Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,737
    Post Thanks / Like

    5 questions about Round #1

    I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

    1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

    2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

    3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

    4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

    5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?
    The crows have a good mix of young tall players

    Davis is a promising developing key defender, and they have Talia in the SANFL also

    Maric is improving in the ruck and McKernan was terrific in his 2nd game, took marks all over the ground, got his hand to the ball in the ruck - really looked an emerging type

    Upforward Walker has improved but also still has massive further scope for improvement, and Tippett is still to come back into the team

    So there spine appears to be on the way, but they also have some very good dangerous midfield/flank types in Dangerfield, Knights, Vince, Van Berlo, Otten etc

    Mix them in with the older senior players of Johncock, Thompson, Rutten, Stevens, Porplyzia etc and you have a competitive outfit. And Tambling looked a more decisive player.

    I dont know about top 4 but there is a lot to like about the way they played

    Hawthorn played pretty well, the can spin it otherwise, but they were on fire in the first half and were then overrun

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,900
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    1: The sub rule is a joke. I maybe wouldn't mind it if they kept 4 interchange players and introduced a sub. But under the current format this rule will handicap teams like the dogs who rotate heavily.

    2. A bit of both, they are on the improve due to the Knights building but also I think are playing a fair bit on emotion due to Hird & Bomber.

    3. Hawks are better than that, surely?

    4: One word YES.
    It is effective for them though so they wont change under current coach.

    5: The pies biggest opposition will be themselves. If they get some injuries and gain some doubt then they will slide a bit. Failing that, god help us all.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Parkville Medical Precinct
    Posts
    1,277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?
    Positive - Teams with only one serious injury are no longer disadvantaged, unless the injury occurs after the sub is used. eg Easton Wood. From an AFL POV, the players fatigue much quicker slowing the game by the last Q, to the point where it seems they are running in quicksand by the last quarter. This is what the AFL wanted. As yet this hasn't resulted in a huge increase in soft tissue injuries, but I think it will eventually.

    Negative - Any team that has multiple injuries has even less chance of winning, as they will fatigue at a much faster rate with 0,1 or 2 on the bench when up against 3 fit I/C players. Likely to have cost Brisbane the game on Saturday.

    2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?
    Hird has developed a game plan built around defensive structures and the natural attacking flair of his players. They will beat many better sides than us.

    3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?
    Crows have been quietly stockpiling a heap of young talent, and were always going to rebound quickly from a disappointing 2010.

    4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?
    Yes for the neutral fan. No for St Kilda supporters - it is called winning ugly, and with any luck could have won back to back premierships.

    5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?
    Themselves. They are in a class of their own this year. Everyone else is playing for 2nd.
    Footscray member since 1980.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Behind the goals, Geelong Rd end
    Posts
    6,465
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

    1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?
    Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,737
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye Salmon View Post
    Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.
    A mate of mine thought 2 subs and 3 interchanges would get the balance spot on.
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,900
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    3. I'll keep it short and sweet. Hawthorn are overrated by the media every year, so no surprise they went into this as favourites. They also have a poor record at AAMI Stadium, they were poor on the day, thats it I think. I don't have Adelaide in the top 8, 9th-10th closely missing out.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    5,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

    Poor rule, getting an injury still puts you at a disadvantage, and last quarters are harder to watch.

    2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

    Too early to say whether there is much difference in the side. They were inconsistent under Knights, but did show glimpses of that attacking ability.

    3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

    Hawthorn just aren't that great.

    4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

    Yep.

    5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?

    Us. I reckon we'll look back at the Essendon game in a month and say we were just warming up after an early NAB exit.
    If you kicked five goals and Tom Boyd kicked five goals, Tom Boyd kicked more goals than you.

    Formerly gogriff

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    745
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

    1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

    2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

    3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

    4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

    5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?
    1. Get it wrong and it can cost you. Alot of injuries for rd 1. Game style seems different also
    2. Better side for sure, plus Thomson and others sure to help
    3. Crows and Hawks about the same as last year i reckon - top 8 no more
    4. Stklda does well with what they got...ugly...yes
    5. None really...maybe Ess

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,900
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    Quote Originally Posted by gogriff View Post
    Us. I reckon we'll look back at the Essendon game in a month and say we were just warming up after an early NAB exit.
    God I hope you are right.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wherever the dogs are playing
    Posts
    61,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye Salmon View Post
    Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.
    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    A mate of mine thought 2 subs and 3 interchanges would get the balance spot on.
    I can't see what was wrong with 4 on the bench.
    FFC: Established 1883

    Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,737
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    Quote Originally Posted by bornadog View Post
    I can't see what was wrong with 4 on the bench.
    The general consensus is that if you cop an injury early then the other team has a 4 on 3 advantage for the balance of the game and this historically has been a huge hurdle to overcome.
    However, with the new rule now you sub off a player and it's still 3 on 3.
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    East of the West
    Posts
    9,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    The general consensus is that if you cop an injury early then the other team has a 4 on 3 advantage for the balance of the game and this historically has been a huge hurdle to overcome.
    However, with the new rule now you sub off a player and it's still 3 on 3.
    Until you get another injury.

    I get what you mean, but I still don't see a benefit to the sub rule. It's too soon to tell whether it's got legs or not.

    And regardless what we think, it's in, so we've just got to suck it up.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,737
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    Quote Originally Posted by dfa4pm View Post
    Until you get another injury.

    I get what you mean, but I still don't see a benefit to the sub rule. It's too soon to tell whether it's got legs or not.

    And regardless what we think, it's in, so we've just got to suck it up.
    All good points and it's one of the reasons a mate of mine thinks we will have a 2nd sub within 2 seasons.
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    992
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 5 questions about Round #1

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    All good points and it's one of the reasons a mate of mine thinks we will have a 2nd sub within 2 seasons.
    Back to the future!

    Why not 2 subs and no interchange.

    It would probably lead to a 50% reduction in the coaching panel and more man on man contests. Perhaps a visionary like Sheedy could lead the charge.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •