I am also surprised that JKH has been left out of so many teams.

Play the guys who have a high ceiling, help them reach that ceiling by getting 50 games into them...and away we go (hopefully). If they fail to show improvement in 50 odd games, then I'll be the first to call for the axe.

The above 2 posts from "Monde" seem to espouse the Neeldesque philosophy of getting games into young players who appear to have more potential, rather than playing the best 22 available each week.

The Roos style (of players having to earn their place) is more the "best 22" philosophy and it results in (1) a better chance of winning that game because the best team is playing, as well as (2) sending players the simple message that they must be playing well enough to earn a game in the firsts. --surely encouragement to pull ones finger out, to work and become good enough.

Alternatively before Roos, too many players seemed confident of their place in the team and content to cruise, accepting the low standards.

At this stage Rd 1 v Gold Coast (now no Lynch)

Injured/susp: Vince, Dawes, Petracca.

I would have selected Stretch because I know we'll want pace against the Suns, but this is subject to M.Jones falling over again against Dogs/Ess and Stretch getting a good run in either of those two games, which I doubt.

I suspect Bail and Cross will be used as defensive wings in Rd 1, but Stretch will get a go after a couple of big games in VFL, as will Brayshaw.

If Pedo has another horror game against Dogs, then Garland may play up forward Rd 1 instead.

Another howler by Grimes against Dogs could also see his spot seriously under threat.

B: Jetta Dunn S.Frost

HB: Grimes T.Mac Lumumba

C: Cross Viney Bail

HF: Garlett Pederson Howe

F: Kent Hogan Watts

Ru: Jamar Tyson N.Jones

Int: Salem (defense), Gawn, Newton

Sub: Vandenberg or JKH

Emerg: Toump, Michie, Garland

The above 2 posts from "Monde" seem to espouse the Neeldesque philosophy of getting games into young players who appear to have more potential, rather than playing the best 22 available each week.

The Roos style (of players having to earn their place) is more the "best 22" philosophy and it results in (1) a better chance of winning that game because the best team is playing, as well as (2) sending players the simple message that they must be playing well enough to earn a game in the firsts. --surely encouragement to pull ones finger out, to work and become good enough.

Alternatively before Roos, too many players seemed confident of their place in the team and content to cruise, accepting the low standards.

Hi Rob. My view is a long term one, where I place faith in the recruiting department and give talented young players a decent run on the big stage ahead of perennial list cloggers, who have had ample opportunity to succeed. Languishing in the VFL will do nothing for the likes of Salem and Toumpas. These are the guys we've invested so much in and need to be a part of our core sooner rather than later. Whilst I have always been an advocate of rewarding form, it loathes me to watch our early draft selections rot in the seconds, bereft of all confidence to play at the highest level.

The above 2 posts from "Monde" seem to espouse the Neeldesque philosophy of getting games into young players who appear to have more potential, rather than playing the best 22 available each week.

The Roos style (of players having to earn their place) is more the "best 22" philosophy and it results in (1) a better chance of winning that game because the best team is playing, as well as (2) sending players the simple message that they must be playing well enough to earn a game in the firsts. --surely encouragement to pull ones finger out, to work and become good enough.

Alternatively before Roos, too many players seemed confident of their place in the team and content to cruise, accepting the low standards.

Also Clarkson-esque and Bomber Thompson-esque, therefore resulting in 6 (if you attribute the Cats 3rd to Thompson's work) of the last 8 premierships. Even Malthouse's pies won the premiership after the likes of Thomas, Pendlebury and then Beams and Sidebottom were given early opportunities.

Neeld didn't really play the kids. He cooked the Toumpas turkey, but besides that specially brought in a legion of has beens to make sure the kids weren't over burdened.

Bailey played the kids for 2 years - 08, 09. Then in 2010 things were looking pretty good. Unfortunately so many of those kids went by the wayside when the senior players dropped their bundle and some of the talented kids went off the rails.

