I don't know if you can say we shouldn't have dropped the round 1 game after the start to the season Hawthorn has had.
That’s true but we certainly could have been far more competitive.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Brisbane Lions v Collingwood - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Lions at 64% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
I don't know if you can say we shouldn't have dropped the round 1 game after the start to the season Hawthorn has had.
thats why I said dependent on how often we show that level. bring that level every game for rest of year we will lose 0-3 more games, but that doesent happen in the real world.Yeah but that's probably unlikely. More accurate to look at the average of our performances so far not the best. Not sure we will bring the Adelaide level all the time. Recent history says no , still that can change.
Looking good but need to back up against Essendon.
I thought it we snagged 2 wins from the first 6 that would be par. 3 really good. 4 outstanding. Beat Essendon and we are looking very good for 4
Essendon will be very tough. Same boat as us. Hopefully we have their measure.Yep most had us pegged as “season still alive” at 2-4. We need one of the next two games to move up to the “ in it with a chance” category. Win them both and we are 4-2 and in the “more of the same got another month and we can start thinking about top four” category!!!
both teams always lift for anzac day. not taking them lightly at allEssendon will be very tough. Same boat as us. Hopefully we have their measure.
Depends on how consistently we play to that standard. maintain that most games we could definitley win over 15
We can’t really expect consistency from the sub 50 game players in our 22 ...
Stephenson
Brown
Murray
Crocker
Cox
Philips
Plus any of the others who might get a game this year ...
Wills
Sier
Murphy
Kirby
Daicos
Seriously!!What do you do if you were already on the bandwagon?
Cox has a lot of value as a Fleet in being
This is traditionally a term for navy ships that do nothing but sit in the relative safety of port. They’re a pain in the backside to the enemy because it ties up valuable resources of the enemy to deal the possiblility of the ships coming out of Port. For the WW2 history buffs, the Nazi’s tactical use of the battleship Tirpitz is a pinup example.
In Cox’s case, he’s a 7’ bloke who can mark and who can kick goals. As long as he’s planted within kicking distance of goals, he ties up a fair chunk of the opposition’s defensive resources, which creates openings in other areas of the ground.
If Cox is the Tirpitz does that make Nathan Freeman the Gneisenau?
We can’t really expect consistency from the sub 50 game players in our 22 ...
Stephenson
Brown
Murray
Crocker
Cox
Philips
Plus any of the others who might get a game this year ...
Wills
Sier
Murphy
Kirby
Daicos
You have a battleship as your picture so it is with great trepidation that I contradict you. But firstly Tirpitz was placed at Trondheim not Tromso and it was primarily sent there as "a fleet in being" from the outset... there was nothing unintentional about it. After the loss of Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Graf Spee; Hitler had in fact forbidden that his capital ships be used in surface raiding against convoys. He only agreed to the Tirpitz being stationed in Trondheim predominantly as an added defense to possible re-invasion and to tie down British naval and air forces (fleet in being). That was the only reason Hitler agreed to it being sent there. The threat of this ship was also used to disrupt convoys and scatter them and allow u-boats to pick them off... but that was secondary. I could be wrong but I don't think it ever actually fired on any convoys.Yeah. The Centurion was a dummy battleship, not the real thing. Tirpitz was placed at Tromso for other reasons and was a success as fleet in being unintentionally. So the analogies are a bit superficial.
Cox was instructed to play as he did in deference to the conditions. It was just a better response than that of the Adelaide talls who tried to mark all night. I don't expect the instructions will be the same next week unless the conditions are similar.
The best thing about the last few weeks is the forethought that has been shown in preparing for the actual conditions and the specifics of the opponent. Pendlebury to Cripps was the right choice because of their respective qualities, just as Sidebottom to Sloane put the right player there to do the required job. It is asking a lot to expect something similar each week, but the level of planning is apparently much higher than in recent years. So is the flexibility.
If Cox is the Tirpitz does that make Nathan Freeman the Gneisenau?
Well, It is better than some the other rubbish that’s been said on hereEvery other thread on the board gets derailed by discussion of Buckley ...
... and the Buckley thread itself gets derailed by discussion of “match our players to WW2 era navy ships”. It’s friggen hilarious!
