Carlton Supporters Club

They did their homework. Getting on top of Cripps removed our drive and the other guys didn't step up.
At least Toby Greene did nothing.

Cripps 33 touches, 11 clearances and 2 goals....and they got on top of him....it's funny, but you're right.
Greene 33 touches 6 clearances and a goal....and he did nothing.....it's funny because you are also right.

It was Tom Green with 33, not Toby.

Weak as piss Carlton !!

After dominating the first and setting up a match-winning 39-point lead, their big egos got in the way for the rest of the game until the absolute death when they tried to pinch it.

Zac Williams, hang your head in shame, that play on from a mark just inside the F50 (near to 3/4 time) was simply unacceptable and it directly cost us a goal on the turnover.

And you Charlie Curnow, how dare you masquerade as a league footballer when your second efforts are either non-existent or more importantly, simply lazy. It's all well & good to demand silver service delivery but unless you respect the extremely hard work your team-mates upfield put in to get it to you by fighting hard to keep in our F50, then you are a passenger and a fraud !!

I could see Tom De Koning trailing Briggs at CHB and then he let him run all the way down to near full forward and take an uncontested mark, thankfully he missed his shot at goal. However, that was absolutely pathetic defence especially when at the last moment, whilst still jogging forward, De Koning pointed further downfield expecting a smaller team-mate to man up on Briggs. Effing not good enough Tom, you too can hang your head in shame.  

Tonight's effort is why I am not convinced we are the premiership threat many people have been saying we are. Far to often we have tried to lairise with dinky kicks and lookaway handballs etc and they have worked, tonight they didn't and look what happened, they made us pay.

The Giants mids were desperate and quelled our midfield drive which in turn, gave them first use far to often, they thoughly deserved their win - hats off !!

If this doesn't set off an alarm bell at Princes Park then I don't know what will.

Some of our key players were rubbish today

Briggs 40 hitouts to TDK 19.....TDK 11 Clearances to Briggs 10....given TDK's role in making us a winning team thats a win for GWS.
Cripps with 33 possies did his job, problem was Tom Green had 33 for GWS so it evens again when we needed a clear win
Walsh with 22 possies afetr being tagged was a win for GWS also...
Tackles inside 50....GWS 26- Carlton 4.......so not much pressure from our blokes to create goals or prevent them running the ball out.
Centre Clearances were equal and Stoppages just in our favour but given this is our one wood territory I reckon GWS would take those stats and call it a win for them..
They won the contested possessions by 17 and thumped us in the uncontested possessions...
Our average marks per game is around 90 we had 57, they average around 90 too and had 92...
Overall just outworked, out run and our key players were either held or beaten, probably did well to keep the game to a 2 goal loss...

I want to point something out.

Last time we played gws we had Lewis Young, and pittonet in, carroll was the sub, durdin was in as was hewett.

Cerra, cincotta, saad and gov were all out. 

We had a lot of players well down on their output which is why this happened and it wasn't all bad news. 

It's just not good enough to look down the stats sheet and see so many of our key players so down on output.  Maybe we attempted to slide the magnets around to lessen our single points of failure but we may have highlighted them instead.

Next week needs to be a big improvement.   I think we might want to rethink the risk reward of this one ruck vs two ruck business.  It isn't a zero sum equation where one ruck vs two definitely means less run, depends on what we do with the rest but it is a lot more limiting when we can't change up rucks or change match ups down back. 

We didn't turn up to play hard footy tonight. We took the bruise-free option. Looked good when it was on our terms but had no willingness to work when it wasn't. Suppose there's a reason no side goes through undefeated. They all chuck in crap ones. Swans even managed to lose to Richmond this year.

When we lost in 1995 we lost worse than that.

Well that's exactly what you get when you get ahead of yourselves and egos reign supreme. Inflated egos, once challenged, fold... and equates to poor work rate = someone else will do it. Heard a few tones of arrogance in Weiters words coupla weeks back when interviewed by Whately. Not good from a leader.

About fourteen goals to two in the middle of the game. Pathetic. Embarrassing. Once hunted, we sh*t the bed.

