grazman

and what if they don't get injured in the first five minutes? I'm not trying to be cute... but obviously the footy dept have weighed up the risks involved. We could play Martin or Spencer or Fitzpatrick, but the reality is none are really ready to compete at AFL level and the FD think our best chance of winning is to continue to set up the way we have... if Jamar gets injured then you have to improvise... as I said before Martin will give you more in the ruck than Dunn, but not enough to make a significant difference as compared to dropping a runner like Dunn or Bennell for him.

I don't think Martin could beat either Leuy or Clark, so It makes no sense to me to play a second ruckman that we know won't win or break even so to me it makes no difference wether Stef or Dunn contest the stoppages. We could play him up forward in lieu of Lynden but I don't think he offers the flexibility atm - I think he needs more time at Casey to learn his craft. Ditto Spencer whose aggression and attitude I like, but he's very much another long term ruck project.... ie he needs another 50 odd games at Casey before he'll even be considered ready.

We tried to play two ruckman in rd 1, and it failed. Spencer was exposed time and again when his man ran off him in defence. We've since played only Jamar with a pinch hitter. Freo are doing the same. West Coast are still persisting with two and North have three (albeit with one playing solely as a KPP) - but my point is this. At some stage you need to trade the cost of effectiveness in the ruck with flexibility around the ground (most ruckman don't give you that). It'll be interesting to see which way the winds continue to blow. This weekend we play two ruckman (though Clark gives them far more flexibilty than most). I think we'll only play Jamar and use the extra space on the bench for genuine run. I think the obvious alternative would be if the league changed the interchange rule to incorporate substitutes.

Sorry Kev, I knew I'd get it wrong

They need to lift their act. Every time Liam Pickering would discuss something they'd show the wrong passage of play and then eventually they'd show the right incident and they do it ad nauseum. Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather watch the ball in play rather than players walking around the boundary line, coming to the boundary line, players sitting on the bench or as Big Red pointed out last week balloons blowing across the ground.

I tend to lean the other way. I think Jamar enjoys rucking alone, in fact he seems to thrive on the responsibility. Letting him ruck 90% of the game means we can have one extra runner on the bench. I'm not sure they'll bring PJ in anyway after only one match at Casey. If we're going to beat Brisbane it'll have to start and finish in the midfield, the extra run will be required.

You'd think there was absolutely no case for Brent to answer - and that's without taking into consideration the bump on Col in the pre-season.

The media might want it, but the media want a lot of things that they will never accept responsibility for at the end of the day. They're completely reactionary. Every club has known about the introduction of the two new teams, and have known what that means in terms of drafting and recruiting. Some like myself, believe that clubs like us took a proactive approach to planning their destiny - ie we list managed our way to get the required draft picks when they were available - some like Richmond just let it happen to them. So to use a rather facetious analogy, you can go out drinking all night and spend all your money and try to navigate your way home in the dark and end up having the living the bejesus kicked out of you and then complain about lawless streets or you can save the last $20 for a taxi or arrange for a friend to pick you up. Rarely is there any reward for people (or football clubs) who fail to plan.

Tom Hislop

That's very contentious, I know plenty of Rugby fans who would argue the contrary. When you have sides missing the finals that have won more games than sides that make the finals (which happens), then it makes a complete mockery of the system. Not a fan at all. I think the current system works best.

Because you're only looking at one side of the equation. We wouldn't have been trading Brock for Ball. If he'd nominated only for the PSD we would have taken him for his leadership qualities alone. We got a good deal for McLean, but this wasn't initiated by the club it was Brock's decision - we were never going to use pick 11 to take Ball. Having said all that Ball made it clear he didn't want to come to Melbourne and that was the start and finish of negotiations. I didn't see it, but there were reports that quite a few Melbourne players were giving it to him in spades which is a very good sign.

