Dante

Good on him, it was better for him and us that he moved on. He had a couple of good games with us followed by some really ordinary games, so we did the right thing in delisting him.

Well I doubt that that would be Prestia or Mitchell.

As I said before, why does everyone want to trade Salem, he was good yesterday in his first game back, with little preparation and will be a very good player for us. It never ceases to amaze when we are asking to trade a really good player for one who may not be as good let alone better. We don't need some reasonable ball getters we need a game breaker, a player who can pull us over the line, a Dangerfield or similar, we don't need a Mitchell or Prestia, they are ok but not what we need. If we pick one of them up along the way, ok. but that's not what we need. We've got a good base but need a top line player to seal the deal. Who knows, Hogan may become our Roo and turn games for us, he may become the player that can save a game and win a game, if Jack Watts had a bit more presence he may very well have been that player. Ball gatherers like Prestia are ok but will they stand up in a final, will his body stand up for a few seasons without breaking down. Will Tracc be our Pavlich or Dangerfield, will he break away from the pack time after time and slot the ball on to Hogan/Weeds chest, only time will tell.

The point is, if you have a team that's about to hit the wall, you change things. We had players at Casey who were capable of playing down at Geelong yesterday, like Trenners and Grimes and Pedo and Spence and Kennedy and Michie and ANB. If we were really trying to have a dip yesterday we would have made changes and rested some of the players that have looked cooked for a few weeks. Weed was a waste of time out there yesterday, as was Hogan and Jones and Viney needed a rest. We have had many opportunities to rest younger players but we have continued to play them.

It wasn't the younger players that hit the wall it was the more senior payers, Brayshaw was close to our best, Hunt played well, Stretch played an acceptable game, Oscar was ok in the backline, Salem was good, Tracc was ok, but Jones and Viney were terrible. Tyson played one of the worst games he's played for the club, his disposal was dreadful, Bernie was forgettable, Garlett was lucky he got two goals, Matt Jones, Jetta and Watts were ordinary. We went in short when we should have gone in big and that's why I asked the question, did we go in to win?

What was the purpose of yesterday's game, was it to win or was it to continue with the blooding of young players? I doubt the side picked yesterday was expected to win but I also doubt the club would have imagined that they would have been so comprehensively beaten.

We need a player like Fyfe and Roos almost said as much when he said we need someone to take the game on and turn it round for us, or words like that. We got destroyed yesterday by Dangerfield and then Selwood, we had no answer to their dominance and Danger treated our tackles with contempt. Maybe Tracc will be our Dangerfield and Viney will be our Selwood, I'm not convinced about that.

What's a list clogger? Is it a player that might get 10 or so games a year, or is it someone that doesn't play as well as you think they should? It always amazes me that this term is thrown around without any thought as to what the player adds to the overall team.

I was impressed by Brayshaw today, he put in all day and he will be a very good player for us. His mate Tracc will also be a top player, he's almost there, he just needs to steady a bit and he will be a gem, he just gets a bit ahead of himself at times and goes a bit early. Hunt, Oliver, Oscar, Weed, Hogan, Stretch, there is a fair bit to get excited about but we need a top line mid or two to be able to mix it with the big boys.

Tagging a quality player like Dangerfield is all part of his education, he'll learn a lot from that.

Salem was so creative today, it's a pity some of his teammates weren't able to take advantage of his clean possession. And to think he's the first one some of the posters on here want to trade, there are a few I'd put in front of him. Judging by the fact we haven't heard from picket on here, unless I've missed it, he must have been happy with today's effort, otherwise he would have indicated that maybe keeping Trenners isn't such a bad idea, unless he didn't think any of the players today needed replacing.

We were totally outclassed by Geelong today and they had two of the players we desperately need one of, Dangerfield and Selwood. I'm not sure why we went in with only one ruck and didn't play Spence, he brings a different perspective to the centre bounces. We still wouldn't have won but it may have given the Max a bit of a break. We are totally lacking in blue ribbon in the middle and are purely blue collar, Viney and Nathan are shot, I'm sure they will welcome the break, even when they did get the ball today their disposal was appalling, as was Tyson's. Make no mistake, Geelong are a very slick unit that grows another leg when the play down there. Having said that, we were woeful today.

