First game in 2017 where I thought to myself we kept the right ruckman. Cracker by Nainsmith.
First game in 2017 where I thought to myself we kept the right ruckman. Cracker by Nainsmith.
Only 20,000 turned up. Thats like a giants crowd !
Obligatory xkcd reference:
xkcd: Lunch Order
I loved the effort last night, if there was a let down it was a few skill errors but even then heads never dropped and we had great 2nd and 3rd efforts. I love watching Naismith's ruckwork, so many times tapping to our players or open space to run into really is the best at his craft on our list. Tippett can stay in the NEAFL for a while, if we want him playing key forward in the seniors he needs to be in that position in the NEAFL not rucking.
All around a fantastic game to watch. Missing the 8 this year is no big deal, we can get games and form into our young players and build to next year.
The only 2 I wouldn't mind coming in for next game are Rohan (if fit) and Aliir (hopefully has a good game on the weekend) but who do you drop? Better to reward a great team performance by going unchanged into next game
Really happy with Naismith game.
Many times i saw (on tv) a big tackle or someone on the ground feeding the ball out and realised it was Sam.
Incredible effort from the big man
Now to do it consistently
Noticed that with 4 umpires that they often found themselves in the middle of the play. Players had to dodge them more often than usual. Seriously, how many umpires do we need. Can anyone tell me why we now have 4 field umpires?
Great game, big effort, the only blight was the goal kicking, that stuff usually comes back to bite us
very impressed with BOTH ruckmen against bullies
forgotten 1996
2005 a much sweeter memory,2012 even better
There doesn't appear to be a lot of consensus here.
Some people say we changed the game plan and it was better. Others say that the game plan was the same but we executed better and were harder/had better intensity. If the former is true, it shows the coaches can be flexible. If the latter is true it suggests that the coaches are not necessarily to blame for our worse performances and that our game plan is good enough. Either way I think this performance reflected well on our coaching staff.
Some people say we played skilfully, others not so much. Either way, we definitely played better. Personally I can't pinpoint the difference and would love to see a replay. I thought we tried hard against the Hawks. However in this game we were more effective and I'm not sure why that was. I kept thinking during the game (and afterwards) that the Bulldogs were insipid and I would have been very disappointed in them if I was a Dogs' fan. Barely any of them stood out. But I think we, and our pressure, had a lot to do with that. When we're good, we're good. Now let us be good next week.
I disagree with barry, Sinclair had a good game. And I witnessed the effort he was putting in which was really pleasing. What's more, Sinkers has been good for a few weeks now. What was more surprising was how good Naismith was. I didn't expect him to play so strongly first game back but he was great. Made me feel we have kept the right ruck because he is a good pure ruckman with his great height. Now Sinclair, Tippo and Cameron are all fighting for that 2nd ruck/forward spot, so long as Naismith stays healthy and in form. I am happy to be playing two rucks provided they are both offering more than just hit outs. Naismith shows great potential to be a good main ruck. And a strong ruck-forward is something every team can benefit from. However this is why, longer term I am not too sure about Sinclair because I think both Tippett and Cameron have the potential to be better forwards when they play well. However Tippett is getting older and has seriously become expendable given his price tag.
I didn't have an overall sense of Towers' game and would love to review it. I noticed him do a couple of nice things but didn't take in his entire performance - so I'm glad others have pointed it out.
Bookmarks