Review R17: The Good, Bad and Ugly vs. Brisbane Lions

[CrowBloke]

Sadly, I think it always considered intentional if it's off the ball

Unless:
--- you're from a good family, a nice boy, and a chance for the Brownlow (koff Dairy Products koff ), or
--- you're from one of the VFL's pet Clubs, or
--- you're from a Club playing a Final that the VFL wants that Club to win ...

It's a sh1tty, inconsistent system with inherent bias.

 

[CrowBloke]

Does anyone have any straws to clutch?

Perhaps the Club can spare some of the straws they're clinging to keeping Nicks afloat?

 

[arrowman]

Of course he bumped but as i said it is still a football action

Bumping a player off the ball is not a "football action".

2 to 3 was fair.

SPP got 3 for a genuine head high bump.

I thought 3, but I think we're seeing that 3 is the new 2 when it comes to concussions.

 

[cmndstab]

The AFL have clearly spelled out what they deem to be a football action and what they don't, in the context of the bump.

If you bump in the action of collecting the football, that is a football action. It can still end up getting you suspended depending on the circumstances, but they consider that to be a valid reason for bumping.

Anything else is not.

 

[1990crow]

Seems to know where the goals are, Goal Sneak. Not really seeing much else though.
Honestly, i'd like to see players like Cook and Rachele playing under a half decent coach/assistant coaches.
Nicks is a DUD, Silvers publicly saying Nicks is a good coach because hes rebuilt the culture of the footy club is just rediculous.
On top of Nicks we also have a merry band of work experience assistant coaches as well.
The club needs to wake the **** up and make some easy calls in the next 1-2 years, on both players and staff that are just not up to par.

 

[Brett Cummings]

There are some hard truths that disgruntled, sack-Nicks-now posters like me have to face in the post quoted below:

Although I think Nicks is under pressure like any underachieving AFL Coach would be, that signing from nearly 4 months ago is set in stone and has been supported (inexplicably, imo) by the Club Admin. at every opportunity.
Nicks will take us to the end of 2024 and most likely to the bye of 2025 at the very least. It's irrelevant that I think, with many others, that's at least a year too long. Fair enough, Jenny.

In a Forum like this, we're allowed (if not encouraged) to comment and discuss and agree/disagree within the Rules which are often stretched. provided posters don't get personal.
Jenny, your posts are no more the "bleating" of sheep than those with whom you disagree. I know you're annoyed by the negativity; many others are too, for different reasons, but that negativity is spawned by the Crows' failures.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
The Crows have had twice as many losses this year as wins, so while they are IN the Comp, they are not "thereabouts" in terms of success which at the very least has got to be making Finals.
Take any team in any professional top-of-the sport Competition; a 5-10-1 record is not even break-even in terms of the success by which teams and Coaches are measured, eg
--- in the 20-team IPL (2023-24) the teams with 10 losses after 16 rounds were West Ham (16th) and Southampton/Wolves (19th/20th).
--- in the NRL 2024 (17 teams) the Titans with 10 losses after 16 rounds are 15th.

I could probably find more mediocre teams in other pro-sports' Comps, but the point is none of those teams are "thereabouts". They are failing, just like our Crows.


The Lions are not "rampant" (they're 8th., yawn), nor were they 'rampant' yesterday. If anything, the poorly-skilled, fumbly, hesitant Crows dragged Brisbane down to that level. In terms of skill-execution, yesterday's game was an error-filled eyesore.
2024Brisbane are not the side of 2023, they are not Sydney 2024( who've been knocked off twice recently!), or Collingwood at their best last year.

I agree, yesterday's loss alone is not a sackable offence, but it's not an outlier. It fits a losing pattern that Nicks has established with the team ie get behind, fight to come back, then lose.
One loss does not define a season or a Coach (even if it fits a miserable, losing pattern), but
64 losses in 99 games does.
I'm so, so sick of the Crows losing/ not contending under Nicks. Aren't you?
How many opportunities, how many years, how many Assistants would you give him until you want him gone, too?

