Deespicable

I reckon all these wins would be making Howe and Col think about re-signing with us. And the problem for them is that because they've waited till now - and our salary cap priority now is Gawn and fitting Prestia in - then they can probably get more money elsewhere. I actually think we may end up almost pushing one of them out.

Is he our best player this year? Clearly yes because of his consistency and the fact that he's been amazing at shutting down players (since his Dangerfield game) and beating them at clearances and he's often shown them how to score goals as well. Is he the best player on our list? Plenty of potential rivals here and I think we sometimes forget that Nathan Jones is our only midfielder who gets tagged almost every week and his kicking skills are just amazing. Is he our most crucial player? Which player, when absent, mucks up our structure more - Gawn, Hogan or even maybe T-Mac would probably pip him here. Is he our first All-Australian since Jamar and Frawley? Got to be a chance now and the fact that he tags gives him a point of difference. Will probably get down to him v Armitage because they have to go with the usual big names first - Fyfe, Cotchin, Danger, Micthell, Pendles etc

Don't misconstrue what the stat is saying - it is centre-bounce points conceded. Last year we knew we weren't going to win a clearance so we had a far more defensive mindset, whereas now with Gawny, we are actually trying to win the ball. As a result we are also up on scoring ourselves. Further to this, the impact of the loss to Collingwood (and Oxley's game) has meant that we don't position an extra man back initially, which means we are more prone to being scored against if the opposition get a clean breakaway. Finally I'm sure a lot of those points came when Freo and Hawthorn and GWS (second half) smashed us in the middle and ran out of the centre square like we were witches hats.

That's interesting Django - are you so adamant about Goodes issue not being racist? I remember watching all the pre-season stuff before he went down and he was doing all the forward drills. And somehow Brayshaw has spent almost the entire year as a small forward, yet he was regarded as a midfielder.

Weren't you the guy that said Tom Scully wouldn't leave?

Why all the talk about Treloar? Yes, he's a good tough, hardworking player and fits Roosy' big-bodied midfielder mantra. But do we really need another clearance type who has great aerial skills ahead of say a hard-working running type who can break lines - I thought that's what everyone complains about with our style. I'm sorry but I reckon the club would have only minimal interest in wasting its top pick and a player to get Treloar and that's even if they could match what the Pies, North and Dogs can offer. Would those wanting him actually be happy if Vince or Viney or Jones was forced out of the midfield set-up? To me the player we wanted was Dylan Shiel because he provides dash and works hard - but unfortunately that boat has sailed. Danger would be nice too and is in keeping with our urgent need - but that boat has also sailed. So why is everyone working themselves into a lather about Treloar being on the market? Does anyone have some inside info about him wanting to come or is it just dreamy hot air by Demonlanders?

The positive is the Pies are down on confidence, Cloke is out, hopefully Elliott's another week and Darcy Moore has had his big game, so he couldn't back up (could he?). I reckon it's a tricky night for selectors ahead. Firstly, Vanders had a shocker yesterday but you could tell from his first touch he wasn't right - I'm guessing he had a migraine or something, but that wasn't him out there, or we can forget every exciting thing we have seen from him so far this season. We may here more on this one yet, I suspect. But who that has watched his other games would drop him? Can Dawesy get away with so many dropped marks and poor kicks again? I suspect he will, but primarily because he winded Webster and showed a some of that mongrel that he needs to because he's never going to be quality, but he can be physical. He's also playing his old side. Does Jamar play then. If ever there's a game when we can play two ruckmen then this is it - the Pies have Witts, Grundy plus White and Moore and I suspect Reid as well this week. They are a mix of bigs and smalls. There is an opponent for him and it's time to give the Russian what may well be his last senior game for the club. What to do with our lack of run from defence? Can we keep playing Col there, if he doesn't want to take the game on? On early season form, you would bring back Salem in a heartbeat. But having watched him at Vicky Park, he is at least another week away from being ready. My view is that is that it is time to give Angus a shot at playing off half-back? If you go back before his injury, he was starting to become our linebreaker with his long kicking. He can't get many minutes in our midfield yet, so why not use him in a way that he'll get a few cheap possessions and provide dash. He has the discipline to do it and aerial skills to sweep. T-Mac has to go back to defence. We miss his run and as stated earlier, the Pies are big - he needs to play on White or Reid I suspect. We should also be playing Fitzy down back, and if he's fit, I'm sure he will come in, but after his injury in the magoos, you'd have to think he's out. That means the back six (with the seventh rotating) is Jetta (Fasolo or Blair), Dunn (Reid), Howe (Moore), Brayshaw (de Goey), T-Mac (White) Lumumba (Crisp/ Greenwood, Pendles when forward) Grimes (seventh) Crossy goes to Sidebottom, Vince to Pendles, Viney to Swan. Obviously we have problems up forward, but we need to hunt down their defenders and that's why I'd like to see Riley get another shot - I realise that he's not a long-term answer. Matt Jones is a certain in for mine. Billy will be back though, just needs to dominate in VFL for a couple of weeks. Out: Stretch, Michie, Garland In: Jamar, Matt Jones, Riley B: Jetta Dunn Howe HB: Lumumba T-Mac Brayshaw C: Cross Viney Watts HF: M.Jones Dawes Vanders (if OK) F: Garlett Hogan Riley Ru: Gawn Vince N.Jones Int: Jamar, Grimes, Tyson, Harmes (sub)

