Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

[Eastdog]

This is the round 7, 2017 edition of the Weekly Bankers and Anchors Thread. Once the game against Richmond is concluded post your nominations for:

The Bankers = 3 guys/aspects of the game that we banked on to do the right thing during the game
The Anchors = 3 guys/aspects of the game that weighed us down by their errors or poor play

Optional: New addition to the Bankers and Anchors Banchors 3 players we thought who were in the middle in how they went in the game neither a Banker or Anchor.

Please limit it to no more than three of each player or aspect of the game, but feel free to make honourable/dishonourable mentions. As usual try to make it constructive criticism.

Try and restrict it to individual players rather than aspects of the overall match - I will allow more freedom now as the thread seems to be going down more of the aspects of the game path so you can have 3 for each made up of aspects of the game and individual players.

The thread is named in honour of a popular WOOF Contributor, The Banker, who passed away on 22/04/2012 after a six month battle with cancer.

[GVGjr]

Bump

[bulldogtragic]

B

Bonts. When he retires our home venue will be the VU Bontempelli Oval
Tom Boyd. Dominated the ruck, as he should against those 'rucks'.
Clay Smith. Four goals in a close match. An alright return.

A

Match Committee, Bevo &/or their communication. If you want Tom Boyd as a forward, play a second ruck.
Injuries. Again.
Giving up a 32 point lead. Again. Again. Again.

[EasternWest]

B

Caleb Daniel was super tonight. Consistently good ball use, especially in a period when we weren't using it well.

Jack Macrae plucked the ball in the centre and ducked a tackle and fired a laser handpass to Bont. It was sublime.

Adams is really developing well. Super clunk at the end that killed the game.

A

Beveridge had his first real coaching howler IMO. I don't mind that he tried the small ruck thing, but he let it go on for too long.

Injuries. FFS.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Bankers

Bontempelli - I've seen some champions for the Dogs over 38 years, but none, and I mean none inhabit the realm that Marcus lives in. He's almost more than a once in a generation player.
Bailey Williams - this kid just needs to play more games of football. He's a gem. The position and role he plays means he will make mistakes. But he's almost the re-signing we most need to happen this year, marginally behind JJ.
The ability of our coaching team to not only change tactics but also our 22 players to be able to take in and adopt those tactical changes.

Anchors
Our tactical decision to go small in the ruck as a second change. It nearly cost us tonight.
Matty Boyd - I hope I am proved wrong for posting during our poorest of moments tonight that he was cooked. But gees he was as bad as I've seen in 3 years tonight.
Dunkley He's going to play 200 games, hopefully all for us, and I am really saddened by his injury. However he really needs to improve his ball use.

**** Murph was almost my 3rd banker, saved by at least his impetus in taking the game on.
Hunter's 4th Qtr was fantastic, but his preceding 3 Qtrs stank like a stale fart in an elevator.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

B

Caleb Daniel was super tonight. Consistently good ball use, especially in a period when we weren't using it well.

Jack Macrae plucked the ball in the centre and ducked a tackle and fired a laser handpass to Bont. It was sublime.

Adams is really developing well. Super clunk at the end that killed the game.

A

Beveridge had his first real coaching howler IMO. I don't mind that he tried the small ruck thing, but he let it go on for too long.

Injuries. FFS.

Love your list, with the exception of your last. Yep, the small ruck was a mistake. But I reckon, and perhaps the scoreline reflects it, he and the coaching staff pulled the trigger to change that at the same time. I reckon that under Eade and McCartney, whilst eventually we may have made the eventual change required, it would not have had the same effect. We clearly have a coaching team that is able to impart tactical changes within games, and have the players take it on board to critical effect. Yes, the decision to go small in the ruck for chunks of the game was wrong. They adjusted, the players did too, and everyone adjusted accordingly.

[EasternWest]

Love your list, with the exception of your last. Yep, the small ruck was a mistake. But I reckon, and perhaps the scoreline reflects it, he and the coaching staff pulled the trigger to change that at the same time. I reckon that under Eade and McCartney, whilst eventually we may have made the eventual change required, it would not have had the same effect. We clearly have a coaching team that is able to impart tactical changes within games, and have the players take it on board to critical effect. Yes, the decision to go small in the ruck for chunks of the game was wrong. They adjusted, the players did too, and everyone adjusted accordingly.

