backs or grab them around the head.

That's not to say we don't get a bad run at times, but our reckless tackling doesn't help.

I certainly think that a tackling clinic for Kennelly wouldn't be a bad thing - and if Barry, Bevan and Malceski happen to be available too, they might want to watch in.