Axis of Bob

You post like an unloved fool.

Garland has played a large portion of his time as a small defender. He's probably played more good footy as a small than as a tall. I think we'll see him play another week or two in the VFL until he gets proper match fitness.

Viney didn't lay a tackle. I'm not saying he played badly, but he still has limitations, mainly caused by his lack of tank.

In the first half we didn't move the ball quickly enough. Our scoring opportunities came from clearances, but we didn't really take the game on enough. In the second half we moved Howe forward and he was able to use his athleticism to give us an option coming out of defence. His pace is something we have really lacked. I dare say that this was (in part) some of the reason behind Tyson's substitution. We are a slow team. At least we started drafting some pace last year, which should help. But Gold Coast is quick and they showed us up at times. We won three of the four quarters today, but the scars of our recent past we evident in the second quarter where we were under siege and stopped taking the game on, instead camping in defence. But we improved and looked the better team in the second half. We had chances but didn't take enough of them. At least we now have the nucleus of a decent team.

Really happy for Jamie. I always had a soft spot for him as a player and it's great to see him recovering from injury and doing well.

At this early stage, goodoil, would you be inclined to trade an early pick for speed or would you take the tall and grab the class from elsewhere?

I agree about Brad Scott. People like him because he was an angry player and he's an angry coach. Problem is that he spends too much of his energy being upset about things he can't control (like umpiring decisions). Get angry at the stuff you can control, like the way your team plays. The only consistent thing about North is their ability to go from awesome to awful and back again. It isn't a youth thing, either - they're just flaky. Collingwood looked really good today. Their defensive system was really good, although North didn't really test them. Plus they have enough classy players to consistently score. Plus I think Harry O, despite his flaws, is really important for them, with his pace. The game on Thursday night was awful. We'd have probably beaten both teams on Thursday.

Interesting watching the Collingwood vs North match, as I have been keeping an eye on Grundy. 14 hit outs in a full game and no marks. Saw him drop a couple too under fairly modest pressure. He'll be an interesting one to watch.

I was watching the replay today (great having a public holiday the week after a Melbourne win). A few things I noticed: - Viney was super exciting in patches. However he really does struggle to cover the ground consistently. He is fast, agile and strong, but he needs to work on his tank. We shouldn't be expecting him to be a top player yet, but I suspect we'll continue to see cameos for a while. - Georgiou gets it. He has a really high intensity attitude to his defensive work. Not just spoiling, or winning the ball in his area, but running super hard to cut off options downfield or chasing down a kicker to make the disposal slightly more difficult. Impressive. - Kent will be a decent out for us. He has pace, but he's also much better and cleaner in traffic than I gave him credit for. - Watts is effortlessly damaging. He creates a lot of scoring opportunities, but he makes them look routine. His pace and work in traffic is so effortless that it looks normal. It isn't. - Matt Jones' pace was important at times. He's not the most talented player, but his combination of pace and endurance makes him important.

If we're going down that path then we'd better disband the whole competition! After all, it is a national competition.

And it looks like there was reasonable consensus between Malthouse and Roos. Interesting to note that there was only the one midfielder in that bunch.

Trengove would have done better, because he would have been able to develop the parts of his game that would have made him effective as an inside midfielder. Scully the same, because his lack of size for an inside mid would still remain. Watts would have done much better. Grimes would have been better. Morton I'm unsure of, and Gysberts would have failed also. IMHO. I think it all depends on whether the issue is football skills. If it is then it's a development problem. If it's athletic or physical, then it wouldn't have helped. But it's ultimately unprovable.

I both agree and disagree, Bob. I certainly agree that poor development has been a major issue. While a player can learn by being told by coaches and shown video, players will learn infinitely better when there are examples of those good habits that you see in leaders every day. Nasher's point is good too. However I also think that poor drafting has played a bigger role than you give it credit for. We have drafted a number of players who are athletically unsuited for AFL footy and that has hurt them as much an anything. I would be more worried about our poor development if we had drafted better suited players. Murdoch and Guthrie are both athletically very good, and have the base to develop upon. Murdoch is the prototypical athlete-over-footballer. He has taken some time to develop his football skills and greatly benefited from being at Geelong. Guthrie is a 'gamer', and would likely have done well at Melbourne too. Would Blease have done well at Geelong? I doubt it. Would Strauss? That's a different question.

Sylvia used to take a hanger every week at Bendigo. Sylvia's problem was never talent. He dominated under 18s, but he didn't have to work hard to do it. The idea would have been that a professional environment would see him working harder. Unfortunately this was a common thread through his career.

He still has something we don't have. Speed.

The problem is that there is no one part of our game where we have an advantage over the opposition that we can exploit. Are we fast? No we are actually exceptionally slow as a team. That's why they brought Kent and Evans in. Are we a great stoppage team? No, we haven't got a ruckman and we get consistently pummelled in the clearances. What we should be is a supremely skilled team a la Geelong that moves the ball quickly. Unfortunately we are not. What we end up with is a slow team that turns the ball over.

While you're at it, have a go at punctuation too. I find that helps me understand posts better. Then see what you can do about coherent thought. That helps me understand posts almost completely. Thanks for your help.

Sorry, I honestly had no idea what you were were attempting to say. Although, as you pointed out, it was just a throwaway line with no analysis and should have been ignored.

What are you attempting to say? a) Trengove doesn't have good endurance, or b) Endurance is not important for an AFL footballer.

Deep forward or back is the worst spot for someone who lacks speed. Plus you nullify his best athletic asset: his endurance.

Trengove did the state screening that year because he was in the SANFL GF. From memory he had a 2.97 second (ish) 20m sprint and a 15+ beep test. His problem isn't his first few steps, it's his top end speed. That's why he looks slow in space. Trengove needs to play as an inside midfielder. The closer you get to each end of the ground the more important it is that you have pace.

The problem was that Fitz wasn't competing or presenting well. His speed is important, but as a go to forward he doesn't have the strength to compete consistently. Same with Howe. That's where Dawes, Hogan and Clark are important.

It started with getting smashed out of the centre in the first quarter and a half. By that stage we were 10 goals down and shot. West Coast were very good and were able to capitalise on the opportunities when they came, and they did it very well. Cox gave us a clinic in ruckwork today, although his stats don't show him as being that dominant. But what was frustrating (and possibly a result of the 'mental scarring' that we keep hearing of) was our reluctance to move the ball quickly. I could understand why, since the leading targets down the line were small players (until we moved Dunn up there and started looking more dangerous). On the other hand, Kennedy (especially) and Darling were able to give a release kick for a player to move the ball quickly to advantage. Our lack of talls has taken away any confidence that the mids have to move the ball quickly. Unfortunately Fitz and Howe were unable to provide that lead up target. I thought that Dunn really made us look more dangerous when he went forward, and I was pleasantly surprised by Pedersen's competitiveness when he went back. Byrnes was good (not just the goals, but seemed to get to good spots to crumb). JKH also looked dangerous, which was good, despite our mids/talls not giving the crumbers much to work with.