mo64

And here lies the problem. We don't get the ball inside 50 nearly enough. You attack as a team and you defend as a team. Our attack was pathetic last year, and NO, not just the forwards. Our attack so far this year has been underwhelming, despite dominating possession. That is a discussion point about the coach.

Show me one poster who has stated that? Just as it's fair to discuss the performances of a player, who's position on the list is without question, it's fair to discuss the performance of the coach, is it not?

He hasn't shown any development as a ruckman, and isn't good enough to be a stand alone key forward. If we are to persevere with him, it would be as a ruckman, which is why a move to full back seems like his last chance.

Yep. Hasn't shown anything as a 2nd ruckman/resting forward, which is his only chance of making it at AFL level. Don't want him anywhere near our backline in the seniors.

Based on last year, 50% of the top 10 draftees were regulars (Billings, Bontempelli, Kolo, Aish, McDonald). Plus Feeman and Scharenberg had season ending injuries. So yes, many top draftees like Brayshaw are regulars in club's best 22.

That's not the point of the thread. Some of us are merely expressing concerns with Roos' performance, rather than just having blind faith in a coach who had to be coaxed out of retirement. It's been a common theme on this forum with our past 3 coaches (Bailey, Neeld. Roos), that any criticism is seen as panicking. The same trite cliches get thrown up (he needs time to build his own team). The teams ahead of us aren't getting any worse, so we need to make huge improvements just to start to be competitive. And that's the coaches job.

Match sims tell you how the team structures up, and what options the players are instructed to take.

Nope. based on the 2nd half of last year, and the match sims that I've seen at training. This team struggles when the opposition gain any momentum, and I believe it's due to the players not having the confidence to take the game on, because we have a risk aversion game plan. Even when we have momentum, it rarely impacts on the scoreboard, because once again, it's all about retaining possession. You may not like him, but Brereton made a good point during the Freo game, about us not taking risks with our forward entries.

Have to agree with Bagdad Bob. I seem to think that Roos' strategy is that if we maintain possession, the opposition don't score. Unfortunately that puts a lot of pressure on the players, because a turnover will invariably lead to an opposition score. Mark Ricciuto made a point in the Bombers game, that the players need to feel good about themselves, and playing a negative game plan, doesn't lend itself to that. The players that we have acquired in Lumumba, Garlett and Frost, or have stepped into a starting position in the case of Salem and Hogan, all lend themselves to playing a more attacking style. Yet rarely do we see players overlapping with run to break open the game, and move the ball quickly into the forward line. I too believe that we are underachieving under Roos.

Based on the scores, Casey plus MFC top ups are on a par with our seniors. Very disturbing.

Where did I say that he had to sit on the bench all night? He could have played a half, and been given a taste of it. That makes sense.

Would it have done Brayshaw any harm to start the game as a sub, given that McKenzie kept the bench warm all night?

It's plain ridiculous to suggest that Jack Viney is playing for his career.

One of his more productive games.

But according to some on here who do training reports, well one person anyway, our skills have improved enormously. His reports are erroneous. If you can't consistently hit targets on the training track under little to no pressure, how the f#ck are you going to do it when you have opposition. In all 3 NAB Cup games, as soon as the opposition have marginally increased their intensity level, we've crumbled. And for those who say, "It's only a NAB Cup match", I've been reading that sh#t every year for the past 8 years. Our sh#t NAB Cup form has continued into the real season every year. Only consolation was that I watched the game at work with a Melbourne supporting customer. Both of us backed Essendon at the line 34.5 points, and we were both tempted to back Essendon to win. We are still a mentally weak team.

I work in a TAB and have to relate this story. Many years ago, an AFL fullback placed a bet on Matthew Lloyd to be the highest goal kicker for the round. As you can imagine, my first reaction was to check to see if his team were playing the Bombers. They weren't....

Give me a spell!!! After what happened to Heath Shaw, are you trying to say that an AFL player would be ignorant of the legalities of betting on an AFL game? The bet type and amount that Barrett stated on the Footy Show would not have drawn any suspicions, if there is an investigation into a betting plunge on the match. The player in question would know that given his old man's background into betting. His motives for self reporting are questionable,and I'm sure that there is more to play out. Betting on your team to lose is reprehensible, regardless of the amount or the nature of the game involved, and a life time ban is warranted. The fact that he self reported should not change his penalty one iota.

Sounds like a convenient excuse. For starters, who the hell gives out their account number and password on their betting account? As an aside. Mark Hunter (Lachy's old man) was the bookmaker who took Damien Oliver's bet that led him to be suspended. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

The part of the The Australian article that I find ludicrous is that it states that the players self reported. You'd only self report if you were already under investigation and know you are about to be caught. There should be no lesser penalty for self reporting.

The bets may have been placed earlier in the week before the teams were announced. If the Dogs players had inside information on team selection, a betting plunge on Melbourne would be suspicious. The punters would have been sh#tting themselves in the last few minutes.

Last year he was given the role of a shut down small forward. It's fair to say that with Garlett, JKH and Kent playing as small forwards in the NAB Cup, Bail won't have that role this year. Will struggle to be considered in the best 25, and that's excluding the 1st year players.

To be fair, Mich Clark's skillset is far superior to Frost's. Looks like Frost is the preferred option as a 3rd tall/pinch hit ruckman, ahead of Pedersen. TBO, if Frost can be competitive in the ruck, I'd rather he plays than Gawn. His defensive pressure alone contributes more than what Gawn does as a forward.

Not sure if we play them any earlier than most clubs. The sub rule has helped with giving the kids a taste of AFL without physically destroying them. Our problem is that we build them up to be our saviour, which puts undue pressure on the kid.

If running laps is considered a pre-season, then you're right. Neither have been involved in match simulations since Xmas, so if all goes well, I'm thinking a round 3 return at best.

It's only due to yourself and 1 or 2 others who believe that Garland and Grimes have a god given right to be in the team regardless of performance.