Do you think we can have both Gawn and Spencer in the same team?

IMO if we bring in Gawn like lots on here are saying, then we have to drop Spencer (too tall otherwise)

Ok

1 We didn't play a horses for courses team this week, Fitzpatrick surplus to needs as Rider didn't play X

2 We went with and hope Viney and Jetta can regain form and not be fatigued because of layoff's X

3 We played Bail and Jones on the basis of there games last week, but given the much better midfield this week we needed to play both of Riley and Newton but Roosy went with the ol "Deserved a game mantra" Instead of hard nosed relentless selection based on MATCH UPS X

Do you get it now??

If not then maybe you can provide some "Informed" analysis?

1) I would suggest that Port have a more dangerous array of tall attacking options than WB. Our backline clicked last week and Fitz was one of our stronger talls. Since when do we select by horses for courses? You select your best team to play and win the match on your terms.

2) Viney and Jetta were deemed fit to play.

3) Newton is slow and Riley is even slower. If you think they would have been the difference yesterday, you are mistaken. We would have been sliced and diced by Port's runners with even more devastating effect.

Do you think we can have both Gawn and Spencer in the same team?

IMO if we bring in Gawn like lots on here are saying, then we have to drop Spencer (too tall otherwise)

I think it has to be one or the other.

Gawn needs some performances playing as the number one ruck at Casey. If he puts some good runs on the board in that position then we need to have a look at him in the AFL team as the number one ruck...that will depend on Spencer's form as well as Gawn's.

Ok

1 We didn't play a horses for courses team this week, Fitzpatrick surplus to needs as Rider didn't play X

2 We went with and hope Viney and Jetta can regain form and not be fatigued because of layoff's X

3 We played Bail and Jones on the basis of there games last week, but given the much better midfield this week we needed to play both of Riley and Newton but Roosy went with the ol "Deserved a game mantra" Instead of hard nosed relentless selection based on MATCH UPS X

Do you get it now??

If not then maybe you can provide some "Informed" analysis?

you maybe right PF,,, but

Ok

1 We didn't play a horses for courses team this week, Fitzpatrick surplus to needs as Rider didn't play X this maybe is why Fitzy was played forward against Port... maybe they want him for next week down back.

2 We went with and hope Viney and Jetta can regain form and not be fatigued because of layoff's X again, maybe they want them to have some run & touch in them, prior to the QBD match against the Pies.

3 We played Bail and Jones on the basis of there games last week, but given the much better midfield this week we needed to play both of Riley and Newton but Roosy went with the ol "Deserved a game mantra" Instead of hard nosed relentless selection based on MATCH UPS X we don't know why riley or newton didn't play, maybe they needed a rest, or for discipline reasons?

we are having to sort the list in a few months time, & have to give players a further try out prior.

I think it has to be one or the other.

Gawn needs some performances playing as the number one ruck at Casey. If he puts some good runs on the board in that position then we need to have a look at him in the AFL team as the number one ruck...that will depend on Spencer's form as well as Gawn's.

Agreed, there's no way we can carry both in the same side. If Gawn keeps the pressure on at Casey then Spencer will need to step things up or they'll be switched.

At the moment Pedersen is doing pretty well as the second ruck anyway.

Out: Bail, Howe

In: Tyson, Riley

Fitzy should play against a team that rests a ruck forward.

Agreed, there's no way we can carry both in the same side. If Gawn keeps the pressure on at Casey then Spencer will need to step things up or they'll be switched.

At the moment Pedersen is doing pretty well as the second ruck anyway.

Lets remember Pies play Witts and Grundy (2 rucks), so do many others, Freo,Hawks,Brisbane,

True, Goldstein is great for North but although he fought on this evening, he did make a few errors as he got tired.

Problem is our absence of a second tall in back line If we don play Fitzpatrick.

Out: M. Jones, Bail, Fitzpatrick, Watts

In: JKH, Tyson, Riley, Newton

ditto !!

Out: This weeks scapegoats

In: Next weeks scapegoats

I have been staying off the forums, because I was away this weekend and wanted to enjoy myself despite only catching the second half of the game.

It is really [censored] me how much people lose their minds over losses. We're a mentally scarred team that isn't quite good enough to compete against better sides.

Yes, its frustrating. But its reality, and no amount of screaming and yelling is going to change the fact that we have to stay the course and stop dropping our collective bundles every time we lose.

I know the circumstances were bad, and that its a repeat of rd 2, but this is how it is and we have to accept that. Everyone lost it before the Dogs game, then you were on board again, and now you have jumped off.

I'm getting seriously annoyed that guys like Newton & Michie who have only played a handful

of games are being dropped every second week. honestly.. I've seen more I like from these blokes than guys like

watts, bail, m jones & Howe. surely they'd be getting extremely frustrated that watts continues to get games ahead

of them, when he hasn't done anything this year to warrant his spot!

