titan_uranus

When St Kilda beat us it was all "the Saints have gone past us" and yet here we are, a month later, still a game clear of them (and that wasn't even a good month of football from us). Carlton's list is old, their core players are at or past their prime now (i.e. not when they are challenging for a premiership). They have some good kids (Cripps and Weitering being the two stand outs) but they don't have a large set of talented youth and they are playing this year around their older, A- and B+-grade leaders (Murphy, Gibbs, Simpson, Walker, Thomas, Kreuzer). They're exceeding expectations but that's mainly because those expectations were so low. Good on them, but is the future really plainly there (yet)?

Quickly? How much more revisionist can you get? Geelong's time started in 2007. Their core draft year was 2001. Hawthorn's time started in 2012. Their core draft year was 2004. They did not just shoot up the ladder because of one year of change. They worked on a plan over a period of years.

Says who? He's at least being named emergency right now (unlike Terlich, for example). Hunt and Wagner are not going to make it through the remaining 12 games, a chance will arise and if we can give Michie 3 games and ANB/Newton 2 games on what they've shown so far, we can find room for Grimes.

That was me. Their 5 losses also included losses to us, St Kilda and Port (9th, 13th and 14th come the end of the year). Of course, they went 9-3 from there on, but the point to remember is that young, inexperienced sides in their first year of a much-different gameplan are bound to make mistakes along the way. I didn't think it would take that long for the "Carlton have gone past us" brigade. They beat Geelong. Like we did last year (albeit we did it in Geelong). Their side was 3 months younger, on average, than the Cats', coming in at 25 yr 11m. Armfield stood out today: he's 29. Casboult is 26. Curnow is 26, Everett 27, Gibbs 27, Jamison 30, Murphy 29, Rowe 29, Simpson 32, Thomas 29, Tuohy 26, Walker 30, White 28, even Liam Jones is 25. This is something of a makeshift side which is vastly outperforming pre-season expectations but which does not, unlike the Dogs, Giants or us, feature a nucleus of young kids around which they are building a future. Calm down.

Whilst Kennedy undoubtedly had a bad game yesterday, I'm not sure I agree with those dropping him in front of Harmes and/or Kent. Kennedy's faster and works harder than both, even when he's having a bad day. Harmes and Kent seem to get golden runs from the coaches, not being dropped after poor games. I'd like to see them cop a reminder that you don't get to rest on the back of one performance for a month before you have to show up the next time. That would explain why I couldn't find a Casey match day thread... If you write every player off after they get dropped you'll be left with about 5 players. Grimes has displayed strong VFL form and we have too many underperforming players in the seniors.

Have you already forgotten what we were like in 2014? We went ultra-defensive in Roos' first year, it's unsurprising that it's the first thing Bolton has taken to.

You mean the same Bulldogs who were 5-5 after 10 games last year?

We need the money. Until we don't need the money, we will keep selling home games. The only query I have is whether we're financially in a position to reduce the two NT games down to one. I don't want us to sign ourselves up to another three years of two sold games if we are close to being in a position to scale it back. Would prefer to reduce it to one (Alice Springs).

Contrary to the OP, I think you're kidding yourself if you think that, after this game, all is lost. Disappointing for a whole variety of reasons, sure, but we are very young and very inexperienced which contribute to fluctuations in form. Doesn't mean the list isn't good enough, just means we have plenty of work to do, and who didn't already think or know that?

There are two big ways Port (and St Kilda) got "out the back": turnovers and clearances. We didn't put in enough effort at the clearances and they beat us on the spread, and we turned it over with low-level skills too often, mainly around half-forward, giving them easy counter-attack material. Get those things right and people won't be so worried about the zone.

To me at least, he is so clearly not ready for AFL football. He's not strong enough, he has no idea what to do with it offensively (the only player in today's 22 who didn't look comfortable transitioning into attack) and he just looks lost in zone defence right now. I'm not putting a line through him, I'm more than happy to give him time, but right now that time should be in the VFL not the AFL. He is just not good enough to hold a spot in the seniors right now.

