Review Round 10: V North Melbourne The Good & The Bad

[mysainters]

Who persevering?

I want to know who we bring in to rectify it?

Personally I'm if the opinion that we should scrap all talk between Ben and the mids before centre bounces, we should seriously study Nicnat and Cox tapes, and put all our efforts into reading their taps and concentrating on pressuring their mids.

Even Lenny struggled this year, there is zero synergy between our ruck and our mids.

I'm disappointed that Ben hasn't developed like we thought he would. He seems a great kid, much loved, but how after this long he continues to jump early at pretty much every contest giving the opposition ruckman an easy go if it.

I'd be swapping he & Stanley this week, let Ben take the resting ruck given his strength is his contested marking and our backs will massively be exposed again, and Stanley and hickey can ruck.

 

[mysainters]

If the only point is winning then sure. But at this stage winning is icing. The cake is match's for our youth.

Having Milne show Saad how its done could be valueable, if Milne was in ok form. Not sure that Saad is just a small forward. He is solid enough and tackles hard enough that with a bigger tank he could be a useful part time mid as well.

As for playing Hickey and Ben. Need to get games into Hickey to be able to see if he is worth keeping, will take some pain while we do so.

Good
- We did not give up after the worst qtr I can recall us playing
- Roo, Steven where good
- Ray, Webster, Stanley servicable. Loved the way that Webster with his shirt torn went back and put one though the sticks.


Bad
- That first qtr
- Many players went missing
- Fisher appears to be carrying an injury

We are going to suffer some pain for a while, We need to do so to improve. Accept it, own it, overcome it and take pleasure from the small things.

Don't want hickey learning from Ben though, we need a good ruck coach.

Even get Gardi down part time to teach them a bit.

 

[the big lebowski]

My thoughts for what they are worth.

You have been at the top for awhile now and now you are coming to the inevitable downturn. It was on the cards last year but your older champions were still getting you across the line more often than not.

The future is with guys like Stanley, Stevens and Armitage. I would be embracing 2 years in the bottom 4, and some cap space with the retiring guns over the next few years. Then reload, hope you drafted well and then have another shot at that illusive flag.

I don't particularly like Watters, but I wouldn't blame him for your current predicament.

 

[Jimmy 35]

Stanleys output is so much more valuable forward though, looked so much more natural and comfortable playing up forward and a stint in the ruck. I think we should consist with him up forward

 

[hayes]

Good:

Stanley. Looked like a different player up forward. Playing with more confidence than ever it looks like. Hope we persist with him there.

Webster. Got caught a few times but once he fully adjusts to the speed of the game he'll be a player. Takes it on and is a good kick.

Roo. Not much needs to be said.

Jack Steven goal of the year.

Dal to the backline was a great move. Might be worth playing him there for the rest of the year to try and develop some mids.

Bad:

Worst first quarter I've seen for a long time. Think it was 16 scoring shots to 1. Hard to believe but it could've been even worse. :O

Too many talls in the forward line and backline.

If Macca isn't taking marks in the backline does he have any impact on a game at all? Surely he isn't tired because he's meant to be one of the fittest blokes at the club and has had support pretty much all year. If he does need a rest then give him one, no good him being out there against the best ruck combo if he's got nothing in the tank.

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

I don't think we were that bad. Fish did put his body on the line and fight for the ball. I invite many of you to look at the replay later this week and watch him. The problem was a lack of run - simple. Ray runs well but turns it over. Milne kicked 3 of those sideways kicks and turned it over for goals. He has got to go. Umpires were appalling. Watched the game with my mate who is a former umpire and he said they had a howler. Inconsistency again. We got one in form umpire (Razor) and 2 blokes past it (the other blonks).

Have faith people.

Sandy were terrible so I am not sure if any of those blokes would have helped today other than Simpkin who has the passion........

Always interested to hear about your 'former umpire' mate and what he thought of it. I personally think they have made the game so technical that it does sometimes make it difficult for them to officiate.

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

Well, apparently nothing that serious happened yesterday. Apparently, our coach is doing a bang up job. Apparently, he's playing the only players worth playing, and ignoring those that he doesn't think are worth playing - and that's NOTHING like Lyon's beloved 25, something we all despised.