IN: Dawes, Newton, Riley, Tyson

OUT: Bail, Howe, M. Jones, Watts

FB: Fitzpatrick, Dunn, Jetta

HB: Garland, T. McDonald, Lumumba

C: Toumpas, Vince, Tyson

HF: Vandenberg, Hogan, Brayshaw

FF: Pedersen, Dawes, Garlett

FOLL: Spencer, Cross, N. Jones

INT: Grimes, Newton, Viney

SUB: Riley

EMERG: Gawn, Harmes, Michie

Team there does lack a little run, but if we can turn the game into an arm wrestle we may be ok.

OMG - please tell me what does Dawes bring to the table??????? What positives has he brought in 2015?? Can't mark. Can't kick. Can't / won't play ruck. Can't play back to mid. One trick pony, whose truth has been worked out.

Season 2015 Totals/Averages

GM K HB D M G B T HO FF FA AF * SC *

Average 5 5.4 4.4 9.8 3.2 0.6 0.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.2 47.6 48.8

IF he waltzes back in without having been made to show anything at Casey (I know the bloody bye isn't his fault - clearly entirely Jack Watts' doing) then I am seriously done for 2015, and probably 2016. Sailing, and a bit of golf are far more appealing.

I am getting sick of Roos' excuses

Make to buggers work, and earn their positions. Can't ask much more than that given our lack of depth.

Edited May 31, 201510 yr by monoccular

Lets remember Pies play Witts and Grundy (2 rucks), so do many others, Freo,Hawks,Brisbane,

True, Goldstein is great for North but although he fought on this evening, he did make a few errors as he got tired.

Problem is our absence of a second tall in back line If we don play Fitzpatrick.

The concept of two ruckmen isn't without merit.

It's the concept of Spencer and Gawn being in the same side that worries me.

The concept of two ruckmen isn't without merit.

It's the concept of Spencer and Gawn being in the same side that worries me.

Couldn't agree more its either one of them and not both.

Out: Bail, M Jones, Watts, Fitzpatrick. Almost tempted to drop Howe. If we had more depth he would be playing for Casey.

In: Tyson, Newton, Michie, Riley

Riley to be the sub. Think he is suited to the role where he can come on for a quarter and a bit to tackle hard and focus on winning stoppages.

IN: Gawn, Tyson, Newton, Riley

OUT: Fitzpatrick, Watts, Howe, Bail

Couldn't agree more!

Wattsy and Howe both stunk it up yesterday but it's the biggest game of the year next week and I want to see these guys play on the big stage.

We also lack class. And these two blokes have class.

Will be disappointed if either or both of them are dropped for the Queen's Birthday game.

It's the clearances and work around the stoppages (incl tackling) that killed us on the weekend. Watts and Howe aren't exactly the main problem there.

Pies work way too hard and run far too hard to get into space for us to play too many talls. Leave Spencer there, he's rucking quite well.

We also lack class. And these two blokes have class.

Will be disappointed if either or both of them are dropped for the Queen's Birthday game.

It's the clearances and work around the stoppages (incl tackling) that killed us on the weekend. Watts and Howe aren't exactly the main problem there.

Yeah I tend to agree. I'm not as doomsday as some, the scoring came in clumps and in the first half very late, and I reckon it is tied to a couple of blokes falling off the pace. With the lack of depth in the midfield a lot falls to very few. If one of them starts dropping off then the domino effect of one dropping off, another trying to cover and then his man gets free etc (that roos referred to) starts to play out.

People talk of trying to counteract their run, but we had runners on the weekend and they couldn't go with them. So focus on keeping it inside, or preventing easy disposals out of the stoppages. Tyson should help here, as will Viney. I want another in there.

In: Tyson, Riley

Out: Bail, Jones/Fitz (think Fitz may be required for the match up of Grundy if he goes forward. McDonald to Cloke, Dunn to White, Fitz to Grundy).

if this club doesn't finally make a stand next Monday we may as well pack it in

• I think we went too tall down back against Port and without enough run. We must choose between Dunn and Fitzpatrick. And Dunn did a great job on Cloke last year.
• We need to go with extra mids to create pressure around the stoppages and so we can sustain it for longer in the game.
• Frost is our best bet as first ruck because Spencer, Jamar and Gawn are offer nothing around the ground.
• Toumpas lacks the athletic traits to make it IMO. Particularly given he panics.
• We cannot play 2 defensive forwards (Bail and M Jones) who lack skill in the same side. (We are missing Kent a lot because he is disciplined to play a defensive role, but knows how and when to attack.)
• Watts and Howe need to lift, but we lack talent and they should be retained.
• Vince/Garland to Pendlebury.

