Coach Craig McRae

[Cousin of Daicos]

Again, your opinion that Schultz was having a “mare”. I thought he was good. Got run down from behind and missed a set shot, neither of which constitutes a bad game. Your emotions have made you irrational.

I'm irrational.

Says the person who was seemingly expecting Richards to win the game in 47 seconds in his 8th game.

Ok

 

[JLC]

Does this mean Fly has successfully distracted Longmire? Because Longmire is talking about this rather than focusing on the opposition downfall?

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

he was asked directly if he thought it was a 50m penalty. he answered the question and said he thought it was!

the only issue i have is that he then qualified his response by saying "..if it was at the MCG it likely would have been paid".

IMO this weakened his response /position, created a distraction or point of equivalence for the media, Longmire and afl HQ to run with.

the player encroached over the mark by 6.6m and then did not retreat. it was a 50m penalty every day of the week (incl Sundays, supposedly a day of 'rest'), every footy venue across the country and would have been paid as such by amateur umpires down at the Manangatang 3rds .. no qualification or distraction required.

That's what I thought too.

 

[OniAu]

Objective criticism is always welcome, but what we’re reading on these boards is anything but that.

For starters, the premise that he made a mistake is nothing but hypothetical conjecture yet people are stating it as fact. He could have subbed Richards at 3/4 time and we could have lost by 20pts, or we may have won by a point. Nobody knows but if that’s your starting point then what you’re suggesting is criticism is nothing more than venting.

Lets go back to the basics of a tactical sub. Fresh legs is always more welcomed than a player who has been out there for 3 quarters, dont you agree?

 

[OniAu]

Yep, understand what Richards has shown himself capable of, but the player identified to be subbed off was Frampton. Given Swans had the ball in their forward half for much of the final quarter, who becomes more important, Frampton as a minder for McLean or Amartey or even McDonald who seemed to drift in there, or Richards with his fresh legs? Richards being subbed late made 3/5s of SFA difference I believe. He’s very lucky to have even been selected. His last game against Hawthorn was ordinary and saw him dropped, and he’s done nothing to justify selection since. Even so, people are suggesting that in his 9th senior game that he’d have been the difference… go figure.

Now you are criticising team selections. Instead of going with what we had. Which was a fresh player on the sidelines , regardless of previous form. He was selected

 

[Mollythedolly]

I'm irrational.

Says the person who was seemingly expecting Richards to win the game in 47 seconds in his 8th game.

Ok

Point me to where I’ve said Richards was going to be the difference regardless of how much game time he got. I’ve openly said exactly the opposite. Just more irrational crap from you.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Now you are criticising team selections. Instead of going with what we had. Which was a fresh player on the sidelines , regardless of previous form. He was selected

I’m not criticizing anything. I said I’d have gone in a different direction, that’s not criticism. That’s expressing an opinion.

 

[OniAu]

I’m not criticizing anything. I said I’d have gone in a different direction, that’s not criticism. That’s expressing an opinion.

As is expressing an opinion we should be activating a sub before 44 seconds left , which many others on this board have expressed that opinion

But you go on a rant, that those opinions aren't valid, because Fly has all the tools and data and info during the game to make the right call.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Lets go back to the basics of a tactical sub. Fresh legs is always more welcomed than a player who has been out there for 3 quarters, dont you agree?

As a general observation, in theory, yes. But it doesn’t always work that way as we all know. For every tactical sub introduced that has made a significant impact, there are more examples of those that haven’t.

 

[Mollythedolly]

As is expressing an opinion we should be activating a sub before 44 seconds left , which many others on this board have expressed that opinion

But you go on a rant, that those opinions aren't valid, because Fly has all the tools and data and info during the game to make the right call.

Point me to where I’ve said peoples opinions aren’t valid. I’ve only argued that the extrapolations of those opinions aren’t valid.

Eg someone posts they think Richards should have been introduced earlier, McRae got it wrong. McRae didn’t get it wrong, he just didn’t do what that poster thought should have happened.

McRae and a full team of support staff with full diagnostic support and tactical goals obviously thought introducing Richards earlier wasn’t going to help in those circumstances, yet mug punters without any of that support or information think they got it right and McRae got it wrong. I’ll leave it there, continue venting.

 

[PieBeast]

As a general observation, in theory, yes. But it doesn’t always work that way as we all know. For every tactical sub introduced that has made a significant impact, there are more examples of those that haven’t.

