Autopsy Round 1 v Richmond - Blues go down by 43

[Blue__Balls]

i just thought his disposal was all about short and safe chip passes that didn't damage the opposition at all.

He's come from Geelong who were all about short safe chip passes around the backline - what did you expect?

Also need to consider what options his teammates were giving him - better in many cases to go short and retain possession than go long to a contest that favours the opposition.

 

[Aphrodite]

Just on the silvagni mark/non-mark, i personally thought it was a grab regardless of the rules, they are usually called as marks

but dont forget Lloyd had a clear mark not paid earlier in the match too

Cotchin's non 'mark' that hit the ground in the 1st qtr and was paid resulting in a goal.


Just saying!

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Just on the silvagni mark/non-mark, i personally thought it was a grab regardless of the rules, they are usually called as marks

but dont forget Lloyd had a clear mark not paid earlier in the match too

Opinion of Cotchin's mark please?

 

[bmaurizio]

i thought casboult let the side down last night when he let martin get away with pushing him around. the guy is a tank and should of made a statement to his younger teammates.

also, imo it is a waste of time playing smedts, thomas (and lamb). they hardly get it and do nothing with it when they do. should give players like cunningham a chance to rack up some games.

Agree the Martin's rag dolling of Casboult was ridiculous and he's reaction unacceptable. He must be at least 30Kgs and 10 cm taller. He should have sat Martin on his bum.
It was a necessary thing to do for team.

 

[Aphrodite]

Opinion of Cotchin's mark please?

Is there an echo in here.

 

[RudyBlue]

You cannot have 2 bites at a mark and claim it if another player has had his own bite in between your 2. The End.

Pretty sure it gets paid fairly frequently though

 

[Manchego Cheese]

Opinion of Cotchin's mark please?

I thought he juuuuuust got under it.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Is there an echo in here.

Just call me parrot...

 

[Aphrodite]

I thought he juuuuuust got under it.

Clearly hit the ground.

 

[Cripps17]

I thought he clearly got under it on the replay, but I only saw it once.

 

[DontArgue4]

Cotchin's non 'mark' that hit the ground in the 1st qtr and was paid resulting in a goal.


Just saying!

Opinion of Cotchin's mark please?

hope you guys are joking, the second replay from ground level clearly showed he got his hands underneath it

it was actually clear

 

[HBF]

I'm pretty relaxed & cool with everything.

Picked a few green shoots, dried them & now sitting back and enjoying them

I was annoyed last night with our turnovers and the fact that Richmond beat us by 7 goals, but I have to keep reminding myself we're still in a rebuild mode and it's going to take time. Plenty to get excited about last night.

 

[Azul]

Take Rowe out of that backline and we'd have lost by 60+. Played his role to perfection, and having him down back allowed Marchbank and Plowman to play a bit looser.

How quaint that you think we were actually trying to win.

The reality is we don't need six 190+cm defenders in the team, as Richmond's spread of goalkickers underlined. I'm not saying "drop X or Y" but playing Weitering and Rowe forward gives us the flexibility to keep developing MacReadie in the 1s.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

So you guys are saying that it's not a mark if another player touches the ball?
If that were the case there are a hell of a lot of marks paid that shouldn't be.

The rules clearly define a mark. It is to be paid when a player controls the ball. If you get first touch and then control the ball after the second grab, it's not a mark if an opponent touches the ball in the interim. That has always been the case. That interpretation has never altered.

 

[Manchego Cheese]

Clearly hit the ground.

Replay showed his hands under it for mine.

 

[ShanDog]

i thought casboult let the side down last night when he let martin get away with pushing him around. the guy is a tank and should of made a statement to his younger teammates.

also, imo it is a waste of time playing smedts, thomas (and lamb). they hardly get it and do nothing with it when they do. should give players like cunningham a chance to rack up some games.

I thought the same at the time but then on reflection realised we were quite undisciplined in the JLT and i reckon the coaching staff drilled home a message about that. If i recall right, we had got the free kick when that happened. Reckon Levi didn't want to hand it back.

 

[HBF]

Sure he can, he's just returning from injury ATM (had a heart procedure IIRC). He'll be back into their 18 once he has some fitness under his belt.

Didn't realise that.
Still think we'll go after him.
Will be a tough midfield to break into.

 

[ShanDog]

He's come from Geelong who were all about short safe chip passes around the backline - what did you expect?

Also need to consider what options his teammates were giving him - better in many cases to go short and retain possession than go long to a contest that favours the opposition.

I'm actually very happy that Smedts brings this characteristic to our team.

 

[Red Bull]

a year older, a year less on his contract.

And the sooner we see the back of him and his mate and hand the reigns over to some real leaders the bloody better !!

 

[GoBlues!]

He's come from Geelong who were all about short safe chip passes around the backline - what did you expect?

Also need to consider what options his teammates were giving him - better in many cases to go short and retain possession than go long to a contest that favours the opposition.

The fact Smedts went short and we actually retained possession is massive tick for mine.

Ed Curnows short kick to three Richmond players, and Simon Whites beautiful kick straight to a Richmond player were ****ing disgraceful for experienced players.

 

[Cripps17]

What was the go with Weitering's mark where he played on but was allowed to go back does anyone know?

I assumed the ump must have made a mistake in not initially calling the mark or something.

 

[HBF]

Reckon WAFL form is fast becoming an irrelevancy. Looking at you, Blaine.

Boekhorst is soft and outside. Fisher is the opposite.

 

[Stamos]

The rules clearly define a mark. It is to be paid when a player controls the ball. If you get first touch and then control the ball after the second grab, it's not a mark if an opponent touches the ball in the interim. That has always been the case. That interpretation has never altered.

Maybe not the official interpretation, but there are a hell of a lot of marks paid that are touched by another player before they are controlled.

 

[Aphrodite]

I was annoyed last night with our turnovers and the fact that Richmond beat us by 7 goals, but I have to keep reminding myself we're still in a rebuild mode and it's going to take time. Plenty to get excited about last night.

Absolutely HBF:-

Weitering
Marchbank
SPS
SonOfJo
Pickett
Plowman



Nice core of youngsters.
Can't believe Doc is only 23.

SPS 18
Macreadie 18
Silvagni 19
CCurnow 19
Weitering 19
Marchbank 20
Pickett 20
Plowman 22
Cripps 22
Docherty 23
Smedts 23



*Have only listed our youngsters from last night's game

 

[Pafloyul]

If we take a first rounder for him - just one - we may as well have traded him last year. Transforms SOS' approach/tactic from one of strength to posing.

Isn't the list more important than keeping up the appearance of being pig-headed? We need to keep finding quality young midfielders, its at critical level right now.