Essendon smacked Collingwood today with a simple forward line. Bellchambers and Hille deep with Gumby as the CHF then get goals from smalls. Our smalls aren't stars but they are capable to score. The big question is what can Pedersen do?

To play like Bellchambers, he needs to fall over at the slightest bit of contact.

Seriously, and possibly very important (remember Ricky Petterd and his collapsed lung): do we have a club doctor????

After looking at our side I think I might need him.

Blease and Rodan into the starting 18, that surprised me

Rodan especially, He had better give us something.

and lol @ Stef Martin being dropped

Edited April 25, 201312 yr by hogans_heroes

That would be the worst forward line I've seen for a very long time if not ever.

It isn't unlike the one which took the field against Port, both for quality and structure.

Gawn for Clark, Pedo for Sellar and Bail for Sylvia and you have it.

It's a Blue Collar Unit without great pretension.

We'll be looking for 10 goals from the Mids.

It isn't unlike the one which took the field against Port, both for quality and structure.

Gawn for Clark, Pedo for Sellar and Bail for Sylvia and you have it.

It's a Blue Collar Unit without great pretension.

We'll be looking for 10 goals from the Mids.

I'll stick by my statement.

Blease and Rodan into the starting 18, that surprised me

Rodan especially, He had better give us something.

and lol @ Stef Martin being dropped

Injured.

I think this is the game where Jack Watts needs to play forward

Stef Martin is out with an injured ankle

i wonder what the coach's message to Blease is. Probably just back yourself with your pace but try not to turnover the ball.

At least now without Mitch we have to think about our kicks. We usually just bomb it into Mitch and presume he can do it all. Maybe it could be a positive only slightly. I know Maxy hasnt played to many games but we have seen him hold a mark. Rodan can be our crumbing forward. Howe has shown he can do more than take a hanger.

If we can keep Brown quiet then that will help. I know we can win but I just hope we dont fall back into old habits and we cop a belting. The media experts will be lining up again.

I think this is the game where Jack Watts needs to play forward !!!

I've just been watching the first half of the Anzac Day game and trying to compare it in my mind with last Sunday's game. You can sum up the difference in the intensity and the fact that the players in today's game are able maintain their skills at a higher level under greater degrees of intensity. I suppose that's obvious really but it's amazing that we did lift our intensity last week when GWS fell away and, in doing so, our skills improved.

Notwithstanding, I suspect that we're a long, long way off the levels of Essendon and Collingwood (again self-evident because the Bombers beat us by 148 three weeks ago). However, with improved confidence, I think we can go a fair way to bridging the gap.

WJ - you are probably the best, most credible poster on this site, but today's game was terrible, and absolutely riddled with errors.

Yes, the intensity was high, but the errors were absolutely appalling and some of the play was Melbourne-esque and we'd have been right at home today.

Nevertheless, you're right. We are miles off a game like today's.

I've just been watching the first half of the Anzac Day game and trying to compare it in my mind with last Sunday's game. You can sum up the difference in the intensity and the fact that the players in today's game are able maintain their skills at a higher level under greater degrees of intensity. I suppose that's obvious really but it's amazing that we did lift our intensity last week when GWS fell away and, in doing so, our skills improved.

Notwithstanding, I suspect that we're a long, long way off the levels of Essendon and Collingwood (again self-evident because the Bombers beat us by 148 three weeks ago). However, with improved confidence, I think we can go a fair way to bridging the gap.

I was at the Anzac game. If anything at least it proves the bummers are the real deal. Imagine if they were pretenders and beat us by 148?!

I was at the Anzac game. If anything at least it proves the bummers are the real deal. Imagine if they were pretenders and beat us by 148?!

they have admitted their players took banned substances, and there they are at 5-0 and on top of the ladder

Not a good look for the AFL, to say the least

Geeze I would love a win. They were literally laughing about our chances on League Teams tonight.

WJ - you are probably the best, most credible poster on this site, but today's game was terrible, and absolutely riddled with errors.

Yes, the intensity was high, but the errors were absolutely appalling and some of the play was Melbourne-esque and we'd have been right at home today.

Nevertheless, you're right. We are miles off a game like today's.

So maybe we're not as bad as we think.

So maybe we're not as bad as we think.

How bad do we think we are?

I rewatched our GWS game and noticed that Mitch Clark was TERRIBLE ... and yet we still kicked 150 points. If the rest of our team carries on the form they showed in the last quarter, Mitch Clark's absence might not be so bad.

I don't even... what... just no. Terrible call.

Mitch Clark being out is never not a bad thing. Mitch Clark being out reduced the quality of our team by roughly 50%-60%

Brisbane by 40+

Call me an optimist.

People complaining about Mitch Clark being out don't seem to understand that our greatest ever last quarter performance came when he was warming the bench. Such a dramatic turnaround can only be explained by the fact that our dependence on him in the first three quarters was self-defeating.