Well that's exactly what you get when you get ahead of yourselves and egos reign supreme. Inflated egos, once challenged, fold... and equates to poor work rate = someone else will do it. Heard a few tones of arrogance in Weiters words coupla weeks back when interviewed by Whately. Not good from a leader.

About fourteen goals to two in the middle of the game. Pathetic. Embarrassing. Once hunted, we sh*t the bed.

This is what worries me.
When the Giants cranked up the pressure and were running in waves, there was no resistance.
Panic set in and we crumbled.
Great sides don't do this.
I just wish it meant as much to all players as it does to Crippa. When he kicked that goal against the tide in the 3rd quarter he was angry and vocal trying to fire up the team.
He takes it personally. We need more to have his passion and drive.

Fans want to assert a KPP on the bench costs us run and costs us wins, but today with 3 lame or semi-lame KPPs on the field we nearly ran over GWS. That's hard evidence that proves we typically have enough run to carry the spare KPP on the bench to cover injuries.

For my own sanity, I have to pretend last night never really happened.

One thing I can’t forget (or forgive) is, NOT A SINGLE COMMENT from the Ch 7 team when Toby punched Cincotta.
Yet let’s scrutinize Walshy head butting the ground over and over and speculate whether he was milking it, but Toby punching someone with a clenched fist  to the guts (in full view of umpire) when they weren’t expecting it? Never happened.

Interesting to hear Adam Kingsley say that in his opinion, Acres and Ollie Hollands are the best wingmen in the AFL.

Yep their gut running to be at both ends of the ground all the time.defies logic.

....but people want pittonet to replace Ollie 🙄

Tbh I don’t think Ollie has been really impactful for a while.
He’s “OK” but could do with a rest and dominating VFL for a couple of weeks.

He’s not that quick, easily outmuscled.
Puts in 110% tho

Tbh I don’t think Ollie has been really impactful for a while.
He’s “OK” but could do with a rest and dominating VFL for a couple of weeks.

He’s not that quick, easily outmuscled.
Puts in 110% tho

I don't think he is playing his best football either. However his 'bad' games he still puts in and does the team things.

And trying to replace him with a ruck because his stats are down is ludicrous.

Tbh I don’t think Ollie has been really impactful for a while.
He’s “OK” but could do with a rest and dominating VFL for a couple of weeks.

He’s not that quick, easily outmuscled.
Puts in 110% tho

When your game is based around clearance dominance, once that breaks down you're in trouble.

Yeah, not saying he should be replaced with a ruck.

Where we can we need to be refreshing players against clubs like north, WCE, etc over coming weeks. Also keeps players on their toes with competition for spots

This is about the 4th time you've posted this BS.

Tell me how having Pittonet solved our key defender issues?

You can't.

Let it go.

Tell me how having Pittonet solved our key defender issues?

Second quarter we shifted the A team out of the middle.  I noticed one centre bounce where Fogarty, and the second stringers attended.  This helps gws catch fire and get a run on.  You'd think 8 goals up we can do this safely, but i noted during gws run on cripps was not attending centre bounces in the second quarter until it tightened up.  I think we were reacting to a few things going on at once.

If we'd had Pitto as a ruck or some KPP on the bench like Young it's fairly obvious you can reshuffle and share the load.

Whether that is one ruck floating into D50 zone, as Pitto is first class at doing, or having a spare tall to help out the limping Weiters and McGovern doesn't really matter, at least you have a chance of not giving Hogan a free run. Some options, and you can extract players who are hobbling around the field without surrendering momentum 100%.

Sure, we run over them in the last, proving we have plenty of run even when a a bunch of our tall types can barely cover a bath mat. But by that stage it's all too late.

It's not that hard to understand for the open minded.

I should ask what is your plan for the GF if the very same happens again?

Second quarter we shifted the A team out of the middle.  I noticed one centre bounce where Fogarty, and the second stringers attended.  This helps gws catch fire and get a run on.  You'd think 8 goals up we can do this safely, but i noted during gws run on cripps was not attending centre bounces in the second quarter until it tightened up.  I think we were reacting to a few things going on at once.

