Autopsy Round 1, 2024: Geelong v St.Kilda *COLLARD, WILSON DEBUT*

[Hubnester]

9 score involvements for Higgins on the weekend. Only Rowan and Max had more for either team. Pump the brakes on the Higgins hate - whenever something good happened, he tended to be involved.

That spoil deep in the forwardline that I thnk resulted in a Membrey goal was

Could have easily ended with a couple of goals as well, had the umpires recognised he actually has a head. Hopefully he will build and get back to his best, we really need some quality in that position.

 

[seasonedsainter]

9 score involvements for Higgins on the weekend. Only Rowan and Max had more for either team. Pump the brakes on the Higgins hate - whenever something good happened, he tended to be involved.

Higgins hate or dismay? I've been one to question his role in the team but certainly haven't been hating on the guy, seems like a top bloke. Also noticed he had a hand in quite a few (pretty sure one was a shot though ) and was busy in that regard!
I'd like to see how he'd go as the Sub myself.

 

[John2010362340]

This is how i see Pou, he is learning to play midfield at AFL level. This is when playing him every game last season at AFL level can actually hinder a player's development. If he had time in the VFL last season and played as full time mid getting a few 30 possession games would that actually help his development more then playing 23 games as a high HF and getting 12-15 possessions a game. I think we have a special talent on our hands, not sure we are doing whats actually best for him atm.. Windy went back last year and came back with confidence because he had a few dominant VFL games. Owens his first year was dominant at VFL level. 95% of young players coming in, VFL matters. There's only been a selected few that have come in as an 18 year old and been really good right away.

Putting him in the VFL now although i think would be best for him, could actually hurt him due to how he might take it and also the media reaction.

 

[Ads734]

This is how i see Pou, he is learning to play midfield at AFL level. This is when playing him every game last season at AFL level can actually hinder a player's development. If he had time in the VFL last season and played as full time mid getting a few 30 possession games would that actually help his development more then playing 23 games as a high HF and getting 12-15 possessions a game. I think we have a special talent on our hands, not sure we are doing whats actually best for him atm.. Windy went back last year and came back with confidence because he had a few dominant VFL games. Owens his first year was dominant at VFL level. 95% of young players coming in, VFL matters. There's only been a selected few that have come in as an 18 year old and been really good right away.

Putting him in the VFL now although i think would be best for him, could actually hurt him due to how he might take it and also the media reaction.

I also think one thing we are missing is what Ross is asking Pou to do in the midfield.

For instance there were times last year when Pou seemed to be having little impact but his pressure acts, unrewarded running were probably more noitcable to the coaches. Perfect exmaple is that goal against Geelong in the second last game of the season.

We saw how he basiclly ran the length of the field. The question is how often is he doing running like that defensively or making space for others that we are not seeing.

As a midfielder I assume he is being asked to do the very basics first and foremost ie not letting his direct opoenent have a clean run at the ball, halving contests etc etc before being the active ball winner first. Simmilar to Windy as a midfielder. I assume Ross/Lenny have a plan to develop him there.

Simmilar to how Brayshaw/Neale got better under Ross.

'I owe a lot of my success to him': Brayshaw backs Lyon for Saints gig

Andrew Brayshaw has thrown his support behind his former mentor, saying he taught him a lot of life lessons

www.afl.com.au

Ross knows what he has with Pou. If there is one thing that ross has changed since his first stint at the saints is his ability to develop young talent into stars of the comp.

We also know that Ross has no issues dropping young guys to the twos, so if he has not been dropped to me it says it Pou is pllaying the role Ross wants him to play.

 

[kernelT]

He played half a game. So yes two possessions is a much much better return

I'm having some trouble even understanding what you're saying but the gist seems to be along the familiar lines of… every player who leaves the saints is s**t… Acres, Billings, Gresham

And every player who we trade in is a superstar… Jones, Higgins, Dow, Henry.

Rather than potting the players, we should be concerned about why we can't get the best out of players with obvious talent, we're flushing first round talent down the toilet and replacing them role playing journeymen, meanwhile bolstering our rivals.

Interesting that a top 4 side would be keen on a player you're happy to shed for nothing in return.

 

[Sully111]

I'm having some trouble even understanding what you're saying but the gist seems to be along the familiar lines of… every player who leaves the saints is s**t… Acres, Billings, Gresham

And every player who we trade in is a superstar… Jones, Higgins, Dow, Henry.

Rather than potting the players, we should be concerned about why we can't get the best out of players with obvious talent, we're flushing first round talent down the toilet and replacing them role playing journeymen, meanwhile bolstering our rivals.

Interesting that a top 4 side would be keen on a player you're happy to shed for nothing in return.

