5 questions about Round #1

[GVGjr]

I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?

[Bulldog Revolution]

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?



The crows have a good mix of young tall players

Davis is a promising developing key defender, and they have Talia in the SANFL also

Maric is improving in the ruck and McKernan was terrific in his 2nd game, took marks all over the ground, got his hand to the ball in the ruck - really looked an emerging type

Upforward Walker has improved but also still has massive further scope for improvement, and Tippett is still to come back into the team

So there spine appears to be on the way, but they also have some very good dangerous midfield/flank types in Dangerfield, Knights, Vince, Van Berlo, Otten etc

Mix them in with the older senior players of Johncock, Thompson, Rutten, Stevens, Porplyzia etc and you have a competitive outfit. And Tambling looked a more decisive player.

I dont know about top 4 but there is a lot to like about the way they played

Hawthorn played pretty well, the can spin it otherwise, but they were on fire in the first half and were then overrun

[LostDoggy]

1: The sub rule is a joke. I maybe wouldn't mind it if they kept 4 interchange players and introduced a sub. But under the current format this rule will handicap teams like the dogs who rotate heavily.

2. A bit of both, they are on the improve due to the Knights building but also I think are playing a fair bit on emotion due to Hird & Bomber.

3. Hawks are better than that, surely?

4: One word YES.
It is effective for them though so they wont change under current coach.

5: The pies biggest opposition will be themselves. If they get some injuries and gain some doubt then they will slide a bit. Failing that, god help us all.

[Flamethrower]

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?
Positive - Teams with only one serious injury are no longer disadvantaged, unless the injury occurs after the sub is used. eg Easton Wood. From an AFL POV, the players fatigue much quicker slowing the game by the last Q, to the point where it seems they are running in quicksand by the last quarter. This is what the AFL wanted. As yet this hasn't resulted in a huge increase in soft tissue injuries, but I think it will eventually.

Negative - Any team that has multiple injuries has even less chance of winning, as they will fatigue at a much faster rate with 0,1 or 2 on the bench when up against 3 fit I/C players. Likely to have cost Brisbane the game on Saturday.

2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?
Hird has developed a game plan built around defensive structures and the natural attacking flair of his players. They will beat many better sides than us.

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?
Crows have been quietly stockpiling a heap of young talent, and were always going to rebound quickly from a disappointing 2010.

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?
Yes for the neutral fan. No for St Kilda supporters - it is called winning ugly, and with any luck could have won back to back premierships.

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?
Themselves. They are in a class of their own this year. Everyone else is playing for 2nd.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?



Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.

[GVGjr]

Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.

A mate of mine thought 2 subs and 3 interchanges would get the balance spot on.

[LostDoggy]

3. I'll keep it short and sweet. Hawthorn are overrated by the media every year, so no surprise they went into this as favourites. They also have a poor record at AAMI Stadium, they were poor on the day, thats it I think. I don't have Adelaide in the top 8, 9th-10th closely missing out.

[boydogs]

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

Poor rule, getting an injury still puts you at a disadvantage, and last quarters are harder to watch.

2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

Too early to say whether there is much difference in the side. They were inconsistent under Knights, but did show glimpses of that attacking ability.

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

Hawthorn just aren't that great.

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

Yep.

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?

Us. I reckon we'll look back at the Essendon game in a month and say we were just warming up after an early NAB exit.

[Rance Fan]

I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?

1. Get it wrong and it can cost you. Alot of injuries for rd 1. Game style seems different also
2. Better side for sure, plus Thomson and others sure to help
3. Crows and Hawks about the same as last year i reckon - top 8 no more
4. Stklda does well with what they got...ugly...yes
5. None really...maybe Ess

[LostDoggy]

Us. I reckon we'll look back at the Essendon game in a month and say we were just warming up after an early NAB exit.

God I hope you are right.

[bornadog]

Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.


A mate of mine thought 2 subs and 3 interchanges would get the balance spot on.

