There is a very smart footy player in my team that I cannot play in the forward line - he ends up just going to the footy and we end up having an extra body around the stoppages and a 5 man forward line. Now, he understands what I want him to do but he just sees ball and tries to go and get it - moth to a flame.

Another bloke can't play forward because he thinks it gives him licence to act like Gary Ablett Snr and never leave the 50. When he plays wing he gets forward anyway but also plays up the ground. I end up telling my HFF he is a wing so I will have an opponent for the wing on the other team...

Was Oxley supposed to be manned up by someone like the above? I am not sure.

Perhaps, Roos felt that the entry into the forward line was the problem, not so much Oxley not being manned up.

Perhaps, we should have lowered our eyes and looked to where our extra number was.

I will say this though - as a CHF - I hate it when the coach says 'we will have our loose bloke aswell' - I am biased of course but it makes for sloppy footy and a bloke ten metres in front of me or constantly on my shoulder...

Roos had a bad day in the box on Monday, he made two errors. First one was starting McDonald on Cloke - he just doesn't have the body strength. I was asking myself why that was the match up as soon as the game started, with Dunn being the obvious option. McDonald is our best key defender, but it doesn't mean he's best suited to playing on the oppositions best key forward.

The second was not manning up Oxley as everyone has noted. Even if the players were meant to man him up, physically shift one of them down there. They were pretty short in the forward line. Move Fitzy forward, make Oxley man him up and give ourselves a height advantage. He changed the momentum of the game twice, I can understand if the players didn't listen once, but there was plenty of time to make it happen and that's on the coach.

But overall, I don't things are too bad. We've played 10 games. That includes 8 of the top 9 sides currently on the ladder, with West Coast the only team from the top half we haven't played, and Richmond the one team we've beaten in the 8. We've also beaten the Bulldogs and Gold Coast.

Five of our next six games come against teams in the bottom half of the ladder. We should win four of those games if we're on our game, St. Kilda, Brisbane, Essendon and St. Kilda again. We might even sneak a win against Geelong or the Eagles at home. That should put us 7-9 or even 8-8 and we'll see how far we've come. It gets harder again at the back end - we could only win 1 or two more after that.

We're doing better than we thought - we've had the toughest run of all the clubs so far this season. But the next 6 weeks will really be telling for how our season looks overall.

Tend to agree with McDonald on Cloke being a mismatch, and I actually said so at the start of the game, so not just a hindsight hero. If there is anything Tom struggles with, it is wrestling with big monster forwards. Dunn was probably the more obvious choice given he is renowned for being stronger, but must admit, that matchup wouldn't have really inspired me with any more confidence.

I don't get how it just doesn't happen. Perhaps that's my naivety, but how it can be allowed to go on for an entire half, all because the players supposedly "didn't listen", is beyond me. It's surely a very simple instruction for Player X to move onto Oxley. After the first couple of minutes of it not happening, maybe just repeat the instruction..?

Anyhow, game's done. It is still an odd explanation.

Pretty sure that wasn't the instruction.

Roos strategy was to keep Cross as our extra back. Crikey, he had to Cloke was tearing us apart!

Then our mids and forwards had to work hard to get fwd, man up on Oxley and 'bring the ball to ground'.

One might ask why wasn't Cross as effective as Oxley?

Answer: Pies mids and fwds worked harder to get fwd, man up on Cross and 'bring the ball to ground'. Sound familiar.

They did what our players didn't.

They were also smarter on how they moved the ball fwd to nullify Cross.

It wasn't poor coaching. Roos strategy was sound. The players didn't execute it. They didn't work hard enough.

The 'players didn't listen comment' was possible the kindest thing he could say in public.

Everyone learnt some lessons.

Pretty sure this was...

Interesting that everyone has focused on the blindingly obvious with Oxley taking uncontested marks in our forward 50, but no one has really focused on the Dees great work around the stoppages, which was partly due to our structures/set up (and partly due to the intensity displayed by Vince, Jones and Viney).

Buckley said on AFL 360 that they were getting smashed in this area (a first for them this year) and they effectively had to change their game plan to something that didn't wish to play.

Buckley was very complimentary of the Dees coaching in terms of our midfield set up and thought the use of the wingers at the stoppages was quite unique and effective.

Silly mistakes, poor ball use and costly turnovers cost us this game.

and a Cloke with Dagger accuracy

Interesting that everyone has focused on the blindingly obvious with Oxley taking uncontested marks in our forward 50, but no one has really focused on the Dees great work around the stoppages, which was partly due to our structures/set up (and partly due to the intensity displayed by Vince, Jones and Viney).

Buckley said on AFL 360 that they were getting smashed in this area (a first for them this year) and they effectively had to change their game plan to something that didn't wish to play.

Buckley was very complimentary of the Dees coaching in terms of our midfield set up and thought the use of the wingers at the stoppages was quite unique and effective.

Silly mistakes, poor ball use and costly turnovers cost us this game.

