G.F. Day Thread. Sydney V Western Bulldogs. MCG 2.30pm.

[mcs]

The interesting thing for me was how we stayed in the game regardless of carrying a few players.
.

Good on you Nico for sitting through it - not something I will be doing.

This comment I pulled out is the thing I have drawn from it - despite our bottom six being pretty poor, some ordinary umpiring, and a completely non-functioning forward line, we were still in it right up to our necks till the last 10 minutes of the game. That in itself was a fantastic effort. It was just sad we couldn't find that final surge, like we did in 2005 and 2012 to find a way to get over the line. We just needed a true moment of inspiration (the equivalent of the Goodes goal, or the Mattner 1-on-1 chase, or the Buchanan snap) to lift the team one last time. But alas, it was not meant to be.

[Nico]

Hopefully some of the younger players improve next season. Papley is a first season player but Richards and Hewett have been in the system a few years. They need a lot of work on their game. Hewett creates nothing and gets caught almost every time he gets the footy. I would love to hear the coaches comments on his game. He is rarely seen in the corridor. Gets his stats on the boundary. Richards needs to be more than a burst player. Tom Papley really has to be more positive with his kicks. Played junior footy by always looking for his mate Buddy and he played way up the ground. He plays his best when close to goal. Never saw him drag his player back to the square or even inside 50. If these blokes can get a lot of improvement in their games then we are already a better side. We can leave it to the same olds.

Bring Allir and Newman. Laidler is a good intercept mark but gives us no run.

But how good was Heeney. He absolutely starred.

- - - Updated - - -

Good on you Nico for sitting through it - not something I will be doing.

This comment I pulled out is the thing I have drawn from it - despite our bottom six being pretty poor, some ordinary umpiring, and a completely non-functioning forward line, we were still in it right up to our necks till the last 10 minutes of the game. That in itself was a fantastic effort. It was just sad we couldn't find that final surge, like we did in 2005 and 2012 to find a way to get over the line. We just needed a true moment of inspiration (the equivalent of the Goodes goal, or the Mattner 1-on-1 chase, or the Buchanan snap) to lift the team one last time. But alas, it was not meant to be.

If Buddy had got clear of Morris that may have been the moment. Our kicking to position let us down too often. I think the Dogs were fitter in the end. We were out on our feet late against Geelong. Probably came down to the bottom 6 not performing.

[stevoswan]

I thought this was a bad omen (the cup)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1673[/ATTACH]

That's an embarrassing stuff up and astoundingly poor form from a league that would like to be seen as impartial.........or do they just not give a @@@@@ what people think anymore? People outside of Melbourne I suspect......

[stevoswan]

Good on you Nico for sitting through it - not something I will be doing.

This comment I pulled out is the thing I have drawn from it - despite our bottom six being pretty poor, some ordinary umpiring, and a completely non-functioning forward line, we were still in it right up to our necks till the last 10 minutes of the game. That in itself was a fantastic effort. It was just sad we couldn't find that final surge, like we did in 2005 and 2012 to find a way to get over the line. We just needed a true moment of inspiration (the equivalent of the Goodes goal, or the Mattner 1-on-1 chase, or the Buchanan snap) to lift the team one last time. But alas, it was not meant to be.

I took my dog for a nervous walk at three quarter time and can remember thinking, "We need Goodesy!" ........and oh how we did!

[ScottH]

I watched the replay today and made notes on the play. I will try keep my observations brief.