Late last year we really hit the wall after playing the same bunch of mediocre players most weeks. We found our level and played to it.

I've got no doubt Hogan will be best 22 on form and of course he shouldn't be over worked. But in terms of other spots I think we really need to stick with Salem from half back if fit and competing (which I'm sure he will be), give Frost a shot and make sure we have a mix of young talent through the forwards/mids/sub role. It can still be form based, but last year we kept guys at Casey who were clearly doing ok even if they weren't perfect whilst keeping others in the team who weren't up to scratch.

Hi Rob. My view is a long term one, where I place faith in the recruiting department and give talented young players a decent run on the big stage ahead of perennial list cloggers, who have had ample opportunity to succeed. Languishing in the VFL will do nothing for the likes of Salem and Toumpas. These are the guys we've invested so much in and need to be a part of our core sooner rather than later. Whilst I have always been an advocate of rewarding form, it loathes me to watch our early draft selections rot in the seconds, bereft of all confidence to play at the highest level.

Hi Monde. I'm sure your heart's in the right place and maybe you're correct, but when you advocated getting 50 games into these "potential" players, my thoughts were:

Having the team as good as possible right now (by playing the best 22) as opposed to keeping better players out to get games into "potential" stars achieves more wins which is good for player and supporter morale, and provides an immediately higher on-field performance standard which must help team development.

Does an inferior player with potential necessarily improve faster in the firsts than the seconds? Depends on the player and situation. Probably more-so in soccer than the rougher Australian Rules. Letting young potential stars feel, as you advocated, that they'll get a game for 2 -3 years whether they pull their weight or not seems a way to encourage a sense of entitlement in them, insufficient consequences for laziness. How to turn a potential star into Col Sylvia. (Apologies for that cheap shot). Not to mention annoying/depressing the better player(s) trying to earn a spot on the team.

Perhaps I don't quite have Toumpas in my best 22 and think he may develop just as quickly in the magoos, but what would I know? I also don't have most of your so-called list cloggers either. From what little I've seen; Frost, Newton, Van, H, Garlett, Hogan are new additions worth another game, plus Kent's come on, maybe plenty of new blood has already displaced "cloggers" by virtue of their playing, without having to gift players games to "get games into them".

I'm painting with a wide brush, speaking in general. Each case is separate and a matter of degree. I trust Roos etc. to know what to do this time.

Looking forward to this season ahead. Cheers

Also Clarkson-esque and Bomber Thompson-esque, therefore resulting in 6 (if you attribute the Cats 3rd to Thompson's work) of the last 8 premierships. Even Malthouse's pies won the premiership after the likes of Thomas, Pendlebury and then Beams and Sidebottom were given early opportunities.

Neeld didn't really play the kids. He cooked the Toumpas turkey, but besides that specially brought in a legion of has beens to make sure the kids weren't over burdened.

Bailey played the kids for 2 years - 08, 09. Then in 2010 things were looking pretty good. Unfortunately so many of those kids went by the wayside when the senior players dropped their bundle and some of the talented kids went off the rails.

Late last year we really hit the wall after playing the same bunch of mediocre players most weeks. We found our level and played to it.

I've got no doubt Hogan will be best 22 on form and of course he shouldn't be over worked. But in terms of other spots I think we really need to stick with Salem from half back if fit and competing (which I'm sure he will be), give Frost a shot and make sure we have a mix of young talent through the forwards/mids/sub role. It can still be form based, but last year we kept guys at Casey who were clearly doing ok even if they weren't perfect whilst keeping others in the team who weren't up to scratch.

Thanks for replying to my post GRRM. I believe you if you say other teams did that with success. Thanks, - I wouldn't know, don't follow Casey much, let alone other clubs seconds. I always found Neeld hopeless, and agree with your last paragraph. Cheers

https://archive.today/GOvSO

March 26.

