Bankers & Anchors: Rnd 12, 2022 vs Geelong

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

This is the Round 12, 2022 edition of the weekly Bankers and Anchors thread. Once the game against Geelong 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

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.

[westbulldog]

Bankers
Tom Liberatore, another standout game.
jack Macrae, puts in a top effort every week, every game.
Ed Richards improving a lot this year.


Anchors
Selection - we cannot continue to carry all of McNeill, Scott, McComb and Khamis, there is some effort there but collectively they are a negative.
Our forward coach, whoever it is, is not setting up the right structure or simply has NFI.
Duryea - unsighted.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Bankers

1. From the 2nd quarter on, Libba lit the fuse that got us going. He was superhuman at times.

2. Caleb Daniel was back to his creative best when under lots of pressure and was critical to us moving the ball smarter from the 2nd Qtr.

3. The way the team, and especially those who particularly had their colours lowered badly in the first quarter, responded after. It would've been real easy for guys like Dale and Macrae to go back in their shells and not pull the trigger on kicks they normally would back themselves to execute well thereafter. So I'm glad they have the will to fight and absorb the pressure.

Anchors

1. lack of ability of the team to execute basic skills or make decisions up to AFL standard in the first quarter.

2. Treloar's decision to not let the ball going over the boundary.

3. McComb, I thouhght he did a good job in his role, but for his failure to kick the goal off the back of an amazingly inspiring piece of play that led to his mark. That was a sliding doors moment for me.

And a 4th anchor for the umpiring too. It felt like we were playing at Geelong at times.

[bornadog]

Bankers

1. Libba, what an effort from the man and kicked two magnificent goals

2. The fightback was pretty good, but also not good enough. I thought we were going to get slaughtered but we won the last three quarters and gave ourselves a chance.

3. Caleb Daniel is a little master and his foot skills and decision making are incredible.

Anchors

1. At times some poor field kicking eg, Smith makes a huge effort along the wing and approaches 50, and ends up dribbling the ball along the ground. There were many examples over the night.

2. Passing the ball to Naughton - FFS hit him on the chest, don't pop it up in the air.

3. The huge mistake allowing Hawkins an easy goal when we start criss crossing the ground and then a miss kick straight to Hawkins. We looked like we were just taking it easy and not serious enough. Keath was the poor decsion maker in this incident

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

This is the Round 12, 2022 edition of the weekly Bankers and Anchors thread. Once the game against Geelong 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

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.

Actually, got to revise my Anchors.

Cody Weightman. He needs to be spoken to by his teammates. He let himself down tonight playing for free's. I didn't have a problem with his actions prior to this game. But he crossed a line tonight for me.

[bornadog]

Actually, got to revise my Anchors.

Cody Weightman. He needs to be spoken to by his teammates. He let himself down tonight playing for free's. I didn't have a problem with his actions prior to this game. But he crossed a line tonight for me.

There was one right in front of me and it was a blatant push in the back which he exaggerated and umpire let it go.

[azabob]

There was one right in front of me and it was a blatant push in the back which he exaggerated and umpire let it go.

Righty or wrongly the perception is he plays for free kicks and as a result he won’t get any benefits of the doubt.

[Grantysghost]

Righty or wrongly the perception is he plays for free kicks and as a result he won’t get any benefits of the doubt.

Neither will Naughton after Bevo's effort.

[bornadog]

Neither will Naughton after Bevo's effort.

please explain young fella

[Grantysghost]

please explain young fella



He actually got 3 last night ! He was copping double teams most of the time Geelong were very good at pushing the line without conspicuously crossing it.

[Scorlibo]

Actually, got to revise my Anchors.

Cody Weightman. He needs to be spoken to by his teammates. He let himself down tonight playing for free's. I didn't have a problem with his actions prior to this game. But he crossed a line tonight for me.

Yeah I think he's improved a lot this year in terms of keeping his feet and staying in the contest, but last night was a step backwards.

Bankers

Libba - Huge game from our Bulldog. Always seems to sense the occasion.

Baz's third quarter - half chances turned into genuine looks with his tackle busting and gut running, exciting stuff that unfortunately went unrewarded

Dale - had a nightmare first half but was able to turn it around and still make a significant contribution. Sign of maturity.

Anchors

English - looked like he was going to be a big point of difference for us pre-game but was dominated around the contest by Stanley. Those advocating for Sweet to play might feel vindicated.

Gardner - did some good things, but his kicking was woeful at times under minimal pressure

Forwards/Entries - we only turned one third of our entries into shots on goal, and only half of those into goals, that's not good enough to win games. At those ratios we would have needed 90 inside fifties to score 100 points. There were some shocking entries, some of them from our better players in Macrae and Dunkley. Also plenty of non-contests from high balls and poor pressure when the ball hit the ground.

[Extra] Umpiring - Bringing the ball back 60m for Richards' hit at the end of the third was crushing, we had numbers around the ball in the fifty. Holding the ball decision on Gardner. Dissent only paid once for the game against Treloar. Holding the ball on Richards after Stengle (?) was caught moments earlier. Generally a lot of holding the man from the Cats that was let go.

[soupman]

Cody Weightman. He needs to be spoken to by his teammates. He let himself down tonight playing for free's. I didn't have a problem with his actions prior to this game. But he crossed a line tonight for me.

100%. The first one they highlights was bad. He didn't even play it up that much, but the lack of anything constituting a freekick made it look terrible. His natural intensity and bounciness naturally wins him frees, I don't understand why he is so intent on playing for them as well. I think it actually makes him less of a handful when he isn't wholly committed to the contest.

[soupman]

[Extra] Umpiring - Bringing the ball back 60m for Richards' hit at the end of the third was crushing, we had numbers around the ball in the fifty. Holding the ball decision on Gardner. Dissent only paid once for the game against Treloar. Holding the ball on Richards after Stengle (?) was caught moments earlier. Generally a lot of holding the man from the Cats that was let go.

I'm generally fairly forgiving of the umpires but thought there were a few key decisions they made which hurt in the context of the game, that Richards one the obvious one. I can kind of understand that since he hit him as he was kicking it was arguably not downfield but it was a pretty reckless action and paying the freekick but not advantage severely disadvantaged us (plus arguably should have been a free to McNeil on the receiving end anyway for either chopping he arms or front on contact from Bicavs).

[G-Mo77]

In games like this umpiring decisions are less tolerable. We had our chances, getting these frees for or against may have helped a little. We just were not good enough.

I did lose it with the dissent and Gardner HTB though. Horrible, horrible decisions

[The bulldog tragician]

100%. The first one they highlights was bad. He didn't even play it up that much, but the lack of anything constituting a freekick made it look terrible. His natural intensity and bounciness naturally wins him frees, I don't understand why he is so intent on playing for them as well. I think it actually makes him less of a handful when he isn't wholly committed to the contest.

It also means if he is sprawled on the ground awaiting a whistle he can’t compete or make a second effort

[Scorlibo]

I'm generally fairly forgiving of the umpires but thought there were a few key decisions they made which hurt in the context of the game, that Richards one the obvious one. I can kind of understand that since he hit him as he was kicking it was arguably not downfield but it was a pretty reckless action and paying the freekick but not advantage severely disadvantaged us (plus arguably should have been a free to McNeil on the receiving end anyway for either chopping he arms or front on contact from Bicavs).

Yeah I don't begrudge them for not paying the downfield free, I thought it should have been advantage.

The umpires seem to struggle to pay advantage if no player has explicitly *taken* advantage. They'll happily pay it if a player handballs post-whistle but if the free kick recipient has kicked it 50m downfield in the same action as the incident there is no player electing advantage, so they don't pay it.

It's always been a tough rule to implement. Surely there's some rule of thumb that the umpires could lean on though. Perhaps if the ball has been moved forward more than 40m and drops to a contested situation, that's called advantage.

[Happy Days]

So I obviously didn’t see enough for 3 of each but I wanna give one banker to Bailey Smith for throwing a headbutt, which fits the cool and hot guy badboy gimmick perfectly, and another one to Tuohy for no selling it and shaking his hand after the game. What a guy.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

100%. The first one they highlights was bad. He didn't even play it up that much, but the lack of anything constituting a freekick made it look terrible. His natural intensity and bounciness naturally wins him frees, I don't understand why he is so intent on playing for them as well. I think it actually makes him less of a handful when he isn't wholly committed to the contest.

It's been going on for a while.

Two things are either happening;

1. Nobody is pulling him up on it, which is really poor.
2. They are and he isn't listening.

Either way, he needs to change because he's a liability when he spends more time diving and laying on the ground. It's a really bad, selfish look.

[bornadog]

It's been going on for a while.

Two things are either happening;

1. Nobody is pulling him up on it, which is really poor.
2. They are and he isn't listening.

Either way, he needs to change because he's a liability when he spends more time diving and laying on the ground. It's a really bad, selfish look.

My bigger concern with Weightman is flying for the ball with Naughton. FFS, stay down and crumb the bloody thing. This happened several times up the end I was sitting ie right of screen. Geelong smalls stayed back or down and just cleared the ball.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

My bigger concern with Weightman is flying for the ball with Naughton. FFS, stay down and crumb the bloody thing. This happened several times up the end I was sitting ie right of screen. Geelong smalls stayed back or down and just cleared the ball.

Ultimately that's a coaching issue because again, they either aren't pulling him up on it or they are, he isn't listening, and he isn't being held accountable.

[GVGjr]

My bigger concern with Weightman is flying for the ball with Naughton. FFS, stay down and crumb the bloody thing. This happened several times up the end I was sitting ie right of screen. Geelong smalls stayed back or down and just cleared the ball.

He's never been a crumbing small forward though relying more on marks. He's got to learn to pick his spots better of when to fly for a mark or when to wait and be more competitive when the ball is on the ground.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

Moderators could you please place this post in a more general position rather than the week's "Bankers and Anchors" please.
Dearest WOOFERs my dear brother Tim, The Banker after whom this thread is gracefully named, I love you GVGjr.
I was born on Tim's second birthday and he was told I was his birthday present.
I joined WOOF then told Tim.
He did not tell me he joined but when this new poster The Banker joined and contributed I posted a positive reply.
When I next met my brother he said it was amazing I was his first enthusiasic responder.
This is The Banker's legacy:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/dishwasher-turned-creative-visionary-in-two-cities-20120518-1yw58.html

[jeemak]

Yeah I think he's improved a lot this year in terms of keeping his feet and staying in the contest, but last night was a step backwards.

Bankers

Libba - Huge game from our Bulldog. Always seems to sense the occasion.

Baz's third quarter - half chances turned into genuine looks with his tackle busting and gut running, exciting stuff that unfortunately went unrewarded

Dale - had a nightmare first half but was able to turn it around and still make a significant contribution. Sign of maturity.

Anchors

English - looked like he was going to be a big point of difference for us pre-game but was dominated around the contest by Stanley. Those advocating for Sweet to play might feel vindicated.

Gardner - did some good things, but his kicking was woeful at times under minimal pressure

Forwards/Entries - we only turned one third of our entries into shots on goal, and only half of those into goals, that's not good enough to win games. At those ratios we would have needed 90 inside fifties to score 100 points. There were some shocking entries, some of them from our better players in Macrae and Dunkley. Also plenty of non-contests from high balls and poor pressure when the ball hit the ground.

[Extra] Umpiring - Bringing the ball back 60m for Richards' hit at the end of the third was crushing, we had numbers around the ball in the fifty. Holding the ball decision on Gardner. Dissent only paid once for the game against Treloar. Holding the ball on Richards after Stengle (?) was caught moments earlier. Generally a lot of holding the man from the Cats that was let go.

