stevethemanjordan

No it's not. But Garland clearly didn't set it high enough. (Leader). So Wagner gets his chance and should be persisted with for a few weeks to see what he can offer the back-line and team. (Unless he of course begins to play at the level Garland was).

Whilst Max was on top in the hitouts vs Goldstein, I think you'll find that many of the hitouts he 'won' were also against Petrie and Brown whilst Goldy was resting. People seem to think those 63 hitouts were all against Goldy.

Yeh nah. As Roos said, both Ruckmen were influential for their side on the weekend. I'm not sure why people say such ridiculous things sometimes. I guess it's the one-eyed supporter thing.

Not sure we need Dunn and both McDonald's against Collingwood.. Who do you see him playing on if he was to come in?

Look at the post above yours. Sometimes players need to come in for team balance and attribute diversity. It doesn't always come on the back of 'form' and the Wagner inclusion is proof of that.

Haha. Christ you get on your high-horse easily. Go back and read my post, I edited it. It's more about the value of Garlett in this situation. He will come in for somebody.

Wouldn't change much and most certainly wouldn't drop Wagner after one game. I'm not sure if it's just me but I think the Wagner call up was a direct indicator as to how dysfunctional our back-line as a whole have been rather than a direct replacement for a player. He brings an entirely different set of attributes to that of Garland and frankly, those attributes are the ones we are so sorely lacking back there. Considering Garland was offering literally nothing offensively to our side and his defensive efforts were less than impressive, it makes sense that Wagner now gets a run at it. I think we'll see the value of him after a few games and potentially this weekend at the G. He will create and he will defend hard. Ins: Garlett Outs: Matt Jones I know it won't happen, but I see Stretch as someone who can play the same role now that he's in the side. EDIT* On second thoughts, Jones has been pretty solid to date. Hard to know who comes out. But we need Garlett in the side so someone will be unlucky.

To be happy or frustrated? I mean, clearly our effort and willingness to impact most of the day was there. But why again does it have to come on the back of one of the most insipid displays I've witnessed? I hate that we seem to be able to 'get ourselves up' for games like today's.. As admirable as it was. The next two weeks will be bigger tests for this group. And we better [censored] back that effort up.

They did, you're right. They had a normal 'drop-off' period after being right in the frame for a flag. Look at their years previous to the ones you've pointed out. I shouldn't have said 'one-off'. I should have said 'dip-years' or 'drop-off' years. Or whatever term you like. But the point still stands, which is that they clearly retained a strong core and group of senior figures and they drafted extremely well whilst they were shortly down the bottom which is what has undoubtedly helped them back up to where they are now. Are you disputing that?

Sorry, I misread you. Agree with what you say!

If an individual has issues within a workplace, does it mean the workplace is a basket-case? How many other senior players had an issue? I think the proof is in the pudding personally. Both the Eagles and Dogs had terrible one-off years only to rebound strongly the following year. How does this occur? To suggest that it is entirely a senior coach's doing is absurd. There were clearly strong foundations already in place at both clubs. Strong lists, strong leaders and strong at board-level. Bevo has been a breath of fresh air and has obviously played a part in the way they're playing. But did he recruit and develop their list or inherit it? Did he groom the leaders at the club, or were they already really strong characters who have experienced finals success not too long ago? It's a balance, nothing more and nothing less.

How am I underselling him by stating the reason that the Dog's are playing so well is not just a result of Bevo's coaching skills? I have said I think he's contributed. Do you think he'd take all the credit if asked? The fact that the Doggies withstood the loss of their captain (Griffen) and best inside mid in (Libba), says as much about the strength of their leadership group, (Murphy, Boyd, Morris) and list. They have been building for quite sometime. You can't compare the state of our club to theirs. They're incomparable. Look at our history from the last near decade. There are a myriad of factors that have contributed to the Dog's present gameday performance from the past few years and Bevo's coaching is one. But it's not the only one.

For a coach's 'gameplan' to work, he needs the cattle to execute it... Do you really think that Bevo is the sole reason the Doggies are flying? The dogs have drafted extremely well. They had really solid and quality senior leaders for their young kids to learn from. And they're playing a brand of footy that is conducive to the skillset of their players. They run hard, they're fast and they're skilled. It's also relevant modern day football. There are many reasons as to why they're now playing the way they are and I assure you it is not just because of Bevo.