My take on Billings isn't the same as many here.

To me, he never got to play under a decent coach.

Where he was taken in the draft obviously increased expectations.

Always saw him on a wing. Often played out of position.

I would have liked to see him take a game by the scruff of the neck more often though.

I think it's a damn shame he never got a run at it under Ross Lyon.

It is what it is though. Think he'll go well at the dees, particularly if he's played on the wing.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Misogyny or ignorance of the rules. Perhaps it's both.

Stocker dived to tap the ball because he knew he wasn't going to beat Dangerfield to the ball any other way.

That action caused forceful contact below the knees to Dangerfield.

Know the rules and you understand that it was a free kick every day of the week.

 

[Sully111]

Misogyny or ignorance of the rules. Perhaps it's both.

Stocker dived to tap the ball because he knew he wasn't going to beat Dangerfield to the ball any other way.

That action caused forceful contact below the knees to Dangerfield.

Know the rules and you understand that it was a free kick every day of the week.

Misogyny?

Really?

Have you read what has been said about Michael Christian on this site? Or Brad Scott?

What do you get when you cross someone with an IQ of 84 with Laura Kane?

Someone with an IQ below 84

Wasn't a free

 

[The Jack]

Misogyny or ignorance of the rules. Perhaps it's both.

Stocker dived to tap the ball because he knew he wasn't going to beat Dangerfield to the ball any other way.

That action caused forceful contact below the knees to Dangerfield.

Know the rules and you understand that it was a free kick every day of the week.

Time to change a s**t, over umpired rule if that's a "free kick every day of the week".

 

[Nutsngum]

Misogyny or ignorance of the rules. Perhaps it's both.

Stocker dived to tap the ball because he knew he wasn't going to beat Dangerfield to the ball any other way.

That action caused forceful contact below the knees to Dangerfield.

Know the rules and you understand that it was a free kick every day of the week.

No, the rule was introduced to prevent players coming in late and taking out players at the leg level. Stocker wouldn't have even seen Dangerfield coming and he was first to the ball.

It was very evident that Kane did not actually investigate the incident when she commented that she was happy no player was injured when that was completely wrong.

 

[True Believer]

Misogyny or ignorance of the rules. Perhaps it's both.

Stocker dived to tap the ball because he knew he wasn't going to beat Dangerfield to the ball any other way.

That action caused forceful contact below the knees to Dangerfield.

Know the rules and you understand that it was a free kick every day of the week.

Horseshit! On what basis do you claim to know what Stocker was thinking!?

 

[hayes]

I think ultimately that was a game played between two teams with very ordinary midfields, the only difference between them was one team had Dangerfield and the other didn’t.

Staggered that Wilson not only kicked two goals in the cauldron of that rubbish shaped stadium but he kicked both of them with his left foot. Looks like he’s going to tick a lot of boxes.

 

[Saintsydney]

Misogyny or ignorance of the rules. Perhaps it's both.

Stocker dived to tap the ball because he knew he wasn't going to beat Dangerfield to the ball any other way.

That action caused forceful contact below the knees to Dangerfield.

Know the rules and you understand that it was a free kick every day of the week.

Stocker beat Dangerfield to the ball - fair and square and was still on his feet when he did so - then went forward and Dangerfield who was about 1 metre away when Stocker first touched the ball came through and kneed him in the back while he was down
Dangerous play against Dangerfield

The rule was brought to stop guys 'sliding in' taking advantage of slippery surfaces to slide in and take out the ball players legs - dangerous stuff and probably good to get it out of the game - but it seems the AFL don't even know what the rules was originally for now and if the lady ( in charge of commenting on such things ??) thinks what happened on Saturday is ok - then anything could happen out there and who would know what is right or wrong ?

 

[dougiemac]

Misogyny?

Really?

Have you read what has been said about Michael Christian on this site? Or Brad Scott?

What do you get when you cross someone with an IQ of 84 with Laura Kane?

Someone with an IQ below 84

Wasn't a free

Her IQ matches the room temperature.

 

[gringo2011]

Yes but it's an opinion expressed ad neuseum without heed for the other side. Gringos I always respected his posts in the past and thought him a real smart good egg, until this anti-RTB campaign began, and kept going, and going. Also without being arsed getting into it, not sure how well coaching comparisons between soccer<-->aussie rules fly. Just totally different sports in many senses.

The most critical posters are usually the ones who care the most.

 

[StFly]

Misogyny or ignorance of the rules. Perhaps it's both.

Stocker dived to tap the ball because he knew he wasn't going to beat Dangerfield to the ball any other way.

That action caused forceful contact below the knees to Dangerfield.