"If at first you don't succeed, stop trying"

Homer Simpson and Mollythedolly

 

[SuperSub17]

Everybody is aware there is an issue.

People were complaining about the umpiring earlier in the year. The AFL listened. They changed the rules interpretation mid-season in response to the commentary.

Did that satisfy anybody?

No. People are complaining even more about changing the rules interpretation mid-season.

What’s the AFL to do?

If you want my two cents on this…

The media have a fair share of blame on this one. They don’t know the rules, and repeatedly rabbit on about nonsense and rules that were changed 30 years ago (like BT and his “knocked out on the tackle” garbage - there are countless others). And it only gets amplified when they zero in on decisions on their review shows all week with the incorrect interpretations - that leads to mass confusion for the fans.

As for the holding the ball interpretation change - I think the AFL missed the mark on that one. Don’t get me wrong, the Mac Andrew / Charlie Curnow one which garnered all the attention did need fixing with a quicker whistle - but it quite obviously went too far the other way and players started getting pinged way too quickly in order to stop the dangerous tackle dump, rather than…actually outlawing the dump.

What actually needed fixing, and still does, is the way-too-lax interpretation of prior opportunity. Players are taking on tackles and getting away with it, which is the case the majority of supporters (and players) have been highlighting. Unsurprisingly, the media at the time couldn’t make the distinction, and just ran with “ooooooh we were told the holding the ball rule has been changed to be more strict now, how did he get away with that??” - when the two parts of the rule are very separate.

As for “what is the AFL to do?” How about…

- Stop coming up with rule of the week every round, and be wholly transparent in their communications with clubs
- Stop spreading fallacies in their public communications - e.g. McBurney stated earlier in the year a ball up can only be called if the ball is pinned - there is NOTHING in the rule book that states this
- Provide proper training facilities for their umpires
- Actually coach their umpires on proper positioning so there isn’t this mish-mash that we see with the four umpires, unsure of who is the controlling ump and overruling one another incorrectly
- And stop adding pointless, contradictory rules like “stand” and “nominate for the ruck”.

He could have simply shut the question down (again, rather accurately) with “The umpiring didn’t decide the game. There were line ball calls that went both ways right throughout the game”.

That’s not accurate though, is it.

The Swans were on the right end of a number of generous calls, with the assistance of the crowd baying for the deliberates. You saw it, I saw it, the whole world saw it. But for some reason it’s taboo to actually say it, even when the coach is asked a direct question about it. Again, the media criticise people for being robots and toeing the party line, but when they actually answer a question honestly the pitchforks are out all the same…

They influence games, and it’s head-in-the-sand stuff to suggest otherwise.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Point me to where I’ve said Richards was going to be the difference regardless of how much game time he got. I’ve openly said exactly the opposite. Just more irrational crap from you.

I mean...you kinda did

Richards being subbed late made 3/5s of SFA difference I believe

This 100% insinuates you were expecting more from 47 seconds of match time

 

[OniAu]

Point me to where I’ve said peoples opinions aren’t valid. I’ve only argued that the extrapolations of those opinions aren’t valid.

Eg someone posts they think Richards should have been introduced earlier, McRae got it wrong. McRae didn’t get it wrong, he just didn’t do what that poster thought should have happened.

McRae and a full team of support staff with full diagnostic support and tactical goals obviously thought introducing Richards earlier wasn’t going to help in those circumstances, yet mug punters without any of that support or information think they got it right and McRae got it wrong. I’ll leave it there, continue venting.

Result was an L. He got the gameday coaching wrong. Tactical sub being a part of this whole outcome

 

[sr36]

Result was an L. He got the gameday coaching wrong. Tactical sub being a part of this whole outcome

Pretty simplistic. Having players try to kick the ball through the big sticks for 3 and a half quarters was also part of the gameday tactics and part of the whole outcome. It got us an L - it was a poor decision.



I actually think that's why we lost - we shifted away from the kick it through the big sticks tactic to try to protect our lead. It hasn't worked at all this year.

Hawthorn missed a goal - otherwise they would have rolled us from a long way back early in the year
Dons draw we were ahead and went into no score mode at the end - bloody lucky to get away with the draw.
Freo - FMD
Adelaide came from well back to have a chance to win.
Gold Coast we went into lock it in mode once we got the lead and then copped a goal
North - once we made a miracle comeback to hit the lead, we went into no score mode and they had multiple chances to score and win
Carlton - required them missing to hold on
Swans - got rolled.