You're a gun poster Scorlibo.

[jeemak]

I'm generally fairly forgiving of the umpires but thought there were a few key decisions they made which hurt in the context of the game, that Richards one the obvious one. I can kind of understand that since he hit him as he was kicking it was arguably not downfield but it was a pretty reckless action and paying the freekick but not advantage severely disadvantaged us (plus arguably should have been a free to McNeil on the receiving end anyway for either chopping he arms or front on contact from Bicavs).

It's an interesting one because they usually use whether the contact affected the kick as a gauge as to whether it should be downfield, and the contact didn't impact the kick in any real way.

I thought last night there were different interpretations of holding the ball and/ or incorrect disposal across the teams, but the dissent one was really telling. Selwood copped a free against in the centre in the second, and gave the umpire an absolute ear full but was smart enough to not gesture with his arms and got away with it. Much worse than the Treloar one.

Geelong just seemed to be able to drop the footy when taking on tackles. It was really weird. At my boxing class this morning a few people called it out as the worst umpiring they'd seen for a while, I didn't think it was that bad but it was probably just annoying to me given how bad we were early.

[jeemak]

Yeah I don't begrudge them for not paying the downfield free, I thought it should have been advantage.

The umpires seem to struggle to pay advantage if no player has explicitly *taken* advantage. They'll happily pay it if a player handballs post-whistle but if the free kick recipient has kicked it 50m downfield in the same action as the incident there is no player electing advantage, so they don't pay it.

It's always been a tough rule to implement. Surely there's some rule of thumb that the umpires could lean on though. Perhaps if the ball has been moved forward more than 40m and drops to a contested situation, that's called advantage.

See my most just now, it's usually paid downfield if the kick isn't affected by the contact as a general rule of thumb. Perhaps it's different with too high versus a body hit. Who *!*!*!*!ing knows.

[GVGjr]

Moderators could you please place this post in a more general position rather than the week's "Bankers and Anchors" please.
Dearest WOOFERs my dear brother Tim, The Banker after whom this thread is gracefully named, I love you GVGjr.
I was born on Tim's second birthday and he was told I was his birthday present.
I joined WOOF then told Tim.
He did not tell me he joined but when this new poster The Banker joined and contributed I posted a positive reply.
When I next met my brother he said it was amazing I was his first enthusiasic responder.
This is The Banker's legacy:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/dishwasher-turned-creative-visionary-in-two-cities-20120518-1yw58.html

BID's I've posted the article on the Dogs Day board because it displays images so well.
I hope that is okay with you.

[jeemak]

Moderators could you please place this post in a more general position rather than the week's "Bankers and Anchors" please.
Dearest WOOFERs my dear brother Tim, The Banker after whom this thread is gracefully named, I love you GVGjr.
I was born on Tim's second birthday and he was told I was his birthday present.
I joined WOOF then told Tim.
He did not tell me he joined but when this new poster The Banker joined and contributed I posted a positive reply.
When I next met my brother he said it was amazing I was his first enthusiasic responder.
This is The Banker's legacy:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/dishwasher-turned-creative-visionary-in-two-cities-20120518-1yw58.html

What a legend, and thank you for the oysters The Banker, thank you very much!

[Mutz]

See my most just now, it's usually paid downfield if the kick isn't affected by the contact as a general rule of thumb. Perhaps it's different with too high versus a body hit. Who *!*!*!*!ing knows.

I'd like to see a different interpretation of this rule to protect the player kicking the ball. Being hit/bumped while in the process of kicking and being off balance can result in serious injury. We see this many times. The player should be *protected* when vulnerable, just like when a player is bent with their head over the ball. This type of tackle, late or not, has to be stopped and one way to achieve that is to award the free downfield, or to get a free with 50m.