Back off a bit about Roosy. Yes we lack run and were beaten by a quicker, younger side that like the Dogs has recruited quick, hard youngsters. But Roosy has spent his first two years overhauling the list. In year one he opted to recruit guys that were big-bodied midfielders (Vince, Tyson, Cross) and by correctly making our most courageous hard worker (Nat Jones) captain, he fixed our inability to win clearances and be competitive around the pill. Only Fremantle, Hawthorn, WC and GWS (second half) have smashed us at clearances this year. In year two he recruited quicker players because we couldn't transition into attack and Garlett has been a revelation, Lumumba hasn't really lived up to his pre-season form and Frost and Petracca got injured. But clearly we are better than last year. Sure we can all dispute team selections - eg: Garland on Riewoldt - but it's somewhat understandable given how T-Mac had gone the past two weeks up forward and he obviously wanted to give it another go. As to gamestyle, we do seem to have lost our ability to go forward and the obsession with handballing backwards or sideways is frustating, but that's part of modern-day 'possession at all costs' football. Our biggest problem now is that we don't have linebreakers and against a quick side like Saints, we just didn't have the ability to link up and break the press. Hopefully Prestia's arrival will give us more confidence of linking up through the middle. While Wattsy has made steps in recent weeks, he went back into his safety mode. That's picking on him, but he's one that has to run and take risks, because we don't have many that can do this and he's now playing the prime outside run position. Billy was also poor in this area this week - so I think you will find Matt Jones back for him. Don't get grumpy, until we get Kent back and Frost, we just don't have the pace to hurt sides and M.Jones is one of the few, that, on paper at least, can provide it.

I braved the wind and occasional rain sprawl at good old Victoria Park - home to where Peter Daicos, Dennis Banks and others smashed us on so many occasions. It was bitterly cold and the wind made kicking to the city end almost impossible, unless you managed to get a ball that slipped over the back - which the Pies did on many occasions. It was also one of the more physical first halves I've ever seen - guys were tackling like it was a GF - and I'd suspect both these sides, when they have pretty much full lists like they had, will be able to be competitive with Box Hill, Dogs, Sandy etc. For those wanting Hunt in next week, I'm sorry but you wouldn't pick him on that display - barely touched it for three quarters when I left, although I understand he got two late ones. For those wanting Salem in, well that might happen, but it will be on reputation, not on his display. He really struggled, looked short of a gallop and made one of the most horrendous howlers in second term that only Jimmy T can match. He did take a couple of nice marks later, but to me, looked a tad overweight than normal. Needs another VFL run in my view. Speaking of Jimmy T, he was pretty good in the first half. Looked confident running down wing and his absence in the second, along with Fitzy's, was the key factor. Fitzy was huge early, especially given most of the Pies forward moves went through Ben Reid and Fitzy kept him pretty well in check and ran off him really well. When Fitzy went off in third, our whole confidence down back crumbled. The other surprise to me, given I'm one of the few to rate him, was that Spencer had a howler. Kept misjudging and dropping marks in the wind. Jamar was clearly the more dominate of the two and the Pies Cox has improved. I wasn't a big fan of Neal-Bullen's game, although he tried hard, he just wasn't effective with his clearances from the middle. Riley hunted down bodies like he always does and hurt a few with his tackles. The two best, once Fitzy went off, from what I saw, were the two we all bag the most - Jordie and Terlich. Jordie tagged Young in the second half and did a pretty good job and he even scored a nice goal on the run - I kid you not. Terls ran around mopping up almost everything - sure he turned it over, but he was a real livewire. Bail got plenty of it, but was ineffectual for most of it. JKH looked lively as a small forward but had no scoreboard pressure. Newton kicked a ripper on the run (JKH handball) and was handy, but probably didn't do enough. White took a great mark and kicked our first from 65m with the wind, but struggled to get it, spending most of the game as a small forward - I couldn't figure out why. King was classy at times, but like all our three giants, struggled to win it in the conditions because it was almost impossible to mark. The only other positive was that Oscar Mac took a handful of nice marks and kicked a thumping goal - now he's not that far off a debut IMO. He still gets brushed aside too easily at times, but he's almost ready. Ultimately, the Pies had more run than us, especially once JimmyT went off. At times it's a little hard to figure if that's because we have too many hard-working types or because our gameplan of keeping possession at all times, means we go back way too often. A bit of both I suspect.

