deanox

Also, I'm convinced no one in WA understands the rules of AFL.

Collingwood can thank Eddie Betts for that behind.

That's because there was only a handful of them at the game.

I honestly don't understand anyone suggesting Garlett or Hunt. Neither have shown anything at AFL or VFL this year, and although they add an offensive weapon in speed and Garlett offers the potential for high quality goal sneak finishing, their worst drags us down terribly as they leave gaping holes in our structure.

In this scenario we will have beaten all teams except Sydney and PA in the season too.

He's contracted till next year so we're only let him go if we are happy too and the price is right. The best part about his last three weeks is that anyone who wants him is going to have to pay because he is a pick 9 showing he will make it: his value is therefore at least pick 9, and personally i think higher. A month ago that value was harder to argue on exposed form. I think we'll reflect and decide on what we want to do with the three talls next year and beyond. If we think it can and will work we will hold on to him. If we think it won't work, we'll decide who we're will get the best value from keeping/trading and go from there. Weid will be super important to give Gawn a chop out or a week off and help him look after his body, and I think that's how we'll fit them all in: a ruck, 2 KPFs and a ruck/forward on the bench. The real advantage is that both Hogan and TMac are mobile enough to push up the ground meaning we won't lose too much run. Gawn is 27, TMac 26, Hogan 23.5, Weid 21. That age spread is perfect for us if we can keep them together, enabling is to replenish slowly. So we'd be silly not to try and hold them together.

That 5 is low imo and for the reasons they mentioned: when Spargo gets the ball he adds value by improving our position. His disposal is always to advantage which means with only afew touches he can have significant impact. 3 direct score assists is evidence of that, and he also was involved in another scoring chain, mean 4 of 9 disposals were part of a score. Only 8 players had more score involvements than him, and they all had 15+ disposals (4 had 20+). I think he'll stay because he creates.

If true that's an amazing revelation. I have heard insiders speak on this issue and been told that the player assessment took place. Note that I wasnt told it was a vote for captaincy, but more of a leadership attribute assessment, in which those guys were so far above the others they had to be appointed.

My understanding was that Moloney was sick as a dog all week, should never have played but declared himself fit. Obviously coaches/ medical staff should have overruled him but not sure they had the control. If he was that crook that he passed out, he shouldn't have been near the team.

I'm a bit confused by your post. I'm not sure what the Ggodwin thread has to do with it? We were a shambles in 2011. We might have had on field highlights but off field we were divided and going backwards. Three foot effortless was embracing a new level of professionalism and we still had blokes on Hollywood boulevard. We were being left behind in the football department arms race and wernt going to catch the pack. I don't think anyone is saying Neeld was the right solution, but they can see why it was necessary to try something. As per my post above, he didn't have much chance with all the off field stuff going on.

Oh it definitely was a total rebuild and lost turn over under Roos, but in 2012 someone needed to stop the tail wagging the dog, and that attitude was driven by a bunch of senior players and we had a culture that sustained it. It would have been tempting to try and capitalise on the skills of the list, and turn 8.5 wins into 10 or 12, but Neeld chose "the hard way" of trying to change the culture. The problem is at the same time as tackling cultural issues, he completely destroyed morale and failed to develop any of the young players and bring them along with him on the journey. So even though Roos had to start again, at least he was starting from 0, not from -10.

I'd elaborate by saying after Neeld did the hard stuff someone had to do (even Green said that in an interview in early 2012, about how Neeld was ruthless, making the group work harder than ever before and direct in his appraisals), Roos had the "easier" job of repairing and rebuilding trust, and developing a culture relatively free of toxic influences. Roos could be more diplomatic because the time for hard words was over. I say all this in complete agreement that overall, Neeld had terrible execution and was a terrible coach.

Also leadership group in 2011: Brad Green, Aaron Davey, Jared Rivers and Brent Moloney In 2012: Jack Trengove, Jack Grimes, Clint Bartram, Mitch Clark, James Frawley, Colin Garland, Mark Jamar and Nathan Jones.