I can't see what was wrong with 4 on the bench.:confused:

[GVGjr]

I can't see what was wrong with 4 on the bench.:confused:

The general consensus is that if you cop an injury early then the other team has a 4 on 3 advantage for the balance of the game and this historically has been a huge hurdle to overcome.
However, with the new rule now you sub off a player and it's still 3 on 3.

[EasternWest]

The general consensus is that if you cop an injury early then the other team has a 4 on 3 advantage for the balance of the game and this historically has been a huge hurdle to overcome.
However, with the new rule now you sub off a player and it's still 3 on 3.

Until you get another injury.

I get what you mean, but I still don't see a benefit to the sub rule. It's too soon to tell whether it's got legs or not.

And regardless what we think, it's in, so we've just got to suck it up.

[GVGjr]

Until you get another injury.

I get what you mean, but I still don't see a benefit to the sub rule. It's too soon to tell whether it's got legs or not.

And regardless what we think, it's in, so we've just got to suck it up.

All good points and it's one of the reasons a mate of mine thinks we will have a 2nd sub within 2 seasons.

[Before I Die]

All good points and it's one of the reasons a mate of mine thinks we will have a 2nd sub within 2 seasons.

Back to the future!

Why not 2 subs and no interchange. :D

It would probably lead to a 50% reduction in the coaching panel and more man on man contests. Perhaps a visionary like Sheedy could lead the charge. :D:D:D

[LostDoggy]

Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.

I'd say go even further. 4 subs no interchange.

[LostDoggy]

I'd say go even further. 4 subs no interchange.

Wow. Forward presses, possession footy, kicking backwards, 2 goal halves, 4 subs to use as you please but no rolling interchanges.. I'll be damned if it's not becoming soccer.

[LostDoggy]

Wow. Forward presses, possession footy, kicking backwards, 2 goal halves, 4 subs to use as you please but no rolling interchanges.. I'll be damned if it's not becoming soccer.

Either 4 subs or 4 interchange, not sure why they are having an each way bet here.
They want to slow things down(the only real reason why they changed the rule), then subs are the way to go. Plenty of trainers and runners on field already to give them drinks/messages.

[bornadog]

Either 4 subs or 4 interchange, not sure why they are having an each way bet here.
They want to slow things down(the only real reason why they changed the rule), then subs are the way to go. Plenty of trainers and runners on field already to give them drinks/messages.

Lets go all the way like Grid iron, with backs and forwards moving on and off the ground.:D

The sub rule change is the biggest joke of all time and will only achieve greater injuries.

[ratsmac]

The general consensus is that if you cop an injury early then the other team has a 4 on 3 advantage for the balance of the game and this historically has been a huge hurdle to overcome.
However, with the new rule now you sub off a player and it's still 3 on 3.

It make a lot of sense when you look at it that way. However if that's the case then why not have 3 interchange and 5 subs for example then the playing field will always be fair.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Wow. Forward presses, possession footy, kicking backwards, 2 goal halves, 4 subs to use as you please but no rolling interchanges.. I'll be damned if it's not becoming soccer.

Actually, it will be ruckmen and rovers changing in the forward pocket. No flooding.

If they leave the "defenders-aren't-allowed-to-defend" rules as they are we could end up with 65 goal halves!

[LostDoggy]

Lets go all the way like Grid iron, with backs and forwards moving on and off the ground.:D

The sub rule change is the biggest joke of all time and will only achieve greater injuries.

It was subs or a sub til the 70s I beleive, they kept changing it because Sheedy said so in the 90s. The big issue is that the new rule has changed the game, and the afl has done it without even really thinking of the full consequences.
Its obvious its changed game in many ways eg recruiting strategies, yet it was only 6 months ago we knew nothing of this.

[Topdog]

The general consensus is that if you cop an injury early then the other team has a 4 on 3 advantage for the balance of the game and this historically has been a huge hurdle to overcome.
However, with the new rule now you sub off a player and it's still 3 on 3.

However as Brisbane saw the other night when the player they subbed off for injury it doesn't always make it even.