Having been out to the VFL Collingwood game beforehand, I think people underrate how windy it was and the MCG does swurl around massively. That doesn't excuse handballs behind players and lack of run, but it should be taken into account when assessing our kicking. Votes: 6 Viney (as I've said before, I never feel we aren't trying or intimidated when he's in the side and he did pretty good job on Steven) 5 Howe (on a day when skills were poor, he was clean for much of it. Past two weeks have been huge). I really struggled from here. 4 Gawn (not as dominant as recent weeks, but he clearly won his ruck battle). 3 Jones (tried all game to lift them) 2 Cross (disciplined as ever) 1 Grimes (linked well for much of the game)

I agree with titan-U, it was a deadset boring article that went nowhere. We all know that the games is being cruelled by stoppages and it's a style of play that our coach is well-aware of and has taken steps to recruit players accordingly - Vince, Brayshaw, Tyson, Vanders etc. The interesting thing was when he started talking about indigenous players and then backed off the topic right away as if he knew it was taboo or was simply just to whoosy to confront. The fact is that after a massive high when Port won the flag with something like 7 indigenous players, most sides now play only two or three IPs because most are light weight and get buffeted of the ball easily or break bones like Jurrah. It's only the ones with big hips and pace - ie: Rioli, Franklin, Betts, Varcoe, Jeffy - that are making it. Even Sydney's Jetta has lost ground because he's too light to cope with the inside stuff. That trend is the saddest part of the way the AFL is heading - more stoppages means guys have to be so strong through the core and shoulders to survive.

The thing is that Col, unlike, Howey, is a RFA, which means that if a club really wants him, we have to decide if we want to match the offer. It also means that we are most likely to be given a compensation pick - it won't be first round, but it is likely to be second round pick - approx 23-26 by my reckoning as we have an easy run home. That would be almost too good in some people's eyes but a good compo for us. If we are really unlucky the panel will gives us only a third round pick - 41-46 - that would be a real bummer and unders. As to his salary, it's hard to see us wanting to fork out another $500K this time for him (he was coming off 2nd in B&F then), especially as we are apparently close to cap already and we want to make a big play on Prestia and also to offer Gawn some really good long-term coin which now is a priority. To me, both Col and Howey have chosen the wrong year to be out of contract - I reckon they will have to stay loyal for less than what they are on - or will be pushed out as part of the Prestia deal. It's not as if they have shown themselves to be indispensable this year - just useful members of a senior group that Roosy is very loyal to. Frost, when he's fit can easily fill Garland's role, and Lumumba can also play Howe's third-man up role. Then there's also Fitzy and A-Mac as back-ups and Pedo if necessary. We could also make a play for Curtly Hampson with our 2nd rounder if we are worried that a potential Howe departure leaves us one short in the running department down back.

Please print out your statement and place on your wall at home. Sometimes we all get it wrong and have blind faith. I used to think in their first couple of years that Brent Grgic and Cale Morton were going to be greats for Melbourne! Here's a test you can apply to all recruits and to Jimmy. Is he mega quick? Can he kick more than 50m? Is he a ferocious tackler? Can he evade players (always has time)? Is he a good mark for his size? Does he have awareness/smarts? Stars of the future: Brayshaw, for example, get 5 out of 6, - that's why he's loved. Even being nice about Jimmy, he only gets one out of 6.

