SA Footy

Spargo wrote:

mots02 wrote:For How much longer does Clarkson avoid scrutiny? Not a lot of tangible improvement to be seen with North.

You are kidding? Hardest draw in the first 5 weeks for a team that finished equal bottom last year.
GWS, Carlton, Brisbane (all predicted as probable top 4), Geelong at Geelong & Freo who should really be 5-0
Imagine if we got WC, Rich (hello Port) to start the year, the Crows or Hawthorn…
It’s all about perspective, we know where we’re at, it’s going to take time.
Scrutiny after 17 games, turn it up.

Well you answered my question… so thanks.

Every draw is hard when you are at the bottom, you are often going to play teams that finished above you last year, I get that.

You have the crows and hawthorn in the next 2 weeks, so that should balance out the tough start a bit then.

I read a lot of comments today asking similar questions, about when the questions can be asked of the Clarkson period, so I asked that question on here.

17 games is too early. Noted.

mots02 wrote:

Spargo wrote:

mots02 wrote:For How much longer does Clarkson avoid scrutiny? Not a lot of tangible improvement to be seen with North.

You are kidding? Hardest draw in the first 5 weeks for a team that finished equal bottom last year.
GWS, Carlton, Brisbane (all predicted as probable top 4), Geelong at Geelong & Freo who should really be 5-0
Imagine if we got WC, Rich (hello Port) to start the year, the Crows or Hawthorn…
It’s all about perspective, we know where we’re at, it’s going to take time.
Scrutiny after 17 games, turn it up.

Well you answered my question… so thanks.

Every draw is hard when you are at the bottom, you are often going to play teams that finished above you last year, I get that.

You have the crows and hawthorn in the next 2 weeks, so that should balance out the tough start a bit then.

I read a lot of comments today asking similar questions, about when the questions can be asked of the Clarkson period, so I asked that question on here.

17 games is too early. Noted.

I dare you to ask again next week.

Vamos wrote:

Spargo wrote:

Vamos wrote:Coming from 4 top 5 picks in 4 years, I'd expect better by now.

You honestly don’t believe that.

I honestly do, access to top end talent since 2020. If it wasn't for Sheezel, it would be dire.

From 2020 draft - Powell had 26 today , Lazzaro 16 and Eddie Ford kicked 3

its not the kids that are the issue

Would it be to fair to say Luke McDonald = Jake Lehmann?

MW wrote:

Spargo wrote:

mots02 wrote:For How much longer does Clarkson avoid scrutiny? Not a lot of tangible improvement to be seen with North.

You are kidding? Hardest draw in the first 5 weeks for a team that finished equal bottom last year.
GWS, Carlton, Brisbane (all predicted as probable top 4), Geelong at Geelong & Freo who should really be 5-0
Imagine if we got WC, Rich (hello Port) to start the year, the Crows or Hawthorn…
It’s all about perspective, we know where we’re at, it’s going to take time.
Scrutiny after 17 games, turn it up.

Tough start but you’d lose to most of those alternative teams

Totally disagree, we get WC, Rich, Adel & Haw early and we could easily have 2 wins at that time.

Armchair expert wrote:Would it be to fair to say Luke McDonald = Jake Lehmann?

100%
How he was named co captain is staggering.
Wouldn’t get a game at any other club.

Watching the Cats v Kangaroos game today with the Cats giving them a flogging I did wonder how many the Cats have won in a row against the hapless Roos, 12.

Good to get on the board for this year.

"Are we protecting the head or are we protecting the Brownlow" as much as this is a ridiculous comment it's entirely accurate and the AFL only have themselves to blame for creating an environment where even experts* are unsure of MRO rulings.

Crouch, in retrospect, is probably lucky to only get one. The player has his head over the ball, he comes in arms tucked to bump and collects the player going the ball high. He's probably lucky it's only one.

Butters, going lower and harder makes contact with a player getting out of the way with a dose of the trots and is probably lucky to not get one given the inconsistencies.

Crouch is already lower and eyes on the ball before his opponent goes down and the ball is in dispute...

Freo opponent has hands on the ball before Butters decides to drop and bump...the only reason Butters didnt get 6 is his opponent pulled out but still got hit high

Far more dangerous.

So Crouch is supposed to predict what his opponent is going to do? The frame before (image I posted) he is upright and Crouch is not looking at him

Crouch didn't got for the ball first. That's why he's lucky.

Butters is a nutcase the way he goes at the ball.
I haven’t seen a player in years go as hard at the ball as what he does.
He could have severely injured the Freo player or himself.

Again, the AFL has caused this confusion.

If you showed me both without any prior knowledge or prejudice I'd have said 3 or 4 for Crouch and 1 for Butters. The Crouch one he gets the guy front on with his head over the ball. Butters is side on and he's over the ball. I think Crouch is far more likely to cause serious damage.

Of course we need to minimise injuries, especially to the head, but when did the skill of protecting yourself going for the ball cease to be a thing?

Players are being penalised for head high contact when in some cases their opponent didn't have enough awareness or skill to protect themselves.

By all means penalise recklessness but let's not reward those that haven't developed a skill that everyone should have learnt from a young age.

Booney wrote:"Are we protecting the head or are we protecting the Brownlow" as much as this is a ridiculous comment it's entirely accurate and the AFL only have themselves to blame for creating an environment where even experts* are unsure of MRO rulings.

Crouch, in retrospect, is probably lucky to only get one. The player has his head over the ball, he comes in arms tucked to bump and collects the player going the ball high. He's probably lucky it's only one.

Butters, going lower and harder makes contact with a player getting out of the way with a dose of the trots and is probably lucky to not get one given the inconsistencies.

Just to give some context to the quote you posted first up.
https://youtu.be/ZjBhpPSY6mA?si=mRtto37Zt2BQVJ_s

If we are truly about protecting the head then whether the player was going for the ball is completely irrelevant is it not?

Armchair expert wrote:If we are truly about protecting the head then whether the player was going for the ball is completely irrelevant is it not?

Spot on!

Armchair expert wrote:If we are truly about protecting the head then whether the player was going for the ball is completely irrelevant is it not?

That's the end of our game then. Was fun while it lasted.