mo64

Spot on. His name shouldn't come up in discussions for who will be left out. Stretch showed exactly what you want to see in a young player. His composure and evasive skills in tight situations allows him more options when disposing of the ball. And even though he's not a long kick, his disposal is spot on. With greater endurance and strength he'll get to more contests, and his possession numbers will increase.

Have to agree. Even the commentators were taking the pizz out of Russell Gilbert for doing the same jumper swap gag every year. And it was ironic that Shane Crawford and 1 or 2 others took the fun out of the game by actually playing football. It really was cringeworthy.

I think you're drawing a long bow. Howe has been moved forward out of necessity. Initially Dawes was out, then Hogan and Pedersen. Roos is all about the forwards making a contest to at least bring the ball to ground. An additional ruckman was brought in last week to assist with this in the absence of Hogan and Pedersen. Howe is the only natural forward left on our list. He had to play forward.

If we want quick movement of the ball, Garland doesn't play.

One thing that stood out for me is that Roos is prepared to coach and hopefully improve players regardless of ability and age. During the Bailey tenure, we pretty much threw players on the scrapheap based on age (White, Yze, Robertson, Bruce, McDonald), because he couldn't see them helping the team long term. It was all about the kids. But seeing how important Vince and Cross are for the young players development goes to show how misguided we were during those years.

I think the idea is possibly trading a late 1st rounder/early 2nd rounder from a Howe trade for the likes of Yarran or Trent McKenzie. Drafted mids in that region can still be hit or miss.

I've followed Bennell closely this year (he's in my Dreamteam) and his workrate and consistency have been unquestionable. As for the off-field incidents, I don't think that any of them were hangable offences, and were minor compared to Jeff Garlett's. He's the sort of mid that we're lacking. And I'd take Dixon in a heartbeat. The deal you've proposed is a massive win for us.

You can draw an analogy with Daniel Cross when he was at the Dogs. Cross had a far better career at the Dogs than Garland at the Dees, but the Dogs decided that they needed an upgrade on him. Given the opportunity, players that were in and out of the side like Wood, Grant and Wallis are now impacting the game more than Cross did in his last season there. Does anyone actually know whether Garland is holding out till season's end, or whether Melbourne hasn't offered him a new contract?

Can you give an example of when this has occured this year? This is exactly my knock on him. He rarely gets the best forwards, and is not an attacking rebounding defender. And he rarely takes intercepting marks as a 3rd man up. He doesn't make many obvious clangers, but neither does he impact the game. Roos' did say that he plays his role every week, but that's not to say that we can't get a better version of Garland.

I doubt that he'll ever kick more than 20 goals in a year, let alone 60. I agree that ANB has huge upside and looks like a potential 150+ gamer, but as a genuine midfielder, not a goal kicking half forward. The absolute best small forwards struggle to kick 50 goals a season, so to expect ANB to kick 3 goals a game regularly is ridiculous. ANB and Matt Jones were able to get off the chain and kick goals because their direct opponents (Taylor and Enright) gave them no respect, and zoned off on them. If we weren't so dominant at the stoppages, I suspect that ANB and M. Jones' impact would have been limited. Stretch on the other hand won his own ball and was efficient with his disposal. That's why I rate his game more highly than ANB.

I thought the same thing. Stretch displayed all the attributes of a solid midfielder, whereas ANB's good work was primarily as an opportunist small forward. Don't be misled by the 3 goals, his field kicking still needs a bit of work. Mid to long term, I see ANB as a genuine inside mid, not the role that he played against the Cats.

I've been a massive critic of Matt Jones, but the fact that him and ANB kicked 5 between them opposed to Enright and Taylor was a huge reason why we won. He keeps his place as a lockdown forward. As for Dawes, he probably had his best game for the year against the Cats, but the reason why we won was because we dominated the hitouts and the clearances. We need 2 legitimate ruckmen against Nic Nat. Cast your mind back to the GWS game. Jamar was able to compete for half a game, but Mumford was able to get on top, and we got slaughtered. So regardless of how many selfless acts Dawes does, if we get beaten badly in the ruck, we have no chance against West Coast.

