![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/richmond.png)
DontArgue4
17🏆19🏆20🏆
- May 3, 2013
- 18,628
- 59,098
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Houston Rockets, Arsenal, PhiEagles
No DH policy here mate so he wouldn't get a game
lmao wow port fans have let this season get to their heads
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No DH policy here mate so he wouldn't get a game
If we're getting straight to the point then Hartlet is irrelevant also as Martin is clearly the best player out of the four.by the sounds of things shuey and zeibell have become irrelevant in this poll
What makes you say that? Is it the hysteria from fellow Port supporters or something else.Am I in the bay??
Ziebell's numbers might not have been amazing but he stood up massively in the third quarter when the game was on the line.
I'd argue when you come back after half time and you're 35 points down the game is on the line. How many games are won after being 41 points down in the 3rd?The third quarter where North dominated against witches hats does not equate to the game being on the line.
I'd argue when you come back after half time and you're 35 points down the game is on the line. How many games are won after being 41 points down in the 3rd?
Paddy is just up to his usual Richmond trolling, ignore him. I thought Ziebell was awesome in the third when the game was on the line. If half the Tiges showed his grit we would have kept going and won comfortably.
Same could be said of Dusty. On top in the first when his team was on top and firing. But when push came to shove he did nothing much but turnovers and kneeing in the back.Richmond trolling? Richmond were terrible in the third quarter. Maybe it's just me but I would have had much more respect for Ziebell's game if he had of been one of the players fighting to keep North in it when Richmond were on top in the first half. You could argue that he was a big reason behind the North third quarter surge but to me watching the game he was no where near as important as Cunnington, Harvey or Petrie.
Same could be said of Dusty. On top in the first when his team was on top and firing. But when push came to shove he did nothing much but turnovers and kneeing in the back.
Going on 2014 Ziebell is clearly 4th in this race and Dusty on top but to say JZ only played well because Richmond were witches hats is a silly statement. Why do you think Richmond looked like witches hats?
I can tell you North played horribly in the 2nd quarter (lost 1st by only 2 points) but a lot could be attributed to the physicality and play of Richmond. Visa versa for the 3rd quarter![]()
I agree the same thing could be said for Martin but Richmond supporters aren't trying to talk up a half decent 18 possesion 2 goal game as being better than it was because Ziebell performed well in the third quarter.
Watching the game did you get the feeling that North played anywhere near to the best of their ability? As soon as you guys started winning the ball out of the middle Richmond folded like a deck of cards.
Ziebell's 3rd quarter was B grade but for the game I'd give him a C. I'd give Martin a B/B- for his game.
To answer your question, no North didn't play their best, close to it for the 3rd but also close to their worst for the 2nd. I'd give North a B for the game. Being down 35 at half time and coming out the way they did would give the group a lot to draw on when they're down later in the year.
Do you just look at the disposal and goal number?? Every goal was withiin 15 metres of the goals. 2 dropped into his lap = right place right time. How many of his disposals were damaging? Hell how many were effective? Turnovers and bad kicks don't equal an A grade game.28 touches + 4 goals = B/B-?
Ok then![]()
8 clangers and you want an A game? interesting28 touches + 4 goals = B/B-?
Ok then![]()
4 frees against and a crude knee in Nahas' back?28 touches + 4 goals = B/B-?
Ok then![]()
Do you just look at the disposal and goal number?? Every goal was withiin 15 metres of the goals. 2 dropped into his lap = right place right time. How many of his disposals were damaging? Hell how many were effective? Turnovers and bad kicks don't equal an A grade game.
4 frees against and a crude knee in Nahas' back?
4 frees against
1 clearance (same amount as Jumping Jack) hell Luck McDonald and Boomer had 2.
What grade would you give Dusty mate?
Just kept proving my point.Did you just quote me 3 times to make 3 separate statements?
Just kept proving my point.
So you think a player who has 8 clangers and 4 free against could get an A?
His four goals are brought down by some shonky disposal and turnovers. I stand by my B (possibly B- because B players don't disappear when the other team turns up.)
Guess the coaches disagree with you, 4 votes in a losing team.
I'll take the coaches opinions over yours, anyone who includes "a crude knee to nahas' back" as a reason why a player gets a B- clearly knows nothing about footy.
Dusty was a minumum B+ on sunday night
The coaches went-
North Melbourne vs Richmond
9 Goldstein (NM)
9 Greenwood (NM)
4 Martin (Rich)
4 Petrie (NM)
3 Harvey (NM)
1 Swallow (NM)
all playing well
Everyones happy!