Our game plan of getting through the thickest of zones via the use of run and carry zipping handpasses is what causes the drastic difference between our best and worst in my opinion. When we play at our best the opposition struggle to put on pressure and we are confident in our skills. Our worst is when the opposition breathe down our necks forcing us to fumble and switch over. The other point is that there is no predictability in our worst, because the forwards are never certain the ball is going to go into the 50, thus we lose our forward structure of leading into goals very quickly. At our best we are predictable, the forwards have the confidence to know when to lead and when to not.

When i consider these two points i can recognize why we smash the poor teams and why we get smashed by the good teams. We dont have the confidence in our own skills or our own strength.. Having forward structure will lead to 10-15 goals more a game..

Age will fix this up.....

We just need to have the belief that we are just tittering on the edge of becoming a very dangerous team, this is the belief that will help motivate us to win contests. And motivation will only fast forward our development.

Im excited

  On 03/07/2011 at 11:43, StevenStretch said:

I've noticed this year that against the younger sides (put talent completely aside) we have been quite competitive against sides with a few older blokes (once again despite how good or bad they may be) we have struggled with the pressure, pound for pound talent wise we are as good as most. We are not yet strong enough or developed enough to apply pressure to the bigger bodied teams.

SS I do not know how you can be so sure that "pound for pound talent wise we are as good as most"

I see little that suggest that this is true.

Yes we have some good players who are improving however we have a large number that IMO

are no better than Average AFL players.

do you not even consider than a number of our current list are not good enough to back up the good players?

  On 03/07/2011 at 12:05, old dee said:

SS I do not know how you can be so sure that "pound for pound talent wise we are as good as most"

I see little that suggest that this is true.

Isn't the proof that we smash sides that are at the same or lesser level of development than us? North game aside this is clearly the case. You could maybe argue West Coast however their season is riding on the coat tails of a fit quartet of Cox, Kerr, Embley and Glass and not on a youth led surge.

I am amazed that so few can see this.

  On 03/07/2011 at 05:59, desertfox said:

And also under Dean Bailey we still have yet to beat a Victorian team other than the Tiogs or Bombers.

This is a disgrace. We had everything to play for especially considering the bye next week and we played like a bunch of chumps.

This is such a stupid thing for people to say (you're not the only one who spouts this shite).

North Melbourne aside, and there is clearly something up with the way we play North (or more likely, the way they play us), the rest of the Victorian teams have been better than us. That is why we lose to them.

Collingwood, Geelong, St Kilda, Bulldogs, Hawthorn have all been top class sides. Carlton has been thereabouts, but better than us, the last few years.

We beat Richmond and Essendon because we're as good or better than them. We beat Brisbane, Gold Coast, Port, Fremantle and Adelaide because we are as good or better than them.

Agree. The ladder is a good reflection. Funny that. With the Saints and Dogs form being indifferent. But considering where they've been for the last three or so years and their experience as well as their top 6 players (core players), if they play well (see Dogs Friday and Saints today), they will be hard to beat.