In hindsight, we might have been better off having Charlie run with Cameron for a one on one all over the ground and force Cameron to go with him. Weiters has Hawkins covered, Charlie is a good match size and aerobically for Cameron.
We still have BigH, TDK and Cripps to push into F50, but stop Hawkins and Cameron and the Handbaggers look much more limited for options. I don't know how many of the Handbagger scores started with a Cameron involvement from somewhere outside the arc, but I'd assert it was plenty.
The likes of Carrol and Durdin offer no pressure which makes it harder for Acres, Cottrell and Hollands to give chase. Which makes it hard for Williams, Kemp and Cowan to defend.
I suppose injuries are forcing our hand, but I still don't understand subbing Owies and keeping Durdin, Carroll and adding Binns.
We are missing Fogarty, and probably Cunningham as well, but rather than sub Owies I'd have subbed Durdin or Carroll and sent Owies further up the field. Unless of course there are reasons, maybe Owies is not 100% fit. Early this season and last season, it was Owies you'd find on the last line body on body with an opponent.
Even so, I don't understand the change from the GWS to the Handbaggers game, maybe the GWS game took more out of our lot than we realise.
Cowan's first couple of games back weren't too bad, but he turned it into a hot potato a lot, Cincotta is a bit unlucky.
I don't understand Young.
But then again I don't understand a skied ball inside F50 and all our forwards crowding around the fall of the ball 35m out and watching it bounce.
Why can the likes of Tuohy or Guthrie take the footy run 2 or 3 steps, be tackled and then just hold onto to it unpenalised, but Hewett or Acres does that and it's holding the ball?
Watching the replay is infuriating, all those little moments go against us, we probably missed out at least 5 or 6 free kicks in and around our HFF in just a half of footy, incidents where the Handbaggers just held onto the footy after trying to break a tackle, dropped it cold, or just threw it away. Our tacklers were not rewarded at all!
Thank the gods for Crippa, Pitto, Walsh, Weiters, Acres, Chugga and H.
In hindsight the MC probably made the wrong call benching Owies and keeping Durdin on, Owies problem wasn't that he wasn't leading to the right spaces, but that we didn't kick to his advantage, much the same for Charlie and BigH.
Too many times we had smalls, mediums free inside F50, even Kennedy and Cripps, and yet we kicked it on the head of Charlie or BigH. Our blokes are 30m away in space and nobody at the crumb. That is bad decision making / bad vision by the kicker, not the fault of the forwards.
Kennedy's best game this season, gets better as each week passes, also Acres best so far this season, might get them both kick started for 2024. TDK had a good game as well.
Imagine if Dangflog wasn't permitted to dive on the pill and take out opponents legs without penalty? Go back and watch the replay, twice you'll see him grab the boots of Carlton players without getting close to the footy, he gets a free pass for flopping like a squid out of water.
Hard to believe some wanted no BigH in the 22 at seasons start, hard to imagine us being competitive without him!
We wasted opportunities, but when you get non-decisions with such a bias in the impact of umpiring decisions, it's hard to win, it's like you are battling two opponents all the time.
Dangerflog basically throws himself at opponents legs unpenalised, diving head first hitting blokes below the knees and claiming high contact. Sure he didn't get a free, but he must have tripped or grab the legs of our blokes at least 5 or 6 times, and he basically did his best to use his body to take out our midfield's legs. He ended Judd's career by tunnelling, and he's happy to take others out, opponents needs to start putting some knees in the way of his head!
The umpiring screwed us over on advantage multiple times, sure we wasted footy, but I've not seen a half of footy like the first where the game was so closely contested yet the umpiring was so influential in the outcome.
We were dominant in the midfield, then the Handbaggers were basically permitted to tackle blokes before the ball arrived. Cripps got 3 frees, he should have had 10 or more, it was bullcrap! Then after missing 2 or 3 crucial frees, they give up a nothing evener on the HBF.
While Henry gets 2 of his 3 goals through blatant non-decision push outs by himself and a team-mate.
How do Stanley and Blicavs get to wrap arms around Pitto and TDK, yet be rewarded frees kicks for our blokes holding?
There should be a bunch of blokes apologising to Cripps tonight, he led them into battle and they folded like crepe paper.