My views on Garland have been pretty strong and I'm not going to enter into the Gibson vs Garland debate as it's pointless and there are many variables that have contributed to Gibson's dominance since his move to Hawthorn. (Although I do think he's the superior player). As Gonzo alludes to, it seems there's not much coherency at a coaching, team selection, and game plan level at present. I think the fact that Garland has been dropped for Wagner proves what many have been saying and what I've been screaming for over the past year in regards to our defence. Kicking skills and decision making. Now whilst the selection of Wagner seems quite premature so far as that it has gone against Roos' mantra of selecting players that are 'in form', it's clear this is a unique situation. Our team defence has been diabolical and again if you watch the replay of last week, you'll see we need to be far more creative, smart and calm with ball in hand down back. The game in my view has moved past Garland. We have players who can offer his services and then some. And that is entirely the point at hand and the reason why a bloke like Wagner is getting his chance (on top of the fact that Garland has been really poor in general). Run, skills and smarts are needed in bucket-loads for your team's back six to be successful in this day and age of AFL football and whilst there have been arguably more pressing issues to address with our list, this is definitely one that seems to have fallen off the radar. On top of that, having two of your most experienced players in and out of the starting 18 as well as the leadership group, has surely got to worry you as a coach. Dunn and Garland. Problem players. I think acquiring the services of Hurley should be on top of our priority list for next year. Dunn and Garland are no longer young recruits who are still learning their craft. They should be staple best 18 players who perform weekly like most other experienced leaders and this is largely the problem at hand. You don't see senior leaders from other clubs going through these kinds if form dips and of you do and it absolutely contributes to poor team performance and morale. Good luck to young Wagner on the weekend

Whether it's Wiseblood, Saty or any other Garland 'defender', you just somehow refuse to see the bigger picture.... Always. Maybe now would be the time that you should all sit down together and actually watch his NAB cup games and both rounds 1 and 2 of this year. Look at his output in all facets of the game in all games vs that of any player in our side. Thank fark the coaches have finally made the call.

Could also potentially mean he'll miss 2-3.. Can never be too sure with Misson..

Any team plays well and deserves to win if their opposition doesn't turn up.

Was a great vintage for reds in Coonawarra.

And if they don't, what will that prove to you? I think it's complete tripe that people believe Essendon 'played well'. We allowed them to play well! It was a poor game for one and we were so unbelievably inept in every facet of the game that they were made to look good. It's a shameful cop-out excuse to give them the credit you're giving them and when Roos said it in his presser I cringed. James Kelly spoke during the week and he said from the first bounce he could tell we were off. We were more than off. I can't see them beating anyone bar potentially Carlton but even so I'd still tip Carlton.

I know many on here believe he'll be our future CHF with Weid to play deep forward potentially alongside Petracca. I'm in that camp too. I wonder how Roos/Goodwin foresee next year's forward setup and I also wonder about our current setup. Clearly the way we're delivering the ball to Hogan is absolutely rubbish and opposition sides are more aware of Hogan's dominance after last year. The forward-line, (along with many other areas) has struggled in the opening two rounds and I'm wondering if the coaches would release him further up the ground as early as this week to allow him to get involved in ways other than just marking.. Especially given that he is one of our better ball users. It would also change our forward setup potentially for the better. Perhaps start with Watts deeper alongside Pederson (who is a poor runner). It's really hard to know how much of Roos' starting setup etc is to blame if any. But I wouldn't mind seeing some positional changes at the first bounce this Sunday. Perhaps we could go back to assigning specific forwards for Dunn and McDonald to take for the entirety of the game rather than this rotating circus we've been seeing that simply isn't working. Just a thought?

I did.

Or challenge him to respond strongly and rid himself of some of the toxic behaviour that's filtering in to his game. If there is no change after a week, then it's to the magoos for some discipline. Dropping him for this week wouldn't be the smartest idea.

Firstly, your ability to exaggerate what I said about Garland is amazing. 'Lay much of the blame solely at his feet'? 'Get past Garland and blaming him for all our frailties and all our problems'? Are you ill? I'll try and put it plain and simply. Garland is nothing but a present example of the NQR MFC player. I called Frawley out for the same habits and game-day behaviours during his last years at our club and wanted him gone. Howe was in the same boat. Senior figures who are consistently having minimal if any impact on game-day. It has been a problem for years at this club. Do you comprehend? Do you understand the significance that that very fact has had on our club? Whether it's their fault or not, I do not care. You miss the point every time. As a supporter and member of the club, I am entitled to point the finger at any senior figure if I do not feel they're contributing in positive change for our club. All you bang on about time after time is silly isolated incidents that are completely irrelevant from the point I am making. I am challenging a senior leader at our club to give more than a [censored] 'spoil' or 'tackle' on game-day. Look at the entire package Wiseblood. As a modern day backman who is playing in a 2 or 3 man rotational setup, do you really think his job is to only negate his opponent? What age are you living in? Why does McDonald as a KP player offer more? Why does Jetta, one of the most effective lock-down small defenders going around offer more? Why does Lumumba, (regardless of his odd turnover) offer more? All these players make mistakes. But they also OFFER positive and attacking elements to our team. They're consistently bringing effort, spark and willingness to take the game on. Passion, strong body language and an edge. Garland is running around like a shot Gazelle. I saw exactly the same in Frawley, Howe, Sylvia, Jamar etc. It becomes problematic when they're consistently bringing donuts on game-day. Do you understand?

Agree, the sooner he plays there the better.

Yeh mate it's not as plain as that. We've had to rebuild the club from top to bottom the correct way and clearly they opted to target the midfield as the first point of call. But in doing that, we've mismanaged other problem areas. Our backline being one. We need more run and skill there. It's the way the game is going and Roos needs to be held accountable just like anyone. He is not 'God'. He's done a great job in steering the ship, but there are still problems with our list. No matter how well they train....