FB: Jetta Dunn Garland

HB: Grimes McDonald Salem

C: Lumumba Tyson Vince

HF: JKH Hogan Kent

FF: Garlett Gawn Frost

Foll: Jamar Jones Viney

Int: Newton Cross Howe

S: Toumpas

In contention: Watts, vandenBerg, Pedersen, Brayshaw, Michie, Matt Jones, Bail

- Howe and Vince? If they aren't ready who gets the spots?

- 2nd tall forward and 2nd ruck: Does Frost get the job for his defensive forward work and swingman ability? Or do we add another tall as well? Pedersen as a tall forward and/or as the second ruck ahead of Gawn?

- Garland and Grimes - both are contentious and need to lift but were very good in the first half against the dogs at least. Without obvious replacements I think they'll form part of the round 1 back 6 (or back 7 including Howe)

- The last few midfield and half forward spots - advantage JKH, Toumpas and Newton I'd say after yesterday. Got to have Kent in as well if he's fit for next Friday. Watts has to back up his half with a full game. VandenBerg was injured early so didn't get much of a chance to press his claims

FB: Jetta Dunn Garland

HB: Grimes McDonald Salem

C: Lumumba Tyson Vince

HF: JKH Hogan Kent

FF: Garlett Gawn Frost

Foll: Jamar Jones Viney

Int: Newton Cross Howe

S: Toumpas

In contention: Watts, vandenBerg, Pedersen, Brayshaw, Michie, Matt Jones, Bail

- Howe and Vince? If they aren't ready who gets the spots?

- 2nd tall forward and 2nd ruck: Does Frost get the job for his defensive forward work and swingman ability? Or do we add another tall as well? Pedersen as a tall forward and/or as the second ruck ahead of Gawn?

- Garland and Grimes - both are contentious and need to lift but were very good in the first half against the dogs at least. Without obvious replacements I think they'll form part of the round 1 back 6 (or back 7 including Howe)

- The last few midfield and half forward spots - advantage JKH, Toumpas and Newton I'd say after yesterday. Got to have Kent in as well if he's fit for next Friday. Watts has to back up his half with a full game. VandenBerg was injured early so didn't get much of a chance to press his claims

Don't mind your squad GRRM. Personally I have never been a fan of Garland and believe aspects of his game leave a lot to be desired. I don't believe Howe will come up either, As such, my team would shape up like this:

FB: Jetta Dunn Grimes

HB: Frost McDonald Salem

C: Lumumba Tyson Newton

HF: Vince Hogan Kent

FF: Garlett Watts JKH

Foll: Jamar Jones Viney

Int: Pedersen Cross Toumpas

S: VandenBerg/Brayshaw

Some commentary on a few of the selections that might raise some eyebrows:

Frost off a HBF - Would provide great speed and drive moving the ball out of the backline, his agility and strength gives him the versatility to play on a variety of opponent types.

Newton on a wing and Vince on a HFF - Vince coming off an injury might be good to go but personally would be more comfortable with Newton around the center considering the conditioning of both players. Vince is a beautiful kick of the ball and I could really envision him hitting the scoreboard off a HFF.

Watts at FF - I'd like to give Watts a few games leading out of the square, it's what we drafted him for and the delivery this season will be far better than when we have tried this experiment before.

On the SUB - Lean towards Vandenberg because of size, but with reports of Brayshaw playing well in the 2's over the weekend, another good performance would be hard to ignore.

Edited March 15, 201510 yr by Mondê

FB: Jetta Dunn Garland

HB: Grimes McDonald Salem

C: Lumumba Tyson Vince

HF: JKH Hogan Kent

FF: Garlett Gawn Frost

Foll: Jamar Jones Viney

Int: Newton Cross Howe

S: Toumpas

In contention: Watts, vandenBerg, Pedersen, Brayshaw, Michie, Matt Jones, Bail

- Howe and Vince? If they aren't ready who gets the spots?

- 2nd tall forward and 2nd ruck: Does Frost get the job for his defensive forward work and swingman ability? Or do we add another tall as well? Pedersen as a tall forward and/or as the second ruck ahead of Gawn?

