Review R9: The Good, Bad and the Ugly vs. Port Adelaide

[cm_perfect]

I feel good about the game, but largely because the hill was packed and not ideal for viewing, I probably didn't take in much of the quality of our play or lack thereof, and you know, we beat the ****ing Power and took back the ledger which is really what I'm about at Showdowns.

Never should have gotten that close at the end, and really we do need to review our strategies for holding a lead. The fact that we couldn't find any chip kicks for an entire 10 minute window isn't great.

I chose not to spend the evening frustrated about Nicks rather than trolling every Port fan that I know in increasingly merciless ways, because we get very few things to celebrate as a fan and **** missing that opportunity.

I have been using:
You’re only as good as your last Showdown while I can.

 

[Hodgy]

This is important.

It very very often is those players that let us down in the big moments, including this year. Laird's kick into Dangerfield was a pivotal moment in that game.

This is also something that people should be considering, when they decide to praise these players seasons. Are they someone who we can trust when the time comes, and if not should we be building around them?

Malthouse had a view on that.

Pretty hard to argue with this.

 

[CrowBloke]

We need to come up with a plan when opposition cut Dawson out of the game.

We won't.
NICKS is our Coach.

We need to start paying attention to opposition midfielders cutting us to pieces.

See above.

 

[Crow till I die]

It isn’t pretty sound, the commentators were all saying it’s very dangerous to be going that early. We are lucky Port butchered their chances otherwise you wouldn’t be able to write your all is glorious post.

We were getting smashed in clearances and contested ball and yet Nicks turned it into a contest and with the crowd behind them, it wasn’t going to take much for them to come charging, which is exactly what happened.

As for Dawson, you saw him kick 3 against Carlton right? Would you have expected to break the tag we might have played him up forward for 5 minutes?

The other thing that the coach 'could' have done was to then send Dawson to butters say to tag him meaning port would either then have 2 guys going with Dawson and soligo runs free then or it would shake the bergman tag. But no, he left him tagged

 

[George CantStandYa]

The other thing that the coach 'could' have done was to then send Dawson to butters say to tag him meaning port would either then have 2 guys going with Dawson and soligo runs free then or it would shake the bergman tag. But no, he left him tagged

Dawson did go to Butters, but Dawson doesn’t have the mobility or speed to go with him, just like when we tried the same thing against Bailey Smith.

 

[Hodgy]

I just went back and watched it again, to see if I was remembering it wrong. Laird "pushes" him less than a second after he marks, with less force than I hug my kids at bed time.

It would happen around a hundred times a match, paid only that once.

Was it unnecessary? Sure. But it was not a 50.

That’s the point. The guy went to ground deliberately, not because of the push, and therefore there should be no 50 pure and simple.
Pretty well all players in the league give a little push after an uncontested mark, it’s obviously coached and as you say would happen 100 times a game. It’s like being in the protected zone nowdays, umpires just ignore it 20 times in a row and then suddenly pay one that results in a goal. It’s a massive penalty for a tiny indiscretion, and paid totally indiscriminately but can seriously change the result of a game.

 

[ABAB]

Every third response …”umpiring”. Some going as far as cheating and rigged. It is …. Tedious. Do you think on every board here there are people saying the same on their team, they support. Overall after hundreds of split second decisions 3 obvious (in hindsight) questionable ones. Peppa pig htb, tex deliberate out of bounds no call, and the 30 metre kick called not 15. 2 favoured crows. Just stop already. We got smashed in the middle and clearances, we need to be accountable to us.

Yes, the 50/50 call favour us in the 2nd half just like it favour them in the 1st half so the entire umpiring was shit. In fact, the standard of umpiring this year in the AFL has been shit. That Wines kick to Georgiadias was arguably 15m let alone 30m.

 

[Hodgy]

The other thing that the coach 'could' have done was to then send Dawson to butters say to tag him meaning port would either then have 2 guys going with Dawson and soligo runs free then or it would shake the bergman tag. But no, he left him tagged

That is exactly what we did. Dawson was constantly trying to get onto Butters.