 

[swoop42]

Longmire was out of line and also wrong.

They whinge about interstate travel but interstate teams (and Geelong) are also the ones who benefit the most from any home ground advantage on offer.

The only time we have a genuine advantage is when we play a non Victorian team. They gain an advantage every time they play at home unless it's against a fellow tenant like Crows/Power or Eagles/Dockers.

We have no real advantage taking on a Victorian team at the G or Marvel as we all play often at those venues year on year.

In comparison we travel to the SCG at most once a year during the H&A season. With 10 Victorian sides they travel to Melbourne numerous times season on season.

Speaking of playing at the SCG like others have noted it's completely one sided the amount of times we have had to face the Swans away in comparison to playing them in Melbourne over the last decade or two. When it comes to playing Collingwood they have nothing to whinge about it.

As for bringing Fagan and Brisbane into it, yes sure Victorian teams can gain an advantage with the GF contracted to be played at the G. The thing is though last season was a poor example to use, we finished on top of the ladder, we were the No.1 seed and as such any GF would have been played at the G regardless.

Given that 5 of the top 6 sides on the ladder are currently from interstate and Sydney sits atop them all, I guess it's flogging a dead horse to keep suggesting us Victorians aren't as favoured as you all like to repeat in the media.

 

[JLC]

Is it true McBurney said the non call on Friday night re 50m was karma for the Kangaroos game?

Is it any wonder Setka wants to destroy this bloke. What a turd of the highest order.

 

[Stronzatello]

Is it true McBurney said the non call on Friday night re 50m was karma for the Kangaroos game?

Is it any wonder Setka wants to destroy this bloke. What a turd of the highest order.

Does anyone have audio of this? I too have heard he said it. If so, he should be removed from his position immediately. Totally compromises the integrity of the game!!

 

[jmac70]

I mean...you kinda did



This 100% insinuates you were expecting more from 47 seconds of match time

A lot can happen in 47 seconds

 

[OniAu]

Pretty simplistic. Having players try to kick the ball through the big sticks for 3 and a half quarters was also part of the gameday tactics and part of the whole outcome. It got us an L - it was a poor decision.



I actually think that's why we lost - we shifted away from the kick it through the big sticks tactic to try to protect our lead. It hasn't worked at all this year.

Hawthorn missed a goal - otherwise they would have rolled us from a long way back early in the year
Dons draw we were ahead and went into no score mode at the end - bloody lucky to get away with the draw.
Freo - FMD
Adelaide came from well back to have a chance to win.
Gold Coast we went into lock it in mode once we got the lead and then copped a goal
North - once we made a miracle comeback to hit the lead, we went into no score mode and they had multiple chances to score and win
Carlton - required them missing to hold on
Swans - got rolled.

So Richards an attacking forward would help in that case to extend the lead ?

Win or Loss , everythings under the microscope, that was the point i was trying to make

 

[Obese Arachnid]

A lot can happen in 47 seconds

Mrs OA knows that.

 

[sr36]

So Richards an attacking forward would help in that case to extend the lead ?

Win or Loss , everythings under the microscope, that was the point i was trying to make

Not when he runs straight behind the ball. Wouldn't have helped more than Schultz with the tactics we were running with.

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

It's funny, no one seems to be able to find a single source for the Leppitsch claim. Some random Essendon nuff supporter page made a claim that it was reported on SEN and everyone is just repeating that post. But no one can seemingly find the original report from SEN.

I wonder if it was just an SEN host offering their opinion about who the Bombers should target for their coaching group and the morons that listen to SEN took it as a factual statement?

On SM-S916B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

It's funny, no one seems to be able to find a single source for the Leppitsch claim. Some random Essendon nuff supporter page made a claim that it was reported on SEN and everyone is just repeating that post. But no one can seemingly find the original report from SEN.

I wonder if it was just an SEN host offering their opinion about who the Bombers should target for their coaching group and the morons that listen to SEN took it as a factual statement?

On SM-S916B using BigFooty.com mobile app

It was probably an add for an Essendon Liposuction clinic.

 

[Doc1763]

It was probably an add for an Essendon Liposuction clinic.

Whatever it takes.......