- Garland and Grimes - both are contentious and need to lift but were very good in the first half against the dogs at least. Without obvious replacements I think they'll form part of the round 1 back 6 (or back 7 including Howe)

- The last few midfield and half forward spots - advantage JKH, Toumpas and Newton I'd say after yesterday. Got to have Kent in as well if he's fit for next Friday. Watts has to back up his half with a full game. VandenBerg was injured early so didn't get much of a chance to press his claims

In contention : Watts......lucky him.

But Grimes is a walk up start.

Amazing.....

FB: Jetta Dunn Garland

HB: Grimes McDonald Salem

C: Lumumba Tyson Vince

HF: JKH Hogan Kent

FF: Garlett Gawn Frost

Foll: Jamar Jones Viney

Int: Newton Cross Howe

S: Toumpas

In contention: Watts, vandenBerg, Pedersen, Brayshaw, Michie, Matt Jones, Bail

- Howe and Vince? If they aren't ready who gets the spots?

- 2nd tall forward and 2nd ruck: Does Frost get the job for his defensive forward work and swingman ability? Or do we add another tall as well? Pedersen as a tall forward and/or as the second ruck ahead of Gawn?

- Garland and Grimes - both are contentious and need to lift but were very good in the first half against the dogs at least. Without obvious replacements I think they'll form part of the round 1 back 6 (or back 7 including Howe)

- The last few midfield and half forward spots - advantage JKH, Toumpas and Newton I'd say after yesterday. Got to have Kent in as well if he's fit for next Friday. Watts has to back up his half with a full game. VandenBerg was injured early so didn't get much of a chance to press his claims

nailed it

In contention : Watts......lucky him.

But Grimes is a walk up start.

Amazing.....

After the Freo game I thought Grimes would be lucky to last until round 1, but considering Howe is still 2 weeks away at best which is touch and go for round 1, Lumumba is spending a lot of time in the midfield, Frost is being played forward, Terlich isn't even in the VFL team year and no other half back options besides McKenzie have been trialled there really isn't a lot of competition for Grimes' spot.

Watts has played a half so far and has been preparing to play as a medium forward. There's really only 3 spots plus maybe the sub for small and medium forwards. He's still every chance to play round 1 but there's no way he should be an automatic inclusion and so he'll have to get through a full game first to state his case.

Grimes will play round 1 as one of Howe or Vince wont be ready or maybe neither. Actually I was shocked by how good Grimes foot skills vs Bulldogs, albeit against a team of kids who applied no pressure in the 1st half

Watts is an absolute certainty for Round 1, and like it or not he is in our best starting 18 any time he is fit

Grimes will play round 1 as one of Howe or Vince wont be ready or maybe neither. Actually I was shocked by how good Grimes foot skills vs Bulldogs, albeit against a team of kids who applied no pressure in the 1st half

Watts is an absolute certainty for Round 1, and like it or not he is in our best starting 18 any time he is fit

Love the fact Wattsy looked a bigger frame. Enough to be a good solid forward like Gunstan.

Lets hope for a break out year this year.

Hard to see Howe and Vince getting enough match fitness between now and round 1, given that they're not even participating in competitive drills at the moment. If they aren't included against Essendon, would be facing an uphill battle I would think.

I'd also question whether Vandenberg and Kent now have enough time to push to be included. With Garlett a definite and JKH doing himself plenty of favours, spots for smalls on the forward line are becoming like hen's teeth.

On the other hand, if fit, Grimes, Garland and Watts will be in.

Love the fact Wattsy looked a bigger frame. Enough to be a good solid forward like Gunstan.

Lets hope for a break out year this year.

Quietly optimistic hes going to have a very nice season as a foil for Hogan and Dawes.

