It's 2 points because they halved the game. No-one lost either. If you draw you share the points. Half each. Shouldn't be getting a zero like a loss as you didn't lose. Losing is worse.
In our case iot was the unique situation of a draw being a "win" as it achieved the desired goal.
Don't agree, there is a point of difference between two teams playing to win and being tied, versus a team that has settled on a draw as the result.
If having zero points for a draw means we never see a team settle for a draw ever again then I'm all for it, we don't play soccer, draws are sh1t!
I'd rather extra time, and first to a 2pt advantage, no more settling! I think 2pts makes sense, because it allows for a defensive rushed behind while leaving a goal as a winning score.
I thought in the dying moments it was our older heads that took control of the momentum, as is needed, and while it was absent at times throughout the game when it was needed they delivered, but a draw is a very different to needing a win, and Bevo discussed in his post-match they were momentarily thrown by us not trying for the win.
It was certainly a contrast, and sadly as the AFL works towards forever closing the gap between the have and the have nots, it's likely we'll see more of it.
Of course, the AFL can eliminate this completely by making a draw worthless, zero, nada, nothing, zilch. Why does it need to be a split of the 4 points, if it's zero, it's zero for everybody, as good as a bye. Only ever reward wins!
Late season a couple of things, Kemp, Gov and Harry are slowly improving in terms of set shots, will it be sustained time will tell. But doing it in recent weeks is as good as any test, and surely that must leave us in better circumstances for the future.
I was a bit disappointed in young Byrne not having a crack from the 50m arc, maybe he had weary legs, but it's his go and he is as likely as any. Certainly, more likely than handing it off to Cripps! If you are a small forward with a leg, you need to be taking those shots and converting some of them. If you don't then opponents will just force you further out and you will lose all effectiveness.
I don't think we got the structure right this week, Derksen looked like a fish out of water in F50, we seemed to allow the Dogs to drag Pitto into D50, and that degrades his effectiveness. If we wanted someone dropping into the space then why not send Derksen up the field, what value is he standing alone at FF! Note to Pitto, never kick the footy to our shortest player when they are standing the opposition ruck!
What's our plan if Hayward is out, we lost a lot when he went off, he's becoming a pivotal part of our full field structure.
Starc and Head won the ashes....this is an old, poor side with a few blokes who are capable of first tier performances
They have golden moments, sometimes a few in a row, but there is little consistency from any of them.
We've been spoilt over the years, Lillee, Warne, Langer, Haydon, McGrath, you got 24x7 cricketers who always managed to compete. But a lot of their success came due to the reliability and consistency of partners in crime, we don't have it at the moment, we aren't relentless like we were.
Surprisingly free kick count was in our favour 15-23!
Of course it's not just what but where that matters.
I didn't get the "play on" thing, it was evident from the very first bounce someone had changed the interpretation this week, but it only seemed to apply to us. Twice we had guys instantly called to play on for shaping to handball without moving their feet or off the mark.
Both Hewett and Walsh got mown down late well after disposal without a down field free being awarded, I recall specific cases once by Libba and once by Freijah.
Weightman was blocking our defenders well off the ball, way beyond the legal distance and without eyes for the footy, and not penalised once. On the other side of the case Dean takes the space behind the fall of the ball and gets pinged for a block. Now we can debate the right or wrong of it, but the difference between each case is the real problem because Dean and Weightman are at the same end, same umpire, etc., etc..
Also, go back and watch that infamous throw, the umpires head is in the bottom of the video feed looking straight at it, he sees what everybody else saw and decided "Computer says no!" and called play on! At no stage did the Dogs player attempt to make a fist or close his hand, he just threw it! Earlier in the game one of our blokes was penalised for a volleyball spike called a throw, at strike but with open palms like a double hand ruck tap, but clearly a strike.
The NSW Cricket Mafia has backed itself into a corner, it can't blame the bowlers this time because they are all in on the incumbents. The defenders of the top order would normally see it as a bowling fail not a batting fail, they would expect the batting did nothing wrong and the bowlers weren't able to knock over Bangladesh for a similar score!
Even in the post-match the usual suspects were talking about a refresh, then spent 10 minutes discussing the next generation of bowlers.
The only batsmen they threw rocks at were Weatherald and Webster, declaring both fails, they wanted Inglis in and an extra bowler!
I suppose that's just for any supplementary ruck if no goals were scored while they are having a run in the ruck. We also rucked Cripps against TDK, Cripps beat TDK in a stoppage contest. Really, my point is about the validity of asserting Young gave us a better balance due to his rucking, but we were still rucking Cripps.
Personally, I'm not sure what the right balance is, I not a fan of Harry rucking due to the risk, but I concede that Harry rucking helps to get him involved in games when he off the boil. If we had Young rucking and Harry off the boil what would be our preferred solution?
btw., I didn't go today, I don't go to ice dome ever, but my mates messaging me have told me if not for Weitering today we would probably have lost. They said his setup behind the footy was key to our not being overrun. Does that happen with Derksen in D50?
Derksen looked a bit off kilter today, a bit lost, I sure that is an instability issue, he's been a defender for 8 or 9 weeks. But is it just a short term thing or a long term effect, why does Derksen shifting ends all of a sudden make his marking less reliable?
I reckon Young out has messed with our balance. H having to ruck I dont like as it robs a target.
We still centre rucked Harry, last week.
Some odd tactics today, but it's exposed by our poor ball use, the bulk of our problems are missed targets from clean disposals. The thing swaying the result so far is that poor efficiency issue and some massive non-decisions.
Multiple times we've had HFs 20m clear and put the ball on their head or behind them causing a turnover and end to end score.
The Dogs look like they are trying to prove a point, not just for today but potentially for the Wildcard, while we look like we are trying to safely our way into finals.
Strayed away from what we've been good at. Feel like Jagga is the only midfielder that was still productive in the 2nd.
Smashing Walsh and Hewett, I think Walsh should have at least two or three frees for late hits after he disposes of the footy. On one occassion a Dog ran past the footy to belt Hewett and it was a non-free.
Studs up, non-free, it's bizarre!
Further, umpires have changed this week, play on being called almost instantly, they are rushing us as much as the Dogs.