Fair enough.

Oddly enough the small ruck thing worked ok late in the fourth when Boyd needed a rest.

[The Underdog]

B

Bonts. When he retires our home venue will be the VU Bontempelli Oval
Tom Boyd. Dominated the ruck, as he should against those 'rucks'.
Clay Smith. Four goals in a close match. An alright return.

A

Match Committee, Bevo &/or their communication. If you want Tom Boyd as a forward, play a second ruck.
Injuries. Again.
Giving up a 32 point lead. Again. Again. Again.

In what way did Boyd dominate the ruck? Not saying he was bad but If anything our mids were roving to Soldo.

[bulldogtragic]

In what way did Boyd dominate the ruck? Not saying he was bad but If anything our mids were roving to Soldo.

I thought he changed the complexion of the game when he went back in. Sure Soldo got taps, Boyd got more taps to advantage as well as having career best possessions and hit outs. Some of his in close handballing was outstanding, and even his hit out, collection of same, clearance and inside 50 pass to Dahl to start the fourth was leading by example about dropping the eyes and not blazing away. He looked to have taken a one handed dazzler too which, if he kicked, might've iced the game. And he generally does all that without getting frees (for some reason).

Or that's how I saw it.

[EasternWest]

I thought he changed the complexion of the game when he went back in. Sure Soldo got taps, Boyd got more taps to advantage as well as having career best possessions and hit outs. Some of his in close handballing was outstanding, and even his hit out, collection of same, clearance and inside 50 pass to Dahl to start the fourth was leading by example about dropping the eyes and not blazing away. He looked to have taken a one handed dazzler too which, if he kicked, might've iced the game. And he generally does all that without getting frees (for some reason).

Or that's how I saw it.

Me too.

[bornadog]

Bankers

1. Adams - good forward and good back.
2. Dahl - gives 200%, exhausted after the game
3. Pickens effort in the 3rd - there was a sequence where he was in the backline throwing himself at the ball, then he is on the wing doing it again. His efforts led to a goal.

Anchors

1. Some shocking handballs at times that just turned over the ball.

2. Injuries - why oh why we seem to get the bad ones.

[Remi Moses]

Bankers - Marcus Adams was our best player in that first half
- The Bont steps up when our club needs him most. What a wonderful young leader.
- Sharking solo mans hit outs . Gotta say getting however more tapouts means SFA if the opposition win clearances.
Anchors - our starts . We've won one first term!! Gotta get better from the off
- the complete disconnect and haphazard forward entries . It was schoolboy standard that first half .
- the goalkicking ( come on fellas )

[always right]

B
In a game where our ball use was ordinary, Caleb stood out with his quality.
Lin Jong dragged us into the game when we were struggling.
Liked how TBoyd imposed himself when moved back into the ruck.

A
Rucking Dunkley and Jong is rediculous. They are going to get seriously hurt if it continues. One big knee is going to break their ribs.
Had Clay Smith as an anchor in the first half......he redeemed himself in the second half.
No free kick or mark paid to TBoyd in front of goal in the last five minutes. WTF?

[macca]

Can someone clarify how the mark rule is interrupted on that one ?
T.boyd gets first one hand ball falls forwRd in air and another Richmond player touches it and tTom gets it in second attempt with a lovely twist. ON first sight it looked like a good mark , but replay showed Richmond player may got a fair bit of it and tom not in control of the first touch.

[Doc26]

B
In a game where our ball use was ordinary, Caleb stood out with his quality.
Lin Jong dragged us into the game when we were struggling.
Liked how TBoyd imposed himself when moved back into the ruck.

A
Rucking Dunkley and Jong is rediculous. They are going to get seriously hurt if it continues. One big knee is going to break their ribs.
Had Clay Smith as an anchor in the first half......he redeemed himself in the second half.
No free kick or mark paid to TBoyd in front of goal in the last five minutes. WTF?

I like your list although I did feel that Grimes did get the second touch with the TBoyd mark that you refer to.
Lin did work very hard around the midfield contests when the Tigers had the ascendancy.

[Doc26]

Can someone clarify how the mark rule is interrupted on that one ?
T.boyd gets first one hand ball falls forwRd in air and another Richmond player touches it and tTom gets it in second attempt with a lovely twist. ON first sight it looked like a good mark , but replay showed Richmond player may got a fair bit of it and tom not in cit Byron on the first touch.