Lots of things we can pot Neeld for, he did an awful job. It is worth putting that aweful performance in context with the following events that were outside of his control: - We were on the back of 186 and our complete implosion on and off field; - It became quickly apparent that preseason how far behind the competition we we're when it was exposed that our list doesn't meet the minimum fitness requirements of the "in vogue" game plan of the time (Collingwood); - Immediately prior to the season our president and club legend retired then died; - Our 2011 leading goal kicker attacked someone with a machette and only played one game; - We had spent big to bring in Mitch Clarke who busted early with injury; - We had off field issues with sponsors and the tanking investigation. In his defense, and this is difficult, but we had a rubbish culture where tail wagged dog. I'd be surprised if anyone truly thinks we were on the right track after 186, after the canceled time trials etc. It was so clear at the time that our "senior" players had no leadership abilities and were not setting standards. Jones wasn't yet a leader, Green was an unsuccessful leader, and Moloney - as much as I enjoyed him when on song - was a selfish player who from reporters actively worked against the coach and was a big part of 186. At the time Neeld needed to rebuild the club culture from within, and I have no doubt that Grimes and Trengove were the best "leaders" on the list. The players and support staff were asked rate all players on a number of leadership qualities and they voted those two by such a margin it was fait accompli. I agree they were too young but Neeld took a risk to try and salvage something; If Trenners didn't get injured it may have worked out. A similar analysis: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/how-the-demons-blundered-on-young-cocaptains-20141202-11yq5n.html Neelds tenure was a horrible, torrid and unsuccessful time. But his legacy is that he cut out the rot from our playing list in the brutal manner that was needed to allow us to start to grow our culture from scratch, without it constantly being tainted by the previous generation. A bit like a heavy pruning of the garden that leaves it bare and ugly, but allows it to regrow.

That Frost can be eligible at the start of the finals but not after is unfair. The eligibility for finals should be based on regular season games, not finals matches.

Honestly I'd have Lewis ahead of Jones on quality still.

Told my partner about this great honor you have bestowed upon me. I didn't get the response I was expecting, but it was probably the one I deserved!

I used to love watching the old players go. Was always great to see the amazing skills on overweight, unfit blokes, who still somehow have an innate ability to find space and move like athletes, and some who seem to have fallen apart the weeks after retiring. It has become a bit sillier now and isn't high on my list of things to do. I'd gladly watch a SOO or other rep match composed of players from the 10 teams that didn't make finals.

The Draft, Trade and Cheese Board?

Devils advocate position: The players would recieve a lot of feedback from coaches and support staff about opponents who play well, what they do, who are dangerous etc.

McGovern-ment (Dahl)House ?

I don't want to trade Hogan. He is much better and much more valuable than many people on here seem to think. But if he is thinking about it, then for picks 4 and 5 we'd have to consider it. That'd be the best possible return we'd ever get for him and, if he was leaving anyway, would help set us up even longer term.

He has performed well enough but I understand he is reaching the end. His experience will be valuable in September. What surprises me are the crazy calls to sack him, Bernie or Jones and never bring them back. I can only assume the calls are being made by people who want to pick JKH, Garlett, and Bugg, because the IRS no one else to replace them! In an ideal world, in 2019: -Tyson retains his form and Viney recovers fully and Jones plays nearly all weeks, plays a handful on the forward flank and perhaps, if we are injury free, needs to play a few at Casey. -Hunt comes on and Lever comes back, leaving Vince and Lewis to fight for a spot when we are injury free. But until we have another player demanding their spots, they'll keep going.

What I noticed during the game was that his touches were often impactful. A deft or clever disposal that was to advantage or into space. He might not get many touches but he has a knack for "creating" with those limited disposals rather than "collecting" or accumulating stats. Its for this reason I don't think he'll be dropped.

I didn't scoff at the potential but the expectation. I've been presently surprised that he has lived up to it in his first few weeks back. Will be an important fringe/role player moving forward if he can keep his body together.