mo64

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

Rewind to round 1 last year when we were short priced favourites against the Saints because they were missing all their prime movers in Montagna, Hayes and Steven, on top of the departure of Dal Santo. Guess what, we lost. I look forward to excuse no. 932.

These sort of "what-ifs" have been done to death over the years. You rarely have your best 22 on the field at one time, and the absent players are game changers all of sudden, when in reality, we know they're not. Sure, VDB, Salem and Kent would improve the team on paper, but that's not to say that the result changes. If Garlett was out, many would say thet he was the difference between a win and a loss. He played and did stuff all, and the players you've mentioned could well have done the same, because none of them are proven A graders.

Tend to agree. Toumpas and Watts didn't set the world on fire when they were recalled, but have been given consecutive games, and improved with each one. I'm not convinced that Michie and Riley are talented enough at AFL, but they need an opportunity before their papers are stamped. For mine, Newton has more talent, and can make it. Now it comes down to the old chestnut. Do we get games into the likes of ANB, Stretch and Harmes, even if they're not 100% at AFL level, or do we play the likes of Bail, M. Jones and McKenzie, and develop the kids at Casey? I'd be giving them runs of 3 games each (including sub roles), but not at the same time.

Dangerfield's manager all but confirmed that it's Adelaide or Geelong, and money isn't the issue. Paul Connors said that being close to his family in Moggs Creek was a huge motivation, and when asked if that meant Geelong, Connors said "yes". Doesn't look like we'll be getting a high profile free agent or quality out of contracted player next year.

Well if they get updated for that, surely they could have been instructed to send players back in the midst of celebrating Howe's goal? For the 2nd week in a row, the buck stops with Roos.

BS. You hear players from every other club say that they practice for that exact situation. It clearly wasn't ingrained into the players, and that sits with the coach. Love to hear who Roos blames this week...

It's far easier for top sides to allow their young talent to develop in the 2nds. When lowly clubs are constantly losing, they get howled down by all and sundry when they play blokes that have been in the system for 4-5 years without showing much, ahead of kids with potential. If a kid at Casey shows that he may have more to offer long term than someone else in the team, then he needs to be given an opportunity. That's not to say that you burn him out if he's physically undeveloped. As for King, it's very rare for an unheralded tall forward to become a good stay at home key forward at AFL level. From the little I've seen of King, he looks like a footballer first, athlete second, which is a good sign. He's one who I would keep at Casey for a couple of more years to physically develop into hopefully a forward/2nd ruckman.

We're actually fortunate that Gilbert and Markworth have relegated Schneider and Sinclair back to the rookie list this week. Scheider's had a really good year, and Sinclair's a good young player. For the 1st time this year we've got the right balance of talls and smalls in the backline. I'd play Watts at half back and Howe in the forward line again. And thank christ Fitzpatrick's out. A bewildering selection last week.

I doubt that it's Michie or Grimes. Michie is still young and has had some chances, whilst Grimes doesn't strike me as the type to whinge. If the conversation occured 6 weeks ago, I'm thinking that the prime candidates are M. Jones, Jamar, McKenzie or Terlich. Out of that lot, Jamar is the only one to have some case to question selection, because he wasn't playing that bad when he got dropped, and Spencer wasn't going to offer anything better.