There were lots of players slipping. Essendon's marking was ordinary - dropped a lot they should have taken.
The only time that there was a little concern about the result was in the last when they got within 20 points. But Weiters decided we didn't want to lose and made a couple of really good spoils, then we kicked a goal to put it beyond doubt.
I think I saw in the in-game thread that Essendon's pressure was off the scale. They need to review how they measure that, as it didn't seem to be a very intense match.
Like others have said, good that a few of the youngsters/less experienced have had exposure over a few weeks, which will help them into pre-season plans and next year. Evans' purple patch in the 3rd was great and others are getting accustomed to the level.
Glad the season is over! Tennis finals coming up and cricket pre-season is starting, so plenty of other things to do.
"btw. AFLW Executives, that is stuff people happily pay to watch"
I agree, LP - while I only watched some of the game, it was a much higher standard from when I last watched AFLW - some good marking, good kicking and general play.
LP - sorry, it isn't something that interests me. From what you said, sounds like a few countries competing to get there first. Imagine if they worked together to achieve the result...
Who really cares about the moon and energy for it - but if energy solutions can be developed for it and used on earth, then that can be beneficial (trickle down technology works!). Nuclear can explode, don't need to worry about waste disposal, because no one is there and it doesn't matter.
Can't find anything that suggests night on the moon isn't ~340 hours.
340 hours of night probably does it, LP. The below is from a NASA 'Watts on the moon' challenge/competition...
'Solar energy is abundant on the surface of the Moon, but extended night hours (350 consecutive hours) and the extreme environmental temperature change from daylight to nighttime, create problems for solar power use. Earth also addresses similar issues, where demand for additional renewable energy generation, including solar, is rising, but additional power management, distribution, and energy storage solutions are needed to address issues such as intermittency and resiliency.'
While at least the last quarter gave us something and there was effort during the game, the lack of movement/options being presented and lack of skill still stood out.
To make it interesting, my son and a mate had a few stats to count: - How many shanks/OOB on the full from Acres - How many high tackles from Harry - How many shanks from Harry - How many blind bomb kicks
Fog has the yips big time - most of my sons U13 team could have kicked those (might need the smaller ball, though). He did a couple of nice things - but like a few was a couple of things enough.
Cripps looked as if he wanted to hurt someone tonight - there were quite a few times where once the ball had gone on from where he was that he looked as if he wanted to take the extra couple of steps to take out an opponent.
Curiously, in the third, when Williams was on the mark for a set shot, the GC player missed and Williams gave him a hand tap (wasn't a high 5 and not caught on the coverage) after. Don't think we really need to be doing that.
Umpires had an ordinary night, but a couple stick out to me: Williams kicked a sky ball from defence (3rd qtr) that bounced 5 metres from two players before going out - paid Insufficient attempt. Not sure who kicked a terrible scrubber in the last that went out by our 50m, not a player within sight - throw in - couldn't work it out.
The stand rule is an absolute dogs' breakfast. You can be there but run backwards to get out of the zone - no penalty, you can move, or you can stand. You can be somewhere near the free kick/mark and move forward, sideways and not have a 50 paid. The player can with the ball can be at any angle to the player on the mark and it doesn't matter. Just make one rule and apply it.
I though we would lose by about 8 goals, so I suppose we did better than expected. GC talent, movement and delivery was a lot better than ours.
Looks like we have three teams - forwards, mids and backs and then three teams within them. These teams seem to have never worked with each other or have a semblance of constructive footy - we know that we will bomb it straight to opposition out of defence and going into the 50.
Congratulations Doc on an inspirational career, and Weiters as well another solid+ game.
Agree, Prof. Windiest bowling has been good on bowling friendly decks. Top score this test was 48.
Boland got his hat trick and Windies were never going to chase 200 - especially being 3/0 after one over. Apparently quickest 5for in test history for Starc - 15 balls...
The biggest inequality in test cricket is what countries are willing/able to pay players. Last year (?) Sth Africa sent a second string squad to NZ for tests as there were too many others on the T20 circuit - partly because SA cricket was close to broke.
There's a theory that the strength of the 'bottom 6' of a team is the differentiator of teams. Another post somewhere had about 8 of our best 23 out. A real test of our depth. Given that many on the forum bemoan player development in the VFL, the current results aren't a surprise. The bottom 6 are better when playing alongside the genuinely best 17 as they contubute at their level. When the 6 becomes 12 is where the struggle is.
While the game wasn't great tonight, thought they fought ok - some basic skill errors lead to easy goals to Brisbane. We get ready shots and lack composure, or mental strength to make sure that we kick the goal. That hurts.
When Williams had the shot for goal in the last, I said to my son that he'll do a hammy. 2 minutes later he was on his own and looked as if he had - might have been cramp.
I am a little surprised at some of the strong comments about Friday night (I did end up watching most of it): - it wasn't a great side selected and going to lose by plenty. - there have been doubts for ages about Cripps', Weiters' fitness and chat about Curnow's. Leaving them out for who to come in? - Playing a heap of 'kids' at once doesn't do them favours if they have no guidance/not enough support on the ground - we continue to see this. - some players shake hands before a game. Charlie did the equivalent. What's the big deal? - one of our biggest weaknesses for a very long time has been player development. - we are not a highly skilled side and often miss (easy) targets. We play as if they are going to be hit, so find it hard to recover when the opposition pick us off. Lot of energy wasted trying to make amends. This is getting worse the deeper down the list we go, which has to affect morale and confidence. - we seem to try to get 'hail Mary' player selections. Doesn't pay off very often. - An issue of having (seemingly) highly paid top 6-8, is that the $$ are tighter further down, which will make it hard to attract enough quality players.
4/95 all out 138 - lead of 74. Cummins with 300 test wickets. 4 and a bit sessions in and 20 wickets gone. Not a great advertisement for the combatants to become World Test Champions.