I agree that at first sight it appeared a good grab by TBoyd. On this occasion the umpire made a good call given Grimes made the second touch without Boydy's hand on the ball.

[always right]

I like your list although I did feel that Grimes did get the second touch with the TBoyd mark that you refer to.
Lin did work very hard around the midfield contests when the Tigers had the ascendancy.

Haven't seen the replay of the Boyd mark. Watching live I though his opponent held him by the arm anyway.

[westbulldog]

B
Adams - if he keeps up this form he will be invaluable.
Dalhaus - has to be leading the B & F at this stage.
Murphy - crucial possessions when it counted

allow me a fourth - Toby Greene sulking in the stand watching the plastics get whacked.

A
Inaccuracy
Injuries
Slow starts

[macca]

1.Adams second goal and mark with 20 sec to go wonderful contested mark
2. . Some of the handballs in congestion by Bonts was breathtaking his little on the ground kick in last quarter was amazing . Martin is a beast and how he beat wood and Zaine in the duel in the last quarter was man possessed

3. Dalhaus- tries his heart out and he was everywhere
4. Daniel: gee he took some good overhead marks in the last. Knows how to find the ball and get though the congestion .
5. Manic pressure is back . HArdwick acknowledged that in press conference

Interesting post match conference Bevo answering : Boyd is a ruckman who can play forward.
We need to get more games into Williams , he can play , nice size and needs to take the first option. LUcky to get that free in the last when he turned into the tackle. He missed the first handball option.

Was fletcher moved foward in last few minutes?
anchor:
1. Injuries: is it time to bring back the sub player? Not only our games but teams are Losing players to injuries every game. Stringer and Vlaustin. Adam Kennedy went down with knee injury in first quarter . We lost players to impact injuries :picken to concussion , Lina and Cloke . Pace of game is very fast and high impact

2. Umpires- missed a few high ones in the last but will take the dumb riewold frees in the last

[Eastdog]

Bankers

Clay Smith - Kicked some good goals

Easton Wood - Took some fantastic marks in defence

Marcus Adams - Critical initially with him being up there but he did good took some marks and kicked goals


Anchors

Hunter - Gets a lot of it and involved but not so good with the efficiency

Giving the opposition an early jump on us in the 1st quarter

Some of our turnovers very frustrating

[hujsh]

Can someone clarify how the mark rule is interrupted on that one ?
T.boyd gets first one hand ball falls forwRd in air and another Richmond player touches it and tTom gets it in second attempt with a lovely twist. ON first sight it looked like a good mark , but replay showed Richmond player may got a fair bit of it and tom not in control of the first touch.

Both Boyd and the Richmond player touched the ball at the same time on the second Boyd touch. Technically not a mark but usually would be paid.

[Danny the snakeman]

Both Boyd and the Richmond player touched the ball at the same time on the second Boyd touch. Technically not a mark but usually would be paid.

I would not of said at same time, Rich guy had clear 2nd touch.

[merantau]

Bankers
1. When the whips were cracking we didn't crack.
2. Bontempelli - the Real McCoy
3. Adams - very good game

Anchors
1. Goal kicking - Dicko we need you
2. Kicking inside 50 - very sloppy
3. My jangled nervous system - that late Richmond goal took years off my life.

[The Underdog]

I would not of said at same time, Rich guy had clear 2nd touch.

The same ruling worked in our favour in the GF so I'm happy to cop this one

[SonofScray]

Banker:
1. Caleb Daniel's composed use of the ball through the middle and his ability to work in incredibly congested spaces. He is the Ant Man.

2. Handballing through traffic late. Boyd and Bont cut them to ribbons when we had to press the pace.

3. Marcus Adams. Some great moments in the game. Probably the match winner in the end.

Anchors:

Boyd's 1st shot. OOTF.
DAHL's kicking inside 50
Slow start

[bornadog]

Haven't seen the replay of the Boyd mark. Watching live I though his opponent held him by the arm anyway.

Typical Rance holding his opponent. Gets away with it every week. Should have been a free kick.

[bornadog]

2. Umpires- missed a few high ones in the last but will take the dumb riewold frees in the last

I thought he let his team down giving away at least three silly frees by trying to take spectacular marks when he went up early.