 

[George CantStandYa]

That’s the point. The guy went to ground deliberately, not because of the push, and therefore there should be no 50 pure and simple.
Pretty well all players in the league give a little push after an uncontested mark, it’s obviously coached and as you say would happen 100 times a game. It’s like being in the protected zone nowdays, umpires just ignore it 20 times in a row and then suddenly pay one that results in a goal. It’s a massive penalty for a tiny indiscretion, and paid totally indiscriminately but can seriously change the result of a game.

Why did Laird place 2 hands in his back when the mark was already taken?

There is zero excuse for it from a senior player, of course the player was going to try for the 50, we would do it.

 

[Crow till I die]

That is exactly what we did. Dawson was constantly trying to get onto Butters.

I meant while he was copping a tag from bergman

 

[suburpy]

I just went back and watched it again, to see if I was remembering it wrong. Laird "pushes" him less than a second after he marks, with less force than I hug my kids at bed time.

It would happen around a hundred times a match, paid only that once.

Was it unnecessary? Sure. But it was not a 50.

He is not in the contest and initiates contact after … not that hard. Not umpires job to adjudicate softness, sure let’s give them another judgement call to make. Easily a 50 every day and a senior player .. stupid

 

[CrowBloke]

After we start the last quarter with 3 goals in a row, Nicks decides to slow us up for the last 10 minutes. This is despite our tall forwards dominating and Port dominating stoppages (killed us in clearances)

It's not only that our forwards dominated.
That 3-goal start to the last was a wave ... of enthusiasm, energy, hard footy, adrenalin and we had MOMENTUM.
Nicks should have let them surf that wave all the way to a 6- or 7-goal win.
If PA had not been so wasteful in the last 10-15 minutes of play, Nicks nearly blew that game.

 

[suburpy]

Yes, the 50/50 call favour us in the 2nd half just like it favour them in the 1st half so the entire umpiring was shit. In fact, the standard of umpiring this year in the AFL has been shit. That Wines kick to Georgiadias was arguably 15m let alone 30m.

3 decisions of hundreds equates to shit umpiring… wow are players held to same standards? Yes there are bad decisions but suggestions almost every week of a bias against the crows … that is just blind supporter logic.

Yes, the 50/50 call favour us in the 2nd half just like it favour them in the 1st half so the entire umpiring was shit. In fact, the standard of umpiring this year in the AFL has been shit. That Wines kick to Georgiadias was arguably 15m let alone 30m.

 

[ABAB]

3 decisions of hundreds equates to shit umpiring… wow are players held to same standards? Yes there are bad decisions but suggestions almost every week of a bias against the crows … that is just blind supporter logic.

I've just said they favour us in the 2nd half just like favour them in the 1st half so the entire game was poorly umpired so what "bias" are you talking about?

 

[suburpy]

I've just said they favour us in the 2nd half just like favour them in the 1st half so the entire game was poorly umpired so what "bias" are you talking about?

The “whole game” was poorly umpired, so every decision?? Think about it. A few bad decisions that you admit went 50/50 does not equate to a poorly umpired whole game. The bias is the one mentioned every week by many. I didn’t say that you did. Read this thread people flat out calling the umpires cheats.

 

[FR0GGY]

Tex’ll be fine this week after having last night off.

 

[Hodgy]

But Laird wasn’t in the contest, it happened after it and he didn’t have to do it. Obvious 50 ffs

I just watched the second half in replay and there was at least 50 times that a player makes contact with a player after an uncontested mark, with Lairds being the only one penalized. If you’re happy watching a sport being ruined by totally inconsistent decisions effecting results, or by abortion of rule changes like the “stand rule”, then good on you, most of the rest of us disagree.

Umpires should be always looking for any reason to NOT pay a free, not for a reason TO pay one. There should be half the frees that are currently paid, but most of them are just narcissists who love the limelight and being the centre of controversy. When you have umpires embracing having nicknames like “Razor” you know you’ve got problems.

 

[ams4crows]

IF Fabian ... blah blah
and
IF Fabian played 100 ... etc etc ....

That reads more harshly than I intended, and I generally enjoy your posting, but I'm curious.
Why do you give a flyingF about Francis' adoption preferences and his stepson?

IF I was Lang Hancock's son, I'd be on a Greek Island snarfing Greek delicacies,
(mmmm, tsadziki, salad with Kalamata olives, smoked Octopus char-grilled, lamb cutlets, pita bread, galaktoboureko <<DROOL>>)
but ... I'm not and this is the GBU thread.