I'm 100% certain that Dawes will play, as will Garland, but that doesn't change my opinion that they are detrimental to our structure. Everyone's perception of Dawes is that he is a beast. The reality is that Lonergan beat him for strength both times they had a one-on-one marking contest. Most of his rare possessions are gained by leading to the flanks, which is something that a mid/half forward can do just as affectively. If Dawes could ruck, he stays in the team, but the Gawn/Spencer combo will be important against Nik Nat, who is a dominent tap ruckman. Gawn/Spencer also kicked 2 between them plus crashed the packs to create spillage. Howe has kicked 6 goals in the past 3 games, which is more than Dawes has kicked all year. For mine is a straight swap, Hogan for Dawes.

Why is Garland a walk-up start? He's not a good lock down defender and he's not creative. I think for the first time all year, we had the right structure in the backline. Ins: Hogan, JKH Out: Dawes, Bail

Were you at a Swans/Collingwood game?

I'm still not letting Roos off the hook for the previous 2 weeks. He needs to accept that we haven't got quality ball users in the backline (Salem excluded). With the spare man, we chip the ball sideways or short upfield, which allows the opposition to structure their defence. We went longer and quicker, and had confidence in our teammates. His postmatch press conference seems to suggest that the 1 on 1 set up in the backline/forwardline may be temporary. I hope not.

Just watched the replay, and you're correct about Spencer. Bail constantly fumbled the ball, and had no impact. And I'm struggling to work out the 2 Watts' clangers. He was decisive with all his possessions, and tackled with intent. The best all-round game I've seen from him.

DA, as Django said, quality ball users out of the backline are just as important as a quality mid. Sure, use our high draft pick on a quality mid, but trade for a quality creative backman. It's an area that we've struggled with for years.

It's one thing to have multiple players that play in that position, it's another thing to have players that play that position well. The only two that have played well this year are Salem and Cross. Lumumba has made an effort to take the game on, but has been a little disappointing. And I don't think that either Garland or Grimes impact the game at all. Jetta has also been a disppointment this year. We are in desperate need of a quality creative half back or back pocket to assist Salem. Considering that we mainly play with a spare man in defence, our backmen rarely create any attack. Having said that, I wouldn't be going for Suckling, who is soft. I'd rather have a crack at Trent McKenzie who seems to be out of favour at GC or Yarran.

This. Many on here get overly excited by the term "1st round pick". There's a massive difference between a top 5 pick and a pick in the teens. We're not going to get a top 5 pick for Howe, so I'd only trade him for a proven commodity.

I think you're missing KDA's point. The way the game is played, it's difficult to survive in the AFL purely as an outside mid. You need to be highly skilled and have some tricks to your game. But once you become damaging, you'll invariably get tagged, hence you'll have to win contested ball. Stephen Hill and Lewis Jetta are prime examples. Both struggled when tagged, and Hill in particular has become a more rounded player. I've never questioned Toumpas' courage or workrate. He struggles with his decision making under perceived pressure, because he either lacks the confidence or tricks to his game to get out of tight situations. The passage where he side-stepped a Saints player and handballed to Viney? who kicked a goal, is something that we need to see more of before being convinced he'll become an A or B Grader.

It's as non-sensical as the structure in the last 40 seconds. I'm sure the on-field leaders will cop the blame for this as well.

And to think that some people on here thought at the start of the year that his place in the team would be in jeopardy, and he'd be superceded by the next crop of young mids. Laughable. His appetite for the contest is 2nd to none at the club, and that's something you can't teach.

Gold Coast have been decimated with injuries like no other club. Ablett, O'Meara, Prestia, Swallow, Martin and Bennell were missing and they pushed the top side. Carlton are the only team that we can legitimately say they we are superior to, and they sacked their coach. Hardly a massve improvement. We have a far better list than we had under Neeld, yet the results are only marginally better.

This is the Saints team. Riewoldt plus a bunch of no-namers and 1st gamers. Your myopic view of our team is grating. ST KILDA B: S.Dempster L.Delaney J.Gwilt HB: N.Wright D.Roberton J.Webster C: J.Newnes L.Dunstan F.Ray HF: C.Jones N.Riewoldt J.Saunders F: R.Stanley B.Maister E.Templeton FOLL: T.Hickey D.Armitage S.Savage I/C: J.Geary J.Billings S.Gilbert T.Curren EMG: S.Ross T.Dennis-Lane T.Lee