[Ozza]

Bankers

Bontempelli - I've seen some champions for the Dogs over 38 years, but none, and I mean none inhabit the realm that Marcus lives in. He's almost more than a once in a generation player.
Bailey Williams - this kid just needs to play more games of football. He's a gem. The position and role he plays means he will make mistakes. But he's almost the re-signing we most need to happen this year, marginally behind JJ.
The ability of our coaching team to not only change tactics but also our 22 players to be able to take in and adopt those tactical changes.

Anchors
Our tactical decision to go small in the ruck as a second change. It nearly cost us tonight.
Matty Boyd - I hope I am proved wrong for posting during our poorest of moments tonight that he was cooked. But gees he was as bad as I've seen in 3 years tonight.
Dunkley He's going to play 200 games, hopefully all for us, and I am really saddened by his injury. However he really needs to improve his ball use.

**** Murph was almost my 3rd banker, saved by at least his impetus in taking the game on.
Hunter's 4th Qtr was fantastic, but his preceding 3 Qtrs stank like a stale fart in an elevator.

Interested in your comments on Matthew Boyd YHF.
I'm curious as to whether you watched the game live, or on TV?

[dukedog]

Both Boyd and the Richmond player touched the ball at the same time on the second Boyd touch. Technically not a mark but usually would be paid.

I believe a couple of weeks ago. Cameron ling said live on tv that 'he had enough of it for mine.' Cordy actually got first punch on the ball. Ling still said it was good enough. My interpretation of the mark rule is that if u get first hands and finish it there after its a mark. I think even players past and present are unsure. Boyds was a clear mark. Someone tell me in past years where it wouldnt have been payed. AFEL making a mockery of rules this year. Dont even get me started on the 'intent rule' deliberate our of bounds. Richo and darce said someone gained an extra 30m on a kick. Well why comment on that when a guy can kick out of mid air 50m or fumble the ball over the line and be pinged. Absolute joke. Just make the rule last to touch it and be done with it. Its too hard to adjudicate as it is now.

[Ozza]

How would Boyd's be a mark if the Richmond player touched it second?

Correct call was made. Sorry.

[dukedog]

Lol. Amazement

[dukedog]

Looked up the rule. No one can touch it. Clearly hasnt been like that for 30 years

[Twodogs]

The same ruling worked in our favour in the GF so I'm happy to cop this one

Yep. That's play in for everybody but a GWS player. They get all sorts of mystical gifts from the umpires. Not that the AFL are desperate for em to succeed or anything.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Interested in your comments on Matthew Boyd YHF.
I'm curious as to whether you watched the game live, or on TV?

TV. I'm Brisbane based. No denying he still has great fitness, but he seemed a liability in many situations last nihht. His going to ground in the two on one we had with Dustin Martin late was nearly catastrophic.

[Ozza]

http://www.aflrules.com.au/afl-game-rules/part-d-pre-match-provisions/afl-rules-marking-the-football/

[GVGjr]

How would Boyd's be a mark if the Richmond player touched it second?

Correct call was made. Sorry.

Yep, looking at the replay he didn't have a clean mark

[Go_Dogs]

No free kick or mark paid to TBoyd in front of goal in the last five minutes. WTF?

Absolute shocker. Had to be a mark or a free.

He was held and could only extend one arm to mark.

[Ozza]

TV. I'm Brisbane based. No denying he still has great fitness, but he seemed a liability in many situations last nihht. His going to ground in the two on one we had with Dustin Martin late was nearly catastrophic.

Ok, reason I was asking was that I think there was plenty Boyd did that wouldn't be picked up on TV (in the same way that I'm sure players like Dahlhaus could be appreciated more on tv because its easy to miss the players under the packs etc at the ground).

I really rated Boyd's game last night because of his defensive positioning. There were countless times that I thought he made the right decision on which Richmond player to close down - and particularly in the second half - he was instrumental in halting Richmond's ball movement.

In regards to the Dustin Martin play, Easton Wood was most at fault there. Boyd originally competed with Martin in the marking contest and then Wood didn't take the first option to give it back over to Boyd - then he failed to protect the space in front of him so that Boyd could pick up the ball and Martin slid in from behind Boyd. I don't think Wood will enjoy seeing that back in the review.

