I could put the same question to you..
That's s**t umpiring, similar to any number of "star treatment" decisions by umps.
Watch a replay. Murphy was great. In every contest. Big tackles, lots of clearances and with basically no support.
Relied on physical attributes at Collingwood. Has lost those and is no longer any good. Slow. Not very agile. Does some dumb things (choosing to bump instead of tackle). He's still a professional, runs both ways hard and puts in. Just hasn't adapted to not being able to play like he used to imo.
He was an emergency, and he played as a 4th or 5th defender. Let him go back to the VFL and dictate more in a couple of games while we figure out a better way to structure (eg. move on from Rowe, settle our defensive shape and midfield pressure).
Agree for the most part, though gandaal made a good point about him being poor at ground level, and he did make a particularly poor effort while being the last man when we left the gate open. You can argue he was under the pump, but that's not an excuse.
How often did Levi actually draw the spare defender compared to other forwards? Weitering copped that treatment plenty, and when a defence holds it shape it's going to happen to every play regardless, there's just a slim chance that Levi is going to hurt someone when he gets a run up.
Still a shade fluky for my liking, but to get a ball 50+ m you need to know how to ride the hook your hip naturally takes your leg through, whether that be aiming to the right a little as a right footer and riding it in, or getting more of a slice off the boot.
One of many outside-leaning players last night who probably had their possession count down about 25% because the ball wasn't being fed out properly.
Compare his role with that of White's original purpose on the night, especially how much it buried our midfield rotations by doing so. That reads like an upgrade to me.
The Daisy bias is the worst its ever been at the moment. Both he and Kerridge should playing next week, especially considering how Thomas supported the forward group, the defensive group and the midfield in one game despite how poorly each was doing in terms of running numbers into space, mopping up the ground ball and getting the footy to the outside respectively. His role last night was highly dependent on others doing the contested work well and with a smart use of their numbers, whereas instead they all charged at packs rather than setup to support at ground level/on the outside.
As I touched on earlier in what is becoming the largest post/strangest dissertation of all time, our guys outside were probably down in terms of about 25% of the kind of possession you'd expect given the contested numbers simply because Murphy was playing too inside, while Cripps and Ed were being shut out of it a bit due to how well Richmond closed down the stoppages and spread.
We technically played as many as 4 medium defenders last night, so I'm not sure Sheehan is a step in the right direction unless it release Simpson to help us slightly further afield while putting selection pressure on Armfield and Kerridge to pull their weight regularly. That still leaves us with a lack of ground level zip in defence, however, so it's not really a structural solution at all.
Docherty's 185 or so, then there's Sheehan and Plowman's 191, but the other side of the kind of player you seem to be equating Tuohy to. In fact, Tuohy did an excellent job on small forwards, but you're right in suggesting against the elite agility/acceleration types, he was found a little lacking, and that's where Byrne did a better job.
No, they just kicked it to the top of the square, brought it to ground, and everybody had a party there instead. Then there were all the goals over the top because they couldn't track back against the pacier types and either left the gate open, or their mate 1v1 in 30+ metres of space whenver we turned the ball over.
Riewoldt is an even better example, and I really hope we make the right call in the longer term, which is him playing down back.
I had him right on the borderline, and it seems like he's eked out just enough fitness. Here's hoping it continues.
Fisher getting stuck in the bubble is not what we need. We need him helping the ball move quickly from the hands of Cripps, E.Curnow and Gibbs to further outside.
Soapy's more on the mark here: a top 5 pick should be the starting point, with a first round pick and a player who is able to bring a medium-to-long term improvement to our 22 being the next foothold.
We should be shaking that tree regardless, because guys like him, M.Kennedy, Setterfield, Wilson, Buntine, Tomlinson, Whitfield, Cumming, Perryman, Greene, Lobb and others are not going to be satisfied with hovering in the 15-25 salary and selection bracket for too long as it will stall their development and earning potential.
Depending on how high our first round pick is and how the market for GWS players pans out, I think this could be on the cards, but the caveat there is how the NextGen Academy is set to work this off-season.
We didn't pick a team to pressure the opposition consistently, and resultantly our counter-attack fell flat. That said, the ability of our key forwards and senior outside mids to engineer scoring opportunities was great, which gives me hope that when a few more runners come in, we can do both well.
To show I am listening to others
Cuningham for Thomas. It would help with our inside work. He needs to find more ball but can't question work ethic and grunt
Buckley for White. Need more run out of defence and Buckley was quite good yesterday. Kids will love playing with him plus he isn't a young body. Works hard both ways
McKay for Casboult. He was impressive yesterday. Just needs games. Future star. Weitering McKay & Silvagni is exciting
Palmer for Armfield. More grunt, size in the midfield but can go forward as should Murphy & Gibbs
That's failry balanced isn't it?
Williamson stood out for me and over the next 5-6 weeks I want to see LeBois Fisher & Polson added.
It depends on whether the umpire believes the second 'bite' to be merely an extension of the first. If you are a defender, you can't just be a mug and try to 'steal' another player's mark; that's what spoiling is for. It's up to the discretion of the umpire as to whether the player was in control of it or not, they can't exactly put a time limit on it and press a stop-watch or anything. Having said that, I never saw Silvagni's attempt so I can't judge whether it was a mark or not.
