Scoop Junior

That's exactly right - it is unnecessary to bring it up again and especially so when it's not the cause of our current issues. It is interesting regarding his motivation for the comments - I suspect frustration had a fair bit to do with it. Roos was clearly appalled by the skill level on Sunday and I'm sure he well and truly knows there are too many on the list who are not up to it. But the problem is he can't publicly say the truth (i.e. that we've recruited too many ordinary players and that's why we've been struggling for the last seven years). So he is probably just trying to find another reason that protects the players from criticism, which is commendable. The problem is though that in mentioning tanking it unnecessarily brings the topic back to life and makes it sound like we're looking for excuses.

What doesn't seem to be mentioned is that Carlton made the finals three years in a row from 2009 to 2011, only two years after their tank in 2007. In one of those years they were less than a kick away from a preliminary final. So tanking killed our club but helped propel Carlton to within a kick of a prelim? No, the difference was Carlton picked up Judd and had previously drafted some talented players in Murphy, Gibbs, etc, whereas we completely stuffed up our draft selections. Had we nailed those early picks we would currently have a fairly strong team. That's simply what it comes down to. It is also hardly mentioned that in 2010 we were a team on the rise, posting 8.5 wins and producing some great efforts against the top teams. I didn't see any effects of tanking in that team. To me, it was more what happened in 2011 (the split in the footy department) that started our cultural demise and culminated in 186, the knee-jerk and poorly handled sacking of Bailey, the reinstatement of Schwab and the hiring of Neeld. From the outside, as a passionate supporter, this appeared to me to create that 'toxic' culture in the club - not what happened in 2009. Funny then how we recovered from 2009 in 2010 but have not won more than four games in a season since 2011. It just frustrates me when only half the story is covered, eg. Caro failing to mention how Carlton nearly made a prelim on the back of tanking. I think Roos' view that our current predicament is due to tanking is far too simplistic and narrow - if he wants to bring up the past then he should mention the real reasons why we are where we are. For such a fantastic coach and media performer it was a really poor comment.

Disappointing comments from Roos I reckon. The ironic thing is if you are trying to lose, and the players know that, then losing isn't really going to affect their confidence. You walk off the ground knowing you've lost because you / the club tried to lose, not because you don't think you're good enough. So I don't at all see how tanking can affect your confidence or your belief to win. I can see how it can affect club culture, but not confidence and belief. Where you actually lose confidence and belief is when you try your best and you still get beaten. You think your best is not good enough and that the opposition are too good and will always end up winning. This is what happens natrually to a poor team - they try hard, but keep on losing because they are not good enough. When this happens over and over again you forget how to win, you lose the belief that you can win and your confidence drops away. Blaming it all on tanking is an easy out. It's an out for the players, for coaches, for past recruiters, for player development, etc. And IMO it's plainly wrong. Abysmal recruiting, poor coaching, poor player development, sacking Bailey after 186 instead of Schwab, hiring Neeld, etc. are the key reasons why we keep on losing. The tanking effect would be insignificant compared to these other factors.

Some really good points BB but one thing I disagree with is with respect to Roos' post match press conference. He didn't say the players were the worst he'd seen. He said the skill execution on the day was the worst he'd seen. There is a big difference. And in all honesty what else was he supposed to say? No one at Etihad Stadium on Sunday would have walked away thinking anything other than what they had witnessed was absolutely abysmal in terms of basic skill execution. All he did was state the obvious. Even Lepptisch intimated that the performance of the players was diabolical. He said the following: "At three-quarter time I said 'this is the worst game I think I've ever seen'". What actually annoyed me more were his comments on AFL360 that 'you can't set high standards while trying to lose at the same time'. For such a polished media performer, one of the best I've seen from a coaching perspective, this was a really poor piece of commentary in my opinion. Not only is it disrespectful to the club that employs you to allege that they deliberately tried to lose matches (regardless of whether or not this happened), but to offer it up as an excuse for what was one of the worst displays of skill execution by an AFL team just sends the wrong message IMO. All it does is draw attention back on the 'tanking' saga and results in people like Caro exaggerating the effect it had. It gives an 'out' to the players when there shouldn't be an out. McKenzie didn't miss from 10 metres out because of what happened in 2009. Jack Watts didn't choose not to go hard at the footy because of 2009. Jamar didn't miss from three metres out because of 2009. Dawes didn't miss a two metre handball because of 2009. As clint said above recruiting is the main reason we are where we are. Culture is critical, no doubt, and the 'tanking' saga may have had an effect on culture, but its effect on the players' skill execution in a match five years later would be negligible. I am fine with Roos saying post-match that the skills were horrible, because they were. It was an obvious call. But leave it there. I don't really like using 'tanking' as an excuse when it would have had very little bearing on what happened on Sunday.