It's a good topic Fat Tony, especially this week after they've belted Swans and the likely heir apparent Port has lost it's was this season, meaning it's hard to see which team is making inroads on them although I still think Freo of early in the season can match them. GWS, Pies and Bulldogs are building however and could challenge in 2016. As for us, I know we are light years from actually putting it together, but we are closing the gap - player comparison below. The four where we lose out badly are: A classy goalkicking small forward like Breust. A second quality big forward like Roughy. A second quality pacey linebreaking wingman like Hill. A clever midfield/defender no-nonesense quality player like Hodge - although Brayshaw is showing the right signs. Small forwards Rioli - Garlett Puopolo - Vandenberg Breust - no one that looks likely as a comparison here yet, but Petracca may in future. Big forwards Gunston - Hogan Roughead - no comparison here . Hale/McEvoy - it would be nice to say Spencer or Dawes, but neither is as skilled. But a fit Frost might be. Rucks Ceglar/McEvoy - Gawn Inside mids Mitchell - N.Jones Lewis - Vince Hodge - Brayshaw (obviously not yet, but he's heading in the right direction) Burgoyne - Cross Shiels - Viney Langford - Tyson - (Dom needs to work harder on his speed in off-season though) Outside mids Hill - no comparison here at moment, although Billy seems to read play well. Smith - Watts - finally there's a few signs that Jack could become as good as him, although another Adelaide game and that's laughable. Hartung - Kent - both are handy back-ups Tall defenders Lake - Dunn Gibson - T Mac (both brilliant spoilers and provide run as well) Stratton - Lumumba (I'm sorry but I really like Harry's dash and ability one-on-one so I'm probably biased here but I rate him easily the equal of Stratton) Spangher/Frawley - Garland (all are negaters rather than offensive players) Small defenders Birchall - Howe - yes we lose out here, but not if Howe plays like last week each week. Suckling - Salem Duryea - Jetta I actually don't think our kicking is miles off the Hawks - what we lack is the ability to go left in defence with confidence - that is because with Salem out we don't have a left-footer there. We also lack the outside run and line-breaking confidence that Smith and Hill provide - although god help me, there's been some Watts stuff in recent weeks that suggest he could be the equal of Smith. Finally our mids don't seem to get their hands free like Mitchell and Lewis do so well when tackled - although there are signs that we are improving in this area. Ultimately it gets down to having the confidence and arrogance that comes with playing finals and winning flags and means players are rated as superstars rather than just very good.

I would have thought four guys would be considered this week and a max of two would be included. Riley - 23rd player - So what did he do wrong this week to lose ground on selection? Showed last time as a sub v St Kilda that he could add spark as a small forward and may get that role again, although given he is one of about 8 players in the "will we keep category", it would be nice if he actually started. Grimes - 24th player this week and backed up with game-high 30 disposals in VFL. Given Roosy has gone off him this year, he has shown strong leadership to not get disgruntled and keep performing in VFL. Has been hurt by Crossy going back to half back as a sweeper - which means his role is taken and he may again miss out. Jamar - 25th player this week and backed up with three goals and double-figure possessions (something we were all critical of in past). He also just shaded Spencil as most effective big man in VFL game, which probably gives him the nod if we decide that we need two rucks this week. But hard to see us going two rucks unless Hickey plays as well as Longer. Even harder to see Gawn being left out so the Russian will most likely join Grimes as emergency again. The Pies do have two rucks, so all is not lost for Russian's swansong. Hunt - I've only watched the video's of him playing at VFL and have seen him train, but there's no doubt his speed gives him an advantage in this modern game of breaking hard once you get a clearance. The first question is whether rushing him in now is worthwhile - should we wait until he genuinely dominates a game at VFL level first, rather than just showing glimpses. The second question is whether his presence in the line-up would mean Newnes goes to him and for once is potentially harassed running out of defence as he did against us last time. There are only two potential outs this week - JKH and ANB - both small forwards - hence Riley (yes for JKH) and Hunt (maybe for ANB). The Saints, as we found out last time, are a quick side, but from memory we didn't have Vanders. Apart from Kent and Frost, we will be at our quickest if we make the above changes.

Totally agree that aside from game against Geelong, he is yet to really have much of an impact and compared to other first year players Vanders and Brayshaw, he is a long way back. But in his defence, is that he has primarily been asked to earn his stripes as a small forward - which ain't an easy gig when you have played midfield most of your life ad don't have explosive speed like Jeffy. But V and B have also had to earn their stripes the same way and look far more accomplished and strong with their body positioning and aerial skills. Ultimately we won't know how good (or bad) he is until he gets a go in the centre - but that's a hard possy to get game time nowadays with Viney, Vince and Jones first picks and Prestia on his way.

