Review Round 9, 2025 - North Melbourne vs. Brisbane Lions

[martinson]

At risk of reopening a can of worms...

"Slow as a wet week" dates back to at least 1923 and has plenty examples over following decades.

"Slow as a wet wig" appears to be a local variant in some parts of Queensland based off a mishearing of the original saying and never made common usage.

(The original saying that was appearing more often from the 1890s and on was "slow as a wet Christmas"!)

Well here's the can of worms.

My dad and his friends who never set foot out of Melbourne used to use the term slow as a wet wig to describe most of the players at Fitzroy just about every week back in the '60's. It was sometimes heard on the footy shows at that time as well.

It sort of intrigued me and taking the bravado to enquire what it meant I was politely told that wigs take a long time to dry. So they're really slow.

So it turns out that every time I've been hearing slow as a wet week which seems to be the more common vernacular these days is at least if not more valid historically.

And it's taken me all these years to find out.

Probably what I'll remember most from this wretched game.

 

[martinson]

Reading the reactions from North fans reminds me of the 2013-3017 years where we saw these results as a massive win. Funny being on the other side of it when you can see it took us playing an absolute shocker and them playing out of their skin (with some other factors going their way) just to get that close. All part of the journey I suppose.

I'm not sure they played out of their skin. They played well enough to win comfortably but just couldn't finish off. They seemed to be smashing us in clearances.

Wouldn't be surprised if they won a few games in the run home.

 

[Son of Superboot]

I only voted for berry, because we were actually leading when he got subbed-off.
As already stated numerous times, the Gardiner as sub is hard to understand. He could of gone to Comben to try and negate him, but that didn't seem to happen.
The 2 rucks, ts never worked, and the scary thing that Uncle **** wll be reluctant to change it and we will go in with the same set-up against Gawn

Still on top of the ladder, and 7-1-1 is great, but so very frustrating to watch this game
Time to play Froggy up forward

 

[NotQuiteJezza]

I had that sickly feeling at halftime that we would loose this match so a draw is a plus for us. North blocked our ball movement through the centre and down the wings very well. Full credit.
Too many down players on one day. Charlie had some insipid contests in the last quarter. Not the only one but some body on the line stuff was needed not flailing arms.
Logan was stiff not to get paid that mark in the last quarter.

 

[dlanod]

Well here's the can of worms.

My dad and his friends who never set foot out of Melbourne used to use the term slow as a wet wig to describe most of the players at Fitzroy just about every week back in the '60's. It was sometimes heard on the footy shows at that time as well.

It sort of intrigued me and taking the bravado to enquire what it meant I was politely told that wigs take a long time to dry. So they're really slow.

So it turns out that every time I've been hearing slow as a wet week which seems to be the more common vernacular these days is at least if not more valid historically.

And it's taken me all these years to find out.

Probably what I'll remember most from this wretched game.

Yeah, it's interesting - I'd heard the wig variant coming out of small towns in Queensland where it makes sense that local usage variants can emerge. I hadn't heard of it in Melbourne or other larger towns before. Trove is pretty useful for this stuff - I might try to bring back "slow as a wet Christmas" (even if it doesn't have the same alliteration, which is why I guess "wet week" took off).

 

[p4p1]

The selection team couldn't and wouldn't have planned for Berry going down. Run is already impacted by having two rucks in the team, when you take out one of (if not the) best runners, it is going to be hard going even against a bottom team.
You're essentially two runners down, then you bring on Gardiner who is not known as a great runner, you're 3 down because you have an extra tall.

I know hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but in the preview thread I did say that we should bring in Doedee for Gardiner and that would allow Fletch to move up to a wing. I'm not saying we win the game with that move but our run wouldn't have been as impacted after Berry went down. For all I know Doedee himself decided he wasn't ready for AFL level yet and ruled himself out.

I see some talk about the Aschroft boys lack of defensive intent and most of it is probably fair. That is what makes Fletcher such an interesting watch right now. If you were going to bet on which of our young guys will replace players as they age out, Fletch would be the guy you would back for that Dunkley type role, despite not being as big or powerful. There is probably no role better than his current HB role in preparing him to be that Dunkley type midfielder.

These guys just won us a premiership, as if they needed proof that they know more about selection and football in general as any of us do. But that doesn't mean they won't get the occasional call wrong. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place without Day. I would love to see Gallop come into the team but can you rely on 2 of your 3 key forward being 20 or under?

It felt like this game was the game to take a gamble and see what happened, rather than going with something known, that we sort of already know doesn't hold up against the top team.

 

[martinson]

We seemed a bit off mentally especially after half time. Just a feeling that we'd get over the top of them whenever we turned it on ,like we usually do. Once they got a sniff they really tested us right out.