I'll watch the game back during the week and see how he looked on TV, but I really thought Matt Boyd stood up for us in defence.

[comrade]

Boyd just can't chase anymore. There was a passage when Richmond were streaming forward and he just gave up the chase, thinking his involvement was over. Richmond then stuffed the next disposal up, but because Boyd was out of the contest, he couldn't impact it.

He still has value, but it is diminishing.

[dukedog]

http://www.aflrules.com.au/afl-game-rules/part-d-pre-match-provisions/afl-rules-marking-the-football/

Rules state. Caught or controlled. So controlled is caught. Why have controlled when u can just have caught? Sending me a link of that garbage is just that. Umpires adjudication of the rule is nothing but a joke. So really. The rule is interpretation at the time. Which means. Its 50/50 at best. Id say they pay that more often than not. My opinion as a spectator. Keep throwing me links mate. For laughs. ;)

[bulldogtragic]

The only interesting thing of the non paid mark (and non free kick) was the commentary/ramblings of Ling. All year I've heard 'he had enough of it for mine' and 'I've seen worse paid before' and 'they should really be paid'. But on Tom's, it was 'the correct call the umpire' (for at best a slight touch & at best nanoseconds in duration).

Make of it what you will.

[comrade]

Ling is a Bulldog hater. No doubt it stems from his relationship with Chris Scott, who has an unhealthy obsession with Bevo.

[bornadog]

Rules state. Caught or controlled. So controlled is caught. Why have controlled when u can just have caught? Sending me a link of that garbage is just that. Umpires adjudication of the rule is nothing but a joke. So really. The rule is interpretation at the time. Which means. Its 50/50 at best. Id say they pay that more often than not. My opinion as a spectator. Keep throwing me links mate. For laughs. ;)


The only interesting thing of the non paid mark (and non free kick) was the commentary/ramblings of Ling. All year I've heard 'he had enough of it for mine' and 'I've seen worse paid before' and 'they should really be paid'. But on Tom's, it was 'the correct call the umpire' (for at best a slight touch & at best nanoseconds in duration).

Make of it what you will.

At the ground it looked like a mark as well as a free to Boyd, however, watching the replay this morning, clear tap by Richmond player before Boyd grabbed again, plus there was no free kick there, minimal hold of arm. Boyd should have had both hands on the ball.

[Ozza]

Rules state. Caught or controlled. So controlled is caught. Why have controlled when u can just have caught? Sending me a link of that garbage is just that. Umpires adjudication of the rule is nothing but a joke. So really. The rule is interpretation at the time. Which means. Its 50/50 at best. Id say they pay that more often than not. My opinion as a spectator. Keep throwing me links mate. For laughs. ;)

I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at and why you seem to be angry about it.
The rule clearly states that if another player touches it, then its not a mark. That's what happened, so its clearly not a mark and hasn't ever been a mark.

I do think that technically Boyd should have gotten a free kick for Cotchin holding Boyd's arm, although would have been a very soft free kick as the hold was only for a split second.

[Ozza]

Ling is a Bulldog hater. No doubt it stems from his relationship with Chris Scott, who has an unhealthy obsession with Bevo.

What is the Bevo/Chris Scott issue?

[comrade]

What is the Bevo/Chris Scott issue?

He is quite passive aggressive when talking about the Bulldogs on AFL 360, and it's obvious the fawning over Bevo the super coach annoys him. I guess the fact Bevo's never beaten Geelong plays into it.

[Ozza]

The only interesting thing of the non paid mark (and non free kick) was the commentary/ramblings of Ling. All year I've heard 'he had enough of it for mine' and 'I've seen worse paid before' and 'they should really be paid'. But on Tom's, it was 'the correct call the umpire' (for at best a slight touch & at best nanoseconds in duration).

Make of it what you will.

The 'he had enough of it for mine' regarding Darcy Moore was a rubbish comment - and Ling is a bulldog hater for sure.
But it was Darcy that said it was the correct call (he actually said "Great Call")...and it was the correct call.

[Ozza]

He is quite passive aggressive when talking about the Bulldogs on AFL 360, and it's obvious the fawning over Bevo the super coach annoys him. I guess the fact Bevo's never beaten Geelong plays into it.