Whether it's a skill error or a mental error is irrelevant. If your skills don't hold up under pressure then you're not good enough. Jordie didn't have 'game on the line' type pressure but he would've had 'fear of missing an easy shot because I'm not a greak kick' pressure. If you cannot overcome the latter type of pressure and it causes you to not only miss from 10m out but kick the ball like a bloke who has never seen a football in his life, then I don't think you are up to the required standard. It's not an isolated incident. His miss from about 20 metres out directly in front in the first quarter against Port was nearly as bad.

I agree 100% with the first paragraph. Very well said. I disagree with the last line though, I don't think it is getting ahead of yourself being absolutely appalled by what was dished up yesterday. Supporters have every right to be disgusted by the skill errors and mistakes that plagued yesterday's performance. I watched five games this weekend and ours was so far below the standard of the others it was like watching another sport. Surely at a bare minimum you should expect a reasonable level of skill to be executed by elite professional footballers against very poor opposition. We didn't even come close to being reasonable.

What happens when his opponent drags him deep and forces him to defend one-on-one close to goal? And will he peel off his man and go back with the flight of the footy to prevent an opposition forward marking on the lead (the way Jack Grimes would and Neville Jetta would)? I can see him being a good attacking weapon off half back, but he could just as easily be exposed defensively.

From 2007 to 2009 we were armed with the type of draft picks you can completely rebuild a list with. 10 top 20 draft picks in three years. Of course there are no guarantees but surely you can at least secure a few stars with that draft bounty. Out of those 10 picks 8 have been failures. One has been a success (Grimes) and the other may or may not be (Trengove). Of the others Morton, Maric, Gysberts and Scully are gone, Tapscott, Blease and Strauss may join them this year and Watts has been an enormous disappointment. How can you have a 20% (or less) success rate with so many high picks? It's absolutely baffling and it's one of the key reasons why we are where we are. Watching us yesterday handle and use the ball like it was a pineapple just makes you shake your head at what could have been had we made the right decisions back then. Instead of a clutch of talented 23-24 year olds we are left with a gaping hole and a group of battlers who are not up to it. As loyal supporters of this club we have been robbed.

That was absolutely deplorable. A worst display of skill at an elite level of sport I have not seen. I am seething. If you said to me the team in red and blue were a bunch of blokes who had never played footy before and were having a first crack at it, I'd say 'yeah, that's about right, lots of skill errors and poor decisions, missing goals from 5 metres out, kicking over players' heads 15 metres away, they are the things they will get better at as they learn the game.' But this was a bunch of supposed professionals playing at the elite level. Some of the mistakes were absolutely baffling. I cannot comprehend how full time footballers who train three times a week all year can make such fundamental errors. You could go to a suburban footy game and pluck a bloke out of the crowd who's just had 10 beers and he still wouldn't have made some of the errors we saw today. I know we are a poorly skilled side and a battling side, but even with this in mind our performance today plummeted to levels you would hardly ever see in the AFL. It wasn't a lack of effort, just an inability to perform the most basic fundamentals with ball in hand. Jordie McKenzie how can you miss a set shot from 12 metres straight in front? Disgraceful. Aidan Riley how can you miss from the edge of the goal square? Why did you lie on the ground for 20 seconds after taking a mark instead of getting up and kicking to a teammate streaming into goal, only to then do a rubbish chip kick and turn it over? Pathetic. Chris Dawes how can you not execute a 2 metres handball to a teammate (Blease) running past? After doing bugger all all day how can you make a mistake an 8 year old kid wouldn't make? It's all very well and good to collect your $500k per season, but your performances of late are barely worth $80k. I'm just sick of it - sick of watching this bunch of second rate footballers masquerading as an AFL team, making mistake after mistake, failing to capitalise on dominant periods of play and then crumbling late when the heat is applied. They don't know how to win - as Roos said they are just waiting to lose, you can sense it sitting in the crowd. And let's not forget we were playing the Brisbane Lions - a young, bog ordinary side - away from home. Even the Lions turned it over numerous times and made poor decisions going forward. They failed to capitalise on our mistakes. Imagine what Hawthorn would have done to our turnovers today. The score would have been 30 goals to 3. Too many out there are not up to it, we are slow and lack skill, and I would be expecting big changes at year end to clear out the many sub-standard players that we are so damn good at accumulating. Hawthorn next week should be loads of fun. Can't wait.