And yes the Gunston role will suit him well, hes a dead eye dick and if he gets the ball anywhere inside 55 you'd back him in to nail it most times.

wow, we actually have players who aren't completely crap fighting for spots now. I've never know what a real football club feels like, but this must almost be it.

i felt like we missed Kent, vince and Howe, three players will offensive weapons who would have helped us really step on the doggies throat

Hard to see Howe and Vince getting enough match fitness between now and round 1, given that they're not even participating in competitive drills at the moment. If they aren't included against Essendon, would be facing an uphill battle I would think.

Train for the next 2 weeks and hopefully play a VFL practice match before round 1 would be the timetable I think. Can't see them playing against Essendon. It's definitely an uphill battle but both are good enough to come in on limited preparations as long as it's not a risk to them.

I'd be telling them they aren't guaranteed but I'd be telling the rest of the list due to line up against Essendon that they better play well otherwise those two can take their spots!

I wonder what the game plan for the Essendon game will be? Is it still 24 plus 2 subs or do we trim it down to just a 22. Or maybe a bit of both and go 22 and 2 subs.

wow, we actually have players who aren't completely crap fighting for spots now. I've never know what a real football club feels like, but this must almost be it.

Last years round 1 team vs the Saints had the following players run out there - Jake Spencer, Rohan Bail, Matt Jones, Shannon Byrnes and Alex Georgiou,.

With any luck none of them will be in the team vs Gold Coast although its possible one of Bail or Jones might get a run.

Last years round 1 team vs the Saints had the following players run out there - Jake Spencer, Rohan Bail, Matt Jones, Shannon Byrnes and Alex Georgiou,.

With any luck none of them will be in the team vs Gold Coast although its possible one of Bail or Jones might get a run.

bail has some worth and can at least snag a goal. Jones is so hot and cold it isn't even funny, and even when he is hot it is more luke warm. Spencer, meh. Alex and Shannon, no longer with us. Interesting.

Don't mind your squad GRRM. Personally I have never been a fan of Garland and believe aspects of his game leave a lot to be desired. I don't believe Howe will come up either, As such, my team would shape up like this:

FB: Jetta Dunn Grimes

HB: Frost McDonald Salem

C: Lumumba Tyson Newton

HF: Vince Hogan Kent

FF: Garlett Watts JKH

Foll: Jamar Jones Viney

Int: Pedersen Cross Toumpas

S: VandenBerg/Brayshaw

Some commentary on a few of the selections that might raise some eyebrows:

Frost off a HBF - Would provide great speed and drive moving the ball out of the backline, his agility and strength gives him the versatility to play on a variety of opponent types.

Newton on a wing and Vince on a HFF - Vince coming off an injury might be good to go but personally would be more comfortable with Newton around the center considering the conditioning of both players. Vince is a beautiful kick of the ball and I could really envision him hitting the scoreboard off a HFF.

Watts at FF - I'd like to give Watts a few games leading out of the square, it's what we drafted him for and the delivery this season will be far better than when we have tried this experiment before.

On the SUB - Lean towards Vandenberg because of size, but with reports of Brayshaw playing well in the 2's over the weekend, another good performance would be hard to ignore.

I would also like to see that however now that we have genuine crummers in Garrett, JKH and Kent - I think Dawes and Hogan would be better at FF crashing packs/bring ball to ground.

Watts playing higher up the ground would mean he can use big tank and delivery into the forward 50m. Although maybe we could trial him at FF against the dons and then rd1 in the absence of Dawes. I was impressed with Watts aggression against a weak dogs side but I still have doubts.

Grimes will play round 1 as one of Howe or Vince wont be ready or maybe neither. Actually I was shocked by how good Grimes foot skills vs Bulldogs, albeit against a team of kids who applied no pressure in the 1st half

Watts is an absolute certainty for Round 1, and like it or not he is in our best starting 18 any time he is fit

I think both Howe and Vince can play but one of those 2 will be the sub.

Seriously hope Mckenzie and Matt Jones stay away for most of this year both very average players both just purely turnover kings. Jones gives away silly free kicks and cannot hold a tackle, Mckenzie just makes his footy look like a dogs breakfast!!