Of course I'm not happy he's out, and he was one of our best performers in the first three rounds, but all he did against GWS was kick it out on the full and give away free kicks.

Again, how could losing our star full-forward coincide with our greatest quarter of the year? Think about that.

Edited April 25, 201312 yr by Chook

People complaining about Mitch Clark being out don't seem to understand that our greatest ever last quarter performance came when he was warming the bench. Such a dramatic turnaround can only be explained by the fact that our dependence on him in the first three quarters was self-defeating.

Of course I'm not happy he's out, and he was one of our best performers in the first three rounds, but all he did against GWS was kick it out on the full and give away free kicks.

Again, how could losing our star full-forward coincide with our greatest quarter of the year? Think about that.

So it had nothing to do with playing a team younger than us and not as fit as us, but it was all because our best player was on the bench......?

So it had nothing to do with playing a team younger than us and not as fit as us, but it was all because our best player was on the bench......?

I'll bet it was due to a whole host of factors, but if you think Mitch Clark was our best player on the weekend then you're wrong.

I'll bet it was due to a whole host of factors, but if you think Mitch Clark was our best player on the weekend then you're wrong.

Obviously wasn't our best on ground last round, but clearly our best player overall. I haven't heard anyone but you suggest it was anything other than us playing a younger team that caused us to run over them in the last. Even on the day the commentators were talking about how GWS just stopped. Just might have been 16 goals if Mitch was still out there!

Obviously wasn't our best on ground last round, but clearly our best player overall. I haven't heard anyone but you suggest it was anything other than us playing a younger team that caused us to run over them in the last. Even on the day the commentators were talking about how GWS just stopped. Just might have been 16 goals if Mitch was still out there!

We kicked a lot of goals through our midfield, and that would not have happened if the status quo of long bombs to a pack had continued. I don't see it as a positive that Clark is out. I see it as an opportunity to play the way we did in the last quarter for the entire game.

I also think another reason that we played better in the last was that Jack Viney was subbed out. I ranked him and Clark as our worst two performers against GWS. Believe me, I know it sounds strange. But both those two were off the ground in the last quarter, and even with one fewer rotation we absolutely destroyed the Giants.

People are saying that we're half as good with Clark out. I'm saying that the evidence doesn't back that up.

We kicked a lot of goals through our midfield, and that would not have happened if the status quo of long bombs to a pack had continued. I don't see it as a positive that Clark is out. I see it as an opportunity to play the way we did in the last quarter for the entire game.

I also think another reason that we played better in the last was that Jack Viney was subbed out. I ranked him and Clark as our worst two performers against GWS. Believe me, I know it sounds strange. But both those two were off the ground in the last quarter, and even with one fewer rotation we absolutely destroyed the Giants.

People are saying that we're half as good with Clark out. I'm saying that the evidence doesn't back that up.

There is no evidence. We were always going to finish stronger than a young, less fit, inexperienced GWS. Viney and Clark MAY have run havoc in the last quarter and destroyed them even worse.

To say that because two of our best players came out of the game is the reason we had such a great quarter is just plain silly, when the REAL evidence (ie- GWS' age, fitness, and experience) says otherwise.

Here's some more evidence for you, this year GWS average 26 points less than their opposition in 4th quarters ALONE, more than HALF their average losing margin of 50.5 points.

Edited April 25, 201312 yr by stuie

There is no evidence. We were always going to finish stronger than a young, less fit, inexperienced GWS. Viney and Clark MAY have run havoc in the last quarter and destroyed them even worse.

To say that because two of our best players came out of the game is the reason we had such a great quarter is just plain silly, when the REAL evidence (ie- GWS' age, fitness, and experience) says otherwise.

Here's some more evidence for you, this year GWS average 26 points less than their opposition in 4th quarters ALONE, more than HALF their average losing margin of 50.5 points.

You're dealing in hypotheticals. Of course we MAY have beaten them by even more if Clark and Viney were out there, but they weren't out there. You can't use what might have happened as an argument for anything. The fact is that Clark and Viney were out, causing us to have one less rotation slot (thus mitigating a lot of fitness advantage that you say we had), and we STILL had our best last quarter ever.

You use GWS's last quarter statistics, but fail to compare them to ours. Excluding the GWS game, I'd be interested to know our last quarter score differential average this year. I'm willing to bet it would be pretty similar to GWS'.

On the fitness front, perhaps Viney's youth and Clark's interrupted pre-season were actually one of the reasons we weren't performing well in the last quarter in rounds 1-3. Their absence might have been fortuitous, since they are probably quite underdone compared to our other players.

This is just speculation, but Viney and Clark's absence might explain why we seemed to run out the game so well; our other players had the chance to really take advantage of their increased fitness.

Edited April 25, 201312 yr by Chook

Stuie - you are using too many gifs.

I don't want to see gif fatigue on here as I do post the odd one.

Regards

rpfc