Autopsy AFL 2024 Round 8 - Blues v Pies Fri May 3rd 7:40pm AEST (MCG)

[Chief]

Right: Unless it's a bad one against Carlton, I don't wanna hear constant whinging about umpiring from you lot!

 

[Thrawn]

Hoyne on SEN last night said Geel are ranked 1 in scoring from turnover which is why they beat Carl.
On the same metric Coll is ranked 3.
Also said Coll ranks 6 for defending Turnovers while Carl is ranked 13.

Coll has the game style to expose Carlton.

Someone needs to make a Hoyne "scores from turnover" compilation on YT.

 

[Chief]

Sometimes you have to accept you were not unlucky, you were not good enough.

Meh. Agree to disagree.

 

[bradfisher14]

Hoyne on SEN last night said Geel are ranked 1 in scoring from turnover which is why they beat Carl.
On the same metric Coll is ranked 3.
Also said Coll ranks 6 for defending Turnovers while Carl is ranked 13.

Coll has the game style to expose Carlton.

Agreed. Should be an interesting game. Styles make fights etc.

We desperately need to improve our defending on turnover. Seemed to be doing pretty well in the first few rounds, but it's dropped away slightly.

 

[bradfisher14]

Sometimes you have to accept you were not unlucky, you were not good enough. Failing to execute basic skills absolutely falls under that category. Conversely, Geelong were not "lucky" for executing more precise field kicks and nailing shots at goal.

I support Liverpool and they have not been unlucky lately; they have failed to execute taking chances. It is entirely on them and that is no different whether it is contained to one game or a whole season.

If any one of those shots was nailed the rest of the game's events are different. I'm not pretending to have certainty in how an entire game of football would have changed if any of the shots in question was missed. It is a pointless exercise.

Carlton are better than Geelong; is Max Gawn the No. 1 ruck of all time?

This week's Six Points features sound reasoning as to why Carlton's better than Geelong (despite the loss), reborn Max Gawn and his historical standing, the AFL's most underrated player, and more MRO nonsense.

www.espn.com.au

Since 2003, there had been 191 instances (not including this effort from the Blues) of teams enjoying such stark advantages in these areas. The win-loss record of those sides was 187-4.

 

[Mr Meow]

Carlton are better than Geelong; is Max Gawn the No. 1 ruck of all time?

This week's Six Points features sound reasoning as to why Carlton's better than Geelong (despite the loss), reborn Max Gawn and his historical standing, the AFL's most underrated player, and more MRO nonsense.

www.espn.com.au

This was so good. Reminded me of the hundreds of salty comments on the weekend.

 

[Mr Meow]

Meh. Agree to disagree.

I can't agree to that.

 

[bourbons]

Given our injury list, I'm actually content where we're sitting at right now because that means there's still plenty of upside.

What matters ultimately is having the list as fresh as possible for a finals run, a little bit of luck goes a long way.

About where I'm at too. Said before the GWS game if we could split the next month and a half 3-3 against GSW Geelong Collingwood Melbourne Swans (away) and Port (away) that would be a pretty solid result considering our outs, well set up for the back half of the season and hopefully a better run with injuries.

 

[bourbons]

Carlton are better than Geelong; is Max Gawn the No. 1 ruck of all time?

This week's Six Points features sound reasoning as to why Carlton's better than Geelong (despite the loss), reborn Max Gawn and his historical standing, the AFL's most underrated player, and more MRO nonsense.

www.espn.com.au

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Sometimes you have to accept you were not unlucky, you were not good enough. Failing to execute basic skills absolutely falls under that category. Conversely, Geelong were not "lucky" for executing more precise field kicks and nailing shots at goal.

I support Liverpool and they have not been unlucky lately; they have failed to execute taking chances. It is entirely on them and that is no different whether it is contained to one game or a whole season.