Stewart is Geelong’s most important player and they can’t cover his loss. That has repercussions for them all over the ground.
It depends on the innovation of the Handbagger MC.
It's a fatal mistake to assume a team is crippled by the absence of a single player, many of our own fans said as much about us in the early season absence of Weiters.
A forced change like Stewart going out can cause an MC to become inventive, inventive potentially means a new tactic that opponents have not seen before, and that can be deadly for the opponent if they go into a game unprepared to adapt.
Always respect opponents, and be prepared to adapt.
I was talking to an associate about domestic violence, they spend some time volunteering in shelters so they see a lot of the effects up close.
They mentioned the current media calls for stronger penalties are completely misplaced. The problem is that the offenders are not in a stable mental space already. His fear is then that if the penalties are stronger the situation will become like the regions with death penalties in the US, in those regions offenders (insane as they may be) conclude if you are going to do the time then you may as well do the crime. In domestic violence law this could be very bad for victims.
My friend would much rather see the use of monitoring devices for repeat offenders, much like the ankle type trackers used in early release. He said it's very rare that the victims of domestic violence are victims of a first offense. Most of the bad cases turn out to be recidivists. He also said legal papers and orders do nothing, a piece of paper is of no use in defence against a knife, gun or fists of someone who is otherwise not quite right in the head!
I mentioned my brother because peacekeepers are the theme of this ANZAC Day. He also served in the Army and Air Force but was very proud of his UN service and very pleased when it was officially recognised.
I have another associated who is / was involved in forensic accounting, tracking and tracing money laundering / corporate theft by drug cartels or some foreign governments like North Korea, etc., etc., also counterfeiting of both currency and high priced goods like wine or pharmaceuticals. They also train foreign governments how to do this type of forensic investigation.
On arrival at some foreign destinations, private or commercial travel, they are / were at such risk from cartels they get collected off the tarmac by armoured convoys before the aircraft ever reaches the public terminal / gate.
When this ends, they can't ever receive public recognition for their work because the risk never ends even in retirement. They effectively become captive / hermits in their own land. I understand why they can't be received publicly, but to me they are not rewarded anywhere near enough for the ongoing risk. Oddly, they never ask for reward, they do what they do out of service to the community.
To me it's a bit unfair that Australian's serving in peacekeeping, piracy and policing roles OS aren't recognised equally with those who fight in wars. In some ways a clerk serving in a supply depot in Melbourne during WWII gets more recognition and benefits than a peacekeeper being shot at on a foreign continent.
I've a friend who has a son is currently deployed OS with operational groups, they are as actively involved in diplomacy as they are in other more "risky" duties. Being an officer he has to do both roles and that actually puts him at greater risk, just because we aren't at war at the moment doesn't mean they aren't at risk from rockets, drones, snipers, IEDs, mines, grenades, etc., etc..
On another note, in many ways those involved investigating drugs and organised crime policing are also at huge risk here and abroad.
we need to make cats defenders ACCOUNTABLE no zoning off taking those marks with no pressure ,so this means us hitting targets going forward start to winning the game
Teams can only go one on one with good effect when they are a physical match or perhaps stronger than opponents, I'm not sure our F50 is a physical match for the Handbaggers D50. It's easy to say blokes like Ollie, Fantasia and Owies need to be accountable, but if they are too easily brushed aside by bigger heavier bodies it's already a lost contest.
Assuming a mostly unchanged line up, I think our best tactic would be to run off the Handbaggers and make good and smart use of the footy off the HBF or through the Mid. With Cottrell, Owies, Acres, Hollands x 2, BigH, Charlie and TDK, we have a well above average aerobic group for that mix of body types.
Don't mind replacing Fantasia, but Moir is still a fair way off. He will be given plenty of time to develop before being paraded out a la Binns. With one or two exceptions, we are right into development and ensuring young players have served a comprehensive apprenticeship.
Oddly, after being very disappointed with Fantasia's first few games I think now is the wrong time to change him.
In his early games he exerted almost zero influence, had no impact on the play and had few possessions.
Last weekend he started to get more involved, had some physical presence against a relatively big bodied team, and even though he still had few possessions it showed he was starting to get involved. Not sure what his record is like against the Handbaggers but I'd persist with him.