It never fired a shot at the enemyYou have a battleship as your picture so it is with great trepidation that I contradict you. But firstly Tirpitz was placed at Trondheim not Tromso and it was primarily sent there as "a fleet in being" from the outset... there was nothing unintentional about it. After the loss of Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Graf Spee; Hitler had in fact forbidden that his capital ships be used in surface raiding against convoys. He only agreed to the Tirpitz being stationed in Trondheim predominantly as an added defense to possible re-invasion and to tie down British naval and air forces (fleet in being). That was the only reason Hitler agreed to it being sent there. The threat of this ship was also used to disrupt convoys and scatter them and allow u-boats to pick them off... but that was secondary. I could be wrong but I don't think it ever actually fired on any convoys.
I think the analogy is pretty good for how we're using Cox.
just like Cox has not scored a goal yet.. but he has drawn the attention of lots of defenders... see how the analogy works.It never fired a shot at the enemy
btw.. shot down a lot of RAF planes I believe. Maybe it didn't fire at shot at any ships.It never fired a shot at the enemy
You have a battleship as your picture...
... so it is with great trepidation that I contradict you. But firstly Tirpitz was placed at Trondheim not Tromso and it was primarily sent there as "a fleet in being" from the outset... there was nothing unintentional about it. After the loss of Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Graf Spee; Hitler had in fact forbidden that his capital ships be used in surface raiding against convoys. He only agreed to the Tirpitz being stationed in Trondheim predominantly as an added defense to possible re-invasion and to tie down British naval and air forces (fleet in being). That was the only reason Hitler agreed to it being sent there. The threat of this ship was also used to disrupt convoys and scatter them and allow u-boats to pick them off... but that was secondary. I could be wrong but I don't think it ever actually fired on any convoys.
I think the analogy is pretty good for how we're using Cox.
If Cox is the Tirpitz does that make Nathan Freeman the Gneisenau?
The Hood no less!
I think the Tirpitz got moved to Tromsø so it could get better air protection?
Which turned out to be a bit ironic in the end.
I know how the analogy is with this. Tirpitz main battery never fired a shot at the enemy fleet. It had is own fighter squadronto protect it.btw.. shot down a lot of RAF planes I believe. Maybe it didn't fire at shot at any ships.
Very!The Hood no less!
I think the Tirpitz got moved to Tromsø so it could get better air protection?
Which turned out to be a bit ironic in the end.
Depending which Essendon turn up, they have had 2 absolute shockers and we’re average for 3 quarters in round 1.Essendon will be very tough. Same boat as us. Hopefully we have their measure.
You're right about Trondheim being the initial station - Tromso is where Tirpitz was sunk - I was too slack to check the names. The fleet in being analogy I still dispute. Cox is actually called upon to play, and he does so. It's not really the forum to argue naval strategy, but Tirpitz was primarily in Norway to defend the invasion that Hitler expected there. The 18" guns at Narvik and the mounting of the turrets from Gneisenau on the coast had the same objective and being fixed could not be confused with a fleet in being. It's nice to see there is so much interest and knowledge floating around about these things, and the imagination available to apply it to footy. Despite disagreeing, I was quite tickled by the mention of Centurion.You have a battleship as your picture so it is with great trepidation that I contradict you. But firstly Tirpitz was placed at Trondheim not Tromso and it was primarily sent there as "a fleet in being" from the outset... there was nothing unintentional about it. After the loss of Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Graf Spee; Hitler had in fact forbidden that his capital ships be used in surface raiding against convoys. He only agreed to the Tirpitz being stationed in Trondheim predominantly as an added defense to possible re-invasion and to tie down British naval and air forces (fleet in being). That was the only reason Hitler agreed to it being sent there. The threat of this ship was also used to disrupt convoys and scatter them and allow u-boats to pick them off... but that was secondary. I could be wrong but I don't think it ever actually fired on any convoys.
I think the analogy is pretty good for how we're using Cox.
That was me and it was spot on for joking about Coxy's role! A dummy ship in the field of combat which has enemy resources diverted towards it. Equipped with what look like weapons. But they aren't really. Fools some but not all of the enemy combatants. Just hope they meet a different final fate.You're right about Trondheim being the initial station - Tromso is where Tirpitz was sunk - I was too slack to check the names. The fleet in being analogy I still dispute. Cox is actually called upon to play, and he does so. It's not really the forum to argue naval strategy, but Tirpitz was primarily in Norway to defend the invasion that Hitler expected there. The 18" guns at Narvik and the mounting of the turrets from Gneisenau on the coast had the same objective and being fixed could not be confused with a fleet in being. It's nice to see there is so much interest and knowledge floating around about these things, and the imagination available to apply it to footy. Despite disagreeing, I was quite tickled by the mention of Centurion.