20 i50's a game make even the best forward line useless. We need to get the ball to them quickly so they can use their size and speed.

In my mind Dawes was crucified by Craigs conceding the game before the bouncs ( a la MN)

Rating the forward line is pointless whilst the midfield is on strike

2 entries into the F50 in the 1st Quarter yesterday whilst the game was alive.

Disgraceful.

How is 2 inside 50s even possible in an entire quarter of footy? You'd almost have to be kicking the ball backwards most of the time....

Oh.

And it was the very first and last inside 50 for the quater. Bar the 2 minutes of play for the entire quarter we never had a sniff.

Taggert is almost a no brainier inclusion for mine.

I've defended Blease on here before but I'm to going to bother this week. Disgraceful. He needs to decide how serious he is about this AFL caper.

Is it just me or does Blease run faster when he has the ball yet when he's running flat out without it he just doesn't seem as quick?

Is it just me or does Blease run faster when he has the ball yet when he's running flat out without it he just doesn't seem as quick?

He just doesn't look.

There are leads going on everywhere, but he refuses to lower his eyes.

Yesterday highlighted what many here have rightly surmised:

We need midfielders..... And the right kind of midfielders.

Midfielders that win centre clearances.

Midfielders that win stoppage clearances.

Midfielders with vision and positioning nous.

Midfielders that kick goals from the midfield.

Midfielders that kick goals whilst resting in the forward line.

Etc, etc, etc.

He just doesn't look.

There are leads going on everywhere, but he refuses to lower his eyes.

Thing is , hes not the first one to commit such offences. It makes me wonder how our players are coached. These are exactly the type of things that are "coachable"

we seem to get so much wrong

Thing is , hes not the first one to commit such offences. It makes me wonder how our players are coached. These are exactly the type of things that are "coachable"

we seem to get so much wrong

Fair enough, but surely Bailey would have told him, Neeld would have told him, Viney would have told him, Craig would have told him....you get my drift.

Players like Blease need to go back into Casey with specific instructions to improve, otherwise, see ya later!

I think Blease should be played in the backline. His best stretch of games was under Viney.

Not unfair, realistic. Dawes as a key forward has an average of 1 point something goals a match, hardly good numbers.

Howe to me plays his best football when left to rotate through forward and mid, gets too tied down as a permanent forward and easier to negate.

Fitz is nowhere near it yet, has done some good things but far from being part of a top forward line.

Watts doesn't hit the scoreboard enough and I still don't think his best position is settled.

As you say Clark may not be back and if he does he is far and away our best ruck option at the moment.

Hogan will be a player, we are all excited about him but it still might take him time to settle. Swallow at GC came 4th in the liston in 2010 and is just now starting to realise his potential, Zac Smith is another who set it alight at VFL level but has taken time now unfortunately out with a knee. I do think Hogan will come in hard in his first year, he has the aggression and attitude to do it.

No, let's not kid ourselves again. Our forward line is a long way from just a small forward shy of being good. If Boyd is best available and we have the pick then we take him.

Most of the above posts have shown you up.

That you're willing to write Dawes off based on what you've seen shows no regard for the wider team and our midfield woes. In fact, some might argue that averaging 1.1 goals a game with our midfield isn't all that bad. Not only do we hardly go inside 50, when we do we usually miss our target.

I also disagree with most of your other player assessments. Clark's not our best ruck, Gawn is, and Clark's better at FF than he is in the ruck. Howe's best football is almost universally as a forward (he goes missing for far too long when he's up the ground, IMO), and you've been unfairly harsh on Fitzpatrick, who is developing really well despite the turdstorm around him.

I think Blease should be played in the backline. His best stretch of games was under Viney.

I think Blease should get a tank. Will never make in current fitness condition.

I think Blease should get a tank. Will never make in current fitness condition.

I reckon Blease should get a job...Football isnt it

Craig will not be the coach next year what u saw yeasterday was craig gameplan with the crows flooding build attack from half back, our to best running half backs did not play both are out injured, with dean and garland out, so the game plan was shot before it started. So unless he can come up with a different gameplan

Most of the above posts have shown you up.

That you're willing to write Dawes off based on what you've seen shows no regard for the wider team and our midfield woes. In fact, some might argue that averaging 1.1 goals a game with our midfield isn't all that bad. Not only do we hardly go inside 50, when we do we usually miss our target.

I also disagree with most of your other player assessments. Clark's not our best ruck, Gawn is, and Clark's better at FF than he is in the ruck. Howe's best football is almost universally as a forward (he goes missing for far too long when he's up the ground, IMO), and you've been unfairly harsh on Fitzpatrick, who is developing really well despite the turdstorm around him.

I don't think anyone has shown me up at all, they just have a different opinion and that's ok. I appreciate people want to go in to bat for their club and players and I've done the same but after yesterday I sat back and had a look at things taking the rose coloured glasses off. It wasn't pretty.