Apparently, we can legitimate poor performances. Despite our team still having exceptional older players like Riewoldt, Montagna, etc. Despite our coach claiming at the beginning of the year that we would follow the Sydney/Geelong models, not the Melbourne/Carlton model. Despite Pelchen being on record as saying, "Once you find your way to the bottom, it's hard to get back to the top."

Apparently, it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference if our coach had made basic, BASIC structural selection decisions... y'know, like playing midfielders in our midfield.

And apparently, anybody who points these things out, is a fairweather supporter, too negative, a bit of a downer.

Fine. Last week, at the beginning of the North thread, I put up a pointless post - a post suggesting the clear ways to improve after the embarrassment of losing to the Western Bulldogs. I said it was pointless, because Watters wouldn't do it anyway. Then I found out that he would make things WORSE in his selections, compared to the Doggies match, taking even MORE inside midfielders out. I then found out that to complain about this was to be too negative. Now we lose, pretty much the way I told us all we would - and I get the same posters complaining about simple requests to play midfielders, and the identification of the clearly evident consequences when we don't play midfielders.

I see no point in contributing to this conversation further. Those that know what needs to happen, are already well aware. Those who refuse to have eyes to see, choose to vilify those who simply ask for basic selection decisions to be made.

Wow taking it a bit personally there Perce?

I think vilified might be a tad strong, don't you think? Let's call it right, (in the case of our discussions), I for one disagreed with you about Ledger being the solution to our problems. Curren can't play until he is upgraded in a couple of weeks as they decided to go with Ferguson.....probably because of the lack of height down back which is not an unfair call so the argument for him to be included is null and void at this stage. I don't think Ledger would have made any difference to the result yesterday and I posted that to you during the game. That is the only point I disagreed about and called it out on this forum.

Now Perce, I agree with you......let me say this again......I agree with you that we need more midfielders playing rather than small and mid forwards and backs and possibly one less ruckman as we are far too slow. Saunders & Murdoch are the ones for me whom have shown something and need more games pumped into them. Happy to include others in this list if I have missed any, (Dunell is a flanker as is Simpkin so is not included). I don't think I said that I disagreed with you on this point!

I know you are upset about the state of the season and where we find ourselves. We all are. I didn't enjoy yesterday at all. We all want the same thing. But don't you think it is better to try to be optimistic rather than be pessimistic before the game happened? Your post from memory was talking about 100+ point drubbing. It was one quarter at the end of the day. We lost by 12 points over 3 quarters.

It is going to be this and next season in the doldrums so to speak before we make our way up the ladder again IMO.

You are a well respected poster on this forum and I think it would be a shame for you to take your ball and bat and go home so to speak over some robust discussion. I'm sure this is not the first time someone has disagreed with something you have said in life! Besides, it would be boring if we all agreed with each other all the time

Go Saints!!

 

[KingJim]

The best part of the match was in Q1 when after a goal there was a dust up in the forward line, and Chelsea the goal umpire came out waving her flags giving the fellas an earful! Priceless, what the game needs is more girls in pants.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Well, apparently nothing that serious happened yesterday. Apparently, our coach is doing a bang up job. Apparently, he's playing the only players worth playing, and ignoring those that he doesn't think are worth playing - and that's NOTHING like Lyon's beloved 25, something we all despised.

Apparently, we can legitimate poor performances. Despite our team still having exceptional older players like Riewoldt, Montagna, etc. Despite our coach claiming at the beginning of the year that we would follow the Sydney/Geelong models, not the Melbourne/Carlton model. Despite Pelchen being on record as saying, "Once you find your way to the bottom, it's hard to get back to the top."

Apparently, it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference if our coach had made basic, BASIC structural selection decisions... y'know, like playing midfielders in our midfield.

And apparently, anybody who points these things out, is a fairweather supporter, too negative, a bit of a downer.

Fine. Last week, at the beginning of the North thread, I put up a pointless post - a post suggesting the clear ways to improve after the embarrassment of losing to the Western Bulldogs. I said it was pointless, because Watters wouldn't do it anyway. Then I found out that he would make things WORSE in his selections, compared to the Doggies match, taking even MORE inside midfielders out. I then found out that to complain about this was to be too negative. Now we lose, pretty much the way I told us all we would - and I get the same posters complaining about simple requests to play midfielders, and the identification of the clearly evident consequences when we don't play midfielders.

I see no point in contributing to this conversation further. Those that know what needs to happen, are already well aware. Those who refuse to have eyes to see, choose to vilify those who simply ask for basic selection decisions to be made.

