I don't understand why people here get stuck into Terlich so much.

A few of his point kick-ins last night were superb.

Neil Craig is a people person.

Mark Neeld is not. He recruited pretty well but after that it dried up.

Watching the replay I still am worried about the lack of composure shown by players. Even after taking a mark or with a free kick Melbourne players still look rushed and flustered as if they will get tackled.

Not often that we win a game let alone a side that isn't GWS or GCS, so I'm going to keep things positive.

Great team effort to 3QT. Disappointing that we still leak goals uncontrollably but there may be light at the end of the tunnel! Remember our best player isn't even allowed to play until 2014 ;-)

Positive for mine:

Dawes: Didn't rate him at the PIes, thought we paid overs, but he is worth every cent at the minute! Love him!

Toumpas: Faded after half time, but his skillset is amazing.

Rodan: We effectively traded Cale Morton for him, I can't remember Morton ever impacting a game the way Rodan did tonight! Maybe not a TOTAL disaster getting him to the club.

Watts: I bet he is really missing the Nerd!

Interesting though, to see how good Watts will be by the start of 2014. Will he become the real standout in the team?

One important moment was when Watts went back and stopped another doggie goal, late in the game. Wonderful Royce Hart-like mark. It shows, I say, that he will be a big occasion player. I predict we will be seeing him attacking the ball on the forward line with that kind of out-of-my-way decisiveness, soon enough.

And yes, I agree Neeld did not appear to value that kind of skill. Neeld's epitaph: in his wisdom, he tried to trade Watts and he tried to insist Jurrah become a defender. But Craig is doing very nicely, and the players can use their skills at last. It looks to me like the players have at last been told to look for Jack when he's playing at full forward. And isn't he leading well? Knocking out to the crumbers when he can't mark it himself, too - especially in the first quarter. All class.

The last quarter fade-out didn't upset me so much. Gawn was out-muscled and faded - their big guys got on top, and we were short of a gorilla-minder. Their big-bodied and experienced mids knew what to do with our tiring guys. But we still held on - Watts and Frawley in the end, against the tide, stood up just enough.

The gain for us was enormous - the fact that we didn't do everything right is no surprise - but we did win! Bigger bodies in the middle will be there in time, and it may not take much more than a few weeks for the fumbling to diminish. So it was three great quarters and a win - great individual stuff from Watts, Rodan, Terlich, Howe, more of Jimmy Toumpas, better spreading and taking it on - I thought there was a big step forward, and plenty to take away with us. And the feeling when we'd won was pretty bloody good - everyone singing, the boys out in the middle, the footies for the kids, huge amount of positive feeling.

Watching the replay I still am worried about the lack of composure shown by players. Even after taking a mark or with a free kick Melbourne players still look rushed and flustered as if they will get tackled.

You don't get over the effects of 18 months in two games CB

That may take another season to correct.

Watching the replay I still am worried about the lack of composure shown by players. Even after taking a mark or with a free kick Melbourne players still look rushed and flustered as if they will get tackled.

That will soon fade out when they start to have confidence in the way they play.

Being smashed for the last 6 years will kill the players confidence, the first three quarters would assist in building their belief in not just themselves but in each other.

Four wins for the demons on the weekend

Heart stopper at the G

Woman's warm up game

Casey scops aka Hgans heros

Casey magoos

Good the be on the winning side again. Go dees

Redleg where ever you are I agree finally Brynes is not much.

Put in a goer against the Swans

Individual Stats - Top 3 (By Category)

Contested Possessions 134

1. N Jones

2. Rodan/McDonald

3. Davey

Uncontested Possessions 208

1. Clisby

2. M Jones

3. Terlich

Effective Disposals 261

1. N Jones

2. Terlich

3. Frawley

Effective Disposal % 75.87

1. Byrnes (Sub)

2. Frawley

3. N Jones/Garland

*4. Kent

* Have included the next ranking as Byrnes only played 1 quarter of football as sub.