Agree with this. We all want Roosy to stay as long as possible, but if he does leave after three years I would go very hard at Lyon. Look at the factors - good mates with Roos, has coached under him, they share a similar footy philosophy and game plan, lots of Sydney coaches at the club, Freo potentially out of their premiership window, ageing key players like McPharlin, Pavlich, Mundy, Sandilands, Dawson, Johnson, Crowley, Mzungu, Ballantyne, etc. on the way down or retired / retiring, a desire to be a career coach, potential attraction of a return to Melbourne. Make no mistake Lyon is a sensational coach - to do what he did at St Kilda and what he has done at Fremantle - turning two historically unsuccessful clubs into AFL powerhouses - is a fantastic achievement. If Roos is to go at the end of 2016 he (and Clarkson if he were available) would be my no.1 targets. The key for us is to ensure our list continues to improve and our performances continue to improve so that we are seen as an attractive proposition for these blokes.

Watching The Wizard was what footy is all about. Excitement, freakish talent, aggression, showmanship, frustration, the unexpected, huge grabs, incredible goals. He just delivered so many emotions to those watching him. The interview gave me a mixed feeling of happiness and sadness - obviously it is always enjoyable to reminisce on some of those incredible games and moments, but at the same time you feel slightly robbed that for the past seven or so years we have been starved of the incredible feeling you get from watching a winning finals-bound footy team.

I like the shield design of the current logo, but I think if we just removed a few elements from the logo it would look great. In particular I would keep the trident (but move it to the centre where the football is) and get rid of the football and the southern cross. I also would like to see the red return to an orthodox red (like the colour of the red on our jumpers). I hate the maroon-red colour that was introduced a few years ago which looks like the old Fitzroy red. That colour still lingers on current club merchandice - get rid of it.

Yep. I think this discussion can be assisted by breaking X factor down into football X factor and athletic X factor. Sylvia has athletic X factor with his strength, power and leap but I don't think he has footy X factor. The players r jay listed - Rioli, Motlop, Ablett Snr - have footy X factor, such as vision, awareness, goal nous, etc. No doubt atheltic X factor is very important, as guys like Rioli and Motlop have that athletic X factor with their speed and lateral movement which makes them what they are. However unlike Sylvia they do seem to possess that footy X factor as well.

Sylvia is not a natural footballer. He has great skills and is a terrific athlete with his high leaping and his strength and power, but he has never really displayed the pure football instincts that the top players have. Things like awareness, peripheral vision in tight contests, the ability to deliver a handball in traffic to release a teammate. I didn't see him play in the under 18s but I wouldn't be surprised if it was his brute power and strength that regularly resulted in his high possession totals, rather than genuine footy nous. There's no doubt that recruiters would look at how a player gets his possessions at under 18s level and consider the reasons why that player is getting a lot of the ball or isn't getting a lot of the ball. This would be far more important than simple stats like how many contested possessions or clearances a particular player averaged over the year.

While he is currently playing an important structural role for us as that mobile marking tall forward, and clearly a KPP that can play forward and back is a really important component of the side, there are a few factors that go the other way. These factors are that one we have decent coverage in the key defender stakes (T Mac, Dunn and Garland - though if Frawley goes I would be looking at bringing in another developing key back), two that Hogan will hopefully be able to play that mobile marking role and three that Frawley undoes a lot of his good work in getting the ball with his ball use. Sunday's game was the perfect example of him playing a really important structural role as a forward yet undoing his work with two missed set shots and a failure to regularly create scoring opportunities with his delivery. If you said to me four years ago that he would leave, I would probably have rated it as a disaster for the club. I don't think it would be now for the reasons outlined above (plus the potential compensation of a top 5 draft pick).

His performance yesterday showed a deficiency in our current forward structure (with Hogan missing) - a contested marking tall with pace and mobility. Dawes and Pederson are extremely hard workers and lead hard at the footy but they lack the pace to get off their men to take lead up marks in space. Watts has the pace and mobility but hasn't been a contested marking threat. Frawley was pretty important for our structure yesterday in that he used his pace and marking strength to provide that link coming out of defence. The problem is, while he is very good at getting the ball, his use of the footy is poor. Unreliable set shot for goal and lacks that ability to swing round after taking a mark and hit up a leading player inside 50. He could have had an extra two goals yeterday and one or two additional assists but for poor ball use.