B Garland, T McDonald, Jetta
HB Lumumba, Dunn, Grimes
C Cross, Vince, Vandenberg
HF Watts, Hogan, Howe
F Viney, Pedersen, Garlett
Fol Spencer, Tyson, N Jones
Int Brayshaw, M Jones, Riley, Newton (sub)

In: Tyson, Riley, Newton
Out: Fitzpatrick, Toumpas, Bail

A lot of talk here about half forwards and half backs, as though they were the reason we lost. We could have players vastly superior to Matt Jones, Howe, Watts and Bail in the side and we still would have lost. Our problem is in the middle of the ground.

Until Van Berg can run out a full game and not go missing for lengthy periods of time, Brayshaw is more experienced and also fitter, Pettracca has recovered from his knee, gained experience and is AFL fit and Tyson is over his knee problems and back in form. Until all those things occur, and Nat Jones and Vince are relegated to midfield support roles, we will continue to lose to better teams.

Pulling out your hair and gnashing your teeth about the likes of Bail, Matt Jones, Howe and Watts is pointless. A fit Salem and Kent might make ever so slight improvements to our overall performance, but the major problem has been and still is with our midfield. Our key mids at the moment are either not fully AFL ready (Brayshaw, VanBerg, Patracca) or not AFL size (Nat Jones and Vince).

Riley, Newton and a below 100% Tyson does not change the result on Saturday one bit imo.

Shuffling the deck chairs.

A lot of talk here about half forwards and half backs, as though they were the reason we lost. We could have players vastly superior to Matt Jones, Howe, Watts and Bail in the side and we still would have lost. Our problem is in the middle of the ground.

Until Van Berg can run out a full game and not go missing for lengthy periods of time, Brayshaw is more experienced and also fitter, Pettracca has recovered from his knee, gained experience and is AFL fit and Tyson is over his knee problems and back in form. Until all those things occur, and Nat Jones and Vince are relegated to midfield support roles, we will continue to lose to better teams.

Pulling out your hair and gnashing your teeth about the likes of Bail, Matt Jones, Howe and Watts is pointless. A fit Salem and Kent might make ever so slight improvements to our overall performance, but the major problem has been and still is with our midfield. Our key mids at the moment are either not fully AFL ready (Brayshaw, VanBerg, Patracca) or not AFL size (Nat Jones and Vince).

Riley, Newton and a below 100% Tyson does not change the result on Saturday one bit imo.

Shuffling the deck chairs.

I agree with your basic premise, but I tend to to disagree that Riley (maybe), Tyson, Viney, Salem and Kent wouldn't make a difference. Compared to the weekend, I think they would make a big difference - precisely because they allow vanders, Brayshaw, Vince and Jonesy to get off the ball for a while.

I think you'll find that M Jones spent some time going through the middle on the weekend as well.

Going to be wet, fitzy has to be dropped.

A lot of talk here about half forwards and half backs, as though they were the reason we lost. We could have players vastly superior to Matt Jones, Howe, Watts and Bail in the side and we still would have lost. Our problem is in the middle of the ground.

Until Van Berg can run out a full game and not go missing for lengthy periods of time, Brayshaw is more experienced and also fitter, Pettracca has recovered from his knee, gained experience and is AFL fit and Tyson is over his knee problems and back in form. Until all those things occur, and Nat Jones and Vince are relegated to midfield support roles, we will continue to lose to better teams.

Pulling out your hair and gnashing your teeth about the likes of Bail, Matt Jones, Howe and Watts is pointless. A fit Salem and Kent might make ever so slight improvements to our overall performance, but the major problem has been and still is with our midfield. Our key mids at the moment are either not fully AFL ready (Brayshaw, VanBerg, Patracca) or not AFL size (Nat Jones and Vince).

Riley, Newton and a below 100% Tyson does not change the result on Saturday one bit imo.

Shuffling the deck chairs.

It would have made a big difference...these are the guys that are supposed to rotate through the midfield. Where do you think vanders get's a break...he gets very little break from the midfield because there is no one to step up.

Tyson does make a diff by the way, he is a great match up on Boak and even half fit is better than the passengers you named.

When Broadbent can get hold of the ball and our defensive forwards give up 20+ touches to him then we are in big trouble. To defend as a forward you must kick goals otherwise the defender takes little notice.

I don't like defensive forwards, just doesn't make sense but at the moment we have little choice. Good forwards kick goals and bring defensive pressure. We've only got 2 (Hogan & Garlett) of these out of 6 and you reckon it's just the midfield.

Fitzpatrick has just set the world record - total dud to superstar and back again in about 8 days

not calling you lot fickle or anything...

OUT:

Uninterested

Not up to it

Trier but lacking any real skills

IN:

Best of what's available

Lucky to get the nod

Should be in the best 22 but been hopeless all year