Quarter 1. How on earth didn't Jack get 50 metres for the late hit. Was exactly like Kennedy's in the 3rd Q.
Free against Rohan for an arm chop was a good spoil.
McVeigh 50 metres against was plain dumb.
Our kicking was short of the target, too cute.
Q2. Johannesen had at least 3 clangers and continued such for the rest of the game. Just shows so called good judges miss turnovers. No way he was in the best 5 Dogs players.
Papley was Buddy centric. Horrible kicks. Very wasteful. Chippy kicks and fumbled.
Hewett hangs onto the footy. Refuses to play the team game and give it off. Never takes the first option. Selfish footballer for mine or is a serious flaw in his game. Did it a few times during the game. Created nothing.
The Bulldogs continue to blatantly throw the footy ( Liberatore the biggest culprit) and Dixon not penalised for an unrealistic marking attempt.
Grundy dropped the mark because he was being held. Hunter did a tunnel ball throw. Was so obvious.
Hambling/ Franklin - was either a high tackle by Buddy of HTB by Hambling.
Parker made an unrealistic marking attempt but no penalised and Kennedy goals.
Q3. Laidler not hard enough x 2, and Richards has no second efforts. Dunb 50 meteres by him but again the inconsistency with no free to Jack in Q1.
Continued throws by Dogs. Rampe clearly dragged down by the neck, Dogs crumb get a goal.
Hanners and Jack pile drived but no frees.
Our disposal is slow and Papley could have tried to shepherd a Buddy's kick for goal.
Boyd tried to barge through, caught and threw it away, yet Morris on Buddy in the 4th Q is paid.
Morris took Papley's legs out, play on. I doubt Hanners touched Smith, staged, goal.
Our forward pressure is not good. Rohan did that dumb attempt to run around Wood. What a wasted opportunity. Maybe that was one big difference in the sides. The Dogs didn't stuff around, they moved it on at every opportunity.
Johannesen continues to butcher the footy.
Q4.
Jack has his legs taken out and gets a free against for kicking in danger. A howler.
Mills lost his player outside the square when he went the wrong side of the pack, goal. He chastised himself.
Rohans arms chopped, play on.
Jones 2 poor kicks. Hewett poor at the contest.
Richards looks to be first to the ball but dwells and lets his opponent get there first. Not a good look. Should have gone harder.
Stringer unrealistic attempt, play on.
Papley's horrible kick into the man on the mark after he stuffed around without moving it on.
Rampe was clearly held off the ball by the arm. Big miss by umpire. McGlynn typical miss of a clutch goal with 4.45 mins to go. Our last chance was lost.

The purpose of my post was to highlight that it wasn't only the umpires but our less experienced players who were found wanting. Mills was probably short of a run.
The interesting thing for me was how we stayed in the game regardless of carrying a few players.
On the umps; the 3rd Q to me was not about infringements on our players but more the leniency given to the Dogs on hanging on to the footy, incorrect disposal from a tackle and the blatant throws.

Good Review Nico.

I picked up a few throws in the 3rd term from Libba. A few others as well.

There was also a marking contest at the Punt Rd end with Parker, where it looked like he was being held, then appeared to be dragged off the ball. I was up the other end so it was a bit hard to see properly.

[MattW]

No charges laid by MRP. I thought the late high hit on Kennedy (for which Kennedy at least got a 50m penalty) was deserving of a fine.

But this was the MRP's view on the incident in which Hannebery's knee was damaged. I read it to imply ump should have given a free.

"Contact between the Western Bulldogs? Easton Wood and the Sydney Swans? Dan Hannebery from the fourth quarter of Saturday?s match was assessed. The panel said the ball was loose with Wood and Hannebery coming from opposite directions to the contest. The opposing players arrived at the contest simultaneously and Wood went down low in his approach and made contact with Hannebery?s knee as the Bulldogs? player took possession of the ball. While it was a decision for the umpire if the Swans? player should have received a free kick for the contact, it was the view of the panel that Wood had his eyes on the ball at all times and his action did not meet the definition of rough conduct under the AFL Regulations, in his approach to the ball and his opponent. No further action was taken."

Thanks. I was waiting for the report of that incident. I agree the implication is there; be nice if they could come out and say it straight.

[MattW]

I watched the replay today and made notes on the play. I will try keep my observations brief.

