grazman

I think it's a legitimate question, and as I said to a friend on Sunday, if Danners was still coaching we might not have lost by that much either, but at the end of the day it would still have meant nothing. I've heard a fair bit about Sheedy since then and I'm glad we didn't appoint him - He's got too many other interests now. I'm with Why You Little.... there were no excuses for our performance on Sunday and there's no hiding from just how bad we were and what we need to do to improve.

IMO -No. I think he'll be good, but to me he lacks confidence and is overweight. I think he's where Flash was 12 mths before he was drafted. He needs a good solid season in the VFL to feel like he belongs at the next level.

I hope Col spent a good hour looking at himself after that shizen yestereday and repeated to himself as a mantra "I will make amends!"

Dunn with four goals to half time (bet most of them were shots from outside fifty too) playing on the ball is music to my ears, even if it's only a VFL praccy game, it shows intent to continue to play him in a role we badly need. We need some bulk and speed through the middle - I'm probably getting carried away, but there are aspects to this boys game that are very, very exciting.

Absolutely. And his attitude isn't about not caring or not trying, it's as much about confidence and belief - but the end result is the same.

6 Moloney 5 McLean 4 Miller 3 Johnson 2 Jones 1 Buckley

I disagree. Apart from Yze I thought he was easily our worst. He didn't chase, didn't harass and generally didn't want to go near a contest. He has the attributes to make a very good footballer, but at the moment he needs to adjust himself mentally to the tempo of playing against men.

Weetra was there to play Davey's forward role.

No it's got to be four games or less for two consecutive years. We won five last year. If we only win three this year, then we are in line for the following year - much the same as the blues were.

Actually I doubt that's true. There's a fairly quantifiable gap in ability between the two, but Carroll's tactics are pretty standard for backmen, that or he and Buddy have had a prior disagreement in relation to their 'associates'.

I don't disagree with that at all Tigger. We got enough first hands on the ball, we had enough forward fifties to win a game etc. What the stats don't show is the hand pass that goes over the team mates head standing three feet away, the 25 meter pass that misses a team mate by 10 meters and goes directly to an opponent, the failure to break even the most limp wristed of tackles. The problem with Stats is people try to draw some line through them to come up with something significant. Twenty years ago the team with the most possessions won the game of football, now it just means they're playing keepings off until they eventually turn it over.

No we weren't - Contested ball was even, so were clearances. We were however, comprehensively thrashed in loose ball gets and contested marks. They ran harder, they ran faster and basically used the ball better than we did. Our skills were deplorable . No surprises there given that one member of the leadership group rather than pushing back off the mark chooses to try and spot up a team mate of one step and has the ball smothered and the Hawks clean up the spillage and kick the goal. If you want a useless stat, how about Travis Johnstone's 9 effective disposals out of 20 (incl 6 Clangers) for the Lions - still got named in the Lions best though - go figure.

Out: Weetra, Newton, Yze In: Rivers, Sylvia, Dunn.

Yep Byron gets my vote too. The fact that he actually played a senior AFL game in his situation last year was embarrassment enough. The most unfit footballer I've ever seen take the field.

My theory is that in an effort to pump up the tyres of their wagon Carlton have gone too early with Judd. I haven't seen the match, but I'd be interested to know Hards from yourself and others how he played. Others have stated he looked only 50% fit and at times looked to be in pain. Given DB's philosophy with players and injuries I doubt he would've played if he'd been with us. I am a complete sceptic when it comes to blokes playing on dodgy groins - either they're right or they're not. Playing through pain is one thing, but if it's on overuse injury like OP then according to all the current indications and trends he will simply continue to aggravate the problem to the point where he was last year, or potentially worse.

Doubt it... the club didn't seek and exemption for him to play.

Bate and Dunn are both 192 as is Morton. They are all capable of playing in the midfield and kicking goals from Beyond fifty, if we can develop the likes Newton or Garland as a KPP, then we are going to have a very handy attacking set up.

Only White, Carroll, Green and Bruce took more marks last year... Bate is a good mark. He's not Jonathon Brown, but for a kid that's still only 20 I think he goes alright.

I'd say that's more to do with our poor list management.

Which is pretty much how much Neita averaged for last year as well, but I digest... Bate's a good mark, if you want him to take 12 a game play across the HBF.

I do and I can understand why plenty of other Dees fans do as well. He chose Carlton over us... He chose the bad guys over the good guys. Financially it maybe the right thing to do... but Karma's a [censored]. We'll know by about rd 4 whether they chose the right surgery.

Thanks Zebraman It's always good to get a relatively impartial view. Personally I have no real problem with the alliance and I think it's been beneficial for both parties - particularly the likes of Warnock, Martin and Valenti that may never have made it onto an AFL list without that partnership. I think people are getting carried away with the development of players.... afterall the captain himself said he'd gladly step down from FF when someone better qualified came along. Newton didn't take over from Sautner, he hasn't taken over from Neita - there are still flaws in his game that need to be worked on. My feeling is that the lack of development in the past has had more to do with the lack of coaching resources than a lack of opportunities. If they were good enough Sandy would play them in that position.

You mean if he could mark like Matty Bate? I agree.

I'm not sure how many (if any) players with limited preseasons so my list looks a little different. Certainties: Bell, Carroll, Green, Robertson, Neitz, Davey, Moloney, McLean, Jones, McDonald, White, Probables: Wheatley, Buckley, Miller, Dunn, Petterd, PJ, Possibles: Bruce, Rivers, Newton, Batram, Frawley, Morton, Jamar, Meesen, Garland, Bode, Yze, Holland, CJ Of the possibles I'd have the first five to round out the 22. I wouldn't have Yze simply because his form and disposal in the pre-season has been ordinary. that leaves a side that looks like this: Bell, Carroll, Bartram Wheatley, Miller, Rivers Dunn, McDonald, Moloney Bruce, Newton, Robertson Davey, Neitz, Green White, McLean, Jones Petterd, Buckley, PJ, Frawley

As for Bruce playing next week - In previous years I'd say it would almost be a certainty. He is probably our best endurance runner... the only unknown is whether DB wont play blokes that haven't completed a certain amount of pre-season work. I have high hopes for Dunn. I was very impressed with his tagging jobs last year, he still found plenty of the ball himself and can roost a goal from outside fifty. He's a tank now and can play forward if needed. He adds a lot of versatility. I'd certainly have Wheatley in my starting 22 for Sunday. I'll be very interested to see if Riv and Bartman are included as DB was suggested a while ago it was looking about rd 3 for both.