Autopsy Hawthorn v the great pretenders

Remove this Banner Ad

How have I made unrealistic expectations?
"I expect the same from everyone"

Some of the players are experienced players picked high in the draft, others are young inexperienced players off the rookie list.
You can't expect the same from everyone, because they each have strengths and weaknesses.

If everyone had the same output, you could just field a side to exploit their weaknesses.

And if we had 22 Roughies running around, we'd be spending double our salary cap.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

What an utterly embarrassing night for the NMFC.

Came out and went the premeditated biff - failed and lost the game.
Then locked the media out post game whilst preaching accessibility for last few years.
Then painted the picture of "deserving" to win the game despite losing 3 out 4 quarters.
Then the coach called into question the integrity of the officials as the ultimate dummy spit.
And finally, after his accusations have been proven a complete load of shit, hasn't had the gall to front the media himself....

What a joke of a club - petulant leaders without any class whatsoever.
 
You have selected your points well...
He doesn't need to change. His development should be in the attitude of Mitch & not Derm.
To select a couple of points from my post is a little bias...

Again, I like him as a forward.
I don't like him in defence.
I think he has improved slightly in defence.
He isn't Derm mk2! He is Sicily 2016.
if he is to be compared to Derm, I hope he doesn't go down the same BS tough guy act.
He was mouthing off to a guy from behind some players. I believe Jack Zebell has the runs on the board as being hard at it & I think it will be entertaining to watch when we play North again.
I don't know what more I can do in conceding that he has progressed & will be good for Hawthon in the future.
I don't piss & moan when TOB gets criticised or when Gus isn't getting a game. I do however voice my opinion freely & if some doesn't like it then they don't have to comment, same as I choose to do.
If taking part in a discussion forum means to agree with the majority then that defeats the whole purpose does it not?
I could stroke the egos & attitudes of everyone & everything & not have my own views but unfortunately I choose to have my own opinion.
To have to justify my opinion seems a bit off; especially when my pov has varied toward a more positive view of Sicily.
Am I now under watch for not agreeing with someone's opinion or am I being asked to justify my point because my collective opinion across the season so far has changed slightly toward the positive for Sicily...

That's a lot of words to say nothing.
You don't like him in defense. Seriously, he's not being groomed as our next CHB. Get a clue.
 
Can someone tell me how after Smith kicks the first goal and is dumped by Burrito well late how it is not a free kick and 2 goals in a row?

Agree. That rule is so inconsistent. It happened so many times on Friday. I remember at least 3 that should have been downfield frees for us. I'm assuming there were a few more.

I remember Buddy getting a lot of those paid against him. I think some players look 'worse' when bumping players in the process of/after kicking.

Loved Smith's response though!
 
What an utterly embarrassing night for the Nothing FC.

Came out and went the premeditated biff - failed and lost the game.
Then locked the media out post game whilst preaching accessibility for last few years.
Then painted the picture of "deserving" to win the game despite losing 3 out 4 quarters.
Then the coach called into question the integrity of the officials as the ultimate dummy spit.
And finally, after his accusations have been proven a complete load of shit, hasn't had the gall to front the media himself....

What a joke of a club - petulant leaders without any class whatsoever.


Great post.

I just fixed an important part.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What an utterly embarrassing night for the NMFC.

Came out and went the premeditated biff - failed and lost the game.
Then locked the media out post game whilst preaching accessibility for last few years.
Then painted the picture of "deserving" to win the game despite losing 3 out 4 quarters.
Then the coach called into question the integrity of the officials as the ultimate dummy spit.
And finally, after his accusations have been proven a complete load of shit, hasn't had the gall to front the media himself....

What a joke of a club - petulant leaders without any class whatsoever.

and on top of all that they are on the Down Escalator
 
It's Sunday afternoon and I'm still exhausted after this game. It was a fantastic result in the pentultimate game before mid-season break, a gritty win that the youngsters will no doubt have gained some very valuable learnings from.
 
Can someone tell me how after Smith kicks the first goal and is dumped by Burrito well late how it is not a free kick and 2 goals in a row?
The goal has to be signalled before a second free can be awarded

Smith was dumped, but before the all-clear
This means it's a down-field free/advantage (if he had of missed, he'd have had a shot from the square
 
Can someone tell me how after Smith kicks the first goal and is dumped by Burrito well late how it is not a free kick and 2 goals in a row?
Apparently one of our officials heard the umpires telling a player that Smith didn't get the free and second shot because he is a ducker. Just saying.....
 
Really? Even when following an opponent? Always thought its 50 regardless.
Only when following an opponent. Lewis was lining up behind the mark to take his kick. Protected zone is 10m either side of the mark all the way up to Lewis and then a 10m radius around him.

Fellow Hawk players may pass through the protected zone but may not loiter (like blocking the man on the mark from anywhere but behind) or they'll be told to move along on by the umpire.

One
direct opponent per Hawk player may pass through the protected zone. The direct opponent must be within close proximity (like within a couple metres or closer) of the Hawk player before entering the protected zone and must trail the Hawk player all the way through and out of the protected zone otherwise it will be a 50m penalty.

The opposition player may only cross the mark if the Hawk player they are trailing crosses it and they are already within their proximity. The umps are usually very touchy about this one and seem to have a far stricter definition on what is close proximity. The opponent seems to need to stay within touching distance.

I notice a lot of our smarter players try to lose their direct opponent by running around the back of one of our players lining up for their kick as that Hawk backs backward. The trailing opponent then has to take the long route around the back too as they may not cross the mark. And if the player taking the kick on the mark can back back fast enough then it allows enough separation from the opponent and the smart Hawk that the ump may pay a 50.

It's a bit of a tricky thing to describe. Much easier to show in practice. Hopefully haven't confused you now lol
 
Awesome, thanks!

Particularly liked the bits where you changed the commentary (to MMM?).

Or did I just imagine that?...
Haha. Yes it did change to Triple M for a bit due to the audio track of the second quarter on my original file had a noise go through it which didn't sound great.
 
Where are all the Norf supporters Phillip that were frequenting our boards. Come out come out wherever you are!..It's tea time. Oh Phillip..they're pretending to be hiding.

queen-tea--z.jpg
 
Where are all the Norf supporters Phillip that were frequenting our boards. Come out come out wherever you are!..It's tea time. Oh Phillip..they're pretending to be hiding.

queen-tea--z.jpg
Was wondering the same thing, they were happy to talk it up pre-game. Can't say I miss them.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 
It's Sunday afternoon and I'm still exhausted after this game. It was a fantastic result in the pentultimate game before mid-season break, a gritty win that the youngsters will no doubt have gained some very valuable learnings from.


I heard that it was a team rule that no player was to instigate any niggling, or react to anything from the opposition.

That would explain why our guys took it and didn't give it back.

And why Clarko was so happy with the win.
 
They should have won by 5 goals. A number of players had poor games or just weren't up for the physicality and pressure North applied.

Bad
- Gunston was unsighted for most of the game. He gets a pass because it's a rarity he ever plays poorly.
- Bruest was really targeted by their backs and was found wanting on a number of occasions.
..

If the umps weren't god awfully over allowant of NMs crap, Breust would have had a half dozen frees and as many goals. Was crucified (and it happens often). Was given no chance to get in to the game. That he kicked one and set up another with a nice centre was a credit to the fact he hungin there.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Autopsy Hawthorn v the great pretenders

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top