I wonder if Bevo's quite amusing "oh we got lucky because of the bye didn't we" comment in the post game presser was directed at Chris Scott amongst others!

[comrade]

I wonder if Bevo's quite amusing "oh we got lucky because of the bye didn't we" comment in the post game presser was directed at Chris Scott amongst others!

Yeah, I'm sure it was.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Ok, reason I was asking was that I think there was plenty Boyd did that wouldn't be picked up on TV (in the same way that I'm sure players like Dahlhaus could be appreciated more on tv because its easy to miss the players under the packs etc at the ground).

I really rated Boyd's game last night because of his defensive positioning. There were countless times that I thought he made the right decision on which Richmond player to close down - and particularly in the second half - he was instrumental in halting Richmond's ball movement.

In regards to the Dustin Martin play, Easton Wood was most at fault there. Boyd originally competed with Martin in the marking contest and then Wood didn't take the first option to give it back over to Boyd - then he failed to protect the space in front of him so that Boyd could pick up the ball and Martin slid in from behind Boyd. I don't think Wood will enjoy seeing that back in the review.

I'll watch the game back during the week and see how he looked on TV, but I really thought Matt Boyd stood up for us in defence.

There is every chance viewing on the TV biased my pwrception somewhat. That and my already disgruntled feelings of the game for most of the night.
Maybe cooked was too harsh, but there were some passages of his play i didn't think were good enough.

[Doc26]

He is quite passive aggressive when talking about the Bulldogs on AFL 360, and it's obvious the fawning over Bevo the super coach annoys him. I guess the fact Bevo's never beaten Geelong plays into it.

Possibly also extends to the dominance of the Lions during Scott's tenure as a player. Funny all these years later and I still can't stand Alistair Lynch after his disrespectful 'choking' jibe at Scotty West. The sooner we can start a dominance over Geelong the better.

I'm also still a liitle bitter that it was Anthony Hudson calling our brilliant final moments in last year's GF. He's another that has annoyed the hell out of me over many years for giving us no credibility and very little positive air time.

[Webby]

Just a quick one:

Last night was our 11th largest home game crowd ever. Also the 8th largest at Docklands.
Only just pipped by the Hawthorn/Bob Murphy knee game last year as our biggest attendance since Collingwood in 2010 when we were both in the running for the flag.

Handy revenue.

[bulldogtragic]

Just a quick one:

Last night was our 11th largest home game crowd ever. Also the 8th largest at Docklands.
Only just pipped by the Hawthorn/Bob Murphy knee game last year as our biggest attendance since Collingwood in 2010 when we were both in the running for the flag.

Handy revenue.

Are we still under the old Etihad agreement? If so, I don't think we get much at all.

[always right]

I'm also still a liitle bitter that it was Anthony Hudson calling our brilliant final moments in last year's GF. He's another that has annoyed the hell out of me over many years for giving us no credibility and very little positive air time.

Don't mind Hudson as a commentator but he annoys me with his constant reference to "trademark Bulldogs handball".

[Bullies]

In what way did Boyd dominate the ruck? Not saying he was bad but If anything our mids were roving to Soldo. You obviously have not watched the game if you thought Boyd did dominate after 1/4 time.

[Bullies]

TV. I'm Brisbane based. No denying he still has great fitness, but he seemed a liability in many situations last nihht. His going to ground in the two on one we had with Dustin Martin late was nearly catastrophic. the club was hoping Matty Boyd would retire after the GF. The end comes quickly and he is looking extremely slow and the perfect example was when he kicked off the ground in hope when he had time to pick up and usually he would pick up and run off.

[comrade]

the club was hoping Matty Boyd would retire after the GF. The end comes quickly and he is looking extremely slow and the perfect example was when he kicked off the ground in hope when he had time to pick up and usually he would pick up and run off.

That was a woeful moment for Boydy. Showed little respect for his teammates and just wanted someone else to deal with the pressure.

[bornadog]

Possibly also extends to the dominance of the Lions during Scott's tenure as a player. Funny all these years later and I still can't stand Alistair Lynch after his disrespectful 'choking' jibe at Scotty West. The sooner we can start a dominance over Geelong the better.

Me too, just don't like the guy.

Last year playing GC, he kept on bagging us and saying we were having a dirty night, then suddenly we slammed on a whole lot of goals and just cantered to a win, but still no positives came from his mouth.