We were lucky in the end imo. but the our guys really did throw everything they had at it in the last 10 minutes and were frustrated that they could beat us.

I'm stoked that we're on top of the ladder considering the close calls we've had and these next 2 weeks should tell us a lot more about where we're at.

 

[Happy_Neale]

I'm not sure they played out of their skin. They played well enough to win comfortably but just couldn't finish off. They seemed to be smashing us in clearances.

Wouldn't be surprised if they won a few games in the run home.

Have you seen them this year? That was probably their best performance of the year so far

 

[Bucking Beads]

No surprise that when our team balance is off we play poorly. 2 Rucks and Gardiner as Sub is really poor from the Selection Committee. The Sub needs to be a player who can run and has versatility. Gardiner is none of those things.

 

[Sunny Land]

No surprise that when our team balance is off we play poorly. 2 Rucks and Gardiner as Sub is really poor from the Selection Committee. The Sub needs to be a player who can run and has versatility. Gardiner is none of those things.

I am sure our Premiership Winning Coaching Team had a plan using Dizzy as the sub but when Berry went down those plans went in the bin and they wrere forced to play with the hand they were dealt....unlucky.
I think it's unfair to slam the selection committee when you can confidently say Gardner as sub isn't what we needed (in hindsight) while nobody in the coaching group could have expected what happened to Berry. Sh**t happens and it happened to us yesterday.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Yeah, it's interesting - I'd heard the wig variant coming out of small towns in Queensland where it makes sense that local usage variants can emerge. I hadn't heard of it in Melbourne or other larger towns before. Trove is pretty useful for this stuff - I might try to bring back "slow as a wet Christmas" (even if it doesn't have the same alliteration, which is why I guess "wet week" took off).

I come for the melts and stay for the etymology lessons.

 

[p4p1]

I am sure our Premiership Winning Coaching Team had a plan using Dizzy as the sub but when Berry went down those plans went in the bin and they wrere forced to play with the hand they were dealt....unlucky.
I think it's unfair to slam the selection committee when you can confidently say Gardner as sub isn't what we needed (in hindsight) while nobody in the coaching group could have expected what happened to Berry. Sh**t happens and it happened to us yesterday.

I am confident that before the game, most people would have questioned the use of Gardiner as sub. It is a fair question to ask. The team makes mistakes, it doesn't matter who you are, how highly qualified you are, how smart you are, you will get things wrong sometimes and this is a case of that. You can't prepare for every situation.

Not sure what the original plan was. Normally if nothing goes wrong, we don't use the sub until the last quarter, sometimes mid way through. I doubt that was going to change. We went into the game with 2 rucks, 6 talls and 14 medium to small size players. Essentially you've got double the chance that one of your medium to smalls is going to be injured. Based purely on anecdotal evidence and not stats because I wouldn't even know where to look, teams look to be more successful in replacing a tall with a medium small and adjusting the magnets than the other way around.

 

[martinson]

I am sure our Premiership Winning Coaching Team had a plan using Dizzy as the sub but when Berry went down those plans went in the bin and they wrere forced to play with the hand they were dealt....unlucky.
I think it's unfair to slam the selection committee when you can confidently say Gardner as sub isn't what we needed (in hindsight) while nobody in the coaching group could have expected what happened to Berry. Sh**t happens and it happened to us yesterday.

Sunny Land everyone on here and anyone I know was pretty much very surprised we named Gardiner as sub.

It was a mistake. You're allowed to make mistakes. Sometimes things happen out of your control as well as you say.

I just don't think Dizz has the sort of versatility you need for sub . When plans go in the bin as they often do. Clarkson was then able to double up by getting his sub on who could run and it cost us a bit as well.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

I am sure our Premiership Winning Coaching Team had a plan using Dizzy as the sub but when Berry went down those plans went in the bin and they wrere forced to play with the hand they were dealt....unlucky.
I think it's unfair to slam the selection committee when you can confidently say Gardner as sub isn't what we needed (in hindsight) while nobody in the coaching group could have expected what happened to Berry. Sh**t happens and it happened to us yesterday.

I think if a player is iffy enough to require you potentially having to sub him out, he shouldn't play. If it was Oscar who was under a cloud, then give him the week off. That's precisely why we have a guy like Fort on the list.

The smartest use of the sub seems to me is having a guy who can run and play multiple positions. Yes, Diz is versatile, but he's one of the least athletic guys on the list. The selection of the sub, should be to cover unexpected injury.

I'm normally a defender of the selection process, but this was a miscalculation. While I wouldn't hold it as the reason we didn't win it seemed like a case of trying to be too clever.

 

[Sunny Land]

I am confident that before the game, most people would have questioned the use of Gardiner as sub. It is a fair question to ask. The team makes mistakes, it doesn't matter who you are, how highly qualified you are, how smart you are, you will get things wrong sometimes and this is a case of that. You can't prepare for every situation.