I suppose you failed to notice that TDK was actually 'helping out' down back and was largely useless in the KPD role

I should ask, what is your plan in a GF if the very same happens again, ........ leave early?

@kruddler

So no reply, busy thinking, not got a solution yet, ....................... left already maybe?

So ignoring all your usual slights, you're going to assert sending TDK back out there on a jabbed up ankle he can barely stand on, barely mobile and unable to jump, is a valid test of his KPD capability.

That's as bad if not worse than claiming TDK against a "no ruck Handbagger squad" is proof solo rucks work, not that anybody would be brazen enough to make that claim!

Even with @Thryleon and myself posting the same basic response, the obvious response, you failed to answer either with anything more than smoke and mirrors, as usual!

Doesn't matter what 'what if' game you wanna play, There is no perfect answer.

Yep their gut running to be at both ends of the ground all the time.defies logic.

....but people want pittonet to replace Ollie 🙄

It wasn't a what if, it actually happened.

You own posts expose the hypocrisy of your position, we all know our depth is weakest in KPP options. Like when just yesterday you question why we didn't go for Ben McKay, not that he'd be much use if he wasn't in the 22 on the day.
(https://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6910.0;attach=1499)You're crying wolf like the boy with his finger in the dyke!

Must admit haven't seen him play this season, the HBF game I refer to might have been 2019 or 2020.

Wing makes sense because I recall him having good run, but turned like the Titanic, suited to positions that he can keep the ball in front of him.

Would he play HBF/Wing for us and release Kemp into the midfield rotations?

This is about the 4th time you've posted this BS.

Tell me how having Pittonet solved our key defender issues?

You can't.

Let it go.

Again,  can we get a separate topic thread for the ruck debate - getting really tiresome.

Again,  can we get a separate topic thread for the ruck debate - getting really tiresome.

So how about we deal with reality and stop trying to play the 'what if' game AFTER the fact.

This is not about ruck @pertz, it's about the structure of our bench and how we can provide backup for KPPs including rucks and our thin KPD stocks.

@Kruddler wants to make is specifically about Pitto because he can't let go of his earlier claims, and he largely ignores response like mine own or @Thryleon and then re-introduces Pitto. Even making absurd connections between selection and blokes like Ollie Hollands,  Fogarty or Owies, like if Pitto comes in we lose them all instantly into the universal void!

Kruddler will never stop, he's so conflicted he can't let it go, even when posting his own contradictions.

But that doesn't mean we can afford to leave the KPP issue, as it stands it's our greatest weakness.

So.....LP.....who (with the OBVIOUS BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT) should we have played this game?

If we didn't play Pitto to allow a reshuffle, we could have played Young.

Because LP would rather see a viable KPP backup on the bench, who might get smashed in the 2nd ruck role, rather than risking our Coleman or Brownlow medallists for 3-1/2 qtrs of blunt grunt work. At least Young if not in the ruck allows a reshuffle when Weiters got injured.

Even as poor as Young can be, if he was the one chosen he'd still be useful in the ruck or KPD roles, and have more influence and impact than Fantasia at pretty much any location on the field.

Of course if you want to leverage AFL capable strengths, you can go with Pitto and restructure the rest, and Pitto for Fantasia wouldn't be a loss based on yesterday.

But yesterday, no options, we had no choice but to send our 1st choice ruck and only KPD back onto the field for 3 qtrs of pain and suffering simply because of MC decisions. That won't work in a GF.

Ahh....Young will fix all our problems.

How many times have you called for his inclusion this year?

We have a strong but slowish midfield,

....

but it's crazy to leave our team deliberately in a shortfall when we have the resource available.

We don't have an excess of AFL capable KPDs, we need this addressed, in someway this season.

If we can't win a game with our potential ruck and midfield dominance, given our elite F50 KPF resource, it's not our ruck and midfield that is the problem!

This is a forum for discussion and debate but we can't demand folks  respond to posts, or the timing of those responses. 

We don't need it addressed this season, we need it addressed every off-season, which is what i've been saying and why Ben McKay non-event is a huge issue.