I agree.
Nicks now has the rest of this year and until the bye of next year (his 6th year!) to turn it around.
Can he? Jenny, I hope like Hell he can, but the signs aren't good to say the least.
Will he? I do not think so.
If the Bye comes around next year and we're sitting snug in the Top 6 with a good % and playing well, I'll be as happy as a Crow on a carcass, delighted to be wrong and effusive in my praise of Nicks and the team.
Meanwhile ... not.

Fwiw, I don't wear knickers or even tried them on out of curiosity or for fun . I'm a navy blue, untwistable
Y-fronts Crowbloke .

You're right. We're stuck with Nicks.
I have to accept that, but I do not have to like it.

You don't have to accept anything. If he's there next year I certainly won't be watching. F that useless prick. Enough is enough.

 

[DJ75]

If anything, the AFL is likely to make penalties for this kind of action heavier.

I know you think that the penalty doesn't fit the crime - but the AFL is hellbent on removing bumps resulting in head contact out of the game. This should not be news to anyone.

Just that bit. The longer term plan is to remove it completely.

 

[jenny61_99]

It's trademark Crows too to "win" from that point on. Giving opponents a head start is the exact issue we've had for years and they still can't figure it out.

GC: 13 points down after 13 minutes (0-13). Lost by 6.
Ess: 9 points down after 12 minutes (1-10). Lost by 3.
Coll: 8 points down after 10 minutes (0-8). Lost by 4.
Rich: 18 points down after 20 minutes (3-21). Lost by 8.
Bris: 19 points down after 8 minutes (0-19). Lost by 11.

Convert 3 of those into wins and we're a game out of the 8.

So, there and there abouts?

 

[cmndstab]

Just that bit. The longer term plan is to remove it completely.

Which, let's face it, is the only responsible thing to do. Bumps come with a high risk of causing brain injury, as we've just witnessed yesterday.

What is completely irresponsible is the AFL refusing to come out and just say it. Just say, sorry guys, the bump is now banned. Don't bump or else you get suspended, full stop. But the AFL won't do it, instead insisting on these pathetic, cowardly half-measures which leaves fans infuriated every time someone ends up getting suspended.


It's the equivalent of saying "we're not going to stop you from shooting a gun in a public place, but if it hits someone you're in big trouble!" Just ban the action itself.

 

[Brett Cummings]

Getting balme or different assistant coaches isnt going to change anything. He will keep selecting murphy, laird and smith. He has nfi.

 

[King Elvis]

Even with Walker & Smith back in the side, significantly increasing our average age & experience numbers:

• We were the 2nd least experienced team of the round (86.2 games per player, to Norf's 79.3)
• We were the equal 3rd youngest team of the round (25 yrs 0 mths - equal with GWS, older than Norf's 24 yr 9 mth and Gold Coast's 24 yr 11 mth).

In R16, without Walker & Smith, we averaged just 24 yrs 7 mths and 75.9 games per player.

Our team would be more experienced if we played the inexperienced players more often.

 

[jenny61_99]

Our team would be more experienced if we played the inexperienced players more often.

There’s no doubt about that!

 

[CrowBloke]

You don't have to accept anything.

I'm an old guy.
I've learned that life gets easier (well, my life anyway) when I don't fight the things over which I have no control.
Nicks is there, he's been extended and will be there at least until the 2025 bye unless the Crows get annihilated early in the season and he's fired.
I like footy and watching footy and most high level sports. I don't just watch Crows games and I'll keep watching the Crows, driven by some kind of weird, compelling, masochistic loyalty. Lol @ me, ha!

If he's there next year I certainly won't be watching. F that useless prick. Enough is enough.

Fair enough. We all gotta do what we wanna do.
I'll keep watching (and hoping) on free-to-air but like you, I'm hell-disappointed in Nicks.

 

[King Elvis]

I see a young man with immense skills who has been shunted in and out of sides, out of position, huge amounts of time on the bench, subbed etc.