Simplistic crap. The slowness comes from workrate, effort, hunger. It doesn't come from footspeed. You only need to look at the GC and Brisbane games to see that the same players who played today are fast when they want to be and, more importantly, when we're on we are a fast attacking side. Incredibly reactionary, and wrong.

6 - Gawn 5 - Jones 4 - Jetta 3 - Hogan 2 - Hunt 1 - Watts

In line to be dropped: Harmes, Kent, OMac, ANB, Newton, Kennedy (if injured), Tyson (if ill). Too hard to say who will come in until Casey plays but we need a second tall (Pedersen/Dawes), we need to replace OMac who is simply not ready for AFL football right now. Oliver comes back if he's fit, and maybe Grimes or Trengove get their chance.

We should have played a second ruck/third tall forward (Pedersen/Dawes), we should have rotated more running players, we should have dropped Harmes, we possibly shouldn't have picked Tyson and we possibly should have withdrawn Kennedy if he indeed hurt himself in the warm-up. Not good, FD, not good.

An unbelievably frustrating game. It looked so, so similar to the St Kilda loss. We looked flat early, we butchered the ball, we were beaten to it by a side who wanted it more (but who has no right to be classified as any better or stronger than we are on 2016 form) and we conceded too many goals out the back as a result. Far too many passengers today, starting yet again with the two principal problems - Kent and Harmes. When we win they look great but when we are down they are, without fail, absolute liabilities. Harmes should be dropped, that's three weeks in a row now that he has been poor (three of his four goals last week came in fourth-quarter junk time). Poor selection, poor goal kicking, poor leadership (Garland reverted to old-Garland at times) and a lack of hunger combined for a flat performance that rankles me as much as any other so far this year.

I like stability and I like rewarding winning teams by not dropping too many players but we're on a 6 day break travelling interstate with a bunch of kids. I thought we'd see more than two changes.

I don't find myself as worried about our team/zone defence as others appear to. Clearly there are games where we get beaten on the rebound more than others but IMO the main problem isn't the zone, it's the way the opposition team gets the ball in the first place - almost always from a turnover across half-forward. Even Brisbane on Sunday were able to get some easy inside 50s when we were on the attack but turned it over going inside our 50. Teams are going to find it harder to score against us when we stop turning it over as much as we do. I think the positioning and the set ups are pretty good, really, though I agree that at times both our last line in defence or our deepest forwards are pressing too high up the ground. But in a zone-style defence, I think the best thing for us is to continue to play the same core players together as much as we can. They'll learn and feed off each other, they'll know when someone pushes up where to cover behind them, etc.

Why Hunt? Provides important dash off half-back.

I understand there is a review by the video team of every score, no matter how obvious it is. Then, if they see something, they tell the umpires to wait. Still has to be conclusive evidence though. Not sure they had that for Petracca's.

Don't agree at all, actually. I thought he was one of our worst until he got those three last quarter goals. Turned it over across half forward with almost every kick he had. Didn't cost us too much given the opponent but will destroy us against better sides.

6 - Stretch 5 - Jones 4 - Hogan 3 - Garlett 2 - Oliver 1 - Garland Agree on Bugg. He's the kind of player I notice more when he turns it over than anything, and I can't help but notice he turns it over as much as probably anyone. But he's playing his role.

Jetta and Tyson come straight back. Michie's now had three games and hasn't really taken his chance in any of them, so I suspect he'll be out for Jetta. If Oliver doesn't come up from his corked thigh that might be the spot in the middle for Tyson. I'd be bringing Pedersen straight back as the second ruck/forward option too if he's ready. I don't want to drop ANB or Newton after one game each but they may be in the frame. I'd be looking at Harmes too, despite the four goals.

I also find it strange how Demonland will defend certain players to the hilt (OMac) whilst other players are hated so vehemently (Toumpas). Draft position must be the answer.

He's clearly not ready right now. The question is whether we want to develop him in the seniors. If Dunn's really that bad right now that OMac is the better option, then that says more about Dunn than OMac. I like the kid, he tries and he has the right traits, but he is lost in many aspects of the game. IMO should be developing in the VFL.