Wiseblood

I'd like to see any key defender perform well with the lack of defensive pressure we put on up the field. Oscar is fine and he isn't even close to being a problem for the club at present.

Can't argue that we had some workrate issues on the weekend. The Saints played out of their skin and we just didn't want to keep up with them. Their spread was good and we didn't want to work hard enough once they got the ball in their hands to ensure that we got it back as quickly as possible. I also think our set up around the stoppages needs some work as well. Too often we have all 3 players going for the ball which takes away that outlet handpass, or we get first hands on it, cough it up and they get the clearance. We need a little more balance in there and also around the ground.

It's quite amazing, bing. We've got everyone lamenting the fact we brought in an untried, first year player, only for this week to have more posters asking for... an untried, first year player.

The same thing happened last season. It took us until the off season to do anything about it, but now we're in the same position again. Have we learned anything from the previous 12 months? Selection will tell us plenty on Thursday night.

I'd normally agree Trav, but the bloke has been at Casey for a while now. It's not as if he was dropped 2 weeks ago and is being rushed back. He's been at Casey for at least two months now. True, his VFL form isn't great, but sometimes you need to make a change to improve the side and the structures, and Garlett may just be that person.

Most would have said this after the loss to Richmond earlier in the year. I get how most are feeling, but it only takes one win to turn things back to the right direction.

How many times have we said this, then we play them and it doesn't happen? Too many to count.

Goody rarely hangs players out to dry, if ever. While the gameplan needs work, the players also need to learn to do the tough stuff consistently, and that includes defensive efforts. Goody can have the best game plan in the world, but if the players don't have the fortitude to enforce it, then there is little he can do.

That's a fair question, buck. I don't really have an answer for it. What we need to look at is, if we decide to just go with Hogan and Tom up forward, who is the relief ruck for Gawn? We all know Tom has done it in the past, but do they want him doing it again? The reason we have tried all 3 of Pedersen, Weideman and Tim Smith is because they also give Maxy a chop out. But, if it's now not working, what's the solution? I'm not sure we have one just yet.

Only thing I want to add is that I think Keilty deserves a shot before we say he isn't the answer. He's a good size, moves well and has been in good form at Casey. He at least deserves an opportunity before we write him off. T Mac won't go to CHB. He's too important to our forward set up, although I acknowledge that something down there has to change in the coming weeks.

I agree with your first sentence but, again, we didn't seem too worried when most were asking for his inclusion this weekend. It's a tough gig to do but they believed he could do it. Our defensive pressure up the ground hurt our ability to support both Petty and Oscar in the contest as we didn't have time to settle. They just ran the ball down with ease and we could do little about it.

I actually thought he showed his disappointment with the effort this week. You could see it written all over his face. Apart from that, his job is to be measured outwardly in these situations. There is no point going off your nut and having the media breathing down your neck. It's better to do the hard stuff behind closed doors rather than in front of a microphone.

The modern game has seemingly passed him by. A decade ago he could have been a star. Now he is a few steps too slow, isn't a reliable kick and doesn't do a whole lot round the ball (tackles, defensive work). Could they turn him into a tagger? Could we give him that role instead of giving it to someone like Viney? Maybe the responsibility could help him find more consistency? Either way he needs to improve, otherwise he'll be out of a job.

All fair points, Jaded. I think the reason we went with Petty was because: 1. - He had been in pretty good form for most of the season. I think eyebrows would have been raised had he come in on the back of no form whatsoever (reminiscent of Isaac Weetra in Bailey's first season) but this has been building for a while. Those same people who turned on him in the 'worst selection' thread would have been the same ones suggesting his inclusion in the side in last weeks iteration of this thread. So it wasn't as if he didn't have form. 2. - It's easier to add a similar player to the side than to change the make up and strategy of the back line as a whole. The game plan we have was based around Jake Lever and the way he plays. Losing him meant we had two options, and we have gone down the road of trying to add players to our back half that will fill the hole left by Lever. Obviously the FD believed that Petty (and, to an extent, Joel Smith) were the players who could play the role designated for them better than Frost or Keilty. We know what we get with Frost and, for most of the year, he hasn't gotten a look in because he simply can't be trusted to do the basics right. Petty was played because his game if closest to that of Lever (in my opinion). Obviously it didn't work against the Saints, although the ease with which the Saints ran the ball forward made his job, and the job of all our backmen, supremely difficult. I'd like to think the club will back him in to improve and to build that confidence back again this week, but would totally understand if they let him do that at Casey and brought in someone like Frost or Keilty to replace him.

I was one of those advocating for two match day threads. It wasn't to silence anyone, but I find it cathartic to discuss the game as rationally as possible, rather than flying off the handle. Those that do so are welcome to do it and I understand why. I just don't like wading through the muck to get to that quality discussion. But, as you say, market economy rules and the ignore function comes in handy.

We were done with it... until Lever went down. He stays fit and Petty stays at Casey to develop.

I've heard he has had further problems with his foot and is a strong chance to retire by seasons end. I would have happily nabbed him otherwise.

This happens every time we have a loss. Someone claims to have the inside word on something 'dodgy' going down. It's rarely, if ever, true.

And in this very post, you've done the same thing you just complained against. Get over yourself.

He had a poor game, but clearly the FD believed that his development and form across the season was good enough for a senior debut. It's clear they also believe he could fill the role vacated by an injured Jake Lever better than the other players on our list. You can't predict these things. I saw plenty of times today where the players, including our leaders, got over to him to have a word, give him a pat on the back and do what they could to help him in every situation. You can't ask more than that. The selection backfired, but most here believed (go and look at the changes thread for this game and you'll see most almost pleading for his inclusion) he was ready to go.

After having pizza with my daughter for dinner, followed by the movie Moana (her choice, but a surprisingly enjoyable flick nonetheless) it gave me plenty of perspective. There is far more to life, and better things for that matter, than exploding on the internet over a loss. It's a frustrating game, but we still have chance upon chance to make amends, finals still well and truly in our frame. I'll back the team to respond and stick with that.

Hannan was very poor, has to go. Tyson did a little in the last but was unsighted prior to that, will get the flick. Reckon they'll give Petty another week, same for Weideman.

They do. Viney's last term was immense, and they shouldn't have had him tag Steven at the start of the game. The bloke is our bull at the stoppages, let him loose from the opening second.

Losing by 2 points like that makes it hurt even more. Good grief.

Also, I want to add this as well but won't edit my post: Tom McDonald should NOT have played and it was stubborn to do so. Even in our losses he has been our one shining light, yet he didn't even look like it today. We should have done the right thing and played someone else (Spargo, Stretch) and given him a week off. I don't often criticise the selections, but this one was a poor one.