I thought the combination of Gawn, Vince, Viney, Jones and vandenBerg (until injured) were brilliant.

I give credit to the Collingwood defenders. They were always able to keep our forwards from getting in to compete with Oxley.

I was wondering why not add Fitzpatrick to the mix down there. Especially when it was obvious the forward set up wasn't working.

He would have been tough to match up on.

I don't think we had a specified loose in defence. There were times when Garland was roaming free, Cross was too and I think at one point I saw Howe on his own.

There's no way you'd send the loose defender into our forward line and give Cloke even more room to roam around and isolate himself in. You can't send a midfielder in there because then you're outnumbered at the stoppages. Although Vandenberg would have been great keeping Oxley second guessing if he was out there.

They eventually sent McDonald forward, probably just to compete with Oxley and bring the ball to ground. Then just as he ran along the edge of the square to the forward line, they bounced the ball in the centre, turned and hit White right in front of goal.

I don't think we had a specified loose in defence. There were times when Garland was roaming free, Cross was too and I think at one point I saw Howe on his own.

There's no way you'd send the loose defender into our forward line and give Cloke even more room to roam around and isolate himself in. You can't send a midfielder in there because then you're outnumbered at the stoppages. Although Vandenberg would have been great keeping Oxley second guessing if he was out there.

They eventually sent McDonald forward, probably just to compete with Oxley and bring the ball to ground. Then just as he ran along the edge of the square to the forward line, they bounced the ball in the centre, turned and hit White right in front of goal.

Agree mate...if only it were as simple as sending a player down to mind Oxley. You would think people reckon Roos is blind, that football mastermind Johnny Ralph seemed to think so.

There were wins and loses for both coaches on the day but in the end it was our skill errors that cost us.

I give credit to the Collingwood defenders. They were always able to keep our forwards from getting in to compete with Oxley.

I was wondering why not add Fitzpatrick to the mix down there. Especially when it was obvious the forward set up wasn't working.

He would have been tough to match up on.

This is where I think we fall down on game day. Its all well and good to have these master plans etc .. but when its not working on the day , or some players arent "listening" a'with it " coaching box will get a little innovative...and why not ?

I thought the combination of Gawn, Vince, Viney, Jones and vandenBerg (until injured) were brilliant.

First time we had this combo on the ground this season

Shame Vanders is now injured.

Yeah I'm not really sure why Roos went down this path of blaming the players. Surely he could have sent the runner out and said to player X man up Oxley or have sent Cross who wasn't doing a bad job as a spare man himself down to Oxley.. Don't think it was a good idea from Roos to distance himself from the players and pass the blame. Would have been better saying something along the lines of, "the players were instructed to do X,Y, Z but we as a coaching group didnt react quicker enough either"

He should sent the runner out and said - "see that long ball that is coming into the forward line that has a hang time of about 5 or so seconds - how about one of you forwards make a contest ?" Roos pointed out - it wasn't like the ball was being drilled to Oxley as a loose player - there were at least 4 marks at least he took where our forwards stood and watched him mark it.

He should sent the runner out and said - "see that long ball that is coming into the forward line that has a hang time of about 5 or so seconds - how about one of you forwards make a contest ?" Roos pointed out - it wasn't like the ball was being drilled to Oxley as a loose player - there were at least 4 marks at least he took where our forwards stood and watched him mark it.

No, their defenders were very disciplined in blocking their opponents from getting near the fall of the ball, knowing that they had the extra number to snag it. This tactic only works when the 6 defenders trust each other to all hold their opponent off the ball, and the extra man also trusts them to do this. Oxley's marks were mostly uncontested, remember?

It also depends on the opposition not manning up on the extra man. If they man up, the whole structure falls apart in minutes. I don't think Buckley could believe how well it worked and how long he was allowed to get away with it, every other team would have manned Oxley and it would have fallen apart in minutes.

Interesting that everyone has focused on the blindingly obvious with Oxley taking uncontested marks in our forward 50, but no one has really focused on the Dees great work around the stoppages, which was partly due to our structures/set up (and partly due to the intensity displayed by Vince, Jones and Viney).

Buckley said on AFL 360 that they were getting smashed in this area (a first for them this year) and they effectively had to change their game plan to something that didn't wish to play.

Buckley was very complimentary of the Dees coaching in terms of our midfield set up and thought the use of the wingers at the stoppages was quite unique and effective.

Silly mistakes, poor ball use and costly turnovers cost us this game.

No, this can't be right! Not about our wingers. How could he say they were "effective"?

Interesting how the media is now starting to question the excuses that Roos is coming out with.

David king put up some stats on game day and while I can't remember them exactly I do remember that we are either 17 or 18 which is where we were under Neeld. The main thing we have improved on is the amount that we get beatin by.

Not overly encouraging though.

On a side note I have kids and they don't listen either but u keep on telling them the same thing over and over and over again until they do eventually listen.

