Axis of Bob

Howe will take the occasionaly hanger because he just has that natural athleticism to do so. But what I really want to see it his work ethic to keep pushing up and down the ground and create a contest down the wing and half forward. I want to see his defensive work, which is supposed to be very good, and I want to see how he helps our structure. I think he is the type of hard working, mobile marking player that will really help our team in the future. Playing tall or small, but helping to move the slow ball into our forward line.

Depth is important to teams that expect to be in the premiership race. If you're aiming for top 4 then you need depth. Why? Because you already have the star players that can get you to the top, but you don't want to finish 6th just because you had a bad run of injuries in the middle of the season that caused you to drop a few games. For a team like us depth isn't that important. The most important part they play is to help protect some of the younger bodies while they develop.

If they both come one, Tappy and Strauss, then I'd be happy for them both to play defence. They're both a good size, giving them flexibility, and really damaging kicks. We need to get those good kicks into our defence to help move the ball. Better than having Warnock, Bartram and Rivers kicking the ball to each other!

The Casey highlights are up on the website now. Some impressive things from Strauss and Howe especially.

Tom Scully doesn't have a host family. He has an actual family! FAIL.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/26185-dean-bailey-i-hope-youre-watching/page__view__findpost__p__437937 If you're going to engage in a chest beating and then write poorly thought out, logically inconsistent tripe then you deserve to be called on it. Running away and pretending it doesn't exist does not give credibility to either yourself or your argument. If you want to tell everyone how big your dick is, then at some point someone is going to pull your pants down for all to see.

You have a wonderful way of missing the point, intentionally or otherwise, in order to make an argument simpler for yourself to understand, Hannabal. Sometimes you do it by just not replying to a post at all - which at least gives me feedback on the strength of my own argument. If you choose to respond, the thread is still on the front page ...

My take on the whole thing, Tim, is that the midfield is what is going to get us from being a rubbish team to a really good team. When Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, McKenzie etc get to a point where they are among the top midfielders in the league then we will be a really good team. You can be a really good team with major holes in your structure provided that your midfield is good enough. But really good teams don't win premierships. You need to be the best. In order to be the best you need the extra quality everywhere else. Plus the cohesion that comes with playing together, as you mentioned. For example, Carlton is a really good side because they have a really good midfield. But are they a premiership side? No way.

At least this week we will get our future top midfielders all playing at the same time. Scully, Trengove (who was playing really well before the suspension), Gysberts and McKenzie. Could you imagine us consistently losing contested possessions when they are 23/24? The opposition won't be able to just sit on one player like they currently do to Moloney.

Interesting though, how our best contested ball and clearance winner is very good in our wins yet poor in our losses. It almost seems like there's a correlation between our ability to get our hands on the footy and our ability to implement our gameplan to win games of footy.

TimD: Perhaps you’re right. Does the quality of midfield have a bearing on which half of the field you play the game in? Interesting stats from that Adelaide game – Maric had 31 disposals playing as a high half forward. Aside from that the most he’s had this year was 18. Does this suggest that the Adelaide game was played closer to our forward line? Also in that game we had big games from our midfielders. Moloney had 31, Sylvia 25, Trengove 28, Green 24, Davey 23, Gysberts 24, Bail 23 and Jones 28. We dominated the midfield and were then able to play our game plan properly. When we have struggled in the midfield we have been unable to implement the gameplan properly because we have never had control of the football. To borrow the thread title of another thread .... “It’s the midfield, stupid!” Hannabal: You seem to be holding on to Viney’s quote for everything. You have the quote, but I’m not sure that you know how to use it. You said yourself that West Coast’s structure took 2 years to put into place properly. They couldn’t play the style properly until this year and everyone called them a rabble with no direction, no gameplan and appalling footskills. Suddenly now they are a disciplined unit. What has happened? And if it took a far more experienced side like West Coast 2 years to play a style properly, why do you give Bailey only one preseason to have it properly implemented? Especially given that the bodies are smaller, there is a lack of influential senior players and he has to do it with a third world midfield? You say that it cannot be turned on and off like a tap. So why, then, do you think that we changed game styles for the Adelaide game? Clearly we have been trying to do that all year, but have been unable to implement it as well as we did against Adelaide. I have not said that Bailey is definitely the man for us. But I haven’t yet seen anything that conclusively tells me that he is not. I don’t think you have either, based on your arguments. I do believe, however, that the hardest thing to do is create the machine. Once you create the machine then any monkey can operate it. I think that Bailey is assembling a very good machine. If Bailey proves that he is incapable of operating it then I’ll hope that we replace him. But if he doesn’t prove he is wrong for job then I hope that he continues because, as I said, he appears to be building a good machine. You obviously don’t know me very well, based on your questions. This is probably why you find it so hard to debate with me. It’s easier when you try to see the debate from different perspectives, rather than try to simplify it to a point where you can understand. The beauty lies in the complexities, although it can be thankless arguing with those who wish everything to be simple.

