Later in the game , Johnson tried to suck Buddy in, who didn't not retaliate, but nor was he sucked in.
Later in the game , Johnson tried to suck Buddy in, who didn't not retaliate, but nor was he sucked in.
I'm not taking particular issue with you personally here, but I find "Stevie J" one of the most overrated players in the comp. He is pumped up in the media as a player with "skills" but his disposal actions are on par with Pykey (exaggeration included above). He can barely kick a straight ball, and a lot of his disposals are floaters. If he isn't kicking around the corner, he can barely hit a target. Where his greatest strength is, however, is his risk taking. He takes the game on and rolls the dice, and he's had the players around him to make his risky play look a million dollars; making his "vision" seem impeccable. If he pulled half the stuff he did at a club like the Dees, he would be named and shamed on a weekly basis.
I wonder if, in fact, he has so many carry over points (excuse me if that has been made redundant, I don't really keep up on the weekly crapshoot that is the MRP) that if he was charged he would've been up for about four weeks. And that is where that indiscretion (read dog act) doesn't really deserve four weeks.
C'mon Chels!
The blow to Mcveigh kept him out of the next play, which allowed Johnson to score a goal. So clearly, there is a level of force that impacted on a player's ability to participate in the game. Isn't that a fair threshold for disciplinary action.? Oh, it's a Victorian team against Sydney. The threshold for action has to be "our corruption would be undeniably evident to the whole world" level. (Way above certainty, beyond reasonable doubt or comfortable satisfaction).
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Bookmarks