Post Match. Pies wallop Saints - all comments please

Match previews, reviews, reports and discussion.

Moderator: bbmods

Post Reply
User avatar
Invigoration
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:45 pm

Post by Invigoration »

eddiesmith wrote:
ADRIAN25 wrote:At Game Day this morning. Maxy said Buckley had tightness in the back. If played would have been the sub. He thought Blair will come in for Swan. He also said that the club is trying there best for Nathan Brown to be back between round 17 to 19. Moving Tarrent to forward line then.
Atleast up forward his dropping of uncontested marks wont immediately cost us a goal the other way...
??? Tarrant's been brilliant for us in recent weeks, genuinely baffled by this comment. Can't remember him dropping anything last night.
User avatar
jack_spain
Posts: 23349
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 6:48 pm

Post by jack_spain »

Doc63 wrote:
mattys123 wrote:
Brenny wrote:I believe AFL memberships might drop off. I'm sure there are people out there who will have to make decisions...

Memberships or Foxtel. At current rates, Foxtel is $60 pm for spots. $720 a year.
You can hold off your AFL membership for one year though, so many will do that next year, if they haven't already.

My bro-in-law is doing exactly that, as he has 2 young kids (2yo and 6 months) and simply can't get to most games, so he will hold his membership over for one year (at no cost) and buy Foxtel for 12 Months.

Many will do likewise.

It will be interesting to see if Collingwood's membership numbers can keep growing also, but I think the 3 game option helps here, as I think many more will take up a 3 game membership next year, maybe even cutting back from an 11 of 18 gamer.
There will be no way known I'll be giving up my Legends membership just to get Foxtel. I barely have enough time to watch the games that are on free to air, let alone 9 games every weekend. Other than the footy & a few other sports, its crap.

Even if things got tough financially, Id rather sell a kidney than give up my Legends membership.
The reality is though guys, Collingwood games will mostly be on free-to-air. I won't be rushing out to take up Foxtel. If I want to see those games I'll go to a local sporty pub.
Duff Soviet Union
Posts: 1454
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:45 pm
Been liked: 2 times

Post by Duff Soviet Union »

Invigoration wrote:
eddiesmith wrote:
ADRIAN25 wrote:At Game Day this morning. Maxy said Buckley had tightness in the back. If played would have been the sub. He thought Blair will come in for Swan. He also said that the club is trying there best for Nathan Brown to be back between round 17 to 19. Moving Tarrent to forward line then.
Atleast up forward his dropping of uncontested marks wont immediately cost us a goal the other way...
??? Tarrant's been brilliant for us in recent weeks, genuinely baffled by this comment. Can't remember him dropping anything last night.
He dropped an easy(ish) one in the second quarter that led directly to a Saints goal that gave them the lead. If Brown is ready to go, is there any chance either Tarrant or Dawes could take Leroy's role as the 3rd tall / 2nd ruck? Hawthorn's had success playing "undersized" Roughead in the ruck and Leroy hasn't been giving us much all season, apart from the quarter of his life against the Bullflogs?
"We ain't gotta dream no more"
User avatar
jack_spain
Posts: 23349
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 6:48 pm

Post by jack_spain »

Invigoration wrote:
eddiesmith wrote:
ADRIAN25 wrote:At Game Day this morning. Maxy said Buckley had tightness in the back. If played would have been the sub. He thought Blair will come in for Swan. He also said that the club is trying there best for Nathan Brown to be back between round 17 to 19. Moving Tarrent to forward line then.
Atleast up forward his dropping of uncontested marks wont immediately cost us a goal the other way...
??? Tarrant's been brilliant for us in recent weeks, genuinely baffled by this comment. Can't remember him dropping anything last night.
Correct. Didn't you see the screamer?

Eddiesmith is to Tarrant what Pants is to Maxwell. :P
User avatar
eddiesmith
Posts: 12394
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:21 am
Location: Lexus Centre
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 24 times

Post by eddiesmith »

Duff Soviet Union wrote:
Invigoration wrote:
eddiesmith wrote:
ADRIAN25 wrote:At Game Day this morning. Maxy said Buckley had tightness in the back. If played would have been the sub. He thought Blair will come in for Swan. He also said that the club is trying there best for Nathan Brown to be back between round 17 to 19. Moving Tarrent to forward line then.
Atleast up forward his dropping of uncontested marks wont immediately cost us a goal the other way...
??? Tarrant's been brilliant for us in recent weeks, genuinely baffled by this comment. Can't remember him dropping anything last night.
He dropped an easy(ish) one in the second quarter that led directly to a Saints goal that gave them the lead. If Brown is ready to go, is there any chance either Tarrant or Dawes could take Leroy's role as the 3rd tall / 2nd ruck? Hawthorn's had success playing "undersized" Roughead in the ruck and Leroy hasn't been giving us much all season, apart from the quarter of his life against the Bullflogs?
It was an absolute shocking drop, you wont see any worse than that by a defender

As for Tarrant replacing Leroy, are you kidding me? Leroy is definately ahead of Tarrant in the pecking order, if N.Brown comes back then Tarrant goes and he works on taking out someone at training :lol:
Duff Soviet Union
Posts: 1454
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:45 pm
Been liked: 2 times