Know the rules and you understand that it was a free kick every day of the week.

Ah, see this is where the umpire fell as I stated with the rule that got quoted, you have affirmed blame to Stocker which is a position that is possible, depends on where the interpretative dance ends re rulings. So lets look at 18.7;


And 18.3

So Stocker fell under 18.7.2 (b) according to the umpire.
Danger can be cited under 18.3.2 (b) as he was not in position for 18.3.1 to engage that objective given Stockers position.

So, do you consider the following;

Is Danger contesting that ball or is he approaching that contest? What then is his focus.
Is Stocker executing a forceful action by lowering himself to potentially gather that ball?

If you fall under the Danger is 3--5 steps away from that ball where Stocker can touch it, therefore he is not in that contest he is approaching crowd, then Stocker is the recipient of a free under 18.3.2 (b) given his knee made contact to Stockers back and left him prone on the ground.

If you fall under the clause that Stocker in his actions made a forceful action that then caused Danger to have to evade him as this action is unreasonable conduct , then like the umpire you fall under 18.7.2 (b).

So, the spirit is both were on that field to play that game of footy, you can assume both intended originally to contest that ball, it is then obvious from vision that Stocker arrives first to the ball. So you can then engage 18.3 as his objective was the ball, due to him then reaching that ball, what does Danger do? Does he change intent? Does he continue onwards? Does he evade? is his objective still that ball?

If not, he is essentially on a charge, if he is on a charge, he then needs to evade or he will execute an illegal action. If this is the case, then Stocker cannot be held liable for falling and face planting as contact was inevitable at a point and so 18.7 then gets levelled at Danger instead of Stocker for the "circumstances unreasonable but not limited to.." instance given it was knee and not a sliding action to then engage either sub heading re knees or in the back instance under this heading.

So is a 50/50, and will level the same claim to you, know your rules and you will understand that it depends on the coin flip as to who gets the blame.

 

[gringo2011]

Misogyny or ignorance of the rules. Perhaps it's both.

Stocker dived to tap the ball because he knew he wasn't going to beat Dangerfield to the ball any other way.

That action caused forceful contact below the knees to Dangerfield.

Know the rules and you understand that it was a free kick every day of the week.

Bullshit he was already at the ball when Danger arrived. Danger grabbed his face. Should have been high contact.

 

[gringo2011]

Also how close does a player have to be for you to elect to rush a behind? Looked like Bonner was close to a player. I thought the rule was to do with distance.

 

[StFly]

Also how close does a player have to be for you to elect to rush a behind? Looked like Bonner was close to a player. I thought the rule was to do with distance.

I'd assume it was under (c) that Bonner got done according to the umpire, but you are correct in that it has to do with distance and pressure also.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

Misogyny. Lmao.

 

[DougalHoward]

Is it misandry not to protect the players from knees in the back

 

[George]

 

[Sunshine Sainter]

I'm having some trouble even understanding what you're saying but the gist seems to be along the familiar lines of… every player who leaves the saints is s**t… Acres, Billings, Gresham

And every player who we trade in is a superstar… Jones, Higgins, Dow, Henry.

Rather than potting the players, we should be concerned about why we can't get the best out of players with obvious talent, we're flushing first round talent down the toilet and replacing them role playing journeymen, meanwhile bolstering our rivals.

Interesting that a top 4 side would be keen on a player you're happy to shed for nothing in return.

Sorry but you have misread the tea leaves completely. We took Billings with pick 3 and for both that pick and the missed opportunity of others that could have been drafted, he was a huge disappointment. He was given years of opportunity to develop and be the best he could be at St Kilda. Was Billings going to be the player we needed and consistently deliver in games, especially big games, the club thought not.

The club traded him and used the pick to bring him further youth to the club. Happy to give players the time to develop, but his time for that had expired at St Kilda. I wish him all the best, but thought whatever we could get for him was a plus.

Don't see that all players who leave are rejects, from Ian Stewart, Carl Ditterich, Tony Lockett, Nicky Winmar onwards. Nor that any player that comes in from another club is a superstar. Don't know how you think that from anything I have said. If you look back on my posts, you will see I tend to see the positive in players and give more time than most for development. But when its obvious that it isn't going to happen, then its time to delist and move on.

Billings career has been one of inconsistency. He may change that totally at Melbourne, but from the early sample and his past history, that inconsistency will continue. Most likely Billings time at Melbourne will be similar to that of Dunstan at Melbourne. Thank goodness that Melbourne is a possible trade spot for us. Long may that continue.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

 

[Geezington]

St kilda football club making s**t trucks look like superstars since 1897, Oliver Dempsey will be delisted at years end horrible player