Chris

I think it is our zone. it seems to push too high and be easy to get around on the wider ground, and if we close the room wide enough teams go down the middle. We can't get out of defense because of two things, we can never take a make on the back flanks (unless Gawn is there) and other teams have a zone that works on a wider ground and run harder to the right spots to make it work. This is the one area I think we have gone backwards under Goodwin. Under Roos our zone worked pretty well and we were good defensively on the big grounds but got found out on the smaller grounds, Goodwin seems to have shifted the balance the other way while being more aggressive offensively. DemonAndrew just made my last point, one of the things we are missing is height. When we are on we spoil marks on our forward flank and take marks on our back flank. We struggle to do either at the minute and that is due to height, we simply have too many big men out at the minute. On a smaller or narrower ground this doesn't seem to be as big an issue I think due to more people being around the contest to spoil the ball.

I would drop Kent purely on the back of not going hard at the ball int eh last when he stuck his arm out after swerving off the line of the ball (as pointed out by many here). I don't care what else he did all game but that was inexcusable. Pretty sure the ball went straight down the other end for a goal too! For Kent I would bring in one of Harmes (is tough at it but disposal iffy), Stretch (not so tough at it purely due to size but disposal better), or even Ben Ken (how has he been going? He showed a bit at times last year. Maybe tell him this is his chance and let him rip)

He was calling skill error in relation to calling it deliberate out of bounds (if it is the incident I am thinking of). He did also get a foot to it, just. It came off the side of his boot, there is no way it would have the momentum it did unless it hit his boot. I went nuts when I first saw it but the replay showed he did kick it (just).

I have been saying it for a few weeks but I think Tyson is slowly working his way into a good bit of form. He seems to have got that sidestep back and finds space through traffic more and more each week. His kicks are also getting better and better. Here's hoping it continues.

It was for too high. Salem had his arm up going for the ball and when he was tackled without it because his arms were up got the north player high. Was one of the mout baffling frees I have ever seen paid.

Most of players had a good crack at it today but looked a bit off. Tyson took another small step forward in regaining some good form. Each week he does a few more good things. Kent was soft. I like him and want him in the side as he gives us a bit but when he has to put his body on the line he doesn't, it drives me mad. I would bring in Harmes for Kent. Kent is a better user of the ball but Harmes goes in hard when he has to and Kent simply doesn't. We were spanked in the middle today but not in the clearances around the ground. We just couldn't match them one on one in the middle due in part to our poor structure, I think we were too focused on the man, and Goldy gave them brilliant service in the middle. Omac I though was OK. He needs to get bigger but unlike other weeks I though he threw himself at it but was just too small. Hannan will be handy, certainly showed a bit today. Jones had an average day but wasn't on his own in that. The umps, especially Nicholls, can take a long walk off a short pier!

Has been the same for years against the roos. It is why I try not to watch the games against them.

A comment purely on the uMrs as I don't have anything nice to say about the players right now. How Vince can gets clearly punched and not be a free is beyond me. What's the bet the North players gets a fine at worst. How Salem got the bloke high while being tackled without the ball is a joke. Ben Brown is a protected Muppet. That holding free he got against Frost was one of the stupidest frees I have ever seen. I counted at least 4 clear trips not paid, in fact one was paid as us holding the ball as we couldn't kick it while being tackled around the ankle. They got a goal from a throw plenty of times, double handed, one handed, off the ground, they were all there to be seen, none more obvious that in the last straight over their head and got a goal. I can't recall them being called for holding once, even though they dragged it in, dropped it, and threw it all day. Watts was hip and shouldered out of a marking contest by a player who didn't get close to contesting the mark, right in front of the ump, no free of course. These are just the ones off the top of my head. A complaint must be made! I normally don't watch our games against North as they have been protected in our games for years. Only watched this as I hoped we would pummel the pretenders, good to see nothing has changed and we are still pretenders too.

I don't like the wildcard idea as it is far to much based on luck. I know if we finished 7th and based on 22 games of building form and consistency in order to 14 or so games and losing 8 then I would be very annoyed to then face a pot luck game against a team that didn't do those things as well just to confirm we had earned our spot in the 8. Especially if it ended up like our Geelong or Richmond game where injuries during the match play a large role and we lose the right to play finals because of it. Especially with the ramifications for sponsorship etc. If the finals were to expanded to 10 then so be it, you earn the right to play finals, if you win a wildcard game due to injuries to the other team, or because you come out and flatten half the other team then you haven't earn the that right.