It's also how you interpret those stats. David King has no idea. He's one of those guys that never made it as a coach, but considers himself a bit of a tactician. It's farcical. It's like calling Terry Wallace the 'List Manager', when under his watch, he stuffed up the Tigers' list.

Besides, I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. We're not 17th or 18th on the ladder. We're 15th and our stats are clearly improving, almost universally. Not everything is on the up, but it's a mighty improvement, particularly given where we're coming from.

If you can't see progress, DO, it might just be all those mental scars from the past few years. We're clearly on the up. We won't play finals this year, but we are no longer a basketcase. We're competitive with probably 15 to 16 other AFL teams and could beat any on our day. It's been a while since we've been able to say that.

Strongly disagree, I can honestly say I wasn't part of the chorus that kept repeating "look at how much depth we have" in the preseason training threads. I think the limit is 11 and the problem for us we have a few players tied up until the end of next season possibly on big money. Whatever you think of Grimes as a player he is clearly on the out. He isn't part of midfield rotations and has been left out of the side again. An injured Salem still to come back pushes him even further away. I think a fresh start is needed for Jack. Dawes is another one I'd be shopping around to the Lions, not sure how much is left on his hefty contract but it would free up much needed funds to chase the mids we so desperately need.

Time to let go of a few players because for what ever reason they haven't worked out. I think we're all in for a few surprises come years end.

Name the 11 to 12 players. Sorry, I can't see us cutting that many. I'm not saying we don't have a lot of deadwood, but we can comfortably cut away 6 to 7 players. After that, the decisions become trickier.

I'm only guessing but if all of this has been according to some script then the second half of season 15 will see things ramped up as much as can be . This will lift workloads and accountabilies/expectations leading into 16.

Tempo, cohesion and output need to lift.. Honeymoon over. Roos needs to really start delivering what he can from this lot.

It seems to be going to script, IMO. It's perhaps not as quick as some of us would like or have expected, but anything more would have been mere fantasy, BB.

I don't get how it just doesn't happen. Perhaps that's my naivety, but how it can be allowed to go on for an entire half, all because the players supposedly "didn't listen", is beyond me. It's surely a very simple instruction for Player X to move onto Oxley. After the first couple of minutes of it not happening, maybe just repeat the instruction..?

Anyhow, game's done. It is still an odd explanation.

I dunno. I consider myself a reasonably observant football watcher and I was at the game and the whole Oxley thing wasn't as apparent to me. I noticed him take one or two marks (apparently he took something like six in one quarter), but his dominance wasn't as obvious to me. I'm not as filthy on the players about this one. I'm more filthy about their intensity at the top of the first and final quarters.

I think Roosy would take it back if he could. He's such a shrewd media performer, he's allowed a slip up every so often.

He already has. He essentially apologised today.

First time we had this combo on the ground this season

Shame Vanders is now injured.

Tyson replacing Vanders will do me for the moment.

WTF do runners do if they aren't passing on basic messages?

Tend to agree with McDonald on Cloke being a mismatch, and I actually said so at the start of the game, so not just a hindsight hero. If there is anything Tom struggles with, it is wrestling with big monster forwards. Dunn was probably the more obvious choice given he is renowned for being stronger, but must admit, that matchup wouldn't have really inspired me with any more confidence.

I reckon they could have been bold and tried fitzy on cloke from the get go. Yes he is inexperienced as a backman but he is a big boy and could match cloke for reach and almost also for strength. McDonald then could have run of white, with dunn floating

I reckon they could have been bold and tried fitzy on cloke from the get go. Yes he is inexperienced as a backman but he is a big boy and could match cloke for reach and almost also for strength. McDonald then could have run of white, with dunn floating

Not sure on this 'binman', I doubt anyone has the strength to go with Cloke when he is on fire. I reckon Fitz would not match up but we won't know.

When a guy like Cloke kicks four in the first quarter, we were locked in to play a spare man in defence for the rest of the game. No one can beat him when he is firing. Oxley's impact was fairly neutral until the last quarter when we visibly tired. Up to then we maintained scoreboard pressure. One of our best scoring runs for the season. Old bugbears like poor delivery and lack of forward pressure undid a lot of improvements elsewhere. I do not think it was a coaching mistake to play that way. Their better ball movement would have killed us going the other way if we did not play a spare.

Who could have predicted cloke would kick seven straight?

Who could have predicted cloke would kick seven straight?

every time he took a shot at goal i kept saying he's got to miss one

every time he took a shot at goal i kept saying he's got to miss one

Whereas I kept saying, 'oh, he'll kick this one, even though he has no right to'. You could just tell very early on that it was one of those days for him. He's such a confidence player that you can't let him get his tail up early and we did.

Not sure on this 'binman', I doubt anyone has the strength to go with Cloke when he is on fire. I reckon Fitz would not match up but we won't know.

I think the player we had in the team that was the CLOSEST to matching Cloke for height and strength was Pedo. Dunn, too short, McDonald and Fitz too light. None else was even close.