mo64

I don't understand the criticism. The creative possessions Salem had far outweighed the odd mistake. The reason why we are scoring more in the past 3 weeks is because we finally have some backmen who know how to attack. Lumumba, Salem, Jetta, Wagner and Hunt are not afraid to take the game on. We are actually going out there to win the game, rather than just stopping the opposition from scoring. And it's not like we're leaking more goals than we have in the past. I've been a massive critic of Garland and to a lesser extent Grimes because they offer nothing offensively. Our current backline structure is like a breathe of fresh air, and Salem's contribution is integral.

A players' pace can appear to be different depending on the quality of the opposition. A quality team like Willi may not allow soemone like Trenners time and space, and that's where he could be perceived to be slow. I take stats from VFL matches with a grain of salt. Unless you've watched the game like AF and AAC, you can't determine whether a players' performance would stand up at AFL level. Having said that, it's encouraging that Trenners was one of our best last night.

Seeing as though you're crtitical of AF's analysis, why don't you tell us how those 25 possessions would stand up at AFL level?

We had the reverse scenario last week. Vince out and Garlett still unavailable, whilst the Pies included Sidebottom and Varcoe. This week Vince and Garlett return whilst Tigers have question marks over Maric and Deledio. As you say, we need to have our mindset right.

Why? Because it doesn't suit your argument. It also debunks the argument that Roos inherited a team of spuds. If you look at our best 25-30, it's made up what Roos inherited, recruits from other clubs in Vince, Frost, Kennedy, Bugg and Garlett, plus high draft picks in Brayshaw, Petracca and Oliver. The odd mature aged rookie in VDB and Wagner have also been added. In other words, half the core of our best 25-30 were there when Roos arrived. What's happened since is natural list attrition. Maybe the plaudits should go to Jason Taylor, because the rookie elevations in Harmes, VDB and Wagner have looked better than in the past, and Brayshaw, Petracca and Oliver look to be more promising than the likes of Morton and Toumpas. What Roos has brought to the club is time to acquire talent through high draft picks. That time/poor ladder positions wasn't afforded to rookie coaches like Neeld and McCartney. I'd describe Roos' tenure to date as being a successful Football Department manager. His performance as a match day coach has been questionable. As for the Neeld comment. Grow Up.

Exactly right. Richmond's best has been able to beat the likes of Hawthorn, Sydney, WCE and Freo over the past 3 years. We've never been able to get close to these sides. They're playing god awful at the moment, but have shown in past years that they can turn it around. Hopefully it's not this week.

Petracca's debut hasn't been announced on the club's website, so I'd say he may be an emergency. Vince and Garlett for Oliver and M. Jones. If Garlett doesn't come up, Petracca could be a surprise inclusion.

The success of the Dogs and Eagles looks sustainable. Interestingly, the Dogs have the best defensive record this year, without sacrificing on the offence. I haven't seen enough of them this year to know whether Beveridge has tweaked his gameplan, but the results speak for themselves.

Please, let's not go over this again. It was Beveridge who got a team that was expected to finish bottom 3 into the finals, end of story. That's what coaches are measured by. If the Dogs thought that McCartney was on track, they wouldn't have sacked him.

Exactly. I don't see why you need 2 years to focus on defensive strategies before you start on the offence. The likes of Beveridge and Simpson were innovative from the start, and have achieved results within 1-2 years. In 3 years, all we've done is gone from a bottom team to a 10th - 13th team, but with a far superior list. Our gameplan is just a mirror image of what the successful teams have been doing for the past 3 years. By the time we master it, the game will probably evolve again, and we'll be playing catch up.

No, I believe the poster ahead of Misson and the club.

Dees2014, whilst I agree that Petracca needs more time at Casey, getting selected into the senior team isn't just about being 1st, 2nd or 3rd best at Casey the previous week. It's about what you can offer at senior level. The FD know what Grimes and Garland have to offer, and have had no hesitations in promoting Wagner and Hunt, who's Casey form may seem to be inferior. And with reference to Grimes, I don't think that any Melbourne supporter "can't stand the guy". Some of us just believe that he's limited as a player, and others offer more.

Very harsh. It was a mistake that could be attributed to the smarts and class of his opponent. No different to a player losing a marking contest.

I remember Andy Moir well. A bit of a pretty boy, who got my hopes up that we had a potential champion, but he flattered to deceive. Surprised that it wasn't brought up earlier that he was Hunt's uncle, and that Jayden had been given the no. 29.

I think that ANB is a legitimate depth player, which is a term that gets overused on here. As others have said, the players he's competing against have more strings to their bow. If we have a spate of injuries, ANB could come into the team and acquit himself well.

For mine, we're just starting to build a backline suited to 2016 AFL football, and Salem is an integral part. You need defenders that offer one if not all of the following: A penetrating kick, ability to shutdown an opponent, and the ability to break the lines. With the exception of the obvious Varcoe one-on-one, he's been really solid defensively, and is a penetrating kick. He's just as much value to the team as a defender as he would be as a mid.

I was thinking the same thing. He's far more value to the team playing the way he has in the past 2 weeks.

The bizaare thing was that the video replay was inconclusive. It's like a no-ball call in cricket, once the umpire had called touched, that impacts on how the players upfield react. The most ridiculous video referral I've seen, and that umpire should be taken to task.

No.

The use of stats from NAB challenge games is what made BB's assertion absurd. The day that FD's use stats as a guide to selection is the day they deserve to be sacked. As Binman said, Wagner and Hunt offer something that the likes of Garland and Grimes can't. That was the basis of their selection, not the stats sheet.

Your comment was in realtion to BB's assertion that Wagner's selection cost us the game. What made the assertion absurd was that he thought that Grimes would have been the difference between defeat and victory. Wagner wasn't bad against North, and played at a level against Collingwood that unfortunately we haven't seen from Grimes and Garland in years. Also Brayshaw's selection wasn't the reason we lost against the Bombers. It was lack of effort across the board.

After watching the game again, Bugg's stats flattered him. Very few of his possessions were creative, and his disposal is poor. He does offer defensive pressure, but I think others offer more. Frost had his best game, but still made a lot of errors, and not sure that he's required against the Tigers.

Not sure why anyone would bring up Tyson or Lumumba's name when it comes to changes. This week against the Tiges is just as important as today's game. Vince in for Hunt (unlucky), and if Garlett is fit, he comes in for either Oliver (rested) or M. Jones (unlucky).

Before others get too excited by Weeds' goal haul, it was Joel Smith who kicked it.

Over the years, Adelaide have lost more key players than any other club yet continue to draft interstaters, and have remained competitive. The highest profile player to leave our club in recent history was Scully, a Victorian.