And they are too silly to see that 18 healthy viable clubs will make them more money int eh long run, even if they have to take a hit for a few years while it evens out a little. The AFL only seem to be able to see slightly further into the future than our pollies!

I get what you say about looking elsewhere for what has worked but the wildcard idea is a joke. What the AFL should bring in that the NFL do is sharing of high rating timeslots on telly. If we followed their model it would be something like every team gets 2 Friday night spots every year, one home and one away (and getting 3 in a year is rotated), then each team can also get 2 Saturday night spots and so on. This would help massively in evening out the revenue of each club and quite possibly take clubs like us of the feed from the AFL (which is only given to us in compensation for not getting these timeslots anyway!) Unfortunately in Gill's mind it is more important to continue down the road of limiting market exposure to clubs based on the wants of a TV organisations, who have no interest in the long term health of the comp, while not actually setting up 18 sustainable clubs that will build the AFL and not be a drain! F that bloke is a Dill.

This pearl of wisdom is from the North page on Bigfooty. "I think an agressive Preuss in the middle might actually rattle the Melbourne midfield, especially him crashing in against Oliver and Viney when the ball hits the deck." hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, I nearly fell off my chair reading that. Clearly the poster has never actually watched Viney play!

I have no issue with this at all. It all comes down to expectations and standards of behavior. If you want to go into the MCC, you need a collared shirt and you need to be more civil than in the cheersquad. If you wish to get into the long room you need to meet those standards of both dress and behaviour or you will be kicked out. This is really no different, if you are invited into this room by an AFC member then you need to act respectfully towards their rules and that it is their space. That doesn't mean you can't support your team, or cheer, or get exited, but you need to be respectfully restrained in doing so. It is kind of like being invited to meet your new partners family for the first time, who are all mad Collingwood supporters, so you go to Queens Birthday, you really aren't going to go banana's during that as you will wish to be respectful. If you buy a ticket in the stands and sit with everyone else then you can go as hard as you like with the standards of that area (which is pretty lose and almost do as you please).

Except Webber and Ricardo, both of whom have reportedly been very close to being offered the seat and said no.

What you have put at three is what it is to be a destination club!

Our form is building though. If you look at the likes of Viney, Jones, Tyson, Vince, even OMac, they are all coming into better form over the last 3 weeks, it has been really clear that individually they are getting better but are also gelling more as a group. This was evident even in our losses. Saturday showed that as a group and as individuals they may have hit the form they were looking like hitting. Hopefully it isn't just a random peak.

That Purple pissant released the news with full knowledge and approval from all involved. He isn't a bad guy here, he is simply the first to release the news (with full permission to do so). Purple is also fed his news directly from the AFL, other journos get theirs from other sources. If you are wondering who is aligned where just look through the articles from the doping saga, it is clear as day who pays the bills.

My take is Hibberd is probably worth a mid first round pick the way he is playing, Melksham worth a late second early third round pick (35-45). I think two picks in the 20's for both is about right, we may even be a little in front.

Marry that with the Melksham deal and we came out about right.

It may even just be opiates to deal with pain

If it is for treatment then he should be fine as you apply for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) and given it is cancer I can't see he would have any issues getting approval. A TUE allows you to take what ever you are exempt for for the period of the exemption but you can't take anything else on a whim. In terms of follow up I would think it would be more of a grey area in terms of TUE's. That is all really irrelevant at the minute though and he just needs to do what he needs to do. I wish Jesse all the best and support in in what ever he does from here.

Read somewhere that the players were told on Friday. I was wondering the same thing. Hopefully it keeps up!

The other one I noticed ont eh weekend was players being blocked from contesting marks. The most obvious one was I think Adelaide's first goal (a big man marked just outside the goal square). If you watch it and look at the back you see Tmac Standing side by side with his opponent, as his opponent moves another Adelaide player steps in and puts his arms out to keep TMac from moving. It wasn't just a block it was an active shepard. No free and it wasn't even subtle. TMac remonstrated with the ump but it happened again and again with no free.

The rule is that if you have had prior opportunity then you must dispose of it. I see you point about others being tackled over the line and it not being paid but generally they have very little prior and do dispose of it (or try) as they go over the line. The Adelaide player did nothing, had time once tackled to try and dispose of it before going over the line and didn't. On the Jetta one, did he have the ball before crossing the line/ (I cant remember). He was certainly shoved in the back and it should have been a free. I can't remember a clearer push in the back ever!

Helmets do nothing for concussion and may actually put you at more risk