Quarter 1. How on earth didn't Jack get 50 metres for the late hit. Was exactly like Kennedy's in the 3rd Q.
Free against Rohan for an arm chop was a good spoil.
McVeigh 50 metres against was plain dumb.
Our kicking was short of the target, too cute.
Q2. Johannesen had at least 3 clangers and continued such for the rest of the game. Just shows so called good judges miss turnovers. No way he was in the best 5 Dogs players.
Papley was Buddy centric. Horrible kicks. Very wasteful. Chippy kicks and fumbled.
Hewett hangs onto the footy. Refuses to play the team game and give it off. Never takes the first option. Selfish footballer for mine or is a serious flaw in his game. Did it a few times during the game. Created nothing.
The Bulldogs continue to blatantly throw the footy ( Liberatore the biggest culprit) and Dixon not penalised for an unrealistic marking attempt.
Grundy dropped the mark because he was being held. Hunter did a tunnel ball throw. Was so obvious.
Hambling/ Franklin - was either a high tackle by Buddy of HTB by Hambling.
Parker made an unrealistic marking attempt but no penalised and Kennedy goals.
Q3. Laidler not hard enough x 2, and Richards has no second efforts. Dunb 50 meteres by him but again the inconsistency with no free to Jack in Q1.
Continued throws by Dogs. Rampe clearly dragged down by the neck, Dogs crumb get a goal.
Hanners and Jack pile drived but no frees.
Our disposal is slow and Papley could have tried to shepherd a Buddy's kick for goal.
Boyd tried to barge through, caught and threw it away, yet Morris on Buddy in the 4th Q is paid.
Morris took Papley's legs out, play on. I doubt Hanners touched Smith, staged, goal.
Our forward pressure is not good. Rohan did that dumb attempt to run around Wood. What a wasted opportunity. Maybe that was one big difference in the sides. The Dogs didn't stuff around, they moved it on at every opportunity.
Johannesen continues to butcher the footy.
Q4.
Jack has his legs taken out and gets a free against for kicking in danger. A howler.
Mills lost his player outside the square when he went the wrong side of the pack, goal. He chastised himself.
Rohans arms chopped, play on.
Jones 2 poor kicks. Hewett poor at the contest.
Richards looks to be first to the ball but dwells and lets his opponent get there first. Not a good look. Should have gone harder.
Stringer unrealistic attempt, play on.
Papley's horrible kick into the man on the mark after he stuffed around without moving it on.
Rampe was clearly held off the ball by the arm. Big miss by umpire. McGlynn typical miss of a clutch goal with 4.45 mins to go. Our last chance was lost.

The purpose of my post was to highlight that it wasn't only the umpires but our less experienced players who were found wanting. Mills was probably short of a run.
The interesting thing for me was how we stayed in the game regardless of carrying a few players.
On the umps; the 3rd Q to me was not about infringements on our players but more the leniency given to the Dogs on hanging on to the footy, incorrect disposal from a tackle and the blatant throws.

Excellent, thank you. Reminds me of/confirms a few things:
- They threw it a lot. I reckon I yelled 'throw' 4 or 5 times, but there were probably more. Obvious from row N in level 1 on the other side of the ground. The non-calls on those throws spun me out a bit. But the two worst calls were the Jack having his legs taken out and the Rampe HTB. The Jack one was a dagger, because it ended up being a free kick against (and a 50 and a goal, right?).
- Summed up my recollections of Xav and Hewett, and you can extrapolate those over the year. I don't think Xav at the moment is clean enough or kicks well enough under pressure to play key forward. Because Hewett does not pass off and is not quick, he tends not to make telling contributions against good sides. Again, his most telling contribution is to draw frees for HTB and high tackle in the forward 50, but that's not going to get you far as a would-be mid.
- I thought Buddy himself kicked short a little too often, too. Also, tried that shoulder battering ram thing a bit much. There were times where a quick handball or long kick would have been more damaging. That's said in knowledge his short kicking can be very damaging. I think he tried very hard. His long run to take that mark and then goal in the final quarter was an impressive, memorable play.
- Papley's field kicking needs a lot of work, and is a significant flaw in this game. In fact his disposal efficiency outside 50 is poor. He had a nervous day. Bummer.
- Only Rampe, Joey, Grundy, and Smith played at their best. Mitchell was good in spells. Lloyd and Heeney OK - the latter not as clean as usual, but at least tried. That's an indictment. Too many players were obviously stuck inside their own heads, thinking about their own performance: Rohan, Xav, Laidler, Benny, Papley.

[bennyfabulous]

Thought i was getting past it, but "On The Couch "were pointing out how good the dogs are @ quick handballs but the majority they showed were throws and then the last one by libba was far more blatant. So they had a chuckle about how that was maybe "half a throw" @ which point i changed the channel & then threw my shoe!