We are terrible, we need pace and class in the midfield, we don't have that only blue collar mids.

Just heard on 3AW that David Swallow may be on the move, or at least looking around. Could be worth a look.

Unfortunately this thread, about one of the most popular players at the club, has been derailed by a poster who has some sort of obsession about player speed, I wonder what his view was on Tyson last year when he was playing injured and seemed to have lost his speed. If Trenners can find his form, the form he had as a younger player, he will be an absolute bonus for us, he is a known quality and is certainly a better option than some 18 year old kid in the draft. We have a few players that are in and out of the side, Kennedy, Pederson, Harmes, Wagner, Bugg and Choo Choo, then we have players like JKH and ABN who are going to get a game from time to time but not necessarily going to be fixtures, Trenners now fits in to this category until he proves he is worth a permanent spot or is asked to find another home. Maybe picket feels we should get rid of all the players that don't have a permanent spot, except Oscar, he has a spot but picket reckons he's a dud as well.

The mids are rotated through the bench and it's not uncommon to have two of Viney, Jones and Tyson on the bench at one time. The same applies to the forwards, they are rotated off the bench, if a player dropped out before the game on the weekend, one of the emergencies would come in. If it is a player in a position that Jack can play in, it would be him. I'm not sure why some on here are asking who he would replace, it's a question that has no direct answer, it depends on circumstances.

In the modern game no one takes anyone's place, there are players rotated through different positions and there are players that are injured or lose form, based on your premise we should pick our best 22 in the first game and tell everyone else to take the rest of the year off. Absolutely stoked that he has been retained, it's now up to him as to how long that's for.

You spent several years pushing the case for one of the most useless forwards we have ever had on our list, Juice Newton. That says it all about your credibility.

Richmond haven't won a flag since 1980 and still crack 70k membership. We will always be well below the others unless we start winning flags and even then it takes a long time before the supporter base catches up. You must have sustained success and you need players that the kids look up to, players like Max and Hogan, recognisable players that the kids want to be like.

What Melbourne need is a match winner, someone that can turn a game, is Mitchell that player, I don't think so.

Maybe they just underestimate him.

Why do we always throw up Salem as a trade, it never ceases to amaze me.

Well neither player got a game in the last so I'm not sure what you can make of that, does it mean that their cards are marked as no longer required, or does it mean that they will be re contracted and a game now is irrelevant. I'd hope that they both stick around, I know that the general consensus is, one can't kick and one is too slow, but they are much better prospects than Terlich and they gave him 2 years last time. Trenners is a very popular player round the club and among the supporters so if he is given another contract, it will be welcomed by most, not all of course but by most. Grimes is also pretty popular but hasn't had to go through the hardship that Trenners has, so they may not require him, pity his decision making is such an issue, he does make a few mistakes but which player doesn't. if one or both go I'd like to wish him/both well and hope he/they do well wherever they are.

Yes they did, but I would imagine that Trenners is fitter now than he was then, remembering he didn't have a full pre season. I would hope they would give him a run to see how he has improved over the year. Also some of the younger players are running on empty, Clarry has coped two heavy knocks over the las few games and I reckon he's in need of a spell. Gus is looking pretty tired and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a rest as well. I'm not sure why we have this big rush for pushing the kids along, there is room for some of the senior players as well and I reckon we've given some of the younger players too many games, I thought we learnt from last year when we didn't give Gus enough rest.

I don't think that would be the plan, more that they would get to gauge his performance and his capacity to still play at this level, that would assist them on the sort of contract to offer him for the next 1 to 2 years. No game is meaningless, we need to develop a winning culture and a game like this where the opposition has a lot to lose will be a guide to where we are at.