Round 22 Negatives

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I had assumed so, but sometimes it's a bit confusing here. Then again, sometimes if I do watch a different game to some others.

Trust your instinct.

I am completely bemused by the (very small minority, admittedly) of posters who judge someone like Micky O predominantly on the number of goals he kicks.

[Nico]

Originally posted by satchmopugdog
I'm a Goodes fan but today it seemed to me he was using this game to try out some extra skills for the future.

It's called lairising.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
Only negative i saw was some arrogance in our plays. Some lazy passes, lazy efforts in picking up the ball (Goodes i'm looking at you). We obviously can't afford to do this next week.

Couple of worm burners from Fozzie were pretty ordinary. But he does get a bit of the footy at the G.

[Nico]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think just looking at own goals underestimates MOL's contribution to the forward line. For example Goodes' goal, although a nice move and finish by him, came directly from a superb gather and handball from MOL.

And the one he tapped back to ROK who gave it to Ball for a snag.

[NMWBloods]

I think the big ground suits MOL - he can find space and do nice things.

Also, I agree Nico - Fosdike seems to like the MCG.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think the big ground suits MOL - he can find space and do nice things.

Also, I agree Nico - Fosdike seems to like the MCG.

Pity his team mates couldn't find him in all that space. They missed him a few times.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think the big ground suits MOL - he can find space and do nice things.

Interesting theory. We'll see how he goes at the biggest (Subi) then possibly AAMI and then the MCG.

Perhaps the reason I'm a little on the MOL sceptic side is that he's an "option" rather than a "target". This is fine when we have so many other options, but he'd struggle in other sides IMO.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by barry
Interesting theory. We'll see how he goes at the biggest (Subi) then possibly AAMI and then the MCG.

If its in that order you must mean Subi, Telstra Stadium and the MCG.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by barry
Interesting theory. We'll see how he goes at the biggest (Subi) then possibly AAMI and then the MCG.

Perhaps the reason I'm a little on the MOL sceptic side is that he's an "option" rather than a "target". This is fine when we have so many other options, but he'd struggle in other sides IMO.

I've been seeing it the other way - they seem to be kicking to Magic near the goal square when he has two opponents on him - and Baz leading up the ground. MOLs best role is getting the ball to advantage in congestion recently.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Originally posted by TheHood
I had a few observations that were less than glowing too:

* Goodesy was terrible and he must have a good reason, ie injured because he does not bend down for contests. Isn't running hard and has not 2nd or 3rd efforts like he used to. He worries me right now;

I wouldn't be too worried, it looked as though the players had been instructed not to put their bodies on the line, especially in the second half. On several occasions our players pulled up short of a contest or sidesteped opponents to avoid collision. It was the right thing to do given the circumstances.

[giant]

Originally posted by barry
Interesting theory. We'll see how he goes at the biggest (Subi) then possibly AAMI and then the MCG.

Perhaps the reason I'm a little on the MOL sceptic side is that he's an "option" rather than a "target". This is fine when we have so many other options, but he'd struggle in other sides IMO.

We'd better not trade him then - wouldnt be fair on the other sides.