6 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The whole league seems quite young this year. Maybe that's why the comp is so even and the level of footy has been a bit underwhelming? The 'Baby Bombers' had an average age of just over 24y when they took the premiership - not sure whether that's squad/team - and I think the median for a prem. team is generally between 26-28. I recall last year there were at least three teams above 25y?

Or maybe I'm just getting old.

I wondering whether staking your teams chances of success based on being the youngest team (or at least second in this case), when the oldest is a mere 112 days older (3 months) is pi$$ing in the wind...

17 hours ago, Garbo said:

What makes you confident Frost or any of our other key backs can hold Lynch to only a couple, when we haven't done so all year against any other Key forwards. NRiewoldt 4, Hawkins 5, McCarthy 2.3, N Riewoldt 6.2, Daniher 1.6 (& 2 on the full), Roughead 4, Brown 5.2. Not to say we won't win but we would have to be the worst team for goals against by key fowards.

I should have been more specific, I think 1v1 Frost is very hard to beat and if on occasion he is one out against Lynch I'd back him in. However, those 1v1 should be rare as pressure from our forwards and mids should ideally result in poor entries from the Suns allowing for the intercept (something we executed very well against the Crows).

Additionally, smart decisions with the ball in hand reduce the chances of being punished on the turnover. Given that turnovers and lapses in pressure for periods are an inevitable part of the game, I think Frost will be up to the task when his number is called. If we don't bring the things I mentioned for long enough we will be in trouble and that's when key forwards get a hold of us.

44 minutes ago, america de cali said:

On your figures there are 11 clubs including us within a 150 day range including some of the current 8. Not a very compelling excuse stat.

I wasn't throwing it up as an "excuse". Merely adding context to the previous figures quoted which had our average age as 25 yrs. A different picture is painted when looking at the entire squad.

9 minutes ago, P-man said:

I wasn't throwing it up as an "excuse". Merely adding context to the previous figures quoted which had our average age as 25 yrs. A different picture is painted when looking at the entire squad.

Not having a go at you but just sick of hearing this excuse trotted out after every loss by some. Might as well cut and paste posts from 2010.

2 hours ago, small but forward said:

Took my boy up to that game on the GC. From memory, we were only 4 pts up at half time.

glorious 2nd half, 16 goals to 6.

I was there too and it was the first time in about 10 years I had seen us thump another side live. Great Night but means nothing in regards to tomorrow night. 

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

preamble

Like it. Sounds far more leisurely.

1 hour ago, america de cali said:

. Might as well cut and paste posts from 2010.

Only if you're a simpleton who fails to understand that 2010 was a lifetime ago with a different list.

You're effectively saying that because Trengove et al were young in 2010, Clarry and Trac should be older in 2017. It's beyond illogical.

Supporters need to stop foisting their own emotional baggage from previous rebuilds on the current group - they're not responsible for the failures of the past. 

2 hours ago, DemonOX said:

I was there too and it was the first time in about 10 years I had seen us thump another side live. Great Night but means nothing in regards to tomorrow night. 

Hope you're wrong Oxy!

The changes seem reasonable, Melksham for Salem makes sense, Harmes for Kent also makes sense.

Dropping Weideman is justifiable given the lack of impact he's having on games. ANB can play as a forward but I'd have preferred Stretch for his run (and for the fact that he didn't seem to deserve being dropped in the first place).

This game, like every other game for the rest of the year, will come down to us. If we are on, if we play four quarters, we will win. But if we're not on, or if we don't play four quarters, we can easily lose. 

15 hours ago, faultydet said:

Again, you are too rosey eyed.

Being "in" every game is no longer enough. Norf shouldn't get a look in against us if we are a finals side, but we simply cannot get over the line against them. 

While It's definitely nice to roll a couple of top sides, no team will make finals if they continually roll over against bottom 6 teams. A 2 goal loss against a bottom side is about 8 goals short of where we should be at this stage. Close is far from good enough.

Right, so Adelaide's out of finals contention too?

Geelong lost to Collingwood and Gold Coast, so I suppose they're done as well?

8 hours ago, Abe said:

We simply can't afford to lose this game 

Nah that was last week.  We lost a serious opportunity to cement ourselves in the top 6 even if we rack up a cheap rebound win (as we often do against mediocre mobs) this week.

We are incapable of lifting and ceasing the moment when the real opportunities arise.  After 52 years this is still a very brittle amateur club between the ears (often played out on the field), which generally sees us losing games that are very winnable.   Especially when we are expected to win and going in as strong favourites.

This week is not a true mental test of where this club is at or heading.  That was last week and we failed.....badly.  We are still miles away (professionally and in mind set) from becoming a finals participant, let alone a regular one with the possibility of vying for a flag.

7 hours ago, P-man said:

 

That's just for the side being fielded this weekend though. In terms of the average age of the squad we are still very young, and experience wise I think would be only a few spots higher. 

OLDEST TO YOUNGEST	AVERAGE AGE
West Coast	24 years, 330 days
Greater Western Sydney	24y, 219d
Fremantle	24y, 207d
Hawthorn	24y, 184d
Essendon	24y, 102d
Geelong	24y, 18d
St Kilda	23y, 350d
Richmond	23y, 344d
Adelaide	23y, 340d
Western Bulldogs	23y, 322d
Collingwood	23y, 319d
Gold Coast	23y, 305d
Port Adelaide	23y, 286d
Carlton	23y, 299d
Sydney	23y, 265d
Melbourne	23y, 233d
North Melbourne	23y, 218d
Brisbane Lions	22y, 225d

I love how Riewoldt was scrambling for an excuse on AFL360 the other night. He was saying that Richmond were the second or third youngest side. [censored] off, you [censored].

1 hour ago, A F said:

I love how Riewoldt was scrambling for an excuse on AFL360 the other night. He was saying that Richmond were the second or third youngest side. [censored] off, you [censored].

Yea I remember that and thought like [censored] you are, robbo said really youngest side with a funny look on his face 

4 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

While It's definitely nice to roll a couple of top sides, no team will make finals if they continually roll over against bottom 6 teams. A 2 goal loss against a bottom side is about 8 goals short of where we should be at this stage.

Right, so Adelaide's out of finals contention too?

Geelong lost to Collingwood and Gold Coast, so I suppose they're done as well?

some of you cant read. Maybe you are short sighted.

 

WHILE ITS NICE TO BEAT A TOP SIDE OCCASIONALLY, WE WONT BE A  FINALS TEAM UNTIL WE CONSISTENTLY BEAT THE BOTTOM 6 SIDES.

Open your eyes properly mate.

21 hours ago, Redleg said:

He might, but I am certain he won't talk to Steven May. 

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I actually don't expect they'll meet in the local RSL for a beer after the game.

Essentially I'm worried that their talls will destroy our backs. And that it'll reinforce that we need someone like Sam May going forward.

 

 

us by lots 

2 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I actually don't expect they'll meet in the local RSL for a beer after the game.

Essentially I'm worried that their talls will destroy our backs. And that it'll reinforce that we need someone like Sam May going forward.

 

 

You called him Sam last post and this post, his name is Steven.

i was also saying we might talk to his manager but we won't talk to him.

2 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I actually don't expect they'll meet in the local RSL for a beer after the game.

Essentially I'm worried that their talls will destroy our backs. And that it'll reinforce that we need someone like Sam May going forward.

 

 

why..our backs are fine !! 

we dont need a fullback...according to some as our current list is coming along just dandy 

Id be a little concerned that we don't get opened up.

14 hours ago, small but forward said:

Hope you're wrong Oxy!

It's been known to happen on the odd occasion just my wife!!!