I think the rule changes around HTB etc are a big reason behind the hot potato disposal epidemic.
Possibly, we can't talk in absolutes.
But relatively, watch them dispose of the ball when tackled, and compare to our disposal of the ball when tackled. They find a team-mate, we find an opponent.
Funnily or not so funnily @PaulP, what happened yesterday was what I had originally feared would happen when the rule emphasis changed. I thought the new HTB and Ruck rule interpretation disadvantaged our Rucks and Mids, and advantaged blokes like Meek and McInerney, but we seemed to have escaped those effects until yesterday.
It's bizarre some at Carlton would call for removal of prior, an even worse situation for our slower midfield that relies on bigger heavier bodies to create a clearance.
No it's a decision made at one moment. Nothing more, nothing less. Wear the contact, take it out of bounds.
I think worrying about what happens in rolls of the dice in the last quarter is a bit of a distraction after the events of the first 50 minutes, it's identifying an effect of a horrendous start and clinging to it as a cause.
The players are not time travellers, what they did in the last didn't effect the first qtr and a half!
If every man and his dog can see it before it happens then perhaps it's worth looking into.
The assertion people saw this coming is bullsh1t, nobody saw the once in a 50 year event coming, we were 180 seconds away from something that's never happened before in the history of VFL/AFL and nobody predicted it.
Walsh was on the boundary line in the latter stages of the match.
You are identifying an effect not a cause.
Focus on the reason why Walsh had almost 10km up 5 min into the 3rd-Qtr, that's a whole game of running for most players, and why Zorko was top of the pops in the first half.
Back in the threepeat era that team called it "Mitchell ball" because it was Sam's tactic they all copied. When they mark the ball they hold their spot and look side ways to dispose of the ball instead of automatically running back 10 steps giving up time and ground. This is even more effective in 2024 with the guy on the mark not allowed to move.
Mitchell could do this because he could hit targets left or right with hand or foot, our blokes can't even hit targets on their preferred.
Modern AFL players can't even handball properly anymore, it's bizarre that the half throws of modern AFL players can't hit targets 5m away!
Or is it that the handball is so so bad because they are trying to punch a moving target?
Yep, I think while they are in form, using the ball the way they are using it, there is an efficiency of ball use that let's them get on with the game.
Fans focus on the Dawks run, but watch their games and most players hardly take a step or two before disposing, and they hit a target so it's not wasted. The ball movement is fast and elite, the run isn't expansive but the ball use is.
The Handbaggers played a very similar style, and they are the other stand out, they get maximum result from an economy of effort.
After banishing the thought of a Pitto / TDK combo halfway through the season, "the experts" want them in stone cold as a duo functioning in perfect harmony in a final.
My suggestion to fans, find some better "experts"!
OH ran his guts out and actually won some contested footy, surrounded by largely uncompetitive team-mates, then nullified Zorko, "the experts" are rock throwing morons!
We need just enough of a tweak to put pace, run and spread into the side.
@laj we won plenty of footy in the 1st-half, and got clear possession, the problem isn't run.
Have a read of the post I made in the List Management thread 5 hours before the game, then re-watch the first 40 to 50 minutes. Run had nothing to do with it, run hasn't been a big part of our problem all season, it's another smokescreen masking the real problems!
We burn the footy, when we win plenty of footy and when in the lead we burn the footy, when we are behind and fighting for possessions to get back in the game we burn the footy. It happens over and over again. We fight and win clear possession and the disposal goes to the opposition, watch the Lions by comparison, they win the footy and the first disposal goes to a target.
There is that but it is still a mind boggling decision.
Don't let these imbeciles drag you into a stupid debate.
For the first quarter we hardly had the ball forward of centre, and at one stage it was 15 / 20 Lion's I50s to just 4 for us. It wouldn't matter if we had Charlie, Harry, Carey, Lockett and Dunstall inside F50!
As for blaming the 1st 50 minutes on the Sub selection as a ruck, it's stupidity, the Sub could have been Judd, Dusty, Ablett, any fecker anybody likes, they had no bearing on the first 50 or so minutes of the game. And it made no difference if the Sub was a ruck, rover, utility, fullback or tagger.
Some "experts" on here want to make the Sub about the rucks, they are sh1t talkers, they signalled this intent even before the first ball was bounced.
In that regard with TDK on the bench we basically went with the "experts" preferred option, one ruck and an extra Mids to run and link up, and had our arse handed to us to the tune of almost 10 goals!