Not sure what the original plan was. Normally if nothing goes wrong, we don't use the sub until the last quarter, sometimes mid way through. I doubt that was going to change. We went into the game with 2 rucks, 6 talls and 14 medium to small size players. Essentially you've got double the chance that one of your medium to smalls is going to be injured. Based purely on anecdotal evidence and not stats because I wouldn't even know where to look, teams look to be more successful in replacing a tall with a medium small and adjusting the magnets than the other way around.

Think thats what I kinda said. It turned out to be wrong because Berry got concussed. They are the facts.

You and I will never know what they were planning to do but we do know that nobody expected Bezza to be subbed out early in the game. Does that mean they got it wrong? We do know that our coaching staff are pretty highly rated and there would be a legitimate and quite sound reason for their selections but we will never know those details. So, when Berry got subbed out, original plans changed dramatically & not for the better.

 

[martinson]

It was wrong anyway whether Berry got concussed or not imo.

It was one of the factors that put extra pressure on us but if we had've played to our normal standard then naturally it wouldn't have mattered.

We can only presume that the plan was to sub one of our rucks off. Oscar's been very ordinary except for one game this year so maybe he's struggling with injury. If that's the case there wasn't any need to play him at all . Maybe we were spooked by Xerri . I actually thought Fort was a lot better on Xerri than Big O.

 

[p4p1]

Think thats what I kinda said. It turned out to be wrong because Berry got concussed. They are the facts.

You and I will never know what they were planning to do but we do know that nobody expected Bezza to be subbed out early in the game. Does that mean they got it wrong? We do know that our coaching staff are pretty highly rated and there would be a legitimate and quite sound reason for their selections but we will never know those details. So, when Berry got subbed out, original plans changed dramatically & not for the better.

Yes they got it wrong because of the outcome and it was still a strange sub selection.
As I said in my post the chances based on numbers are that you are going to lose a 'runner' rather than a big guy.

 

[Darren Downunder]

It was wrong anyway whether Berry got concussed or not imo.

It was one of the factors that put extra pressure on us but if we had've played to our normal standard then naturally it wouldn't have mattered.

We can only presume that the plan was to sub one of our rucks off. Oscar's been very ordinary except for one game this year so maybe he's struggling with injury. If that's the case there wasn't any need to play him at all . Maybe we were spooked by Xerri . I actually thought Fort was a lot better on Xerri than Big O.

I remember last year or the year before, we tried playing both Forte and Oscar.
I don’t think it’s ever worked.
My memory may be faulty here but I have a recollection that last time we tried it both were poor.
Oscar plays better when he’s sole ruck.

 

[Kernel Kurtz]

That is where Football IQ come into the equation. Harris leads at Payne, drags a forward with him and opens up space behind him. Payne doesn’t get it and not only decides to kick it to Andrews, but then butchers the execution. Goal North Melbourne. People are really glossing over that very costly clanger. If Gardiner, Lester or Answerth had done the same thing, people would be going mental. If Payne has the ball in hand after a mark, then he really needs to go long down the line.

Moving forward, what that passage of play highlights is that in terms of defensive structure, Payne’s number one job (and one his is really good at) is to spoil, intercept mark, apply physical pressure at contests and drop back to fill space. At no stage when we are trying to transition out of defense, especially in big games and tight contests, should the ball be in his hands. That responsibility should rest with Zorko, Lester, Fletcher, Answerth and Wilmot. Getting Starcevich and Coleman back into the Seniors will help in this regard, because on occasion Wilmot and Answerth don’t inspire the utmost confidence.

P.S. Perhaps Andrews could use this as a ‘teachable moment’ and explain to Payne that while he is leading towards him, he doesn’t actually want the ball.

Yeah ,
I can see Harris going something like .
If I lead to the ball , I don't really want it , unless I do want it.
You know what I mean. lol

It might come down to smarts and vision, and what is practised.


So probably just came down to the kick being terrible, otherwise Harris might of been ok to mark.
Don't really know if it would of been too short still. tbh
Funnily enough it was North back 15 or so years ago that had the decoy lead working to perfection, like trains on tracks, the first leading out towards the kicker , thus making space for a forward to drop in behind him and thats where the kick went.
Gees these days the game is so congested , good luck with these sought of plays working like a training drill .
It was quite impressionable .

 

[pod17]

I had that sickly feeling at halftime that we would loose this match so a draw is a plus for us. North blocked our ball movement through the centre and down the wings very well. Full credit.
Too many down players on one day. Charlie had some insipid contests in the last quarter. Not the only one but some body on the line stuff was needed not flailing arms.
Logan was stiff not to get paid that mark in the last quarter.

Without being at the game, and with poorer camera angles than usual available on screen, it seemed that they used a Collingwood style set up through the middle.

A few times I found myself thinking, as I did against the Pies, how beneficial Coleman’s kicking would have been to hit the more challenging kicks to pick it apart.

 

[Section 5]

Sunny Land everyone on here and anyone I know was pretty much very surprised we named Gardiner as sub.

It was a mistake. You're allowed to make mistakes. Sometimes things happen out of your control as well as you say.

I just don't think Dizz has the sort of versatility you need for sub . When plans go in the bin as they often do. Clarkson was then able to double up by getting his sub on who could run and it cost us a bit as well.

Not me i was not surprised.
It was between Fort, Gardiner and Lohmann in my opinion
That's two talls out of 3 choices.

We were playing a team that had only won 8 games between 2021-23. And just one in 2025.
Personally, i would have gone Lohmann as sub as he had only played 3 AFL games all subbed off because of injury.
Also, no VFL games to get him up to speed.
It showed with just the 8 disposals one less than Gardiner.

I sort of agree that Gardiner should not have been the sub because i would have had him in the 22 playing forward.

We all have varying opinions at the selection of players and that's what a forum is about.

In my opinion we lost the game because we took a lowly team to lightly and nearly paid full price because of that

 

[On the quiet]

The selection team couldn't and wouldn't have planned for Berry going down. Run is already impacted by having two rucks in the team, when you take out one of (if not the) best runners, it is going to be hard going even against a bottom team.
You're essentially two runners down, then you bring on Gardiner who is not known as a great runner, you're 3 down because you have an extra tall.

I know hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but in the preview thread I did say that we should bring in Doedee for Gardiner and that would allow Fletch to move up to a wing. I'm not saying we win the game with that move but our run wouldn't have been as impacted after Berry went down. For all I know Doedee himself decided he wasn't ready for AFL level yet and ruled himself out.

I see some talk about the Aschroft boys lack of defensive intent and most of it is probably fair. That is what makes Fletcher such an interesting watch right now. If you were going to bet on which of our young guys will replace players as they age out, Fletch would be the guy you would back for that Dunkley type role, despite not being as big or powerful. There is probably no role better than his current HB role in preparing him to be that Dunkley type midfielder.

These guys just won us a premiership, as if they needed proof that they know more about selection and football in general as any of us do. But that doesn't mean they won't get the occasional call wrong. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place without Day. I would love to see Gallop come into the team but can you rely on 2 of your 3 key forward being 20 or under?

It felt like this game was the game to take a gamble and see what happened, rather than going with something known, that we sort of already know doesn't hold up against the top team.

Agree, I think the hard two way running of Berry was missed. IMO he (and a few others) is underrated in some circles.

I think it is time to put Jasper back to wing, we now have coverage across the backline. Fletcher also runs both ways and hopefully no one has forgotten some of his key moments in the last Q against GWS in that fantastic semi final win.

 

[briztoon]

I have not read the last 10 pages.

Has there been any discussion about the fact that Fort rucked the last 10 minutes, when the game was up for grabs?

If Oscar is not healthy, don’t pick him.

I assume that Gardiner was the sub, because one of our rucks are injured, and if we need to sub Oscar out, we could at least keep a 3 tall forward setup.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I am sure our Premiership Winning Coaching Team had a plan using Dizzy as the sub but when Berry went down those plans went in the bin and they wrere forced to play with the hand they were dealt....unlucky.
I think it's unfair to slam the selection committee when you can confidently say Gardner as sub isn't what we needed (in hindsight) while nobody in the coaching group could have expected what happened to Berry. Sh**t happens and it happened to us yesterday.

They got it wrong it is that simple. That is ok it happens. They've got a soft spot for Gardiner that clouded their judgement.

 

[GenericUsername202]

I have not read the last 10 pages.

Has there been any discussion about the fact that Fort rucked the last 10 minutes, when the game was up for grabs?

If Oscar is not healthy, don’t pick him.

I assume that Gardiner was the sub, because one of our rucks are injured, and if we need to sub Oscar out, we could at least keep a 3 tall forward setup.

Xerri absolutely destroyed Oscar, and while he was beating Fort, Fort was doing a lot better than Oscar against him. So fagan (rightly) took oscar away from the contest. I know some people are complaining about Fagan's inclusions, but we would have lost that game had Oscar taken all the ruck contests yesterday. Fort was a great inclusion just on that. Dizzy was a head scratcher though, but my biggest problem was Kiddy coleman not being in the squad. He is probably in our top 1-6 players. Fagan brought Ashcroft in right away, and Kiddy should have been afforded the same respect. You don't leave out an A grader, and if Kiddy isn't in next week's team, i'll actually start to get frustrated. Especially with Berry out, there's absolutely 0 excuses to ignore him next week.