Scoop Junior

Admire the effort to play on but head over the footy and eyes on the ball are non-negotiables and he let his teammates down. It's frustrating - he's got a lot of ability but he won't make it if he doesn't get harder.

Leg injuries don't make you duck your head whilst backing back timidly. Leg injuries don't make you fumble and lift your head when you go for the ball in pressure situations. I excuse Bate for not running well and being restricted, but courage is non-negotiable. I was very disappointed by some of his efforts, especially given the way a number of our younger players attack the footy like Bell, Jones, McLean and Sylvia.

Thanks Gouga. About time someone recognised the performance of some of our defenders tonight. I thought Ferguson was fantastic and Carroll was also very good. Rhino: I need some clarification on the Bate vote. I thought he continually jibbed contests and in a side that was throwing itself in and trying really hard, it was painfully obvious to see.

I think Bate also suffered a pulled heart string The words gutsy and Bate should not be in the same sentence.

I think there's a time and a place for making players earn their spots. Teams in form can do this. Teams anchored to the bottom with little to play for shouldn't subscribe to such a theory. I mean, it's a bit ridiculous for a coach to say to a young player that he needs to "earn" his spot in a team that has won 3 games for the year and is being routinely thrashed.

While Davey's output can be all or nothing, I can see him being very valuable in a winning side. I think in a team that is up and going, he can be a very important element. If we had the luxury of a number of pacy players with great foot skills, then I'd consider moving him on. But in a very one-paced side with a plethora of big-bodied midfielders, Davey provides that variety that I think is important for any good team to have. He does need others playing well around him. But I think he can be very damaging if we string some form together.

Good post Jaded. I suspect you'll enjoy reading my match review, which will be up soon. Well, not really a match review, but a commentary on where we're at. I think we've got a little eye on development, but a lot of eye on results. It shouldn't be like that when you are 3-15. It should be all about next year and the future.

I don't think they do. I reckon Ward gets a harsh deal with foot skills...I don't think he's too bad a kick. His execution is far better than Godfrey's, he can kick longer, better non-preferred side and his awareness is fairly good in traffic. I think a bigger problem of Ward's is his lack of accountability rather than his disposal. In an ideal world, you want a better flanker. But with our lack of speed, I wouldn't have Ward at the top of my list to go. He is clearly on thin ice, given his age, but there are others I'd flick before him. Put it this way, I see Ward contributing more to a winning side than Godfrey.

I wouldn't scratch CJ off the list yet. I'd definitely like to give him another year. I'd prefer Ward over Godfrey. We are so slow and Ward is one of the few who can provide line-breaking pace off HB. With guys like McLean, Jones, Moloney, Green and McDonald in the middle, we don't have any pace and playing Godders in there just adds another big-bodied slow type (with poorer skills than the above players). Godders gives his all and has been a great servent, but surely we need to aim higher and look for better. Desperately need to focus on pace and skills come draft time. I see natural improvement in contested ball - Jones will keep improving at the stoppages, McLean surely could not have a worse year, Sylvia hopefully can have a good pre-season and add bite in the stoppages and I think Bartram could add something here with his clean hands and attack on the footy. But we are light on for class and pace...Buckley shows something in this area though. No one could break away from the stoppages yesterday and we struggled to chase down the likes of Rodan, Pearce, Burgoyne, etc. And one of our biggest problems this year has been turning the ball over - I don't want blokes in the team who can't kick the ball.

Thanks for the newsflash sylvinator, but if you reckon we are selecting a side to lose you are kidding yourself. The way we are playing and with our record at AAMI Stadium, we probably wouldn't beat Port even if we had half the key players back from injury. There's no need to "tank" at AAMI Stadium when we are in such poor form - all we have to do is turn up and we'll probably lose! I've never said Holland or Ferg are good or that I want them on the list. But I strongly believe they have been selected for match-up purposes. Carroll is tough and battles hard but he would be giving up far too much height on Lade/Brogan or Westhoff. I think Carroll should've kept his spot and I'd prefer a developmental approach than playing guys like Holland, but I understand the need to get taller defenders in there if suitable match-ups and winning are on the agenda. If Riley didn't want to win, he wouldn't bring Holland in and he wouldn't drop CJ. Jaded - I must have been at the wrong game if CJ was better than Buckley last week. Buckley looked up to the speed of the game and worked his way through AFL-level traffic well. I'm yet to see CJ adequately navigate himself in AFL-intensity traffic. I still have hopes for him (and I wish he'd play seniors till the end of the year) but he is struggling to make an impact ATM.