I'm with you on this. Not difficult to find the footy when you are playing on your own. If he were allowed to play as a permanent loose man in defence then I would have got excited as he is a great offensive weapon with ball in hand. But the opposition will not allow it and then it comes back to your ability to win the footy against an opponent. Watts' 6 possessions in three quarters when properly manned up suggests this continues to be a problem.

A painful loss - really gutting. To lead with 3 minutes left and lose is always going to hurt, especially when it was going to be such a memorable, courageous win. I can't really fault any particular moments because the effort was sensational. Five goals down against a SA team in Adelaide just so often results in 10+ goal losses for the Dees, so to fight back and kick six goals in a row and take the lead and nearly win the game is a fantastic effort from the players. It was probably the best we've played on the outside since the last time we played Port. We moved the ball well, got some valuable uncontested ball and linked up much better than we have in the last six or seven weeks. Geelong and Fremantle in particular really smashed us on the outside and facing a quick hard-running team in Port I was concerned this would happen again. But we beat them in uncontested footy and although they ran the ball better than us I thought our ball movement and offensive spread at least matched them. We just lack that class and run/pace to capitalise on our momentum - we waste opportunities to put scoreboard pressure on the opposition and instead of piling on 5-6 goals we manage only 2-3 and it keeps the opposition in the game. This also hurts us late in game when it's close - just that lack of class and composure to make the correct decisions and see the game out. It's a little like a lower team in soccer being 1-0 up against top opposition - so many times the top team finds that late equaliser because the lower team just lacks the class and composure to see it out. For me Tyson is already a key for us - when he is up and about and winning clearances we are a far better team. I don't think it's a coincidence that his drop in form since Round 12 has seen a corresponding drop in performance from the team and that his best game since then led to our best team performance. I won't go into the umpiring as it has all been said in this thread - but the one that disgusted me the most was the free to Westhoff against Viney. Jack did so well to spoil a guy double his size, and then when Westhoff went to ground and Viney tripped over him he actually cushioned his landing to prevent him from falling on Westhoff's back and did it quite successfully in my opinion. Yet the umpire pays a push in the back. Let's just say my TV is thankful that Westhoff missed. At the end of the day there's no doubt it is absolutely gut-wrenching to lose another close one and gee it would've felt incredible to get the win. But the players really dug deep and put in a great performance on enemy territory and you can only be proud of their efforts.

Agree that he is the player you want with the ball in his hands. Completely opens the game up for us offensively. But I just cannot see him being a full time midfielder in his current guise as the most outside of outside footballers. You still need to win your own footy in the midfield and you need to be competitive one on one. I don't recall too many worse one-on-one footballers - he just doesn't win contests. The position that suits him most is a playmaker across half back. But teams are not going to let him play loose and drop off and dictate play across half back. They will man him up and then I would really worry about balls being kicked to his opponent in a one-on-one contest inside our defensive 50m. A deep forward role would also suit him as he could really expose defenders with his height and pace off the mark. But he doesn't attack the ball in the air hard enough for a leading forward. He has the attributes to play one of those positions but he just doesn't get anywhere near enough output from his natural talent due to a number of factors which we all know too well.

That is a crucial point. At times in games this year (and today was another example) we have played quite well and had the upper hand and the momentum. But we just don't have the class to make it count on the scoreboard - whether it is a poor kick inside 50 or a player fumbling a ground level ball or missing a set shot at goal, we just let opportunities go begging due to a lack of overall class. Class and run/pace are the key priorities for us. For what it's worth I thought Watts was terrible today - yeah he had a big influence in the third quarter but he was playing on his own. For the other three quarters when he was manned up he hardly got near it and had no influence at all on the game in those quarters. For a guy as talented as him he is currently an enormous underachiever.

A few handy players in Geelong's best that day! Wow. Good effort to keep the loss to 43 points.