Liked your post, it illustrates in words an uneasy feeling that I have been getting about the direction the club is heading over the course of this year, especially the highlighted part. Plenty of mixed messages from the top and, I fear, such messages are having a really negative effect on the morale of the playing group.

It is not so much that we are not getting wins on the board: as a member/fan I can cop that and know that after the success we have had recently as a club we were due a lean time. It is more there have been some strange things going on selection-wise and also from the mouths of key people at the club that ring a few alarm bells for me. Interesting times ahead.

 

[tbarker]

Liked your post, it illustrates in words an uneasy feeling that I have been getting about the direction the club is heading over the course of this year, especially the highlighted part. Plenty of mixed messages from the top and, I fear, such messages are having a really negative effect on the morale of the playing group.

It is not so much that we are not getting wins on the board: as a member/fan I can cop that and know that after the success we have had recently as a club we were due a lean time. It is more there have been some strange things going on selection-wise and also from the mouths of key people at the club that ring a few alarm bells for me. Interesting times ahead.

Perse - your post has had me pondering this issue and I have come to a conclusion. This is all part of a grand plan that they have decided to see through because the end might justify the means. they are not idiots. they have seen how it was done successfully by other teams and gradually integrating young players is the path they have chosen. Ledger and Curren are given goals and ultimatums - reach those and you will get a senior game. Don't reach them and stay at Sandy and be the topic of forums. Results matter but the reality is that we blew games early with poor delivery and conversion in the forward line and no other reason. The decisions lately with midfielders is baffling but at the same time why put games into Jones if it means that Geary misses out on his development as a tagger.

I think Watters feels that the senior group have to get into mentor mode sooner rather than later. He has seen the cliff that some teams fall off when the senior guys spend their final years chasing money elsewhere or playing for their careers and the selfish footy that can come with self-preservation (cue Milne who is a great team man off the field and bleeds for the club but is playing silly selfish footy as his ability fades). The removal of the posters in the gym (of Goddard and past glory/pain) was a signal that this group needs to forget the past and move on and start afresh or perish. The psychological toll of the past will be the end for some. Father time catches up with some quicker than others (cue Gwilt who played for 2 years in agony but kept getting his body up for games against gorillas with injections). I have no doubt that the baffling player shuffle (no midfielders) is a set plan that they are systematically implementing. The odd hiccup throws out that out (cue Sam Gilbert whose injury triggered Ferguson ahead of Curren). They know that McEvoy is monstered by the big blokes so Hickey comes in for several games despite being underdone. Kosi has buy in to the mentor thing along with Blakey and if Milne went back to Sandy he would do the same. James McDonald left Melbourne but there was no one with leadership below. James Frawley doesn't like playing at Melb. Boohoo. Perhaps his coach is wanting him to man up and lead and he isn't capable so all of a sudden Neeld is a crap coach and he wants out. Same goes for Rivers (selfish) and Pettard (selfish). Silvia is a selfish overrated underperforming sook. Then there is wonder boy. So how are those 4 suddenly an indication of how good their coach is?

So - the rhetoric about a mixed message may be true but only because we don't know the grand plan. I find it interesting that many senior players dont like Watters. I have heard this myself from a reliable source (along with many well connected posters) but I have to ask what it is they don't like. His severing of ties with the past? his coaching methods? his love-in with crap WA players? his unblinking faith in the Laidley game plan? or the fact that he has told them to accept that they are no longer the most important members of the club in the way that Lyon focused on the top 22 alone? Hard to feel like the chosen one in 2010 and then being challenged to improve in 2013. I will ruffle feathers with this but one this is for sure - they all better get on board or the blood letting will begin at the end of this year and the 12-24 month transition will go out the window. Rooey is in outstanding form but he needs to pull his head in and be more positive. Stop throwing your arms in the air every time you dont get the ball kicked to you when you are in a crap position. Identify the fact that Siposs is making space and no one is kicking it to him because you are playing god. Lay a bloody shepherd or 2 you senior blokes ( the biggest sign that they are not playing for each other). Get a few fines for wrestling!!!! God - the last time there was a wrestle it was the young blokes who got involved. Show a bit of mongrel!!!

I hope I am correct because if I am not then we are stuffed.

My only wish is that they draft someone with balls this year - these pretty players with "outstanding character" will not be enough. We need some good old fashion intimidation. Wright was a step in the right direction (pun) and I hope it continues.