Scott Brothers - must be the coaches with the worse personalities in the AFL

[1eyedog]

Are we still under the old Etihad agreement? If so, I don't think we get much at all.

Even so +40k means cash come back our way.

[bulldogtragic]

Even so +40k means cash come back our way.

I thought in that deal we effectively cap our losses/gains around 20,000 - 25,000 attendees, so anything over the figure brings us no money. Hence last year Gordo said if you took a heap of our great attendance at Etihad and joined the revenue together, we still may hundreds of thousands more at Cairns in a single game.

Hopefully there's a new deal in place.

[boydogs]

I thought in that deal we effectively cap our losses/gains around 20,000 - 25,000 attendees, so anything over the figure brings us no money. Hence last year Gordo said if you took a heap of our great attendance at Etihad and joined the revenue together, we still may hundreds of thousands more at Cairns in a single game.

Hopefully there's a new deal in place.

You can't put an attendance number on it because of the variables in members/paid entry, level 1/2/3 etc. but 25,000 wouldn't be far off as a break-even point

[ratsmac]

Bankers

1. Daniel - he is back to his best skill wise. He has responded remarkably well since his dropping.
2. Tom Boyd - he played a pretty good game. He should've got a couple frees in front of goal which weren't paid which would of made his game even better. He has to start nailing his set shots though.
3. Adams - he had a few very important moments. I loved his long goal.

Banchor

1. Clay Smith - ordinary first half and great second half.

Anchors

1. Slow starts. Although we seem to pace ourselves well over 4 quarters and finish off games stronger than our opposition.
2. Suckling - a bit harsh but his shots on goal are un Suckling like. We need him to improve.
3. Injuries. They suck!

[Webby]

Are we still under the old Etihad agreement? If so, I don't think we get much at all.

The criticism of the old Etihad agreement was that, for Norf, Aints and us, it set a break-even point said to be 25k crowds. The reason for this is that Etihad's third party agreements rely strongly on bums on seats in order to sell beer & hot dogs etc.

It may have softened since, but nonetheless, that simply increases the below contrast:

In 2014, we played 10 home games at Etihad. In those games we averaged 23,517 attendees. In four of those games we achieved crowds of 18,054 or lower.

This was Gordon's argument: If you're going to host Gold Coast, draw 15k crowds and blow huge dough, you might as well take a deal to play at another venue in front of 8-10k for a profit. Pretty simple!?

Anyway, as I say, our Etihad home games in 2014 averaged 23.5k. In our three Etihad home games this year, we are averaging 40.3k
Still some work to do to keep that average up with WCE, Adelaide and GWS still to host, but with St Kilda, Melbourne, Norf & Essendon still to host, we should comfortably hit ~35k average crowds for the year.

So, with our old break even 25k, our average crowds of 23.5k in 2014 contrast starkly with my projected (& conservative) average of ~35k in 2017 and mean that the club are on much, much stronger footing.

Not to mention the sold out coteries, the eight new sponsors and the 43.8k members.

[bulldogtragic]

My understanding of the deal is that it provided insurance to us by factoring in crowd assumptions at 25,000, not a break even figure. My memory is that the deal factored in a set figure (about 25,000) to cover the risks of lower crowds, but then meant that higher crowds wouldn't count for full financial reward. Being that we couldn't guarantee more than those figures, we took a deal that limited losses, but limited returns. So we would get 25,000 worth of crowd for returns whether 15,000 or 45,000 turn up. Which is why the deal was so bad from a money making perspective (good to mitigate risk). We were bringing in huge crowds, but only getting the mediated figure. Which is what Gordo was saying that for all our huge crowds combined, we still make more money in Cairns with a small crowd. He wasnt talking about break evens in this context, but rather huge crowds don't make us money.

Big crowds are great for atmosphere and creating a buzz around the club. But if my memory of the deal mechanics is correct, there's no financial dividend whatsoever for anything over about 25,000. That's the imperative of renegotiating our deal now we can comfortably assume to have much higher average attendances and get a stronger return.

[hujsh]

How would Boyd's be a mark if the Richmond player touched it second?

Correct call was made. Sorry.

They clearly both touch it together which in any contested marking situation is paid.