I thought for the first 55 minutes our effort was really good, in fact at times I thought we looked the better side. If Dawes had nailed the two sitters he missed we would have been level in the second quarter. Then up stepped the skipper and missed the unmissable from 10 metres out on a slight angle. Absolutely horrendous miss from the leader of the club. Instead of being deservedly level, we then dropped our heads and conceded three late goals to blow the margin out at half time and all but end the contest. In a low-scoring defensive scrap you MUST take your chances. Our third quarter was horrendous though. You could just see the effort drop away, which was really disappointing. All of a sudden they started dominating contested footy and running around on their own. Interestingly for 85 minutes of the game we conceded only five goals, but in 35 minutes (last five of the second and all of the third) we conceded 10 goals. I accept though that the last quarter they took the foot off the pedal, but for all but the last five minutes of the first half we were in it. At the end of the day we just have too many battlers - triers who just lack class and ability. It means there are patches of games where you compete and try really hard, but ultimately you just undo your hard work with turnovers and a failure to convert opportunities up forward. Also difficult when your most talented ball user and creator has less impact on the contest than some of the spectators. I think Ben Dixon may have had more touches than Watts tonight. A last mention to the selectors. Seriously, what the hell was that about. We already made the mistake of going too tall against the Pies, and we go and do it again. Two specialist ruckmen in Darwin against a hard running side? Four key defenders against a forward line containing one key forward and a resting ruckman? We already have a weak midfield and instead of supporting that with more run we go in with a plethora of talls. Playing Gawn was a massive error - while he shows great potential as a future no.1 ruckman he should not play in the same team as Jamar. And McKenzie on Daniel Pearce, who is probably their sixth or seventh best midfielder - I don't know why you would bother tagging him. A really forgettable night all round.

The effort is there and we have been as good as if not better than them for most of the first half. But the one key difference between the teams is class - one team takes its opportunities and kicks goals, the other fluffs opportunities and misses easy goals. Jack Grimes that was absolutely disgraceful. Your team needs you to kick a goal and you miss from 10 metres out. Completely took the stuffing out of the side instead of putting us a few points behind. Dawes also missed from about the same distance. And he also missed a sitter in the first term. It just absolutely kills you in low-scoring defensive games. So frustrating when you are doing a lot of things right but just cannot execute the most basic skill in footy. And I said before the game we were too tall and the same thing happened against Collingwood. Why would you select so many talls in Darwin? Most goals are coming from ground level (surprise surprise) yet we select two ruckmen and about 8 key position players.

Late changes? That team looks too tall against a Dockers line-up with only two key defenders, two ruckmen, a tall forward (Pavlich) and a medium-tall forward (Mayne). Also factor in Darwin where conditions will likely be hot, humid and slippery and not likely to favour big forwards. I would have preferred more runners in that team and less talls. We were exposed against Collingwood when we went too tall and you'd hope they would learn from that.

That game was so surreal to me. I just couldn't believe what I was witnessing...Essendon just fluffing shot after shot and then us going down the other end and nailing our opportunities. 30 less contested possessions, 14 less clearances and 30-odd less inside 50s are incredible stats for a winning team. Make no mistake we absolutely stole that one. And how good does it feel!! The first half was (West Coast game aside) the worst footy we've played all year. We just weren't at the races and looked flat and tired. Got killed in the middle, were second to the ball, didn't close them down, lacked numbers at the contest and had no movement or flow in our offensive play. Only tremendous defending from Dunn, McDonald, Grimes and Jetta and Essendon's wastefullness kept us in the game at half time. I did not see that turnaround coming and that's what makes it special. The boys dug deep and showed great character, not just coming back in the second half but also regaining the lead after Zaharakis kicked two in a row. For me there were three key reasons for our turnaround. One was in the middle, where Jamar lifted in the ruck and we started winning some centre clearances. Tyson was also critical in this turnaround. All of a sudden we started getting some quick entry into our forward line and putting them under pressure. Second was our tackling. Aiden Riley laid an absolute bone-cruncher, Dawes laid two fantastic tackles, Kent did a great front-on tackle on Hurley. This just sent the message to Essendon that we weren't done with yet and you could see the pressure affect the Bombers and they started to panic and make mistakes in their defensive half. Third was we finally started to generate some run and overlap from half back, something we really struggled with in the first half. At the end of the day we were very lucky to be in with a chance of winning the game, but that should not detract from what was a fantastic comeback full of character and resilience. As a final point, a special mention to Daniel Cross, who did one of the gutsiest things I've seen on a footy field. In the last quarter, Chapman was leading out and the kick was placed nicely in the air in his patch. Cross peeled off his man and headed for the intercept. To get there not only did he have to go back with the flight, but he had to reach up and out with his right hand for the spoil and in doing so completely expose the right side of his body. It was almost an open invitation for Chapman to shatter his ribs. Cross knew what was coming and knew the potential injury he could have suffered by leaving himself exposed. He got the fist in, spoiled the mark and after a few seconds gathering himself got back up and pushed on. Courage in its absolute purest form.