He lack explosive pace, which nowadays is a necessity to make it as a small forward. I think his only chance now of making it is to go back to defence and become a Jetta clone.

6 - Cross (After his first shocker for us last week, you knew he'd come out firing) 5 Gawn (Our best player after half-time but wasn't a major factor in the first half when we won it) 4 Hoges (Seemed to enjoy a weaker opponent this week, but still a tad untidy) 3 Jetta (I really loved his intensity and run this week and that tackle on Hanley in the goalsquare was huge). 2 Viney (It's great turning up at a game and knowing we won't be whimping out. Rockliff had 17 tackles and probably 10 were trying to stop Jack). 1 Howe (Probably rough given he had 11 marks. A very good 6th best player). Honorary mentions: Dawes (yes, he took six marks) and Vandenberg (Another game where you can't believe this guy is a first-year player).

Yep I agree he would add class to our midfield and will require decent coin and decent trade. It's why both Howe and Garland in some respects have chosen the wrong year to be coming out of contract. With an emerging list (yes I know we've only won 4 games) my understanding is we no longer have massive room in our cap. Garland signed his last deal after his runner-up B&F deal and I think he'd have to accept a substantial salary loss to stay loyal. That's fair enough because he's no longer in our top 10 players (some would say not in our top 20). I don't think Howey is on such a big amount, but he still will find it hard to obtain a massive price hike at another club and his moderate season does not help his chances. Both will be in demand from other clubs (I suspect late second round), so we should be able to get something in return that helps our Prestia deal. Fitzy may also attract some interest, although if Garland goes, he should be a priority signing for us. When you look at the others out of contract, the big key now should be signing Gawn - any word anyone? 2015 Jamar 31 (UFA), Garland 26 (RFA), McKenzie 24, Howe 24, Gawn 23, Fitzpatrick 23, Toumpas 21, Pedersen 28, Hunt 19, Cross 32, Bail 26, Riley 23, Harmes ® 19, King ® 19, White ® 18

Horses for courses - a popular comment for cricket teams, but very true for the Dees selection tonight. Courses: A wet week means potentially a fairly slippery MCG surface and less need for outside players - hence the omission of Stretch and potentially Kennedy-Harris, although I suspect that because JKH only got a limited run last week, he will be kept ahead of Neal-Bullen. I'm tipping it will only be a short 2-3 week spell back in VFL for our Glenelg teens. A wet week means Riley, who was unlucky to miss out last week, will also play and last week's big VFL tackler Grimes, who was unlucky to get injured after Saints game, is recalled. The return of Martin to back up Leuenberger means the Lions have a couple of big horses - so we must decide how best to cope with a good tandem ruck pair. Can Dawes cope as back-up ruckman - unlikely. Is Fitzy going to cope - less unlikely but he does have advantage of being potentially able to cope with their height when they rest up forward. Are Spencer or Jamar (both superb in VFL) worthy of a recall to back-up Gawn. Yes, but neither can easily match up with Martin or Leuenberger down back. So I'm going three ins: Riley, Grimes and Fitzy. The three outs are: Stretch, Neal-Bullen and Dawes (although it wouldn't surprise me if Hoges is still a but tight and may miss, allowing Dawes to stay). T-Mac goes forward. Harmes gets his second chance, a key part of any club's youth program, but starts as the sub. Crossy goes to Beams like last year v Pies. Vince goes to Rockliff. Viney/Riley pick up Hanley, depending on whether he starts on wing or halfback. Lumumba gets Zorko, Nev gets Christensen and Grimes gets Taylor/Mayes/Bewick or whoever is resting forward. Side: B: Jetta Fitzpatrick Garland HB: Lumumba Dunn Grimes C: Watts Cross Viney HF: Brayshaw T-Mac Kennedy-Harris F: Garlett Hoges Vandenberg Ru: Gawn Vince N.Jones Int: Tyson, Howe, Riley, Harmes (sub)

It's very relevant because it shows he knows the basics of forward play and I actually don't think he's a bad kick at goal - he just got caught up in the emotion of trying to get us back in the contest yesterday. Tom's not a thumping kick though, in fact neither is Hoges or Dawes - only Pedo and Dunn have that ability and they both are a tad slow for the key forward role. The biggest concern I'd have long-term to Tom moving forward is that he's one of the few players that takes the game on from down back - Dunny likes to peel off and play safe, Col doesn't realise he can, Jetta is more defensive oriented, Grimes and Crossy both do but they don't kick long enough to clear lines all the time so have to use their smarts to link short first. The only ones who take it on are Harry O and Salem, so when you add Fitzy for T-Mac, you have actually lost a fair bit of run and then get prone to opposition presses. Ultimately if Fitzy is to get a game as one of the three bigs, he has to replace Garland - but for this week, I'd give it a go, as the Lions only have one giant in Martin/Leuenberger up forward and that means Garland can switch to a medium tall and Crossy will be needed as a midfield tag - hopefully he gets Beams again.