It's not all about the midfield, I think we are too focussed on it and let a few others off the hook. Yes it is poor to say the least but the only part of the ground that I would back in is the back line, with Garland and Terlich in I think they hold up pretty well. Would be a bit better with a really top notch run, carry and distribute type player and if Tommy Mc's kicking was a bit better but they are around AFL standard.

The current forward line isn't. Dawes average includes his Collingwood games and he had pretty decent delivery there. I'm being honest on Fitz, yes he is still developing and he's had some good moments, so did Newton, but he is not part of a forward line that I would call AFL standard at the moment. He drops way too many marks that he must take as does Dawes.

We can beg to differ on Howe but I think he has been playing too deep of late and needs to work harder as a high half forward.

Love big Max but surely you are kidding me that he at this stage is a better ruckman than Clark (apart from Clarks injury). You can argue Clark is better for us at FF whilst I would see him in the Ottens type role as a big mobile ruck who can also hit the scoreboard. Of course this all depends on how he comes back from the foot. Clark immediately gives us an extra midfielder, the other ruck man don't offer this although Max has promise.

So...if I had the choice of my key forwards being Dawes and Hogan or Boyd and Hogan I would take the last option as they will set the club up for 10 years. By the way seeing as you are interested in others opinions what do you think 17 other league coaches would want? I'm over serviceable and workmanlike, speaks well, I want the best.

Then I would have the choice of Clark in the ruck or Max in the ruck with Clark as forward/ruck change.

I don't think anyone has shown me up at all, they just have a different opinion and that's ok. I appreciate people want to go in to bat for their club and players and I've done the same but after yesterday I sat back and had a look at things taking the rose coloured glasses off. It wasn't pretty.

It's not all about the midfield, I think we are too focussed on it and let a few others off the hook. Yes it is poor to say the least but the only part of the ground that I would back in is the back line, with Garland and Terlich in I think they hold up pretty well. Would be a bit better with a really top notch run, carry and distribute type player and if Tommy Mc's kicking was a bit better but they are around AFL standard.

The current forward line isn't. Dawes average includes his Collingwood games and he had pretty decent delivery there. I'm being honest on Fitz, yes he is still developing and he's had some good moments, so did Newton, but he is not part of a forward line that I would call AFL standard at the moment. He drops way too many marks that he must take as does Dawes.

We can beg to differ on Howe but I think he has been playing too deep of late and needs to work harder as a high half forward.

Love big Max but surely you are kidding me that he at this stage is a better ruckman than Clark (apart from Clarks injury). You can argue Clark is better for us at FF whilst I would see him in the Ottens type role as a big mobile ruck who can also hit the scoreboard. Of course this all depends on how he comes back from the foot. Clark immediately gives us an extra midfielder, the other ruck man don't offer this although Max has promise.

So...if I had the choice of my key forwards being Dawes and Hogan or Boyd and Hogan I would take the last option as they will set the club up for 10 years. By the way seeing as you are interested in others opinions what do you think 17 other league coaches would want? I'm over serviceable and workmanlike, speaks well, I want the best.

Then I would have the choice of Clark in the ruck or Max in the ruck with Clark as forward/ruck change.

Unfortunately, it is mainly about the midfield. If we had a consistent rate of entry into forward 50, but Dawes was failing to impact games, then you'd have a point. But since we don't get into the forward half/50 anywhere near often enough, nor do we do so with purpose/effectiveness/skill, it becomes unfair to judge the forwards.

Despite that, I still think your analysis is overly pessimistic. Dawes' average was at Collingwood was influenced in their decision to play him in the ruck, as well as the fact that the dominant amount of their forward 50 entries went to Cloke. I don't agree with the dropping marks comment, I don't think that's been a part of Dawes' game this year. Fitzpatrick has definitely dropped a stack of easy marks, but that aspect of his game has been improving weekly with his confidence going up.

I'm absolutely not kidding on Gawn. You're massively overrating Clark in the ruck. He's a mobile mover around the ground, sure, but he's not as good as a ruckman as Gawn is. Gawn will improve his fitness and strength this pre-season (he'll get a full and proper pre-season, too, which helps), and will be far and away our number 1 ruck. At any rate, even if you think Clark is better in the ruck, Gawn is more than adequate, and so we can easily afford to play Gawn as a ruckman and therefore use Clark as a forward, meaning your argument is pointless.

Whether Boyd will be better than Dawes or not is also beside the point. Dawes, Hogan, Clark, Fitzpatrick, Watts and Howe provide us with a fine forward line, one which presents numerous marking and goal-kicking options.

Unfortunately, it is mainly about the midfield. If we had a consistent rate of entry into forward 50, but Dawes was failing to impact games, then you'd have a point. But since we don't get into the forward half/50 anywhere near often enough, nor do we do so with purpose/effectiveness/skill, it becomes unfair to judge the forwards.