I disagree with many here. I don't think it's tanking. I also don't think it's a try-and-see scenario. Let's be realistic. We know what Benny Holland gives us. He'll be honest and competitive. He may do a good job on Brogan/Lade forward. But will this mean suddenly he will earn his spot on the list for 2008? We know he can stop Rocca and we know he can do a good job. But we also know the limitations and we want someone better. So I think the try-and-see scenario is not right. It's definitely not tanking. If you are tanking, you'd play all your youngsters. Dropping CJ for Bell/Bruce adds strength, it doesn't equate to tanking. The way I see it is that Riley believes Holland and Ferg are the right match-ups for Port's forward structure. Westhoff is tall and thin - sounds like a Ferg match-up there. Brogan/Lade often rest forward - perfect for Holland and Miller will probably get first crack at Tredrea. Carroll/Bizzell do not have the height for Westhoff/Brogan/Lade. It's pretty simple really. But at the same time I'm a bit confused. Frawley got towelled up last week yet gets another game. That smells like development. But then playing blokes like Ferg and Holland who may not be there next year smells of a desire to win. It appears as though there an eye on wanting to win and be competitive and the other eye on development at the same time. But I think the tanking and try-and-see arguments aren't really consistent with the changes.

Agree Big Red. He's averaging 1.6 handballs a game this year. Not once yesterday did he look for a player in better positon. And gee Sylvia's getting some easy votes lately. Just a middle-of-the-road average game at best from him yeseterday. Although I do understand that not many others are deserving of votes.

I'm not worried by his current form. He'll work through it. One area he needs to improve is probably just to respect the pressure a bit more. He gets caught for holding the ball too often, either trying to take tacklers on or just taking too much time and not realising how quickly you need to dispose of the ball in AFL footy. He definitely tries to break too many tackles and there's not many AFL players who are going to let you slip through their grasp. I don't think it's an awareness issue. I believe it's about recognising your limitations and playing accordingly.

Perhaps a caretaker such as Riley fits into the club's development plans for the rest of the season. I can't imagine a coach on trial for the senior role in 08 wanting to play blokes like Buckley and Newton and risking potential heavy defeats. He would want to get wins on the board to put his name forward. This is not consistent with what's best for the club for the remainder of the year. Riley has no pressure. He can play young guys and look to the future without the consequences that a coach on trial would face.

Exactly. McDonald, Neitz, Robbo and White are the only key +28 year olds on the list. Neitz and White will be difficult to replace. But we are in a much better position than Essendon, who rely on Hird, Lucas, Lloyd and Fletcher to win them games every week. While a temporary glance over the two lists will show that Essendon's is younger, anyone with any footy knowledge who sits down and assesses the two lists will know which team relies on its older players more and which team will be in more trouble when it's older players retire.

Thanks Neale for your work over the last 10 years. You were the head of the team during some of my favourite Demons moments, with games such as the West Coast win in 1998, the Carlton qualifying final win in 2000 and the win at Geelong in 2005 being etched in my memory forever. Thanks for helping to turn our club from a laughing stock in the mid 90's to a team that's played in 6 of the last 9 finals series and was regarded as a genuine flag threat at the start of this season. Things didn't work out this year and there was a lot of bad luck, but sometimes that happens. All the best for the future.

Well said Choko. Actions speak louder than words. There's always plenty of players talking it up at the MFC but it is very rarely backed up in actions on the field.

What does Petterd expect; when you're down by 8 goals mid-way through the second term to the bottom side, you don't make too many changes

It's a player and coach thing. You can't isolate the players and excuse them for the performance they dished up on Friday night. ND is at fault and so are the players. Collingwood had four starting defenders out last night. Was it hard for their players to "play good football in the first place" being without these players and having a weak structure? If poor team selection can completely change our players attitudes, then we have got the wrong blokes on our list. If only we knew where the attitude comes from. It is clearly a combination of both players and coach. What we don't know is the degree to which the parties can be blamed. For a team to come out with the attitude it had on Friday night, given its horrendous season, sitting in15th place with 2 wins from 11 games, is an absolute disgrace. They played like millionaires instead of the hungry, committed attitude you'd expect of a team that's been down all year and wanting to win back the respect of the footy world. This team is just too easily contented and is not hungry enough. As leader of the team, ND will cop the blame and rightly so. But it comes down to more than just poor strategy and poor structure. It is a basic lack of desire to compete week-in week-out and that's what enrages fans more than anything else.

