Mega Thread The Bucks Megathread.

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I don't know if you can say we shouldn't have dropped the round 1 game after the start to the season Hawthorn has had.

That’s true but we certainly could have been far more competitive.

 

[Matt_352]

Yeah but that's probably unlikely. More accurate to look at the average of our performances so far not the best. Not sure we will bring the Adelaide level all the time. Recent history says no , still that can change.

thats why I said dependent on how often we show that level. bring that level every game for rest of year we will lose 0-3 more games, but that doesent happen in the real world.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Looking good but need to back up against Essendon.

I thought it we snagged 2 wins from the first 6 that would be par. 3 really good. 4 outstanding. Beat Essendon and we are looking very good for 4

Yep most had us pegged as “season still alive” at 2-4. We need one of the next two games to move up to the “ in it with a chance” category. Win them both and we are 4-2 and in the “more of the same for another month and we can start thinking about top four” category!!!

 

[10571z]

Yep most had us pegged as “season still alive” at 2-4. We need one of the next two games to move up to the “ in it with a chance” category. Win them both and we are 4-2 and in the “more of the same got another month and we can start thinking about top four” category!!!

Essendon will be very tough. Same boat as us. Hopefully we have their measure.

 

[Matt_352]

Essendon will be very tough. Same boat as us. Hopefully we have their measure.

both teams always lift for anzac day. not taking them lightly at all

 

[76woodenspooners]

Depends on how consistently we play to that standard. maintain that most games we could definitley win over 15

We can’t really expect consistency from the sub 50 game players in our 22 ...

Stephenson
Brown
Murray
Crocker
Cox
Philips

Plus any of the others who might get a game this year ...

Wills
Sier
Murphy
Kirby
Daicos

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

We can’t really expect consistency from the sub 50 game players in our 22 ...

Stephenson
Brown
Murray
Crocker
Cox
Philips

Plus any of the others who might get a game this year ...

Wills
Sier
Murphy
Kirby
Daicos

Yeah but we have a long list of "öthers" who can pick up the slack when the others lose form.

 

[Pie eyed]

What do you do if you were already on the bandwagon?

Seriously!!

The *en Pie Cart!

There is nothin' better.

Get on it!!

 

[Justlokan]

Cox has a lot of value as a Fleet in being

This is traditionally a term for navy ships that do nothing but sit in the relative safety of port. They’re a pain in the backside to the enemy because it ties up valuable resources of the enemy to deal the possiblility of the ships coming out of Port. For the WW2 history buffs, the Nazi’s tactical use of the battleship Tirpitz is a pinup example.

In Cox’s case, he’s a 7’ bloke who can mark and who can kick goals. As long as he’s planted within kicking distance of goals, he ties up a fair chunk of the opposition’s defensive resources, which creates openings in other areas of the ground.

If Cox is the Tirpitz does that make Nathan Freeman the Gneisenau?

 

[JB1975]

If Cox is the Tirpitz does that make Nathan Freeman the Gneisenau?

Nathan Freeman is the S.S. Minnow, that ill-fated small vessel from Gillian's Island.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

We can’t really expect consistency from the sub 50 game players in our 22 ...

Stephenson
Brown
Murray
Crocker
Cox
Philips

Plus any of the others who might get a game this year ...

Wills
Sier
Murphy
Kirby
Daicos

Brown Murray and Philips have shown a great level of consistency.. Stephenson is the X factor.. another coupla good games.. I'm already hooked.. I might have to get a blow up doll.. print out his face.. and attach it to it re.. that's love for ya re.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Yeah. The Centurion was a dummy battleship, not the real thing. Tirpitz was placed at Tromso for other reasons and was a success as fleet in being unintentionally. So the analogies are a bit superficial.
Cox was instructed to play as he did in deference to the conditions. It was just a better response than that of the Adelaide talls who tried to mark all night. I don't expect the instructions will be the same next week unless the conditions are similar.
The best thing about the last few weeks is the forethought that has been shown in preparing for the actual conditions and the specifics of the opponent. Pendlebury to Cripps was the right choice because of their respective qualities, just as Sidebottom to Sloane put the right player there to do the required job. It is asking a lot to expect something similar each week, but the level of planning is apparently much higher than in recent years. So is the flexibility.

You have a battleship as your picture so it is with great trepidation that I contradict you. But firstly Tirpitz was placed at Trondheim not Tromso and it was primarily sent there as "a fleet in being" from the outset... there was nothing unintentional about it. After the loss of Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Graf Spee; Hitler had in fact forbidden that his capital ships be used in surface raiding against convoys. He only agreed to the Tirpitz being stationed in Trondheim predominantly as an added defense to possible re-invasion and to tie down British naval and air forces (fleet in being). That was the only reason Hitler agreed to it being sent there. The threat of this ship was also used to disrupt convoys and scatter them and allow u-boats to pick them off... but that was secondary. I could be wrong but I don't think it ever actually fired on any convoys.
I think the analogy is pretty good for how we're using Cox.

 

[76woodenspooners]

If Cox is the Tirpitz does that make Nathan Freeman the Gneisenau?

Every other thread on the board gets derailed by discussion of Buckley ...

... and the Buckley thread itself gets derailed by discussion of “match our players to WW2 era navy ships”.

It’s friggen hilarious!

 

[left at home]

Every other thread on the board gets derailed by discussion of Buckley ...

... and the Buckley thread itself gets derailed by discussion of “match our players to WW2 era navy ships”. It’s friggen hilarious!