Technically it is not a mark but lots of decisions are not paid as they technically should. If they were we'd still have a plague of hands in the back free kicks every game

[Danny the snakeman]

Looked up the rule. No one can touch it. Clearly hasnt been like that for 30 years

Alway been a rule, can't believe few people dont know that.

[Webby]

My understanding of the deal is that it provided insurance to us by factoring in crowd assumptions at 25,000, not a break even figure. My memory is that the deal factored in a set figure (about 25,000) to cover the risks of lower crowds, but then meant that higher crowds wouldn't count for full financial reward. Being that we couldn't guarantee more than those figures, we took a deal that limited losses, but limited returns. So we would get 25,000 worth of crowd for returns whether 15,000 or 45,000 turn up. Which is why the deal was so bad from a money making perspective (good to mitigate risk). We were bringing in huge crowds, but only getting the mediated figure. Which is what Gordo was saying

Yes that's true, but kind of the same thing. If we get 14k turn up against GC at Etihad, it's not like they sting us then and there. Meanwhile, if we get 45k turn up against Collingwood, it's not like they send us windfall cash then and there. It's a weighted average of all attendances over a season rather than a boom or bust. The break even average was said to be ~25k for a season.

Obviously as of three games this year, we're sitting on a 40.5k attendance average. Two of those three games were against interstate teams, as well. For season 2014, we averaged 23.5k.

What I'm saying is that, regardless of the model now in place (which is at least as good as the 2014 one), we are smashing it this year.

[bulldogtragic]

Yes that's true, but kind of the same thing. If we get 14k turn up against GC at Etihad, it's not like they sting us then and there. Meanwhile, if we get 45k turn up against Collingwood, it's not like they send us windfall cash then and there. It's a weighted average of all attendances over a season rather than a boom or bust. The break even average was said to be ~25k for a season.

Obviously as of three games this year, we're sitting on a 40.5k attendance average. Two of those three games were against interstate teams, as well. For season 2014, we averaged 23.5k.

What I'm saying is that, regardless of the model now in place (which is at least as good as the 2014 one), we are smashing it this year.

Good on the fans for turning out. Big crowds do help our requests for good time slots & sponsorship. It's great to see so many turning out.

[soupman]

Good on the fans for turning out. Big crowds do help our requests for good time slots & sponsorship. It's great to see so many turning out.

It has been good.

The last two years I have been continually frustrated with how poor our crowds have been despite our form. I can understand he drop off in the BMac years, but when we were still struggling to break 30,000 when we had clearly established we were both a good side and a good side to watch I was getting pissed of.

Turns out a premiership fixes that.

[Bulldog4life]

He is quite passive aggressive when talking about the Bulldogs on AFL 360, and it's obvious the fawning over Bevo the super coach annoys him. I guess the fact Bevo's never beaten Geelong plays into it.

I agree comrade. I remember an episode after the Grand Final when Scott and Buckley were asked if looking at the way Bevo interacts with his players, could they improve their way. The look of disdain on Scott's face was very noticeable.

[Bulldog4life]

Possibly also extends to the dominance of the Lions during Scott's tenure as a player. Funny all these years later and I still can't stand Alistair Lynch after his disrespectful 'choking' jibe at Scotty West. The sooner we can start a dominance over Geelong the better.

I'm also still a liitle bitter that it was Anthony Hudson calling our brilliant final moments in last year's GF. He's another that has annoyed the hell out of me over many years for giving us no credibility and very little positive air time.

Remember that clearly Doc and like you I think of it when I see Lynch

[I'm Not Bitter Anymore!]

Me too even though I am no longer bitter

[merantau]

I'm not a fan of either of the Scotts. One is first cousin to the Drover's Dog, the other carries on as if someone is always snatching his favorite bone away. They both do a fair bit of arm waving, a la Heath Shaw, jaw dropping and have mastered the art of the incredulous eye roll. Very unlikable pair.

[always right]

Chris Scott tries to present himself as some statesman-like figure when interviewed. We see the true version in the coaches box with his histrionics. Brad Scott seems to be constantly in defensive mode. Both are high on my list of unlikable nobs.

[Bulldog4life]

Chris Scott tries to present himself as some statesman-like figure when interviewed. We see the true version in the coaches box with his histrionics. Brad Scott seems to be constantly in defensive mode. Both are high on my list of unlikable nobs.

Yes full of self importance.