I think it's post-match depression talking. All sides are susceptible to players marking around the 50m arc because it's a wider area at most grounds and defensively you generally peel off to make sure your zone defence inside 50 is covered. What brought us unstuck, as it did against Pies, is that Daniher and Cloke both nailed shots from outside the 50m arc - a bit like how Neiter used to do it and very hard to stop. Having said that I expect that Fitzy will come in this week because the resting Martin/Leuenberger will be ideal for him. But it's a case of horses for courses - I don't think Fitzy would cope with Riewoldt's mobility the following week for example. If Howe is suspended, it's an easy swap with Tom Mc sent forward early to stretch their small defence. The other two changes should be Stretch and Neal-Bullen - who just need another couple of weeks back in VFL winning the ball before their next recall. Harmes deserves another go - albeit as the sub this time. As to who comes in, I suggest we wait and see who presents themsleles as a must after the VFL game.

Good blog and I agree with almost all of what you say, except that every club has a player that floats back to the marking contest and when our forwards are tunnelled under the ball like yesterday, it can be easy pickings for that player who has left his man. Some sides go further as you say and have an extra player float back, but that is no different to how we often use Crossy or Harry. The best ways to break down this situation is to have quick ball movement through the middle, lower your eyes and head initially to the shorter lead (provided that player moves it on quickly) or to deliberately try and orchestrate a mismatch aerially and physically - which is what happened a bit when we sent Tom Mac down there in the last term. Another non-legal way is for our bigs to swing their arms back in contests to make sure a defender is a bit more wary of applying the screen or push - I don't advocate this, but some times if you can't draw the umpires attention to it, you have to make a stand. The biggest fault yesterday was that in the first two terms we didn't take the game on - which (please note Chook) has nothing to do with intensity, just tactical mindset. Tom Mac tried early but hooked his first two left footers badly and we were almost embarrassed by the turnovers. Col Garland went back into his shell and decided not to run when he had the chance and that's despite the fact that they dropped extra players back a kick behind play, so even if he had drawn a player, he should have had an easy give to get out of trouble. Making it worse was the fact that Crossy, our smartest linkman, was having his first dirty game all season - I can almost guarantee you he'll be close to our best next week. The only player who almost always takes the game on, apart from Tom Mc, is Harry O, and too often we deride him for it because at times it does look non-sensical - like a headless chook. But if it comes off it breaks the line and gives our forwards an even chance - not a two-on-one chance. The other factor in the first half was that we couldn't get either of our two wings - Watts or Stretch - into the game as linkmen. That's because we kept going back up the line (thanks Col and others) to contests hoping Gawn or Hoges or Dawes would take the pack mark. When Watts got into the game (when we took the game on in the last quarter because we had to), we started to look dangerous offensively again. When you look at Hawthorn, it's a nice mix of hard inside players and quick wings like Smith, Hill and Hartung. At Freo it's the same - Hill, Pearce x2 - provide the link and run to break lines. It's why many of us are subconsciously so dirty on Toump - because we know he was taken so high for that reason and he just doesn't have the pace. Watts, since the Pies game, has shown he now realises what that role requires - not sure if he can keep it up, but if he does, we will win quite a few games.

I think next week v Brisbane is the perfect opportunity for Tom Mc to play forward - Brisbane has a smallish defence and with Martin back, Leunberger and him will rest a fair bit in the forward line, which is a great match-up for Fitzy, provided he doesn't blow it by hurting himself in VFL today. Because of Tom Macs mobility, it means we can play an extra big without being top heavy up forward, and it puts the pressure right on Hoges and Dawes to rediscover Tom's workrate. Sounds like Howey will be out, so the Fitzy in, Tom Mc forward is an easy fix. As to how long the experiment lasts, my guess is just one week - Fitzy ain't going to be able to play on Riewoldt v St Kilda and that's when Tom Mc will go back.

Warney had a shocking debut and then look what happened. I'd be very surprised if Harrmsey doesn't get another go next week - although agree it may be as the sub. I could see both our Glenelg teens going back to VFL for a couple of weeks after today.