In a team bereft of players with actual football skills, I would like to see him played for full games in a position that suits his abilities and be brought into the game more. He is a great mark and kick, yet gets stuck as the deep forward.

Maybe his work rate or instinct don't lift and he doesn't make it. If he does make it, then he will be 5x the player of the guys we KNOW won't make it yet have 50-100+ games.

Pick footballers, not high effort, low skill triers.

No idea if Cook will make it (signs aren't good), but given the apparent talent he has, surely we put him on a wing or HBF for a month, play through him and see if he's actually worth persisting with?

Because at present, it's looking bad.

Put him in an easier position and do whatever we can to make it work - then decide.

 

[Crowboto]

Our team would be more experienced if we played the inexperienced players more often.

Can we tattoo this statement to Nicks bald head?

 

[King Elvis]

IMHO, Rankine lined him up .. and was always going to be sanctioned

I just struggle with the 4 weeks

I just think it's a sad indictment of the AFL that run of the mill players can scrag / tag the elite players out of the game and when they react

No one goes to the football to watch Starcevich, I go to watch players like Rankine though

I think 2 weeks would've been reasonable - 4 seems excessive for such a simple act; not like he launched into him.

Absolutely agree with your scragging comment; the AFL allows situations like this occur by allowing players to scrag and pester all day, without any umpire intervention - and then this shit happens.

30 years ago the scragger would get belted by his targets teammates, and he'd either stop, or get belted again - I'm definitely not suggesting a return to that, but they have removed that retribution, without replacing it by umpire intervention.

 

[King Elvis]

It's hard enough to watch us at the moment as it is with finals long gone and no tangible benefit for winning, and now we don't even have Rankine's football to enjoy for a month.

Bleh

Look on the brightside mate - we probably won't win another game this year

 

[jackster83]

Look on the brightside mate - we probably won't win another game this year

I'm still laughing at that poster calling you demented.

 

[WetCrow1991]

Getting real tired of watching Laird's lack of running out on the field. Most selfish and lazy player in the squad?

 

[King Elvis]

The only way the Crows could argue against the charge would be for them to argue it should be high impact instead of severe impact. And I doubt they would be successful.

Take the ban, use it to play another young player (or at the very least, to retain a young player in the side when someone like McHenry is inevitably recalled) and move on. Perhaps have a brainstorming session about what the playing group can do to help Rankine out when he's being targeted going forward so it doesn't come to this again.

You and Vader (and some others) have done a great job of explaining this.

As you've said - intent arrives from the decision to bump, not the consequentially head crash.

I think most of us find that crazy, but it is how it is at present.

We probably need another grading or qualifier to address this in the future; there is too much of a gap between a deliberate action that accidentally has a negative outcome, or a deliberate act that predictably has a negative outcome.

 

[cmndstab]

You and Vader (and some others) have done a great job of explaining this.

As you've said - intent arrives from the decision to bump, not the consequentially head crash.

I think most of us find that crazy, but it is how it is at present.

We probably need another grading or qualifier to address this in the future; there is too much of a gap between a deliberate action that accidentally has a negative outcome, or a deliberate act that predictably has a negative outcome.

Again, this is mostly an artefact of the AFL refusing to lay their cards on the table.

They don't want bumps which end up accidentally causing concussions. They don't want bumps at all. But they don't want to deal with the heat they would receive by just banning them outright. So they're just suspending players based on outcomes, and hoping that players (and coaches) will eventually just decide, okay, no more bumps. Not worth the risk. That's what the AFL want - they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to get rid of the bump, without having to be the bad guys who ruined the game and made it soft in the eyes of various fans and past players.

Creating an intermediate category with smaller penalties would work against that goal.

 

[Crow till I die]

THE UGLY

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

"Aspiring sports journalist..."

Best start working on that Plan B

 

[King Elvis]

I'm still laughing at that poster calling you demented.

I needed some cheering up

 

[cleanhands]

I needed some cheering up

Maybe a hot relaxing bath