As much as Robinson is a [censored], I don't think the club management would be overly upset.

I just thought that it was funny, given that incident which was embarrassing. MAybe I should have added a smiley face.

I wonder if that thought went through Chris Yarran's head as ducked out of the marking contest at half back on Friday?

Should we take note that we pressed against Adelaide? Or do we simply say that our pressing doesn't count because Adelaide didn't play very well? Does this show that we are, in fact trying to press, but just aren't implementing it well under heavy pressure? Is there a reason why we aren't implementing it very well under pressure? May this possibly relate to our ability to win the footy and get it inside our forward 50 in the first place?

I don't know, Hannabal. Should we? I'd like to hear your opinion. Not your take on Paul Roos' opinion, or Mike Sheahan's, or Jon Ralph's, or your brother's ..... what do you think. I must say though that I'm flattered that you would take my opinion on whether or not we pressed against Adelaide over the opinion of those from whom you were "told that we didn't really press". I'm chuffed that I've moved up your opinion ladder. Maybe, some day, you'll tell someone lower on the ladder what our opinion is on the Adelaide game.

His future is as a second ruckman. He is capable as a key defender, so he can man the opposition ruckman when he isn't rucking. It'll be interesting to see what happens if Gawn comes on and we play Jamar and Gawn in tandem.

jcb, how do you know how good a ruck coach David Loats is? He seems to be doing a pretty damn good job with Jamar and Gawn in particular, and it could also be argued Martin and Spencer at least.

We scored 14 goals from Adelaide turnovers compared with their 1. We had 85 tackles to their 65. Just in case you can't bring yourself to watch the Adelaide replay.

With puns like that, how can you say that you don't accept mediocrity?

We did against Adelaide. So what's different - the theory or the implementation?

themaster: You said that Carlton have a gun midfield. Our midfield is currently third world. Do you think that this might have a bit to do with it? Luckily our midfield will get much, much better.

bb59: Don't simply 'side with observers'. Make up your own mind based on your own observations. Just following the crowd is the easy option, especially when they are loud and emotional. Anyway, I think looking at the style we played against the Crows is perfectly legitimate because that shows the style of game we are trying to play when everything goes well. This is the game plan we are trying to play. When we play better teams we have been trying to do exactly the same thing (ie, lock the ball inside our forward line) except that we haven't been able to do so because the opposition is better at preventing us doing so. In the same way, Collingwood and Geelong are much better at being able to play the game style they are trying to because their players are more capable. Jack Watts was playing the same role that Scarlett plays, or Maxwell plays. If Scarlett is not playing on the opposition's best player ... is this also panicing? I think that you have double standards because you are preoccupied with the result, rather than the cause. You think that because Collingwood/Geelong = win therefor the tactic is OK, but Melbourne = loss therefor the tactic is flawed. I noted in a separate thread that there is a strong correlation between contested possessions and winning. As you said, Adelaide allowed us the ball (ie, we won more contested possession) and we were able to implement our gameplan properly. Collingwood and Geelong are able to consistently win more contested possession than their opponents, hence they are able to better implement their gameplan. But we don't implement ours properly consistently because we can't get our hands on the footy. See the problem?

No misquoting. I even re-read it to make sure that I hadn't misread it. You told me that that I should "get a grip and be able to look one of your mates in the eye when he says "you club sucks" (sic) and tell him you agree", with the clear implication being that this is what you do in such a situation. I, through sarcasm, commented that this perhaps showed your own mental frailties in that what your mates think has an unreasonably large impact on your own opinion. You started off by telling me that I was (accurate and direct quote) "the equivalent of a player not putting his body on the line when the time comes to make a stand and are what you would consider a "soft" player on the field". Given this, I don't think that complaining about 'cheap shots' is a good line for you to be pursuing. Also, one of my pet hates is people who simply agree with other people and don't think for themselves. This, as I'm sure you can understand, is causing some friction between us. Scoop: I agree that our decision making going forward was the major problem. By saying that we didn't use the ball well going forward I was not talking specifically about skills. I was talking about the same thing that you are.

I believe that Carlton used Thornton as their loose man. Why is it a legitimate tactic for Collingwood and Geelong, but not legitimate for us? Because Geelong and Collingwood are good teams they are allowed to use it to win, but because we aren't playing well and have half a team in we \re using it purely defensively? Do you see a problem with that reasoning? It's the sort of reasoning that lends people to believe that your mind was already made up beforehand, and are just using the tactic as an excuse to have a go at Bailey. A counter question to your counter question - Where did we win the ball back against Adelaide? Half back or half forward? Because that's the style we're trying to play.