Same here. I thought he showed improvement yesterday, took a couple of really nice grabs, tackled hard, and I've heard a few people complaining about him and thought I was taking crazy pills.

With tank is he a tagger with more than mckenzie?

As roos said on 'roos views:

Pederson (Inj), blease, terlich, tapscott (Inj) and Mackensie all out.

Barry, Jones, Crossy, Michie and Gawn in.

With tank is he a tagger with more than mckenzie?

Not 100% sure I understand what you're saying, but I'm guessing you're asking if he'll be better than McKenzie after a full preseason? I reckon he'll be miles ahead of McKenzie next year (if Jordie is still on our list). I see him as a tagger who can also win his own footy and take the odd grab in the forward line.

Another week and no Strauss.
Yes, yes, he can't one on one defend you all say.
I've watched Dean Terlich play 10 games this year as the single worst defender in MFC history. He's also close to the worst kick.
I don't know if the bloke slept with Tammy Roos, but I really hope he gets another chance with a different team next year, I think he'll show alot more than we've given him credit for.

There's not enough in's possible to fix the mess from last week.
Gawn deserves, Michie deserves and I don't rate him but M Jones has worked hard so I guess you have to give him his spot back. Any of 8 could go out.. Just pick a number.
Hawks by 46.

Writing on the wall for Blease, Terlich, Mckenzie

That conclusion is... interesting.

I'm one of the geniuses that think the only scores that matter are the ones that actually happened.

I've seen as many games where I thought the score line looked harsh in comparison to how we played, and games where we played poorly but for some reason, weren't punished. The history books will show that Sydney beat us by 31, not the 60 you've recorded on your head, and if they were unable to punish us when they're clearly a class above, surely some of the credit has to go to our side anyway. Certainly I thought that at the time.

A good way of thinking about it too is %, which is helpful in looking at a low scoring game. Yes, we only lost by 31, but at 55%. That's fairly illuminating in my view.