Gator

Any changes are designed to assist team balance/form/injuries, which is why they're made. But interchanging players ranked 22-26 on your list isn't really of any great consequence. That's not to say they won't make an impact, but they'll only make an impact if your better players are performing, i.e. winning contested and uncontested footy. They'll be of no real significance if your core 12-15 players are being pantsed.

Replacing one fringe player with another will hardly effect our fortunes. It's a discussion point, but in the scheme of things it has virtually no baring. We simply need our best players playing well.

Watts is the softest "good" player I've seen. But he's not going to get dropped over a couple of spilt marks when marks are routinely dropped by others. If I'd been in charge he'd no longer be on the list, but he'll play because he is on the list and if we want to beat Richmond a good Watts game can make a difference.

I love Brayshaw. I love his genuine class and preparedness to put his head over the ball. And he makes good decisions under pressure. To think that so-called knowledgeable supporters wanted him at Casey. I still shake my head in disbelief. He makes us better.

Then you won't get him. Why choose Melbourne unless they paid overs ?

Brayshaw has 11 tackles in 4 quarters, which by prorata would have him number 1 in the league, and you "wouldn't mind him as sub again or even at Casey". It's OK for Heeney to play, but not Brayshaw ? FFS, Brayshaw is 19 and while he'll take 3 more years to build his body and ultimate fitness, he's more than ready to play footy. Have the Bulldogs been set back by playing Bontempelli, Macrae, etc. I just don't understand this overly conservative thinking. I do with Stretch, obviously, but Brayshaw needs to play. You're too concerned by a birth certificate. Use your eyes.

Yes, I know, Be a good chap and edit for me.

Cross isn't creative, not overly damaging with possessions and it's not as if his numbers are huge. Bontempelli 20 tackles in 2 games ~ Cross 5. Footscray haven't regretted moving him on 18 months ago. I like Cross, but he's far from a staple and to suggest supporters are "idiots" for suggesting he makes way for speed (JKH) merely shows footy ineptitude.

Newton is an inside mid with a beautiful left foot being played out of position.

You're an unusual campaigner. It's OK for Heeney to be playing (and countless others every year), but somehow Brayshaw at 19 isn't ready. There are some strange views emanating from the bleaches.

Things can turn pretty quickly. Two years ago the Dogs had Boyd, Griffen, Liberatore, Cooney, and Cross headlining their midfield. They'd already lost Ward. Boyd now runs off a half-back flank, Liberatore's out and the rest aren't there. Bontempelli, Macrae, Wallis, Dahlhaus, and Honeychurch are kids, but but hey're getting the job done. Let Brayshaw off the leash, put a rocket up Tyson, mix up Newton's role and fortunes can quickly start to change.

Newton came to the club as an inside mid, but they wanted to develop his outside game and with Cross, Tyson, Jones and Viney you can see why. I'd rather Newton return to a more inside role and for Kennedy-Harris to come in for Cross. I don't know the answer to the following question, as I haven't watched the replay and doubt I will, but I hope we're not running too many tags or run-with roles. I agree that there should be one, but any more than that and you run the risk of man-watching and not hunting the footy. GWS looked to be footy hunters and we looked reactive.

I agree with much of your post, but why anyone would rule out Brayshaw being a star is beyond me. For the record, I think the opposite.

Thanks again.

Thanks. Nothing like an "at ground" perspective.

Yes he did. He said we "don't have the talent levels" to drop off in effort and he also referred to us as a bottom team. Look, I love Roos and reckon he's doing a fantastic job in turning around this club, so I have very few criticisms of him, but I do wish he'd get away from highlighting our lack of talent and I see no need for him to call us a "bottom team" after round 2. Footy is played above the shoulders and him constantly reinforcing where we've been needs to stop.

Jack Viney has 15, but it has little do with his speed. It's about intent. Will Minson (12) hardly runs like a gazelle.

We didn't lose due to one extra tall, or otherwise, we lost because the midfield was comprehensively beaten. And no, the midfield didn't lose to the Suns last week.

2 Rounds in: TACKLES Bontempelli ~ 20 Dahlhaus ~ 17 Honeychurch ~ 13 Wallis ~ 12 Minson ~ 12 Jong ~ 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- Jones ~ 8 Tyson ~ 5 Cross ~ 5 Tyson and Cross 5 in 8 quarters, Brayshaw 11 in 4. Nothing else needs to be said. If Cross isn't tackling I'd rather have the speed of Kennedy-Harris.

One change. OUT: Cross IN: Kennedy-Harris

People carrying on about Dawes as though he had something to do with the loss. Brayshaw 11 tackles in his first 4 quarters of footy... Tyson 5 tackles in 8. It's still a slow midfield that lacks class, intensity, and spread. We're actually not that far away. Brayshaw will be an absolute gun. We will have good days this year, but more midfield class required.

I'm not sure what to take out of clearance stats. We won contested footy, uncontested footy and tackles.

I was confident we'd beat Gold Coast, but less confident today. That said, I think we should win and I expect to win. Our best football is better than the Giants, but, once again, we need to get on top around the stoppages. Shiel, Ward, Griffen and Treloar are a more talented quartet than Jones, Tyson, Viney and Vince, however, I believe we can neutralise the midfield battle and I believe we have an edge in superiority across the rest of the ground. Jamar needs a big game today and has to break even, or close to with Mumford.

You're being a little bit silly. I'm not "embarrassed" when I don't profess to be an expert on a topic. I'd only be embarrassed if I was a professional who got it completely wrong. Now that would be embarrassing. I don't have any knowledge on this subject, other than some of the views I've read. But I don't automatically dismiss those views. So out of interest, do you dismiss the views of other professionals in this area that seemingly disagree with you ? Are you insinuating they're all involved with Scientology ? Would you risk your professional integrity publicly by doing so ? If so, thanks for the heads up. It's hard to know from afar. So many claims and counter claims. I always feel enlightened by people that know more about a topic than me. That's usually not hard, of course. So, out of interest, what are your credentials exactly ? Keen to know. Btw, you're welcome to ask me about football.

Clearly many professionals within the industry disagree. Are you a professional within the industry ? I have a sneaky feeling that those sprouting the "dodgy" material, as you put it, also agree with vaccination. Next thing you'll be calling them flat earthers. There are enough professionals that don't see depression as a mental "illness" to make me query claims that it is. It's fair to say I have a dose of scepticism, notwithstanding Hemingway's erudite response.