Despite that, I still think your analysis is overly pessimistic. Dawes' average was at Collingwood was influenced in their decision to play him in the ruck, as well as the fact that the dominant amount of their forward 50 entries went to Cloke. I don't agree with the dropping marks comment, I don't think that's been a part of Dawes' game this year. Fitzpatrick has definitely dropped a stack of easy marks, but that aspect of his game has been improving weekly with his confidence going up.

I'm absolutely not kidding on Gawn. You're massively overrating Clark in the ruck. He's a mobile mover around the ground, sure, but he's not as good as a ruckman as Gawn is. Gawn will improve his fitness and strength this pre-season (he'll get a full and proper pre-season, too, which helps), and will be far and away our number 1 ruck. At any rate, even if you think Clark is better in the ruck, Gawn is more than adequate, and so we can easily afford to play Gawn as a ruckman and therefore use Clark as a forward, meaning your argument is pointless.

Whether Boyd will be better than Dawes or not is also beside the point. Dawes, Hogan, Clark, Fitzpatrick, Watts and Howe provide us with a fine forward line, one which presents numerous marking and goal-kicking options.

Dawes only played limited ruck time at Collingwood in his last year, Brown did the bulk of that work before. He does need to take his opportunities and puts to many on the deck.

Gawn will improve yes but Clark is the better ruck at the moment and he is a good midfielder. It's ok, I have hopes for big Max too, I just hope the knees hold up...those big guys like 'Sandi' at Freo are hard to keep up and running.

The current forward line is not up to scratch and is being let off lightly because of to much focus on the midfield. They are not providing enough movement or working hard enough up the ground. They are not holding the ball in when it gets there and they are not holding easy marks.

I'd just like to see more moves. It seems like moving Watts as a loose man in defence is the only action we take during games. We've sort of settled into a plan that doesn't work. Grimes in defense is a must, and let him take the kick ins. Try Blease in defence too, but I think his ability should allow him to bounce back from one shocking game. Dunn should be tried forward again, or go out of the team. Nicholson should also be in the team, in fact I thought he was pretty much our best against Geelong before being dropped.

Our midfield structure needs a heap of work and is our biggest worry. Defensive structure of Frawley, Garland and McDonald seems quite sturdy, but other backs are an issue. I'm pretty confident in Gawn as no.1 ruckman, although in a way it's a shame Spencer got suspended in easily his best game ever so we can't see more of him. With Clark, Dawes, Hogan and Watts all fit Fitzpatrick probably won't and shouldn't get a look in but with Clark's injury proneness who knows. Dawes is quite a strong mark and good kick but quite a limited player. We have a lot of problems Re: small/medium forwards too

20 i50's a game make even the best forward line useless. We need to get the ball to them quickly so they can use their size and speed.

Spot on, RM. Every time we moved it quickly inside forward fifty we looked dangerous. That's how the best sides do it. I watched Hawthorn do it all Friday night.

I'd just like to see more moves. It seems like moving Watts as a loose man in defence is the only action we take during games. We've sort of settled into a plan that doesn't work. Grimes in defense is a must, and let him take the kick ins. Try Blease in defence too, but I think his ability should allow him to bounce back from one shocking game. Dunn should be tried forward again, or go out of the team. Nicholson should also be in the team, in fact I thought he was pretty much our best against Geelong before being dropped.

Our midfield structure needs a heap of work and is our biggest worry. Defensive structure of Frawley, Garland and McDonald seems quite sturdy, but other backs are an issue. I'm pretty confident in Gawn as no.1 ruckman, although in a way it's a shame Spencer got suspended in easily his best game ever so we can't see more of him. With Clark, Dawes, Hogan and Watts all fit Fitzpatrick probably won't and shouldn't get a look in but with Clark's injury proneness who knows. Dawes is quite a strong mark and good kick but quite a limited player. We have a lot of problems Re: small/medium forwards too

Fair point you don't like Dunn but he has failed as a forward and largely kept Lindsay Thomas quiet on the weekend. This isn't the week to drop him although I dream of the day he isn't on our list.

Grimes taking kick ins isn't a great solution. Garland, Dunn (as long as he goes long or safe short), Terlich are better options.

Nicholson certainly wasn't our best against Geelong. He turned the ball over when he got it by hand and foot but his worst problem was he tagged Stevie J and let him have 38 touches and run around at will. Whenever it came to a contest Stevie J had too much strenght, size and smarts for Nicholson. If Nicholson is to play it can only be as an outside tagger on guys like Stanton or Hannebery as he did against the swans. He's too much of a liability off half back. The only other role could be in a forward tagger like a Dennis Armfield and using his pace to give something forward. I'd be more than happy to try him in this mold this week and put him on Bugg or one of the better GWS ball uses from half back and see if he can win the ball forward of centre through work rate. He couldn't be worse than Blease.

Blease's ability might let him produce something better than shocking but he hasn't been good once this year. Besides maybe 4 or 5 games in the last half of last year he hasn't showed any ability as a forward and his lack of physicality and work rate, the way he runs head on in to trouble and his shaky disposal make me very nervous about him as a defender.