None at all probably, as I think there is a better option, but Young would still be better than what we went with yesterday.

Who goes out of yesterday's 22 for Ben McKay, without diminishing your precious bench time for Mids?

Move cottrell to cover Fantasia. Move Cincotta to cover Cottrell. Move Kemp/McGovern to cover Cincotta.

Tada.

@Lods don't give the timing stuff oxygen, @Thryleon and myself were probably typing at the same time, the initial comments were just a cheap rock throwing deflection tactic.

It's not different from our currently available option, it has the same affect on the bench time you are so precious about.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Further, moving Cincotta and one of McGovern/Kemp out of D50 for McKay reduces our run and carry of the back line, all your shuffles are fast and more aerobic than Ben McKay.

If we had Ben McKay, Kemp and Cowan would be fighting for the same spot.

Cowan plays on smalls
Kemp (and McGovern) plays (or should) on mediums.
.....but could give us another swing option.

It changes the balance of D50, we have less cover for smalls, move Kemp and McGovern out of D50 and you lose one of our key intercept players. You can't have all of them up the ground intercepting, someone has to stay home, and in the absence of injury it won't be two KPDs spend 100% of time on ground, one of them will have to get up the ground, and we'd start from a base of less defensive run and carry.

That would force the Mids to run deeper both ways, that's burning their saved bench time, again you can't have your cake and eat it.

The more KPDs that stay on the ground longer, the more they also have to run and cover ground, you force the blokes with the least aerobic capacity, speed and agility to do more of what they are weakest at!

So maybe Newman, Saad and Boyd can get up the round, until there is the inevitable skill error and turnover, at which time the Titanics are left guarding a Jet Ski.

The total game and bench time doesn't change, it's not an infinite resource.

Defense wasnt the issue, the ball went down there too quickly  and without any pressure, they stacked their team with runners and we couldnt get the ball in the 2nd and 3rd quarters as they were hitting every pass , spreading well and were too pacy for our slower onballers  who looked like treacle.
Cripps, Walsh and TDK have to win their positions well for us to control and win games and they didnt.......same thing happened vs the Swans. Thats the Blueprint to beat us and it wont happen often but there are those teams like the Swans and GWS on their own home decks who have the equipment and gamestyle to trouble us.

Do you even know what you are arguing at the moment? You just keep shovelling dirt not realising you are digging yourself deeper.

My proposal is referentially self-consistent, I'm not contradicting my own case like your posts.

You can't have your cake and eat it, you can't have more players on the ground providing less run and still have maximum run and carry no matter what you do with bench time. It's obvious.

Your solution comes at the very cost you have spent weeks maximally arguing against.

My proposal comes at a cost, bench time for Mids will be reduced, but the flexibility it brings is the option to reshuffle and offer cover for unexpected circumstances at both ends of the ground.

Fogarty took plenty of centre bounces. Not sure thats a long term solution but its a thing.

Personally i'd prefer to see Fantasia out and swapped with someone like Cuningham or Motlop as they would be more effective up forward and through the middle.

Of course we still have Hewett hanging around as well.

You can when you are carrying someone every week in Fantasia.

Defense wasnt the issue, the ball went down there too quickly  and without any pressure, they stacked their team with runners and we couldnt get the ball in the 2nd and 3rd quarters as they were hitting every pass , spreading well, and were too pacy for our slower onballers  who looked like treacle.
Cripps, Walsh and TDK have to win their positions well for us to control and win games and they didnt.......same thing happened vs the Swans. Thats the Blueprint to beat us and it wont happen often but there are those teams like the Swans and GWS on their own home decks who have the equipment and gamestyle to trouble us.

Yesterday, BigH was red hot in the opening term, then TDK rolls his ankle and our red hot KPF is moved up the ground and out of F50
simply because we went into the game without a viable plan B. That's not a viable option, it's not a plan, taking our only functional KPF and sending them out of goal range is insanity.

What's harder to find, a functional KPF or a competitive ruck?

The game was then over for the next 2-1/2 qtrs, what happened in the last was all too late and too little, partly triggered by GWS' own moves.