Tackles 81

1. Nicholson

2. Garland

3. Trengove/Sylvia

Clangers 43

1. Howe/Trengove

2. N Jones/Gawn/M Jones/Dawes/Davey

3. Garland/Nicholson/McDonald/Dunn/Clisby/Blease/Rodan

Contested Marks 14

1. Howe (4)

2. Dawes/Dunn/Fitzpatrick (2)

3. Gawn/McDonald/Frawley/Watts (1)

Marks i50 9

1. Howe/Watts 3

2. Gawn/Fitzpatrick/Dawes 1

3. -

Clearances 37

1. N Jones

2. Rodan/Davey/Nicholson

3. Byrnes (Sub)

Rebound 50s 33

1. Terlich

2. McDonald

3. Dunn

Bounces 15

1. Rodan

2. McDonald

3. M Jones/Sylvia

Inside 50s 56

1. Rodan

2. Trengove/Howe/Dawes

3. M Jones/Davey/Fitzpatrick

Stats: Courtesy of Footywire

Edited June 30, 201312 yr by Rusty Nails

I remember not so long ago the general consensus was that Byrnes was a decent pick up and Rodan was a list clogger. Are we now reversing that?

Edited June 30, 201312 yr by P_Man

I just watched Rodans goal from the Northern Flank..what a cracker!

Will go close to GOTY for sure.

Playing this style of football opens you up to heavy scoring against by the top teams as we saw in 2011 under Bails and while the Dogs only managed one quarter,the top teams will do this for 3-4 quarters against us as we saw in 2011.

Too many times last night I saw too many demons run forward of the contest before the contest was won and when the Dogs won the contest,we had far too many players out of position,thus we were very easy to score against.

That's why the top 4 teams are the top 4 defensive teams and that's what wins finals.

We still have a very long way to go defensively.

Edited June 30, 201312 yr by Jack7

Playing this style of football opens you up to heavy scoring against by the top teams as we saw in 2011 under Bails and while the Dogs only managed one quarter,the top teams will do this for 3-4 quarters against us as we saw in 2011.

Too many times last night I saw too many demons run forward of the contest before the contest was won and when the Dogs won the contest,we had far too many players out of position,thus we were very easy to score against.

That's why the top 4 teams are the top 4 defensive teams and that's what wins finals.

We still have a very long way to go defensively.

I must have been watching a different game.

Ralph, he was a dud. Move on.

I said if we lost to the saints and Doggies I'd drop it. So far my predictions are all pretty much on the ball.

Neeld's epitaph: in his wisdom, he tried to trade Watts and he tried to insist Jurrah become a defender.

OK, firstly, Jurrah was hopeless off the ball. His defensive efforts were non-existent and he didn't work unless the ball was in his hands. He was a freak of nature, but don't be so blind as to think he was perfect. We all knew he needed to develop a more rounded game. I don't think you can realistically complain if the coach tried to make him work off the ball and defend a bit.

Secondly, when did he try to trade Watts? Can you provide a link to back this up? I know he was on record as saying Watts is a required player repeatedly.

Seriously, if you're going to rubbish a guy at least try to get some facts behind you.

I must have been watching a different game.

Ditto. I thought defensively we were as good as we've looked all year and didn't get caught out of position as often as we have in previous weeks, Alot of this could be attributed to a noticeable willingness to just run harder.

The last quarter lapse seemed to be more mental than anything else. Obviously it was a foreign position to be in and we just didn't know how to hold onto a lead. Thankfully we were still ahead when the siren went. Another few minutes and it probably would've been a different story,

Ralph - what predictions have you made that "are all pretty much in the ball"?

I think claiming that the performances of the last two weeks, under a new coach, somehow validates Neeld, is pretty big stretch, albeit a predictable one. If we'd been smashed the last two weeks, Neeld advocates would have said, "See? The problem wasnt Neeld."

This is more about just not wanting to admit you were wrong about the bloke than anything else. Plus, he's gone. There's nothing to be gained by continually banging on about him. Move on. The players have, clearly.

Ralph - what predictions have you made that "are all pretty much in the ball"?

Well, in this case I had us winning one of the two post-bye games against the Saints and the Doggies. I said at the time that to sack Neeld on the back of two matches against far stronger sides would be a cowardly act on the part of the board and it would be more realistic and fairer to judge after these two games, both of which were winnable and against teams more in line with our own in terms of ability and form. I also said that if we lost both I would shut up about Neeld being the right coach for the club.

Well, in this case I had us winning one of the two post-bye games against the Saints and the Doggies. I said at the time that to sack Neeld on the back of two matches against far stronger sides would be a cowardly act on the part of the board and it would be more realistic and fairer to judge after these two games, both of which were winnable and against teams more in line with our own in terms of ability and form. I also said that if we lost both I would shut up about Neeld being the right coach for the club.