[bornadog]

Yeah I don't begrudge them for not paying the downfield free

Watching the replay on this, the umpire blew the whistle as soon as Ed kicked the ball and was polaxed. However, a late hit and pretty sure to the head, should have given Ed a 50 metre penalty down field. At the time, I thought it should have been paid for down field, but now I think it was Ed's free plus the 50m

[Mantis]

Watching the replay on this, the umpire blew the whistle as soon as Ed kicked the ball and was polaxed. However, a late hit and pretty sure to the head, should have given Ed a 50 metre penalty down field. At the time, I thought it should have been paid for down field, but now I think it was Ed's free plus the 50m

It definitely wasn't worth 50m.... it should've been a down the field free as he was hit after he had disposed of the ball.

[bornadog]

It definitely wasn't worth 50m.... it should've been a down the field free as he was hit after he had disposed of the ball.

Had another look and you are correct

[Scorlibo]

It's an interesting one because they usually use whether the contact affected the kick as a gauge as to whether it should be downfield, and the contact didn't impact the kick in any real way.

I'd not thought about it in that way before. Don't mind it, but it's also a bit tricky for umpires to judge whether the kick was impacted don't you think?


Watching the replay on this, the umpire blew the whistle as soon as Ed kicked the ball and was polaxed. However, a late hit and pretty sure to the head, should have given Ed a 50 metre penalty down field. At the time, I thought it should have been paid for down field, but now I think it was Ed's free plus the 50m


It definitely wasn't worth 50m.... it should've been a down the field free as he was hit after he had disposed of the ball.

1115

^Please excuse the Kayo play icon overlay/darkness. This shows that Stanley arrived and made contact before the ball left the boot, but the contact was high. So a free kick in place is (to the letter of the law) correct. However the advantage was clearly ours and so the free kick did more harm than good.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

So I obviously didn’t see enough for 3 of each but I wanna give one banker to Bailey Smith for throwing a headbutt, which fits the cool and hot guy badboy gimmick perfectly, and another one to Tuohy for no selling it and shaking his hand after the game. What a guy.

Tuohy all class. Yes Bailey Smith was an anchor, no butts about it.
Message to Smith (and Buddy):

"When someone tries to trigger you by insulting you or by doing or saying something that irritates you,
take a deep breath and switch off your ego.

Remember that if you are easily offended, you are easily manipulated.


https://pin.it/3OTmgF5

[BornInDroopSt'54]

Righty or wrongly the perception is he plays for free kicks and as a result he won’t get any benefits of the doubt.

Brad Johdson used to drive me nuts doing the same.
Why?

[EasternWest]

Had another look and you are correct

Did this just happen?

[bornadog]

Did this just happen?

Rare occurence

[jeemak]

I'd not thought about it in that way before. Don't mind it, but it's also a bit tricky for umpires to judge whether the kick was impacted don't you think?





1115

^Please excuse the Kayo play icon overlay/darkness. This shows that Stanley arrived and made contact before the ball left the boot, but the contact was high. So a free kick in place is (to the letter of the law) correct. However the advantage was clearly ours and so the free kick did more harm than good.

Thanks for posting. I didn't over-analyse it and you're right, correct decision paid if contact occurred during the act of kicking.

Using the disruption to the kick isn't a bad way to add a bit of context, but if the umpire doubts it was late then shouldn't pay the infringement.

[Bulldog Joe]

Thanks for posting. I didn't over-analyse it and you're right, correct decision paid if contact occurred during the act of kicking.

Using the disruption to the kick isn't a bad way to add a bit of context, but if the umpire doubts it was late then shouldn't pay the infringement.

The problem with this is that the tackler has free rein to infringe the opponent to stop momentum.
It was a blatant free and the infringer gets the ball back to where his team were, but with time to set up the defence.

We need these to be a minimum of 50 to prevent the PROFESSIONAL free.

[EasternWest]

Rare occurence

To be honest even though I see it in writing I'm not convinced some proxy hasn't hacked your account.