I've done it. Said I'd accept any ticket including standing room nut had a thought they'll shove me there first. My preference is a good ticket and I'll pay for it. I'll accept standing room but id rather not.
What are you guys doing?
If i have to stand, so be it, but being there was the #1 priority.
I was listening to Dr Peter Larkin on SEN tonight and Gerard Healy asked hom about the Docs dislocated shoulder. He said it will still quite painful this week and if he gets a decent knock on it, won't be able to continue playing. So big risk playing him. I respect Larkin's opinion and this worries me.
Won't be able to continue playing??? Until they jab him perhaps.
Thanks to those who have enquired after my emotional well being. Apart from fairly self evident, big ticket issues which should be of concern to any sane person, I’m fine.
I consider my assessment of the game to be fair and balanced, and free of any Navy Blue bias. At any rate, I don’t want to put a dampener on the euphoria that is clearly sweeping through the supporter base, so I’ll leave it at that.
Wasn't meant to offend.
Wasn't directed at one post, but a pattern over....well....weeks. Seemed out of character. *shrugs*
The kick from Hollands was better than the broadcast angle showed, the Melbourne player was never really in the hunt for the footy, metres away in fact, and if he'd made contact with Doc it could easily have been a 50m for late contact.
Mate, i was at the game right behind it. I could see it all unfolding before it happened.
I'll reiterate, docherty had a good 5m on his opponent leading towards the wing. When the ball arrived there was no 5m.
It was only for the stupidity of the dees defender that allowed docherty to take off and go. Not Acres kick, not Dochertys brilliance. Both were adequate, but a simple spoil or even a slow jog to be the man on the mark, and we don't win that game.
Ironically there was a similarly big moment in an NFL game a few years ago with my team the vikings coming out on top from an almost identical situation - both in terms of the 'mark' and the state of the game. They called it the Minneapolis miracle and its gone down in history of when of the best moments in the game.
Looking at flying into and out of brisbane from [insert a major city] and prices are just ridiculous.
I've got the OK from the boss to not have to work fri-tues, so thinking i might be doing a LONG road trip there and back, putting the ranger and camping gear to good use. No accomodation costs. No fuel costs (thank you work) Just time.
The kick to Docherty was perfect; Doc led towards the wing and Hollands put the ball in front of him, giving Doc’s opponent no chance. If Hollands had kicked it to Doc’s goal side he would have been running with the flight and the Melbourne player could have spoiled or intercepted.
The placement caused the defender to over-commit and that gave Doc the opportunity to play on and kick over the defence.
How much of that was planned and how much was luck is debatable, but Hollands kicked the ball exactly where he should have.
Have another look mate. Doc had 5m on his opponent. By the time the ball got there. Doc was stationary, jumping straight up, his opponent jumping in front of him just missing the body and the ball. If it was truly in front of him. Doc would've still had 5m on his opponent.
....with Hollands as the sub. He virtually won us the game on Friday in the last, and that maybe enough to get him over the line.
Hollands was as expected when he came on. Consistent.
But...don't give him too much credit. That last kick to Docherty was poor. Doch had space, Hollands kicked it behind him. Docherty's bravery and the dees players stupidity made it all work out in the end. But that kick was poor.
A lot of people calling for Owies head and you can kinda see why because someone with talent will have to miss out, so why not a small forward.
I'm not sure i would agree with that. He is one of our best kicks for goal. Always seem to hit the scoreboard. Fun fact: In our last 11 games, he has kicked 1 goal in 6 of those matches......and 2 goals in the other 5! Before that he had 2 weeks where he didn't score a goal. The first 5 he played for the year (keeping in mind he missed r4-8) he kicked 11 goals in 5 matches.
Another fun fact: Owies is =2nd on our goal kicking list this year. He is equal with Harry, despite playing 2 games less!
People say we must play Harry. Stats say we must play Owies.
Listening to Goodwin's press conference, Gawn had a broken toe and Van Rooyen was suspended, so the idea with Schache was to provide coverage just in case Gawn or another tall couldn't last the game. There must be a bit of rolling the dice no matter who ends up as the sub. It doesn't sound like an unreasonable decision IMO. They were clearly conscious of going too tall to begin with, but I think their real issues lie elsewhere.
Thats a flaw in logic.
You get the coverage in the team first. Use that to give Gawn a chopout and if everything is going to plan, then you simply sub out a tall for extra run late. You do NOT do it the other way. What happens if you get an injury to a small early on....then you are extra tall with no relief in site.
I'm not a fan of 2 rucks (and 2 key forwards) but i'd still pick that every day of the week instead of 1 ruck, 2 key forwards and a tall as the sub....thats stupidity.