Obviously need to rest players. Seriously if we can't beat the Crows with a few players being rested we are worse than I think we are.

North and Collingwood are the tests for those who think there is still life in this season.

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

 

He loves the club, and being captain at a time when it is under fire make it no surprise really he's declared himself fit to play. Doesn't mean he is though. It's understandable from Max's point of view, but you're right OD, in the context of who we play as well as our current clearance/midfield connection issues I hope he's not risking himself.

We do need to win this game. 
So i just hope the big man can contribute in the way we need him to

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

We do need to win this game. 
So i just hope the big man can contribute in the way we need him to

Absolutely we do. I just think we could do that without Gawn tbh.

 

33 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

ethan trollblay?

Yep that’s me... Anyway, glad to see Gawn isn’t missing out. If I hear any injury news I’ll be sure to post it straight away without any verification. I’m sure Max would loved to have read he was missing two games. Toot toot. 

Edited August 4, 20205 yr by Ethan Tremblay

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 

He loves the club, and being captain at a time when it is under fire make it no surprise really he's declared himself fit to play. Doesn't mean he is though. It's understandable from Max's point of view, but you're right OD, in the context of who we play as well as our current clearance/midfield connection issues I hope he's not risking himself.

Pity we don't have another dozen to match him.

52 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I find this comment attributed to him, troubling  "He said the Demons knew what they did wrong but were still trying to discover the reason for it".

This is like when you're looking for your sunglasses and eventually someone says "they're on your head!"

No wonder Goodwin can't find the problem.

I'm still skeptical . If he is in any doubt I would not risk him. I hope he is right but until I see him run out and play unhindered I will remain skeptical.

3 minutes ago, picket fence said:

I'm still skeptical . If he is in any doubt I would not risk him. I hope he is right but until I see him run out and play unhindered I will remain skeptical.

This is perfect round to rest him. There is never going to be a better  round when we should be able win without him. 

3 hours ago, old dee said:

Short break did not seem to worry port last night.

Yes and no. 

Yes because their fatigue was evident throughout the game particularly in the first half.

Dogs do a Melbourne and wasted so much of their dominance in the first half and last quarter. Bruce was tmac like and they kept going to him. 

Only a dees supporter could understand how they were only 3 points up at half time. It barely went inside the port 50 in the second quarter.

Make no mistake the doggies should have won.

Which is where the no comes in. Port were mentally tough enough to hang in the match in the first half and last quarter. And were able to raise an effort in in the third. More mentally than physically. It won them the game I couldn't help but be impressed. I thought they were a bit flakey.

By the by had a good win on the doggies at the line. The difference in gaps between games will play a big role in the next two weeks.

19 minutes ago, binman said:

Yes and no. 

Yes because their fatigue was evident throughout the game particularly in the first half.

Dogs do a Melbourne and wasted so much of their dominance in the first half and last quarter. Bruce was tmac like and they kept going to him. 

Only a dees supporter could understand how they were only 3 points up at half time. It barely went inside the port 50 in the second quarter.

Make no mistake the doggies should have won.

Which is where the no comes in. Port were mentally tough enough to hang in the match in the first half and last quarter. And were able to raise an effort in in the third. More mentally than physically. It won them the game I couldn't help but be impressed. I thought they were a bit flakey.

By the by had a good win on the doggies at the line. The difference in gaps between games will play a big role in the next two weeks.

But they won, the dogs didn't. They found a way in spite of being tired. We couldn't manage to be in the game at any point. Surely that is the difference. I think we are over estimating the ability of a large number of our team. 

26 minutes ago, old dee said:

But they won, the dogs didn't. They found a way in spite of being tired. We couldn't manage to be in the game at any point. Surely that is the difference. I think we are over estimating the ability of a large number of our team. 

Did you stop reading half way through my post OD. That's exactly what i meant by:

'Make no mistake the doggies should have won.

Which is where the no comes in. Port were mentally tough enough to hang in the match in the first half and last quarter. And were able to raise an effort in in the third. More mentally than physically. It won them the game I couldn't help but be impressed. I thought they were a bit flakey.' 

30 minutes ago, binman said:

Did you stop reading half way through my post OD. That's exactly what i meant by:

'Make no mistake the doggies should have won.

Which is where the no comes in. Port were mentally tough enough to hang in the match in the first half and last quarter. And were able to raise an effort in in the third. More mentally than physically. It won them the game I couldn't help but be impressed. I thought they were a bit flakey.' 

I was making the agreeing point that Port won and like us the dogs didn't. I have no idea why  but this has been our trade mark for decades. Nothing to do your comments but why 3 years ago when we, lions and port where down and could not beat time with a stick are we still in that position but the other two are going gang busters at the top of the comp? 

 

36 minutes ago, binman said:

Did you stop reading half way through my post OD. That's exactly what i meant by:

'Make no mistake the doggies should have won.

Which is where the no comes in. Port were mentally tough enough to hang in the match in the first half and last quarter. And were able to raise an effort in in the third. More mentally than physically. It won them the game I couldn't help but be impressed. I thought they were a bit flakey.' 

Port weren’t playing the top team on the ladder but rather a middle of the road team. That’s a big difference.

1 minute ago, Elwood 3184 said:

Port weren’t playing the top team on the ladder but rather a middle of the road team. That’s a big difference.

So if was us playing the dogs would we have won?

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

So if was us playing the dogs would we have won?

Who knows but the Dogs were playing off an extra day’s break which is a significant factor. 

Give Maxie a break? Sure.

OR IF WE PLAY HIM I'd be playing him forward with Jacko in the 'ruck'.

Whoever, really at this stage, because we're not getting much advantage playing to Max's dominance.

Play that hack Jones in the ruck - since he's been picked in front of Rivers. !!!!!

Jonesy plays like a bloody fifty year old - oh, wait - he is, isn't he?

And say what you like about  Alex Scapegoat-Bullen - does kick goals.

On 8/3/2020 at 11:57 AM, Lord Nev said:

2 games with a lat injury.

 

On 8/4/2020 at 10:10 AM, Ethan Tremblay said:

Hang on. I thought a certain poster had inside info and he was going to miss two games? Someone forgot to tell Gawny. 

 

On 8/4/2020 at 11:05 AM, Ethan Tremblay said:

Yep that’s me... Anyway, glad to see Gawn isn’t missing out. If I hear any injury news I’ll be sure to post it straight away without any verification. I’m sure Max would loved to have read he was missing two games. Toot toot. 

Sounds like someone finally told Max hey?

#NevTheNewsbreaker