If any one of those shots was nailed the rest of the game's events are different. I'm not pretending to have certainty in how an entire game of football would have changed if any of the shots in question was missed. It is a pointless exercise.

Can't stop lolling at the Carlton "luck" talk

Blues just too predictable, if the Pies are any good we'll get the same result


On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Chief]

It's almost like... we need more targets forward... and better small forwards... but don't have them... because those players are on the injury list...


It's a good day when we were a whisker off beating the undefeated but for a few bad kicks and some universally recognised bad ump calls.

 

[Mister Dog]

This game could get very, very ugly.

 

[Mr Meow]

It's almost like... we need more targets forward... and better small forwards... but don't have them... because those players are on the injury list...


It's a good day when we were a whisker off beating the undefeated but for a few bad kicks and some universally recognised bad ump calls.

I prefer Vossy's take to yours:

“We shouldn't need the game to get to that stage to feel like we need to snatch it. In some ways, you deserve what you get.

Some critical moments we didn’t get right, and we certainly didn’t defend the way we’d expect.

The game was always balanced slightly in their favour, as much as we fought back and as much as we were boxing on. It was too easy for them to score at the other end. Let’s just put it under the banner of defending when you need to: we haven’t done that in this game. "

 

[Cam Payne]

Pies will cause the blues their loss second in a string of losses during May.

 

[PizzaPie]

I can't agree to that.

Disagree to disagree it is, the highest level of disagreement available with current technology

 

[PizzaPie]

I prefer Vossy's take to yours:

“We shouldn't need the game to get to that stage to feel like we need to snatch it. In some ways, you deserve what you get.

Some critical moments we didn’t get right, and we certainly didn’t defend the way we’d expect.

The game was always balanced slightly in their favour, as much as we fought back and as much as we were boxing on. It was too easy for them to score at the other end. Let’s just put it under the banner of defending when you need to: we haven’t done that in this game. "

The coach of the team definitely seems better capable of assessing the result, I'm also more inclined to go with his take.

It's semantics and not so much disagreeing with Voss, but as an aside (I'm sure he'd agree with), it's not even "in some ways, you deserve what you get"... that's exactly what it is when there's nothing arbitrary about how a game is scored and how long it goes for...

I think Voss and others actually involved in the game are far more pragmatic about results than pundits and fans posting on forums. It's funny to me how prevalent use of intangibles like "deserved" and "snatched/choked" etc. are based on how people perceive the 'when and how' teams accumulated their final score (and likewise made mistakes that cost scoring opportunities).

Luck, bad umpiring decisions, and missing 'easy' goals are also known to be part of every game and there is plenty of opportunity to put the result of a game beyond an individual instance of luck/error being the difference or having a team 'snatch' wins.

Besides ANZAC day, which Collingwood deserved to win because Essendon gave up an early lead, Mihocek kicked two out on the full, and Elliott dropped a chest mark. I doubt Essendon has any whatifs, so we was definitely snatched!

 

[JayJ20]

The coach of the team definitely seems better capable of assessing the result, I'm also more inclined to go with his take.

It's semantics and not so much disagreeing with Voss, but as an aside (I'm sure he'd agree with), it's not even "in some ways, you deserve what you get"... that's exactly what it is when there's nothing arbitrary about how a game is scored and how long it goes for...

I think Voss and others actually involved in the game are far more pragmatic about results than pundits and fans posting on forums. It's funny to me how prevalent use of intangibles like "deserved" and "snatched/choked" etc. are based on how people perceive the 'when and how' teams accumulated their final score (and likewise made mistakes that cost scoring opportunities).

Luck, bad umpiring decisions, and missing 'easy' goals are also known to be part of every game and there is plenty of opportunity to put the result of a game beyond an individual instance of luck/error being the difference or having a team 'snatch' wins.

Besides ANZAC day, which Collingwood deserved to win because Essendon gave up an early lead, Mihocek kicked two out on the full, and Elliott dropped a chest mark. I doubt Essendon has any whatifs, so we was definitely snatched!

