Round 4: the other games. Our work here is done.
Collapse
X
-
-
Comment
-
by an algorithm from the same scientists that made Dangerfield, Pendlebury and Nick Reiwoldt.Last edited by KTigers; 11 April 2021, 02:55 PM.Comment
-
What I've seen of Geelong, so far this season, hasn't impressed me. They've looked very uninspired moving the ball. 3.3 at half time against Melbourne, and I thought they were lucky to get that.Comment
-
I agree. I don't think they have the cattle to adapt to the new rules. I think there might be more than one team we didn't expect make the top 8 come September.Comment
-
It's hard to say what's up with them. It could be the slow start that teams who go deep into the finals often have; since they're still bashing away, while other teams are already recovering from the season. But on the other hand, many teams seem keen to move the ball quicker, to take advantage of the new rules. Geelong don't seem to be interested in doing that. Maybe they think a slower style suits their players better? Maybe it shows a lack of imagination? Who knows? Perhaps somebody should ask Chris Scott at his press conference?Comment
-
Note: data from AFL Tables so South Melbourne = Sydney, Western Bulldogs = Footscray.Comment
-
Comment
-
There were a couple of instances of staging in the Melbourne v Geelong game, that I hope will attract fines from the tribunal, but I doubt will, since there doesn't to be much comment about them.
One was late in the game, when a long kick went into the Geelong forward line. Moving towards the ball drop were Stanley, who was being closely followed by Gawn. It then seemed that Stanley was impeded. The umpire gives a free, causing an obviously flabbergasted reaction from Gawn. The replay showed why that reaction was appropriate. It started with Gawn's hands lightly touching Stanley's hips. He then moved his hands away, as they started running. Stanley then threw his body back, as if he had been grabbed. The replay strongly suggested that Gawn hadn't done anything to impede Stanley.Comment
-
Whoops, accidentally pushed post. I'll continue.
While I can grudgingly accept players accentuating contact that has actually occurred, I really don't like them pretending that contact has occurred. It's just cheating and should be punished.
The other incident happened earlier in the game, when Selwood was penalised for a high tackle on Spargo. However, replays showed that Spargo had thrown his head back, as if it had been hit, well before any contact had been made. Then when contact was made, it didn't appear to be around the head. At first, I had a bit of a chuckle, at Selwood being penalised for a high tackle, but then I thought, no, that sort of blatant staging should be punished.Comment
-
Comment
-
Round 4: the other games. Our work here is done.
Was it the Crows that eliminated us from the finals that year, at the SCG of all places? Very heartbreaking season.Comment
Comment