I didn't exonerate ND from this aspect of our performance. In such circumstances, both players and coach are at fault.

There's no use having any plans when you disregard the fundamentals of footy. No tactical masterstroke is going to improve a team that refuses to work hard and apply itself in a game of footy.

The thing with Miller is I just don't see what value he offers us. I like mobile, flexible players. The modern game requires good decision-making and execution. Turnovers are critical. Miller just does not have natural footy smarts and in his time at the club has not developed his kicking to a sufficient AFL standard. I don't see what he offers us on top of Bate and Sylvia. He only takes marks on the lead, which Bate and Sylvia can both do. They are better kicks and smarter footballers. If Miller could pull down pack marks and kick multiple goals, he would offer something. But what he gives is adequately compensated by Bate and Sylvia, plus they provide added flexibility in their ability to pinch hit through the midfield if needed. I don't think Miller should get back into the side unless he can develop different strings to his bow. He needs to be able to take contested marks, kick goals and use the ball better. If he can't develop these attributes, then there isn't much point playing him IMO.

Considering we all hear about the evenness of the competition, which can be expected to produce close games, I'm surprised at how poor we have been in our losses to the Dogs and Roos at hanging onto a lead. It's almost as if the players don't know what to do late in a close game and freeze up. Do we have structures and strategies in place to deal with close games? In the Bulldogs game, we failed to drop numbers back after hitting the lead with 2 minutes to go. Do we learn from it? Hell no. Instead, we make three critical errors against the Roos. 1) We hit the lead with about 4 minutes to go yesterday. I don't think you can throw everyone back then, but surely when it got to about 2 minutes to go you do it. Every single player bar one forward should have been flooding the defensive half of the ground. Instead, we had about 4 forwards or so just standing close to goal. 2) The next problem was TJ's kick-in. I didn't think of it at the time but someone pointed it out to me today - why didn't he just rush the ball a few times until we had a player to kick to? ND said we didn't have our organisation right, as the players were tired. Well, we led by 5 points. So why didn't TJ play on, rush it, play on, rush it, to get it to 3 points the difference and give the players down the field the time to run to space and keep possession? 3) Then, the third stupid thing we did was not man up the Roos' flooders once they hit the lead. If we won the centre break, which we did, it was always going to be a rushed kick. North had like 5 players roaming loose at our 50 and they simply cleared the ball and held on to the win. The players should be taught that when a side floods with like 1 minute to go, you have to man them up and at least force a 50-50. It's basic footy strategy. It's just infuriating to lose playing such dumb footy late in the game.

Can't agree there Graz. Changing the mix of a side is a long process. It probably took us from 2000 until last year to develop a strong-bodied midfield. When you focus all your efforts on building this type of team, invest heavily in these players in early draft selections (Thompson, Sylvia, McLean, Bate, Jones, Bell) and then develop a style based around the talents your players possess, you don't just go an change it because we lost a game to a more in-form opponent at their home ground (Freo final). So what if Freo out-ran us in that final? They were in red-hot form and a few weeks before that game smashed the Eagles. I believe too big an emphasis was placed on this game. Why you'd sacrifice the strengths of your side and try to develop a style of football that does not suit the players drafted into the club is beyond me.

What Miller does well can be performed by a number of other players. Leading, marking out in front, dishing off, etc. Someone like Bate can do that as can Sylvia. Miller might be 6"4 but he plays CHF like a tall flanker. The term these days seems to be power forward. Every side needs them. Neitz is a true power forward. I don't know whether Miller will ever be one. A power forward needs to be able to take contested marks, be strong one-on-one and importantly bang the ball through the sticks when given the chance. Miller is lacking in these areas. So if he assumes the role of lead-up presenting forward, then he's effectively competing with guys like Bate and Sylvia. They both mark as well as Miller, but importantly they have more footy nous as forwards and are much better kicks so that when they get the ball they hurt the opposition. What's the use in Miller taking marks 50m out when he can't make the distance? At least the other two can thump it home from there. The only area I see Miller as being superior is in work rate. He does work bloody hard (often unrewarded) and never stops presenting. Given Sylvia and Bate have more flexibility and versatility, I can't help but feel that we would be better served with another runner or trying to find another power forward than having Miller in the side. I like the bloke but he has significant limitations that restrict his effectiveness as a forward.