Lmao. Langford kicks a goal he would normally kick 9 out of 10 times and Essendon win. Wright and Hobbs in the 4th quarter take a shot or kick it to the square instead of setting up 20 metres from goal and Essendon rush it through to seal the win.

 

[PizzaPie]

Geelong has dealt with important players being injured, suspended or broken in knockout finals over the past decade or so.

Make all the excuses you want, but fact is Geelong only won 17% of premierships since the start of the 2000s. I don't know the exact numbers for the rest of the comp, but 17% sounds pretty low and barely gets you one more in the 2020s, how do you keep turning up?

 

[adammania9]

Make all the excuses you want, but fact is Geelong only won 17% of premierships since the start of the 2000s. I don't know the exact numbers for the rest of the comp, but 17% sounds pretty low and barely gets you one more in the 2020s, how do you keep turning up?

There is no side with greater than 17%

 

[PizzaPie]

Lmao. Langford kicks a goal he would normally kick 9 out of 10 times and Essendon win. Wright and Hobbs in the 4th quarter take a shot or kick it to the square instead of setting up 20 metres from goal and Essendon rush it through to seal the win.

Nah, that's different. Only Collingwood could have scored more from missed shots at goal if they'd not missed. You're biased and a school bully if you can't see it!

 

[PizzaPie]

There is no side with greater than 17%

I doubt that very much, surely Collingwood would be higher? I only went back a year for the pies, but if you extrapolate it we're running at 100% from my quick calcs.

 

[adammania9]

I doubt that very much, surely Collingwood would be higher? I only went back a year for the pies, but if you extrapolate it we're running at 100% from my quick calcs.

You think Collingwood has won more than 17% of premierships since 2000?

 

[PizzaPie]

This game could get very, very ugly.

How do we filter out the ugly ones? We. don't. let. them. in.

You think Collingwood has won more than 17% of premierships since 2000?

Depends on how many seasons are being excluded for totally valid reasons, but yeah I think I can trim the denominator down enough to get us there.

 

[bourbons]

The coach of the team definitely seems better capable of assessing the result, I'm also more inclined to go with his take.

It's semantics and not so much disagreeing with Voss, but as an aside (I'm sure he'd agree with), it's not even "in some ways, you deserve what you get"... that's exactly what it is when there's nothing arbitrary about how a game is scored and how long it goes for...

I think Voss and others actually involved in the game are far more pragmatic about results than pundits and fans posting on forums. It's funny to me how prevalent use of intangibles like "deserved" and "snatched/choked" etc. are based on how people perceive the 'when and how' teams accumulated their final score (and likewise made mistakes that cost scoring opportunities).

Luck, bad umpiring decisions, and missing 'easy' goals are also known to be part of every game and there is plenty of opportunity to put the result of a game beyond an individual instance of luck/error being the difference or having a team 'snatch' wins.

Besides ANZAC day, which Collingwood deserved to win because Essendon gave up an early lead, Mihocek kicked two out on the full, and Elliott dropped a chest mark. I doubt Essendon has any whatifs, so we was definitely snatched!

I can't tell if the last paragraph is satire or not

 

[joe444]

If they lose, I assume Carlton will trot out the "missing half our side" excuse (as if they're the only team with injuries). In reality, they're missing or may be missing Cerra, McGovern and Saad as walkups from their best 22 of 2024; the rest are of marginal influence or relevance and half are VFL scrubbers.

Like just about everyone else in the competition.

 

[bourbons]

If they lose, I assume Carlton will trot out the "missing half our side" excuse (as if they're the only team with injuries). In reality, they're missing or may be missing Cerra, McGovern and Saad as walkups from their best 22 of 2024; the rest are of marginal influence or relevance and half are VFL scrubbers.

Like just about everyone else in the competition.

Motlop straight in for Durdin and Fogarty for Binns fairly uncontroversial I would have thought.