Very dissapointing!

[MattW]

Thought i was getting past it, but "On The Couch "were pointing out how good the dogs are @ quick handballs but the majority they showed were throws and then the last one by libba was far more blatant. So they had a chuckle about how that was maybe "half a throw" @ which point i changed the channel & then threw my shoe!

Very dissapointing!

I watched way more AFL 3 @@@@ing 60 than I should have in the last month, and remember Jordan Lewis commenting that the quick Bulldogs handballs were often throws, which wasn't picked up by the hosts.

[mcs]

Thought i was getting past it, but "On The Couch "were pointing out how good the dogs are @ quick handballs but the majority they showed were throws and then the last one by libba was far more blatant. So they had a chuckle about how that was maybe "half a throw" @ which point i changed the channel & then threw my shoe!

Very dissapointing!

That is all of how any questioning of the umpiring will quickly become a forgotten footnote to the grand final, except in the eyes of Swans supporters.

They did a similar thing on offsiders more generally about the umpiring - basically saying that yeh the swans probably got no rub of the green and there were several dud calls - but then basically went on to say ah well, @@@@ happens and the bulldogs are amazing blah blah blah.

As always, the victors will write the history.

[KTigers]

Maybe a thing to learn from Saturday is that first year players are just that, first year players.
Not seasoned veterans like a JPK or a Grundy who can perform at a high level, week in, week out.
It's nature of footy fans to get excited about talented new blood coming into the team, and to
see their performances through rose coloured glasses, but all of these guys (except Mills and maybe
Allir) have had a number of poor games this year. Even Heeney, a much lauded second year player was basically
dropped during the year. Chuck in injuries to key players, and the umpires almost totally blind to infringements
by the opposition then you can see how it might be hard to get over the line against a fired up quality
opposition team. Everything went the Bulldogs way during the final series. The bye after Round 23 that allowed
them to get five first 22 players back and simultaneously took away the advantage the Qualifying final winners
traditionally have, injuries to the best players in the opposing team (Ward & Buddy) in the prelim and the GF.
The + 31 free kick differential they were handed over the finals series was just one of many things that went their way. They were ridiculously lucky. Six teams finished above them on the ladder. That just says it all to me.

[Ludwig]

Although I've marveled this year at the incredible endurance of the Bulldog players and have become suspicious about it. It is not a secret, but nonetheless not well know, that a new energy drink based on the naturally occurring metabolic process called ketosis has been tested and used over the past 6 years. I personally know Prof. Kieran Clarke of Oxford who is the developer of the supplement and have been privy to the testing results for many years. I suspect that Luke Beveridge has been on to this and that may be the secret to their success. It's not illegal, so there is nothing that can be done about it. In fact, in due course, I suspect that all competitive athletes will be forced to take the supplement as it cannot be banned. I suggest that the Swans get on it next season.

Here are a few articles about it:

Ketones: Controversial new energy drink could be next big thing in cycling - Cycling Weekly

Ketone drink gives competitive cyclists a boost by altering their metabolism | University of Oxford

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2099175-legal-ketone-sports-supplement-pushes-athletes-further-faster/


For those wondering how in the world a small country like Great Britain can win so many Olympic medals, here's your answer.

[Burra]

Thought i was getting past it, but "On The Couch "were pointing out how good the dogs are @ quick handballs but the majority they showed were throws and then the last one by libba was far more blatant. So they had a chuckle about how that was maybe "half a throw" @ which point i changed the channel & then threw my shoe!

Very dissapointing!

Now I'm getting angry. Do you think the throws are actually a tactic they believe they can get away with?

[0918330512]

Now I'm getting angry. Do you think the throws are actually a tactic they believe they can get away with?

Got away with

[rojo]

Forget about the umpiring and the fact that some of our players were not at their best, according to Neil Cordy in his article in the DT, 'Luke Beveridge outsmarted Sydney with pressure and the use of the 3rd man up in the ruck during the GF'. An interesting article (I don't know how to make a link). I don't think I will watch a replay to see whether I agree with him or not but it might have been an effective strategy that we were unable to counter.