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

Perse - your post has had me pondering this issue and I have come to a conclusion. This is all part of a grand plan that they have decided to see through because the end might justify the means. they are not idiots. they have seen how it was done successfully by other teams and gradually integrating young players is the path they have chosen. Ledger and Curren are given goals and ultimatums - reach those and you will get a senior game. Don't reach them and stay at Sandy and be the topic of forums. Results matter but the reality is that we blew games early with poor delivery and conversion in the forward line and no other reason. The decisions lately with midfielders is baffling but at the same time why put games into Jones if it means that Geary misses out on his development as a tagger.

I think Watters feels that the senior group have to get into mentor mode sooner rather than later. He has seen the cliff that some teams fall off when the senior guys spend their final years chasing money elsewhere or playing for their careers and the selfish footy that can come with self-preservation (cue Milne who is a great team man off the field and bleeds for the club but is playing silly selfish footy as his ability fades). The removal of the posters in the gym (of Goddard and past glory/pain) was a signal that this group needs to forget the past and move on and start afresh or perish. The psychological toll of the past will be the end for some. Father time catches up with some quicker than others (cue Gwilt who played for 2 years in agony but kept getting his body up for games against gorillas with injections). I have no doubt that the baffling player shuffle (no midfielders) is a set plan that they are systematically implementing. The odd hiccup throws out that out (cue Sam Gilbert whose injury triggered Ferguson ahead of Curren). They know that McEvoy is monstered by the big blokes so Hickey comes in for several games despite being underdone. Kosi has buy in to the mentor thing along with Blakey and if Milne went back to Sandy he would do the same. James McDonald left Melbourne but there was no one with leadership below. James Frawley doesn't like playing at Melb. Boohoo. Perhaps his coach is wanting him to man up and lead and he isn't capable so all of a sudden Neeld is a crap coach and he wants out. Same goes for Rivers (selfish) and Pettard (selfish). Silvia is a selfish overrated underperforming sook. Then there is wonder boy. So how are those 4 suddenly an indication of how good their coach is?

So - the rhetoric about a mixed message may be true but only because we don't know the grand plan. I find it interesting that many senior players dont like Watters. I have heard this myself from a reliable source (along with many well connected posters) but I have to ask what it is they don't like. His severing of ties with the past? his coaching methods? his love-in with crap WA players? his unblinking faith in the Laidley game plan? or the fact that he has told them to accept that they are no longer the most important members of the club in the way that Lyon focused on the top 22 alone? Hard to feel like the chosen one in 2010 and then being challenged to improve in 2013. I will ruffle feathers with this but one this is for sure - they all better get on board or the blood letting will begin at the end of this year and the 12-24 month transition will go out the window. Rooey is in outstanding form but he needs to pull his head in and be more positive. Stop throwing your arms in the air every time you dont get the ball kicked to you when you are in a crap position. Identify the fact that Siposs is making space and no one is kicking it to him because you are playing god. Lay a bloody shepherd or 2 you senior blokes ( the biggest sign that they are not playing for each other). Get a few fines for wrestling!!!! God - the last time there was a wrestle it was the young blokes who got involved. Show a bit of mongrel!!!

I hope I am correct because if I am not then we are stuffed.

My only wish is that they draft someone with balls this year - these pretty players with "outstanding character" will not be enough. We need some good old fashion intimidation. Wright was a step in the right direction (pun) and I hope it continues.

well said mate. Great post!!

Interesting what you said about how Watters is perceived by senior players. I think Fisher is one of those judging by his body language. It's like when a new manager comes in at work to manage a team who have been there for years. The team doesn't like change but ultimately they have to be brought along the journey and buy in otherwise they won't last long. Also, as we all know, we have deficiencies in our list and I think that is what he meant when he said we will recruit.

 

[tbarker]

Always interested to hear about your 'former umpire' mate and what he thought of it. I personally think they have made the game so technical that it does sometimes make it difficult for them to officiate.

Yeah - spot on. He has put me in my box a few times when I went of a plugger style rant

Ironically he reckons that a large portion of umpires are w@#kers which is probably why I like the guy. There is also the umpiring mafia that tell the young blokes what to do or they won't get a game and often it goes against the young blokes instincts so they end up second guessing themselves which makes for inconsistency on the field. The older w@#kers also overrule on the field and further confuse things. There is the petty stuff like locker priority etc... Sounds all a bit lord of the flies to me.