By all reports Beams could have come back on the ground but not subbing him meant that Brisbane would be short on interchange players for a quarter or more.

It puts coaches and players in an impossible position. If a player gets a corkie but will have to rest for 20-30 minutes can you afford to be short a player when you have someone fresh waiting in the wings. Do you risk subbing off a guy who misses 30 minutes only to be left short later in the game?

Injuries are part and parcel of the game and part of the luck of sport. Any claim that players will collide at less speed has surely been demolished with the Selwood hit which was worse than Harbrow's cleaning up of the Hawks player which I'm sure is 99.95% responsible for this rule being introduced.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Injuries are part and parcel of the game and part of the luck of sport. Any claim that players will collide at less speed has surely been demolished with the Selwood hit which was worse than Harbrow's cleaning up of the Hawks player which I'm sure is 99.95% responsible for this rule being introduced.


The Selwood hit happened early in the 1st quarter before anyone was fatigued.

Selwood went off and it remained 21 on 21.

[Topdog]

and Harbrow hit was in the 2nd quarter IIRC.

[westdog54]

I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?

1) Too early to call, match committees are still getting their heads around the whole thing.

2) Bit of Column A, Bit of Column B. Whilst not necessarily a better side purely due to Hird, they've had a complete re-structure of their football department and brought in an essentially brand new coaching staff. It would be naive to think they haven't made a difference.

In saying that, I think Knights' legacy will be keeping Jobe Watson when Sheedy thought he wouldn't make it.

3) Again, a bit of A and a bit of B. The Crows do have some very good players but they should never have had a chance in that game, Hawthron should have been able to hold that lead.

4) I think I can handle one crap game per week. They're only ruining the visual aspect of the game for their own supporters as far as I'm concerned. There was a damning stat shown on One Week at a Time on Monday night. Long story short, the implication is that the Saints can't kick a flag winning store. Some might point to the Swans/Eagles to refute that but scoring Machines like the Pies are better than that.

5) At the moment Collingwood are like Roger Federer circa 4 years ago. Capable of being beaten by anyone on their day, but that anyone needed to do something extraordinary to do it. They're about as complete a team as I've seen in a long time.

[westdog54]

and Harbrow hit was in the 2nd quarter IIRC.

I think the Harbrow/Lewis hit has done more to fuel the 'Concussion Rule' debate than it has the Sub debate. The AFL were relying on a fairly comprehensive study ranging a larger period of time and even though I don't think its a particularly well thought out rule, I don't think there's any one particular incident that has been the catalyst for the change.

[Ghost Dog]

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?
To early to call. Wait and see.
2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

Agree with Flamethrower. They have a top coaching panel. We were out played, on the field and tactically and mentally.

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

Adelaide were the fitter side. Playing at AMMI makes an enormous difference. Also, it was their 20th Anniv as a club. they had plenty to be revved up about. Poor Kicking form Hawthorn kept the door open.

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

For TV audiences, less.
For those who go to the ground, a resounding yes. Still, they do what it takes to win and I don't hold it against them. I also don't feel it will be a winning strategy for them with the new sub rule.

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?
Based on round one, Cats, Saints, Adelaide at home.

[Mantis]

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?
Based on round one, Cats, Saints, Adelaide at home.

What did you see in the rd 1 performances of Geelong & St.Kilda that the rest of us missed?

[Ghost Dog]

What did you see in the rd 1 performances of Geelong & St.Kilda that the rest of us missed?

IMO, an arm wrestle is still a fight. Albiet of a different kind.
I know alot of posters hated it, first half especially, but I enjoyed the contest. It pushed the players to their limits, was a tight contest.
Geelong look hardened and are a great team, with excellent fighting spirit. St Kilda not as convincing, less skilled, but this is the team that pushed Collingwood to a draw 6 months ago. Collingwood won't be taking either of them lightly as opponents.

[Topdog]

If either team plays like that against Collingwood they will lose by 60.