T2B_
The Avo King
- Feb 13, 2011
- 54,670
- 93,405
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Tasmania Devils, Dragons FFC
Ugh stop
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. This is factually incorrect. 3 weeks before playing against us he had 35 possies against West Coast, and 32 against Gold Coast. 24 disposals against the Crows was not a great return, but not hopeless. He was apparently well-tagged against the Pies.Not at all "ridiculous"... Selwood had not been in great form for about a month. Plus he looks a little less than 100% fit.
If Scott wasn't taking us seriously, he would've indeed started Selwood in the middle.
The idea being, our midfield wouldn't put up too much resistance against them and Selwood would have a day out. If anything, Selwood started forward to avoid the early onslaught from our tough, hard hitting, formidable midfield... They were protecting him.
No chance Scott was taking us lightly. Love him or hate him, he's no fool, he knows underestimating us would be a mistake...
You seem determined to take the gloss off this win. You call it "balance", fair enough...1. This is factually incorrect. 3 weeks before playing against us he had 35 possies against West Coast, and 32 against Gold Coast. 24 disposals against the Crows was not a great return, but not hopeless. He was apparently well-tagged against the Pies.
2. What player starts a game not 100% fit, gets sfa of the ball in the opening quarter and then plays out the remainder of the game strongly?
I read what you wrote. I don't believe it. Selwood has nearly as many clearances this year as Cripps. You think BB will start Cripps anywhere other than the middle in a game we are taking seriously?
Protecting Joel Selwood? Seriously? He hasn't had or needed that sort of protection from his first season. I'm willing to bet Joel Selwood starts in the middle against the GWS whether or not Coniglio starts on him.
I agree with you that Scott was absolutely NOT "Taking us lightly". What he was doing was "taking us lightly" relative to the time, planning and effort he would make in a game against one of the other teams currently in the top 8 (since they are the only teams who have any realistic chance of playing finals). They are the 8 point games. Winning those games means more than 4 points. It means depriving one of your finals competitors of 4 points and relative position on the ladder. It also means gaining "the wood" over them.
Scott's 1/4 time performance barraging/berating his team suggests the team was likewise not "switched on". AFL is a very long season. No team can play at their best all season and hope to be any good at the business end. Even good sides have form slumps and the Cats losses against the Pies and us demonstrates clearly they are going through one. This makes it as silly for us to go overboard with our good win as it would be for the Cats to lose perspective from their bad loss.
That's only because that is what is meant by "under"estimating.
Taking the colloquial meaning of your phrase ("this game was very important to our long term development"), I disagree.
That said, I agree with you.
You sound surprised. It goes something like this. Carlton lose: we are crap, our players are crap, we're a laughing stock. We win: the opposition aren't trying, the opposition are crap, we got lucky.Funny our team wins a few games and all of a sudden it is not us winning, but the other team not trying...honestly some will never be happy.
Stuff like pressure them and hit them hard and they fold? Stuff like that?