 The same will likely happen on GF Day if we suffer a similar circumstance. Sure it's rare, but so are GF appearances.

What we did in the last quarter yesterday isn't sustainable, it comes at a huge cost and it will impact us in the coming weeks, that impact will also come on top of any potential injuries from putting legless blokes back on the field.

Next week, TDK, Weiters and maybe McGovern are our new Kennedy.

100%
I though TDK got monstered by their ruckman

100%
I though TDK got monstered by their ruckman

In fairness to TDK, it was after he injured himself, you could see he couldn't put any pressure on his foot and wasn't able to jump or was told not to risk jumping, we will never know.

Before that he dominated, in fact he and BigH were dominating early.

TDK got some clearances and was handy around the ground but Briggs made sure he didnt dominate like we need him to and won the hitouts easily.
I think TDK will appreciate playing on English this week from the WB who is less of the push and shove type ruck and more the athletic type similar to himself. Briggs does a lot of pushing often before the ball is in the contest and reminds me of Nankervis, neither can jump like our man but like to make contact early and then stand their ground and use their strength.
I wouldnt be rushing to pick Pittonet this week either just based on that game....

He got injured in the first 5 minutes. Look at what i just posted showing him on the bench with the time showing.

TDK got some clearances and was handy around the ground but Briggs made sure he didnt dominate like we need him to and won the hitouts easily.
I think TDK will appreciate playing on English this week from the WB who is less of the push and shove type ruck and more the athletic type similar to himself. Briggs does a lot of pushing often before the ball is in the contest and reminds me of Nankervis, neither can jump like our man but like to make contact early and then stand their ground and use their strength.
I wouldnt be rushing to pick Pittonet this week either just based on that game....

If Charlie was actually competitive with his opponent we would have won.

If Charlie was actually competitive with his opponent we would have won.

English got concussed, so won't be him.

I'd rest TDK and let Pitto have his way.

Ok...might be Lobb and Darcy jr rucking, that would suit us.
Wasnt Naughton who was concussed? or both?

Our backline has lacked flexibility since we lost Jones and Young has failed to take over his role.

Opposition teams KPFs are getting bulkier and taller and when we have the combination of our midfield having an off day and Weitering playing below par because of injury our defence weaknesses are exposed.

Unfortunately the VFL cupboard is empty and we look likely to be going into the finals hoping that we can avoid injuries, otherwise we are in for a lot of pain.

Ok...might be Lobb and Darcy jr rucking, that would suit us.
Wasnt Naughton who was concussed? or both?

We should of put Charlie down back.

I called that during the game.

He was doing it at the start and middle of the year.....for some reason he isn't doing it now.

I think Lods said he might be injured, and for his sake, i hope he is because that was his worst game for the year....and his lack of efforts in chasing were at an all time high IMO.

I called that during the game.

He was doing it at the start and middle of the year.....for some reason he isn't doing it now.

I think Lods said he might be injured, and for his sake, i hope he is because that was his worst game for the year....and his lack of efforts in chasing were at an all time high IMO.

10 of our starting 22 were more than 30% down on their average rankings. The Giants only had 2.

Does the Toby Greene “studs up” rule apply to all players or just Toby?

Fun fact.

The last 11 grand final winners come from 7 teams and only 1 of them is in the 8 right now. (Tigers, Pies, Cats, Dees, Dogs, Eagles and Hawks)

You talking about Hogan?

I'm tipping with all the stats you have that you are related to Bruce McAveney...lol.

We should of put Charlie down back.

Does the Toby Greene “studs up” rule apply to all players or just Toby?

I noticed Darcy Moore put his knee away on Friday night.

He's not a fool, he knows how reactive the AFL can be, and by the AFL I mean Christian's MRO.

I think he's a good guy and would be mortified at the injuries he has caused.

Weitering doesn't need Lewis Young in the side but he provides us more flexibility if weiters goes down, as the others couldn't stop Hogan yesterday and he's not the biggest forward going around he's just capable.