What about the 10 goal defeat to Gold Coast at home? That wasn't enough proof?

What about the 10 goal defeat to Gold Coast at home? That wasn't enough proof?

That game was really embarrassing, but Gold Coast's midfield destroyed us that day - just as the Bulldogs' did in the last quarter last night. We are tailor-made to be beaten by the Suns at the moment, though of course the reality of losing to an expansion team is always beyond justification.

Edited June 30, 201312 yr by Chook

That game was really embarrassing, but Gold Coast's midfield destroyed us that day - just as the Bulldogs' did in the last quarter last night. We are tailor-made to be beaten by the Suns at the moment, though of course the reality of losing to an expansion team is always beyond justification.

The Gold Coast are OK - but there can be no justification for the "effort" or lack thereof that was on show that day.

Compare it to last night's intensity. The tackling (how many deserve HTB frees did we get? 10?) the chasing, the confidence from players like Watts and Frawley etc. All these things were invisible under Neeld but were on show last night. Co-incidence? No way.

Well, in this case I had us winning one of the two post-bye games against the Saints and the Doggies. I said at the time that to sack Neeld on the back of two matches against far stronger sides would be a cowardly act on the part of the board and it would be more realistic and fairer to judge after these two games, both of which were winnable and against teams more in line with our own in terms of ability and form. I also said that if we lost both I would shut up about Neeld being the right coach for the club.

But Ralph, Neeld wasn't coaching in the last two games..

Ah whatever. The Neeld debate has dominated this place for the past 12 months. I'm not getting into it again.

Neil Craig is a people person.

Mark Neeld is not. He recruited pretty well but after that it dried up.

Looking on from the outside this appears to be right on the money( given that we're three weeks into a new cycle)

You could be forgiven for thinking the players simply would not perform under Mark Neeld.

We seem to have been given reason to consider whether the issue is would not or could not

Looking on from the outside this appears to be right on the money( given that we're three weeks into a new cycle)

You could be forgiven for thinking the players simply would not perform under Mark Neeld.

We seem to have been given reason to consider whether the issue is would not or could not

Key rule of leadership, people buy into the leader before they buy into the vision. Two coaches can say the exact same thing however if one is respected and one is not, the respected coach will get far better results. Interpersonal skills are the most important.

Edited June 30, 201312 yr by Waltham33

What about the 10 goal defeat to Gold Coast at home? That wasn't enough proof?

And Port

There is no way we would have won one game if the dud one was still there.

Can anyone not tell the players are playing better and with more confidence since the dud one has been pizzed off.

Geez let it go.

Ditto. I thought defensively we were as good as we've looked all year and didn't get caught out of position as often as we have in previous weeks, Alot of this could be attributed to a noticeable willingness to just run harder.

The last quarter lapse seemed to be more mental than anything else. Obviously it was a foreign position to be in and we just didn't know how to hold onto a lead. Thankfully we were still ahead when the siren went. Another few minutes and it probably would've been a different story,

Ralph - what predictions have you made that "are all pretty much in the ball"?

I think claiming that the performances of the last two weeks, under a new coach, somehow validates Neeld, is pretty big stretch, albeit a predictable one. If we'd been smashed the last two weeks, Neeld advocates would have said, "See? The problem wasnt Neeld."

This is more about just not wanting to admit you were wrong about the bloke than anything else. Plus, he's gone. There's nothing to be gained by continually banging on about him. Move on. The players have, clearly.

We played well defensively at times because the Dogs don't have a decent forward set up and Liam Jones was subbed out.

Watch what happens against the Swans next week when we play the same style.

I don't understand why people here get stuck into Terlich so much.

His run and attack on the ball is something we have been missing for a long time.

Yes he may make mistakes but he is not on his own in this team.

I would have thought his 80% disposal efficiency last night might have had people talking of his improvement with game time?

Actually I noted his contribution, just as I noted the work he needs to do. Disposal efficiency is an absolutely rubbish stat. It depends who you talk to, but what some consider an efficient disposal is the ball getting on the full to any player on the ground.

Again, he reads the play well, has the ability to kick well, but makes poor decisions too often at the moment. I'm not saying he won't get there though.