Wiseblood

Injuries will happen and, with all due respect to the players involved, I'm just relieved that it's not one of our key players. We won't avoid injuries during the year so if we can minimise their impact as best we can then we should be okay. It will be interesting to see who plays as the smaller type forwards next week against West Coast. Kent may be right by then, but it may give someone like a Johnstone, Trengove or ANB a look in for Round 1. Hopefully someone bobs up and takes their chance.

Dogs aren't close to full strength, missing quite a few such as the Bont, M. Boyd, Liberatore, Wallis, Roughead, Murphy, Dalhaus etc. Lions playing well but they aren't exactly playing a strong side.

And we know who they are... I'm happy to admit that I was skeptical of the inside info on Watts when Leoncelli36 put it forward - I didn't have a crack at him, just didn't want to jump the gun, but it's clear now that he has dropped the ball big time and is now paying the price for that. He would know what the expectations are, and to get stuck into Goodwin and the FD for enforcing the punishment is short sighted. I'm annoyed about the situation, but that annoyance is with Watts and not the club.

What I love is how most posters seemingly want to make out that it's entirely Goodwin and the FD's fault and none of it lies at the feet of Watts, as if he hasn't done a thing wrong and they've just decided to treat him poorly for the sake of it. Madness.

Or it's neither and they took the same approach as previous seasons to motivate him, which he has decided to ignore, and it took the knowledge that he wasn't going to be an automatic selection to wake him up from it. It's almost as if you want to take any blame away from Watts and lay the blame at the feet of the coaches. Why is a 25 year old bloke, who has been in the system for years, not giving 100% when they know what is required of them? Why do the coaches have to treat him like a kid who has just started primary school and needs their hand held through everything? It should be at the point where they can focus on so many other things outside of motivating him, but clearly he isn't mature enough to make those decisions. He is probably getting treated a little harsher than others might be as he should know better. I say should, as clearly he doesn't.

Jack also might be a victim of the sides good form in the first two JLT games, especially on the weekend. The side is playing some great footy, so why change it? And yes, I'll reiterate that Jack is best 22. But the depth of our list is putting the pressure on.

Even I can admit, as a Garland supporter in the past, that he is nothing more than a depth player for us now. However, he is still a very handy depth player to have with his experience. He can play on the talls and smalls and if, god forbid, a few of our key defenders went down with injury, he can come in a fill that void well.

True - however, how long had he not heeded the warning prior to improving the standards? Why weren't his standards better from the moment he returned to pre-season training? The club may be sending a message that putting in a few weeks of good training isn't enough to get himself back in the side. There may be much more to it than that. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Watts in the side than not, but this is down to him. But all of whom have trained to the standards set by the coaching group, something Watts clearly hasn't done often enough. Again, he is easily best 22, but whinging at the coaching group for this is naive. Jack needs to lift and train for more than just a few weeks at the acceptable standards the club expects of him to get himself back in the side.

But what if he gets picked, has a shocker and we still lose? It looks like he succumbed to the pressure and picked him when he shouldn't have. These things work both ways. If Watts earns his spot, then he plays. If not, then he doesn't. That's on Jack, not Goodwin. If Jack doesn't reach the clear standards that are given to him then it's Jack's fault and he is to blame. Simple.

I think John Watters should play in Round 1. There, I used a pseudonym so I didn't talk about him while still talking about him at the same time. That makes no sense but it's the best I can do going by the parameters of the above.

I remember being at this game and heading home with a very sour taste in my mouth. We were totally outplayed and we looked thoroughly inept for most of the day. It's hard to believe that it still got worse after this. Those days are well and truly in the past, though. Plenty of light at the end of the tunnel now, and this time it isn't a train headed our way,

"Welease Wojer!"

No - not because I don't think he can reach that level, but more that I think there are others ahead of him at the minute. Super depth player to have though and he may sneak a Round 1 spot if the likes of Kent and Garlett are not fit enough. That doesn't mean he is best 22, but he will get a chance early in the year I'd say.

Joe 'I only play well against Melbourne' Daniher just went a whole game with one handball to his name. Suns pipped them in the end but I don't think either side will be close to playing finals this year.

Form was not the issue. His commitment to training and the standards put in place are what has kept him out of the side. Nothing at all to do with form.

I'd say he's been picked because Goody is on record as saying we've tried to play close to our best side over the last few weeks. It's a fair indication that they rate him and is a strong chance to play Round 1. For the record, I don't necessarily think he is ready yet either, but I also think having him in the side allows Hogan to play up the ground and they want to get further game time into him.

Is there? I've thought, on the whole, it's been a pretty good discussion.

I'm not saying don't take the risks, just that he needs to choose the appropriate time to take them. It feels like he takes too many for a player in the back half. Yes, I'm sure the coaches want him to back himself as often as he can, but that doesn't mean he needs to take unnecessary, kamikaze kicks that result in a bad turnover and leaves us on the back foot.

Yes Macca, we get it - he is what he is. The problem is where he plays. I'm all for the risk taking, but your comparison to someone like Watts is not valid. They play different roles in different parts of the ground. If Watts turns the ball over it's in the front half, if Tom turns the ball over it's generally in the back half where the opposition can do the most damage. Again, it comes down to his decision making, and this rubbish of 'he is what he is' is short sighted. He can improve his decision making by taking the safest option when no other good option is available. If he needs to kick across the middle of the ground or pin point a pass that really isn't on then he should get into the mindset of ignoring that and going long. I'd rather the ball be turned over up field than across the ground where they have plenty of space. He can easily change this mindset and learn to choose the right time to take the risk. He is a terrific defender and he brings lots of excellent attributes to our side. He just needs to tighten up on the decision making as he plays in a part of the ground where mistakes are punished more often than others.

He's just a very clever footballer. A case in point was his little knock on in the first term that allowed Salem to kick a goal - it was only a small thing, but purely instinctive and showed that his footy IQ is very high. Alongside Petracca he has the biggest ceiling of the youngsters on the list, and if he keeps working hard to improve then the sky is the limit.

Wouldn't have thought Tommy Mac would drum up so much conversation after a 9 goal win, but here we are. Defensively, he's terrific. Get's led to the ball on occasion but is only rarely beaten in one on one situations, and he is deceptively quick off the mark as well. It's not often you see a bag of goals kicked on him. What it comes down to is his decision making. His kicking is not necessarily that bad, but he almost backs himself too much and at times says to himself 'I can pin point a pass to a teammate 40 metres away through 4 opposition players', when really he should just look for the outlet up the ground to a 50/50 contest. It's made to look worse than other turnovers as they are in the back half where the damage is far greater. If he learned to ignore the 'riskier' kicks, especially the ones where he looks to bring the ball in board and you can't help but look away in fear, then discussion around his disposal and 'clangers' wouldn't happen.

Olisik only posts when we lose, so I doubt he will answer. If he does then I'm sure he has moved on to criticising somebody else.

Freo are still complete poo. Are they missing many from their side tonight who are considered best 22?

First world problems.