Well, It is better than some the other rubbish that’s been said on here

 

[left at home]

You have a battleship as your picture so it is with great trepidation that I contradict you. But firstly Tirpitz was placed at Trondheim not Tromso and it was primarily sent there as "a fleet in being" from the outset... there was nothing unintentional about it. After the loss of Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Graf Spee; Hitler had in fact forbidden that his capital ships be used in surface raiding against convoys. He only agreed to the Tirpitz being stationed in Trondheim predominantly as an added defense to possible re-invasion and to tie down British naval and air forces (fleet in being). That was the only reason Hitler agreed to it being sent there. The threat of this ship was also used to disrupt convoys and scatter them and allow u-boats to pick them off... but that was secondary. I could be wrong but I don't think it ever actually fired on any convoys.
I think the analogy is pretty good for how we're using Cox.

It never fired a shot at the enemy

 

[Scritchyscroony]

It never fired a shot at the enemy

just like Cox has not scored a goal yet.. but he has drawn the attention of lots of defenders... see how the analogy works.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

It never fired a shot at the enemy

btw.. shot down a lot of RAF planes I believe. Maybe it didn't fire at shot at any ships.

 

[76woodenspooners]

You have a battleship as your picture...

The Hood no less!

... so it is with great trepidation that I contradict you. But firstly Tirpitz was placed at Trondheim not Tromso and it was primarily sent there as "a fleet in being" from the outset... there was nothing unintentional about it. After the loss of Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Graf Spee; Hitler had in fact forbidden that his capital ships be used in surface raiding against convoys. He only agreed to the Tirpitz being stationed in Trondheim predominantly as an added defense to possible re-invasion and to tie down British naval and air forces (fleet in being). That was the only reason Hitler agreed to it being sent there. The threat of this ship was also used to disrupt convoys and scatter them and allow u-boats to pick them off... but that was secondary. I could be wrong but I don't think it ever actually fired on any convoys.
I think the analogy is pretty good for how we're using Cox.

I think the Tirpitz got moved to Tromsø so it could get better air protection?

Which turned out to be a bit ironic in the end.

 

[Bad Horse]

If Cox is the Tirpitz does that make Nathan Freeman the Gneisenau?

More like the Blucher, but you are close.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

The Hood no less!



I think the Tirpitz got moved to Tromsø so it could get better air protection?

Which turned out to be a bit ironic in the end.

We won't be moving 7ft Coxy anywhere if he needs better air protection.. except for back to the VFL.

 

[left at home]

btw.. shot down a lot of RAF planes I believe. Maybe it didn't fire at shot at any ships.

I know how the analogy is with this. Tirpitz main battery never fired a shot at the enemy fleet. It had is own fighter squadronto protect it.

 

[left at home]

The Hood no less!



I think the Tirpitz got moved to Tromsø so it could get better air protection?

Which turned out to be a bit ironic in the end.

Very!

 

[Soaring Magpie]

Essendon will be very tough. Same boat as us. Hopefully we have their measure.

Depending which Essendon turn up, they have had 2 absolute shockers and we’re average for 3 quarters in round 1.
Need to stop there spread from the contest and they have nothing else.

 

[cleomenes]

You have a battleship as your picture so it is with great trepidation that I contradict you. But firstly Tirpitz was placed at Trondheim not Tromso and it was primarily sent there as "a fleet in being" from the outset... there was nothing unintentional about it. After the loss of Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Graf Spee; Hitler had in fact forbidden that his capital ships be used in surface raiding against convoys. He only agreed to the Tirpitz being stationed in Trondheim predominantly as an added defense to possible re-invasion and to tie down British naval and air forces (fleet in being). That was the only reason Hitler agreed to it being sent there. The threat of this ship was also used to disrupt convoys and scatter them and allow u-boats to pick them off... but that was secondary. I could be wrong but I don't think it ever actually fired on any convoys.
I think the analogy is pretty good for how we're using Cox.

You're right about Trondheim being the initial station - Tromso is where Tirpitz was sunk - I was too slack to check the names. The fleet in being analogy I still dispute. Cox is actually called upon to play, and he does so. It's not really the forum to argue naval strategy, but Tirpitz was primarily in Norway to defend the invasion that Hitler expected there. The 18" guns at Narvik and the mounting of the turrets from Gneisenau on the coast had the same objective and being fixed could not be confused with a fleet in being. It's nice to see there is so much interest and knowledge floating around about these things, and the imagination available to apply it to footy. Despite disagreeing, I was quite tickled by the mention of Centurion.

 

[sideswipe]

You're right about Trondheim being the initial station - Tromso is where Tirpitz was sunk - I was too slack to check the names. The fleet in being analogy I still dispute. Cox is actually called upon to play, and he does so. It's not really the forum to argue naval strategy, but Tirpitz was primarily in Norway to defend the invasion that Hitler expected there. The 18" guns at Narvik and the mounting of the turrets from Gneisenau on the coast had the same objective and being fixed could not be confused with a fleet in being. It's nice to see there is so much interest and knowledge floating around about these things, and the imagination available to apply it to footy. Despite disagreeing, I was quite tickled by the mention of Centurion.

That was me and it was spot on for joking about Coxy's role! A dummy ship in the field of combat which has enemy resources diverted towards it. Equipped with what look like weapons. But they aren't really. Fools some but not all of the enemy combatants. Just hope they meet a different final fate.