Ray lets a lot go but he has told me that many players have thanked him for his consistency across 4 quarters (according to Ray). Ray is not liked by the umpiring fraternity because he does what he likes (Ray is a legend just ask him) and calls it as he sees it. I tend to agree. He apparently has a view on the head high contact against a player who kills the ball then puts his head down. Ray thinks it is simply play on. you kill the ball then no head high. The rules committee says that this is a free kick for high contact. And believe this - the AFL and Geishen have a direct influence on how the game is umpired. Ironically - and despite the mafia and intervention - it is the players favorite umpires that often umpire finals and the grand final.

The good umpires talk to the players all game and then back up what they say with consistent decisions. I will give you an example. the bloke who umpired the prelim between Saints and Doggies (09 or 10 - they have blurred) when they consistently knocked Rooey over off the ball. The umpire that day (can't remember his name but I spoke to him later that year) was walking off with the bulldogs players and told them that if they did it 1 more time then he would pay a free kick to Rooey regardless of where it was on the ground. They did it 2 minutes into the 3rd quarter and he paid the free kick and then we were away. The bulldogs players have since admitted that they were warned and pushed the limits.

The other issue is that there is a shortage of umpires and too many teams in too many states and there is 3 umpires!! this has diluted the quality.

My mate's theory is 1 central umpire with 4 boundary that can pay certain infringements. No balling up within 20 metres of a boundary line - just throw it in. I have seen it done and it works. Try telling the AFL though

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

Yeah - spot on. He has put me in my box a few times when I went of a plugger style rant

Ironically he reckons that a large portion of umpires are w@#kers which is probably why I like the guy. There is also the umpiring mafia that tell the young blokes what to do or they won't get a game and often it goes against the young blokes instincts so they end up second guessing themselves which makes for inconsistency on the field. The older w@#kers also overrule on the field and further confuse things. There is the petty stuff like locker priority etc... Sounds all a bit lord of the flies to me.

Ray lets a lot go but he has told me that many players have thanked him for his consistency across 4 quarters (according to Ray). Ray is not liked by the umpiring fraternity because he does what he likes (Ray is a legend just ask him) and calls it as he sees it. I tend to agree. He apparently has a view on the head high contact against a player who kills the ball then puts his head down. Ray thinks it is simply play on. you kill the ball then no head high. The rules committee says that this is a free kick for high contact. And believe this - the AFL and Geishen have a direct influence on how the game is umpired. Ironically - and despite the mafia and intervention - it is the players favorite umpires that often umpire finals and the grand final.

The good umpires talk to the players all game and then back up what they say with consistent decisions. I will give you an example. the bloke who umpired the prelim between Saints and Doggies (09 or 10 - they have blurred) when they consistently knocked Rooey over off the ball. The umpire that day (can't remember his name but I spoke to him later that year) was walking off with the bulldogs players and told them that if they did it 1 more time then he would pay a free kick to Rooey regardless of where it was on the ground. They did it 2 minutes into the 3rd quarter and he paid the free kick and then we were away. The bulldogs players have since admitted that they were warned and pushed the limits.

The other issue is that there is a shortage of umpires and too many teams in too many states and there is 3 umpires!! this has diluted the quality.

My mate's theory is 1 central umpire with 4 boundary that can pay certain infringements. No balling up within 20 metres of a boundary line - just throw it in. I have seen it done and it works. Try telling the AFL though

That's awful about the umpiring mafia. Just call the game as you see it I reckon. And yes the shortage of umpires is killing the game - take number 25 for example - my fathers personal favourite 'maggot'. He looks 12 and he also has no idea!! lol

Maybe professional umpires will help as long as the Mafia is broken up. But we need an equivalent of Elliot Ness of the AFL? Robbo from AFL360?

Love your comments about Ray Hilarious! Why doesn't it surprise me? But from what you say maybe we need more umpires like Ray....

 

[Sainter3and7]

The good:

1. We did not give away any 50 metre penalties from interchange infringements.
2. When they received free kicks, we returned the ball on the full and did not give away any 50s.

 

[Baldur]

But don't you think it is better to try to be optimistic rather than be pessimistic before the game happened?

I find it works for me to be VERY pessimistic. This year I go in expecting a 100 point loss. So a 10 goal loss still hurts but not so much. A bit like the relief you feel when you stop banging your head on the wall.