We were discussing it because Dwayne spoke about it on the commentary and was wrong about him being a father son.

When Jason changed his name before the draft, the board had a discussion about it and someone found an AFL notice that pretty much said they would seriously consider an adopted son as eligible if the step father had played 100 games but would only decide on rules around if it ever became a likely event.

Was simply informing people who weren't around at that time of the initial step father son being draft eligible conversation how it would be possible.

 

[Hodgy]

I meant while he was copping a tag from bergman

He was doing it while being tagged. He was trying to get Peatling or Soligo free and cut Butters out in the process. It just didn’t work, Butters was too good.

 

[CrowBloke]

Very strange we didn't rotate the mids as much as we did last week, especially given how badly we were beaten at clearance.

I wondered same.

Did Murray Davis have the week/night off?

 

[jenny61_99]

I was frustrated too with the decision making of several experienced players in the last 5 minutes and there's not much the coaches can do about that at the time. The players shit the bed not the coaches.

The players had their hands tied with the inexplicable T message that was held up with 10 minutes to go.

 

[CrowBloke]

We were discussing it because Dwayne spoke about it on the commentary and was wrong about him being a father son.

When Jason changed his name before the draft, the board had a discussion about it and someone found an AFL notice that pretty much said they would seriously consider an adopted son as eligible if the step father had played 100 games but would only decide on rules around if it ever became a likely event.

Was simply informing people who weren't around at that time of the initial step father son being draft eligible conversation how it would be possible.

Very fair reply, thank you.

Apologies for being so grumpy; I think I am still dark about the last 1/4 slowdown, plus I despise JHF.

 

[ams4crows]

Very fair reply, thank you.

Apologies for being so grumpy; I think I am still dark about the last 1/4 slowdown, plus I despise JHF.

All good

 

[CrowBloke]

I like Lairds kick to the opposition

... about as much as I like RoB's two-handed taps to grateful oppo mids (I counted 3 last night)

 

[suburpy]

I just watched the second half in replay and there was at least 50 times that a player makes contact with a player after an uncontested mark, with Lairds being the only one penalized. If you’re happy watching a sport being ruined by totally inconsistent decisions effecting results, or by abortion of rule changes like the “stand rule”, then good on you, most of the rest of us disagree.

Umpires should be always looking for any reason to NOT pay a free, not for a reason TO pay one. There should be half the frees that are currently paid, but most of them are just narcissists who love the limelight and being the centre of controversy. When you have umpires embracing having nicknames like “Razor” you know you’ve got problems.

Making contact is one thing. Pushing after the mark is complete when ur not in the contest is a 50 metre free kick. Umpires should pay the free kicks they see. I have never said their isn’t inconsistent decisions, but they don’t adjudicate softness

I just watched the second half in replay and there was at least 50 times that a player makes contact with a player after an uncontested mark, with Lairds being the only one penalized. If you’re happy watching a sport being ruined by totally inconsistent decisions effecting results, or by abortion of rule changes like the “stand rule”, then good on you, most of the rest of us disagree.

Umpires should be always looking for any reason to NOT pay a free, not for a reason TO pay one. There should be half the frees that are currently paid, but most of them are just narcissists who love the limelight and being the centre of controversy. When you have umpires embracing having nicknames like “Razor” you know you’ve got problems.

At least 50 times there was people pushing someone in uncontested marks after the mark when they were not involved in the contest in any way in one half… 50 ? Really ? There were 70 uncontested marks per half, so in 50 of them the player not in the contest pushed the player. Hmmm. So did the umpires invent the stand rule ? That comment is completely irrelevant. I hate the stand rule, but if as a player you don’t follow it expect a 50, probably the softest free in the game, but they don’t adjudicate softness, just the rules. Yes inconsistency exists, especially htb which is an unknown to all. But my comments are about people saying there is a bias against the crows and that the umpires cheat. Why should they be looking not to pay frees ? That is beyond stupidity, in that case get rid of them and have a free for all. How on earth you decided we need 50% less frees, based on what? Your opinion ? Are you secretly Steven Rowe? They should be looking to control the game and pay free kicks they see. And if senior crow pushes a player after mark and he wasn’t in the marking contest then that is a 50.