Post by Duff Soviet Union »

I'm happy with Taz at full back. That one drop aside, he's been rock solid all season and everyone's entitled to the odd mistake even if it does cost a goal. I just think ultimately the team might be better off with Nathan Brown at full back (if he's properly recovered of course. Otherwise this is all moot), and Tarrant as the third tall forward. He can take a mark, he's mobile and his forward pressure is honed from playing as a defender. As for his kicking at goal...well hopefully he can handball to someone. I think if he can play on the ball, even for only 5-10 minutes a quarter, he'd be excellent for Leroy's role. He'd almost be a combination of Leroy and Macca actually and give us the freedom to play an extra midfielder or small forward. All this is weeks away obviously.
"We ain't gotta dream no more"
User avatar
Culprit
Posts: 17243
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: Port Melbourne
Has liked: 57 times
Been liked: 68 times

Post by Culprit »

Thomas should join the guys going to Arizona as he won't be playing for a few weeks..

The Saints must have nightmares about playing us. One thing I can say is that negative game plan will not work on us ever.
User avatar
eddiesmith
Posts: 12394
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:21 am
Location: Lexus Centre
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 24 times

Post by eddiesmith »

Duff Soviet Union wrote:I'm happy with Taz at full back. That one drop aside, he's been rock solid all season and everyone's entitled to the odd mistake even if it does cost a goal. I just think ultimately the team might be better off with Nathan Brown at full back (if he's properly recovered of course. Otherwise this is all moot), and Tarrant as the third tall forward. He can take a mark, he's mobile and his forward pressure is honed from playing as a defender. As for his kicking at goal...well hopefully he can handball to someone. I think if he can play on the ball, even for only 5-10 minutes a quarter, he'd be excellent for Leroy's role. He'd almost be a combination of Leroy and Macca actually and give us the freedom to play an extra midfielder or small forward. All this is weeks away obviously.
He has been ok as a defender but yeah Nathan Brown definately takes his spot when fit

But I dont see him being an improvement on Leigh Brown at all, things might change by the end of the year and he might get lucky again, but if everyones fit then Tarrant is out
User avatar
jackcass
Posts: 12529
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:17 pm
Location: Bendigo

Post by jackcass »

Invigoration wrote:
eddiesmith wrote:
ADRIAN25 wrote:At Game Day this morning. Maxy said Buckley had tightness in the back. If played would have been the sub. He thought Blair will come in for Swan. He also said that the club is trying there best for Nathan Brown to be back between round 17 to 19. Moving Tarrent to forward line then.
Atleast up forward his dropping of uncontested marks wont immediately cost us a goal the other way...
??? Tarrant's been brilliant for us in recent weeks, genuinely baffled by this comment. Can't remember him dropping anything last night.
From memory, dropped one going back with the flight of the ball. Hardly a hanging offence.
choppa
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Melbourne
Been liked: 1 time

Post by choppa »

jackcass wrote:
Invigoration wrote:
eddiesmith wrote:
ADRIAN25 wrote:At Game Day this morning. Maxy said Buckley had tightness in the back. If played would have been the sub. He thought Blair will come in for Swan. He also said that the club is trying there best for Nathan Brown to be back between round 17 to 19. Moving Tarrent to forward line then.
Atleast up forward his dropping of uncontested marks wont immediately cost us a goal the other way...
??? Tarrant's been brilliant for us in recent weeks, genuinely baffled by this comment. Can't remember him dropping anything last night.
From memory, dropped one going back with the flight of the ball. Hardly a hanging offence.
Was at the game and as soon as Tarrant dropped that mark and it went in for a goal Tarrant signaled to Leon with a hand gesture suggesting 'where was the talk' so wasn't entirely Tarrant's fault.
User avatar
GoWoodsmen
Posts: 1857
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:18 am
Location: Australia

Post by GoWoodsmen »

Can someone fill me on what happened with Buckley? Was he a late withdrawal or did he get his injury during the game with an early substitution that I clearly didn't hear over the PA?

Just curious..
Side By Side Forever
AN_Inkling
Posts: 13521
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:29 am

Post by AN_Inkling »

^^Late withdrawal, replaced by Goldsack.
Well done boys!
User avatar
GoWoodsmen
Posts: 1857
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:18 am
Location: Australia

Post by GoWoodsmen »

AN_Inkling wrote:^^Late withdrawal, replaced by Goldsack.
So did we not have a sub for the whole game? Man I'm lost... was at the game but it's the first game where I didn't have a handle on who the sub was and who came off for them!!
Side By Side Forever
AN_Inkling
Posts: 13521
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:29 am

Post by AN_Inkling »

Goldsack was the sub. Came on with about 20 minutes to go. Leroy was subbed off.
Well done boys!
User avatar
GoWoodsmen
Posts: 1857
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:18 am
Location: Australia

Post by GoWoodsmen »

Ok... now I've got the full picture. I thought Goldie was in the team already, forgetting he was dropped the week before!!

Go Pies.
Side By Side Forever
Post Reply