 

[Baldur]

The good:

1. We did not give away any 50 metre penalties from interchange infringements.
2. When they received free kicks, we returned the ball on the full and did not give away any 50s.

100% agree. This is more important then it sounds. If we get the simple things, things that no one should get wrong wrong, then what chance have we to getting the hard things right. Not giving away stupid 50's is about team discipline and concentration on the job.

 

[Falchoon]

The good:

1. We did not give away any 50 metre penalties from interchange infringements.
2. When they received free kicks, we returned the ball on the full and did not give away any 50s.

you mean we didn't put our hands up when running past the free kick receiver?


blow me down

 

[Persevering Saint]

You are a well respected poster on this forum and I think it would be a shame for you to take your ball and bat and go home so to speak over some robust discussion. I'm sure this is not the first time someone has disagreed with something you have said in life! Besides, it would be boring if we all agreed with each other all the time

Go Saints!!

Hey Kip. Sorry, I realise now how my post may have been misunderstood. I meant I wasn't contributing to THIS THREAD any more. I just decided looking at the past like this wasn't the best thing for me. Better to just move on, and look forward. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Squizz]

Just watching the game again, at the risk of over-simplifying things I thought there were only a key issues in the early part of the game (aside from having a few guys in the team who just aren't in very good form):

1. North's ability to smother our kicks when our guys appeared to have enough space (at least 4 in the first 15 mins).

2. Riewoldt dropping marks (two in the first quarter and a bit that you'd mark down before he even laid hands on the ball).

3. Gwilt shanking kicks (3 in the first quarter).

4. North kicking and handballing in front of teammates, and asking them to run onto the ball which (1) created run (2) allowed mids to kick into F50 without having to worry about kicking over an opponent (allowed the kicks to come in flat and quick). I'd love the Saints to do more of this (have said so in the past), but it takes some confidence and faith in your teammates. The tactic really opened us up.

5. Carrying a physically restricted player in defence is magnified when you select a kid who has had his own injury troubles and wasn't in any real form.

You wouldn't really expect the first 3 from week to week, and the last one is a controllable. North weren't able to maintain #4 very long anyway, but we didn't stem the bleeding when they were "on". The way we're structuring up (immobile ruckman in F50 with two small forwards and a less than fit "mobile marking player") is obviously another controllable.

 

[Plugger35]

The good umpires talk to the players all game and then back up what they say with consistent decisions. I will give you an example. the bloke who umpired the prelim between Saints and Doggies (09 or 10 - they have blurred) when they consistently knocked Rooey over off the ball. The umpire that day (can't remember his name but I spoke to him later that year) was walking off with the bulldogs players and told them that if they did it 1 more time then he would pay a free kick to Rooey regardless of where it was on the ground. They did it 2 minutes into the 3rd quarter and he paid the free kick and then we were away. The bulldogs players have since admitted that they were warned and pushed the limits.

Yeah that was actually an example of good umpiring, with the umpire warning the Bulldogs players to stop their tactic of bumping Riewoldt off the ball. Lake was dumb enough to do it again so the free had to be paid. Yet Bulldogs supporters still sook about it and claim they were robbed by the umpires.

 

[tbarker]

Yeah that was actually an example of good umpiring, with the umpire warning the Bulldogs players to stop their tactic of bumping Riewoldt off the ball. Lake was dumb enough to do it again so the free had to be paid. Yet Bulldogs supporters still sook about it and claim they were robbed by the umpires.

Yeah - I too have a bulldogs mate who still goes on about it.
Like the new avatar

 

[stkildathunda]

Has there been a better goal then Jack Steven's to miss out on a nomination for Goal Of Year? http://goaloftheyear.afl.com.au/

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

Has there been a better goal then Jack Steven's to miss out on a nomination for Goal Of Year? http://goaloftheyear.afl.com.au/

Was thinking that when i seen them yesterday, Jack's goal > Harvey's IMO

 

[Strahany]

Yeah, with all due respect, Harvey outran a clearly hampered Fisher and then kicked a goal from 30m out with no pressure, so I hardly see how that made it.

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

Yeah, with all due respect, Harvey outran a clearly hampered Fisher and then kicked a goal from 30m out with no pressure, so I hardly see how that made it.

Where Jack broke through fair few tackles and nailed it.