Depends on the interpretation of protected area.... if a Melbourne player had followed Harry O and stood as second marker would the umpire have cleared the area? I bet they would have. Also how do you shepherd a bloke when standing behind him without actually grabbing him and giving away the free - you can't actually make contact with the man on the mark until "play on' is called. This appears to be a new tactic as the same thing was done by a Hawthorn player the previous week. The most logical response is that the umpires should interpret the 'protected area to include the mark and keep every player at least five meters away.

Richmond too perhaps.

It was an excellent match up. Medhurst is an excellent mark for his size and really needs a tall to run with him- other sides will need to make a similar adjustment with Ricky Petterd and Col Sylvia - smalls won't have the reach to stop them over head. That match up and Grimes on Didak went a significant way to curtailing their scoring opportunities. I think Warnock and Bruce were tag teaming on Cloke and Anthony. The match ups were pretty good I thought. Bate didn't get a lot of the ball, but he was a lot better than many of the Bater Haters out there are saying. I doubt that either he or Bruce will be dropped.

Gee there's some hard markers. I'm pretty bloody pleased with this week compared to last. I didn't in my wildest dreams think we'd be in with a chance to win down to the wire. I think the players will feel they should have won, I think that will be enough for them to start off next week the way they finished yesterday.

Because he's 19 years old and learning to play key position. See Luke Ball for lessons in "how not to completely stuff a player's body up" The issue isn't in managing Jack or Colin, it's in managing your expectations about when they'll be ready.

Watching the game here in Canberra, the only time I noticed Luke Ball was when he was kicking. You could see the option that he wanted to kick to, but time and again his kicking lacked penetration and fell significantly short and ended up in the hands of one of our players. He can't kick more than 30 meters. His body is stuffed I reckon, but Collingwood obviously know better because they were saying how fit he was in the preseason. On the other hand I thought Joel Mac was 200% better than his first game last week and was instrumental in leading the way down back - some of his marks in particular should be used as an instructional tool.

And I'm right there with you brother!

I agree Rhino, however I think there's another premiership coach out there whose contract will expire at the same time whose already expressed a wish to move East. Mark Williams is certainly an odd fish, but his record (including a premiership) speaks for itself.

If Bailey were to be replaced at the end of his contract then the most logical option is to get an established premiership coach someone like a Malthouse or a Mark Williams.

Nathan Burke however did think that Bailey should be the man for the job...

So the logical question here is: what does the passionate supporter/ex-player know about modern day coaching? Answer: Not much - less if they're not intimately involved in the mechanics of coaching a real side (sorry but coaching a kid's side isn't anywhere close). And that's the trouble in the modern age...too many people watching and thinking that its as simple as A, B and C. (usually yelling and screaming/threatening player and droppping them to the twos) and then expressing it on a public forum... a few years ago a few committeemen thought they knew more than Norm Smith... I beg to differ.

Jack I agree, unfortunately in modern footy the ability to "send a message" is dictated by the players available (ie not injured or too undeveloped to play) I also think that at least for one week we need to remember that a few of those blokes were a little underdone.

I must be losing touch with reality.... a man selected to play for his country, leaves to go home - not because his nearest and dearest is on death's door, but is just emotionally overwrought. Hmmm. Maybe I'm lacking in sentimentality but when you lie down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas. I miss the old days when we didn't know who the wives and girlfriends of the players were because they didn't matter

Hawthorn definately unavailable: Franklin (suspended) Bateman (suspended) Bailey (knee) Taylor (leg) Sewell (collarbone) Young (knee) Burgoyne (hamstring) Probably unavailable Rioli Osborne Limited Preseason and possibly injured Lewis Dowler Ellis Melbourne definately unavailable PJ (foot) Jurrah (shoulder) Bell (shoulder) Morton (knee) Tapscott (hip) Gawn (knee) Meesen (foot) Probably Unavailable Jetta Limited Preseason and possibly unavailable (dependant on whether they play this weekend and next) Bruce Garland Watts Blease