All of it are fair points, but last night we could have played pittonet or Lewis Young instead of orazio, cotters, cincotta, and we likely lose little run out of it.  Maybe not both, but I think we need to consider that a bit. 

I think he's a good guy and would be mortified at the injuries he has caused.

I think he's a good guy and would be mortified at the injuries he has caused.

Hindsight is handy but I would have had Pitto, Hewett and Owies in the 22 for Cotters, O Hollands and Fantasia.

Briggs needs a bullocking opponent crashing into him to reduce his influence and the absence of De Koning and the hobbling Weiters wouldn't have been so critical.

For me it's not so much about whether Weiters and TDK were effective after being injured, I think they did OK given the circumstance, but you could see even when we got the run on mid way through the 1st Qtr that GWS was gathering momentum, they just wasted opportunities and we made the most of them.

After TDK and Weiters worked their way back into the game, it was from a starting point too far back, I thought the signs were better late in the 3rd, but GWS were running down hill and we were trying to slam on the brakes.

Don't give the opposition a millimetre, not even for a split second, if you do then you will eventually regret it. Given our history of close games in recent seasons we should know this better than most.

Weitering wasn't even playing on Hogan at the start, not sure how they thought Kemp could handle him.

Weitering wasn't even playing on Hogan at the start, not sure how they thought Kemp could handle him.

On reflection and in (the always clever) hindsight.

Cottrell coming in after a long lay off. Underdone. Passenger.
Owies as the sub. Wrong. Loss of an effective small forward with flair and attitude.
Dropping Hewett. Wrong. Loss of dependable hard-nut.
Cincotta starting outside the centre bounce... terrible decision in light of Coniglio doing much of his damage at the centre bounce.
(Was the MC also imbibing bath water?)


Understand we have a team balance thing, but that needs be a bit more flexible and imaginative. In light of Weiters carrying a corkie, why not throw him to FF and Charles down back (to get him into the game, FFS). Why not throw Ollie into a lockdown defensive role and move Boyd up into the action? Why not put Cincotta in the middle on Coniglio or Green and Walsh outside the square - give Walshies minder something to think about. The attitude that saw Williams go forward and Cincotta as a run-with shouldn't be the end of creativity.

A few of us have mentioned the same thing in a more specific way.

But.....
Can anyone remember a single move Voss made for the night?

Was ANYONE tried in a different position?

Coaches' votes. A bit harsh IMO.

10 Jesse Hogan (GWS)
4 Kieren Briggs (GWS)
4 Callan Ward (GWS)
4 Patrick Cripps (CARL)
4 Jack Buckley (GWS)
4 Brent Daniels (GWS)

Hogan was definitely the best.

But he and Harry both kicked 5.

What happened to H? We lost by 2 goals, not 20.

It irks me to see Hogan kicking goals. On a fit Weitering, he'd be lucky to get 2.

A few of us have mentioned the same thing in a more specific way.

But.....
Can anyone remember a single move Voss made for the night?

Was ANYONE tried in a different position?

Do coaches make significant positional moves these days … apart from Mitchell moving Hardwick into defence and losing to Port?

Our last quarter showed that we had the structure right.  It was more a case of players not contributing, perhaps because they were over confident after the first quarter, than a lack of positional moves.

If there’s any criticism of our coaching group, it should be focused on the messaging provided at quarter and half time.

For the life of me.i can't work out why Charlie didn't swing into defence. He's saved the day a few times doing that. Vossy has said he has a license to do it as he sees fit. WTF were we waiting for?

Charlie has a full 3rd of the ground in which he can roam and still stay within goal range, it's enough.

Sending Charlie Curnow to the other end of the ground out of range of goal is a win for the opposition.

Moves are of any value if they are stupid.

There was a 75 point turnaround or something like that.
I get that coaches rarely.make.moves  nowadays but f*** me, surely you try something before it gets to that stage! To not do so is just sadistic.

For the life of me.i can't work out why Charlie didn't swing into defence. He's saved the day a few times doing that. Vossy has said he has a license to do it as he sees fit. WTF were we waiting for?

Go back and watch some.games from the first third of the season and come back here and say that again with a straight face.

A few of us have mentioned the same thing in a more specific way.

But.....
Can anyone remember a single move Voss made for the night?

Was ANYONE tried in a different position?

The injury sub is supposed to be just that, to cover injury. The whole supersub coming ont he last quarter and turning games is fantasy, it has hardly happened.

Considering we can cover every player but Weitering and our one ruck, the sub should be Young.

The injury sub is supposed to be just that, to cover injury. The whole supersub coming ont he last quarter and turning games is fantasy, it has hardly happened.

Considering we can cover every player but Weitering and our one ruck, the sub should be Young.

Charlie has gone back numerous times when we have been behind and under seige.

We didn't need anyone behind the ball in the last, and we ran over GWS despite them subbing off Aleer for another running type.

The problem wasn't in our D50, and moving Charlie would have weakened one of our strengths while doing little to boost our defence.

When Charlie floats back in games, our intent isn't to score, it's to defend a lead. If we move Charlie back sometime in the 2nd-Qtr, we are moving forward with a greatly diminished scoring potential.

If it was to be a shootout, we had to start scoring, we did but it was a Qtr too late!

To really put the icining on the cake, the Saints just rolled the Swans, had we have won last nite we would have been just one game off top spot.  >:D

TDK got some clearances and was handy around the ground but Briggs made sure he didnt dominate like we need him to and won the hitouts easily.
I think TDK will appreciate playing on English this week from the WB who is less of the push and shove type ruck and more the athletic type similar to himself. Briggs does a lot of pushing often before the ball is in the contest and reminds me of Nankervis, neither can jump like our man but like to make contact early and then stand their ground and use their strength.
I wouldnt be rushing to pick Pittonet this week either just based on that game....

The dying moments of a game when defending a lead holds no relevance to needing to score goals in the second quarter.

Really, how does that happen under the 6-6-6 rule?

I'd assert in general play he has the opportunity to float back, but when an opponent is scoring from fast breaks or rebound it hasn't happened, because of the reset.

Further, if we moved him back while we were behind, that is to start in D50, we've just robbed Peter to pay Paul. That would be almost as bad as taking the bloke who just kicked your first couple of goals and sending him off the field or up the field to ruck! :o

Go back and watch some.games from the first third of the season and come back here and say that again with a straight face.

The injury sub is supposed to be just that, to cover injury. The whole supersub coming ont he last quarter and turning games is fantasy, it has hardly happened.

Considering we can cover every player but Weitering and our one ruck, the sub should be Young.

Reading over in the Ruck Debate thread and elsewhere, I guess I have a different take on the game. I think GWS played the first quarter displaying the indifferent form of their last several weeks, then something happened at q time, and they played out of their skins for the next 2. I doubt any team would've stopped them in that time period. Whilst it's absolutely possible, personally I didn't notice any arrogance, slackness, cockiness, bath water, Kool Aid or anything else. GWS' numbers were up in several categories, and ours were down. They laid 26 tackles I50, which is an absurd number.

I think part of the imbibing happened at the MC meeting.
That filtered down to the playing group somewhat, albeit subconsciously.

As far as Charlie heading or being sent down back to stem the flow, I’m not sure if he was able, Ol mate on fb has been saying all week that Charlie’s been managing an ankle for the last couple of weeks.
If true it may explain why he stayed forward and the lack of 2nd efforts.

Reading over in the Ruck Debate thread and elsewhere, I guess I have a different take on the game. I think GWS played the first quarter displaying the indifferent form of their last several weeks, then something happened at q time, and they played out of their skins for the next 2. I doubt any team would've stopped them in that time period. Whilst it's absolutely possible, personally I didn't notice any arrogance, slackness, cockiness, bath water, Kool Aid or anything else. GWS' numbers were up in several categories, and ours were down. They laid 26 tackles I50, which is an absurd number.

As far as Charlie heading or being sent down back to stem the flow, I’m not sure if he was able, Ol mate on fb has been saying all week that Charlie’s been managing an ankle for the last couple of weeks.
If true it may explain why he stayed forward and the lack of 2nd efforts.