titan_uranus

I really don't want to think about the Richmond supporters talking themselves up, but how good is it to see the smugness wiped off the faces of Hodge, Mitchell, Burgoyne, Lewis and co.? Proof that sustained pressure for the whole game can keep you in any game against anyone. I hope some of our players learn from this. Edit: also relevant to note Richmond didn't really have anyone stand out too much, but had a really even contribution from all 22. No real passengers.

Three quarters of pressure. Not just five minutes here or there. Whatever happens, Richmond is setting the bar for how to play against sides better than you.

That first quarter was the worst I've seen Hawthorn play in years. They made some shocking skill errors, a stack of turnovers, fumbles, and bad decisions. Almost all of it was brought about by Richmond's pressure. Huge tackling presence, numbers at every contest - their forwards pushed up the ground but they worked hard to run back as needed - and high intensity. Lots of lessons to learn, not just for playing Hawthorn.

Classic Australian batting woes. Moving ball and pressure of needing to bat a long innings and we crumble, again. Voges has to be dropped. Clarke can't be dropped but we're playing one short at the moment with him at 4, we need someone stronger at 5. Mitch Marsh is a good player and I like him in the side but he has to be a better batsman to hold his spot at 6. Inexcusable from Smith to do that after failing in the first innings. We should already lead by 100 though, failing to knock the tail over was partly unlucky (lots of misses from Moeen) but partly we let them off. Starc's bowling in particular was putrid. Agree with both. Voges is hopeless and Marsh is in form. That change has to be made. Starc is dangerous when he gets it right but he isn't getting it right enough.

One of our biggest problems is that we don't play like a team. There's little cohesion. I'm guessing Roos is trying to keep the side playing together, learning from one another and learning how to take what they learn at training onto match day. Having said that, we cannot continue to tolerate senior players not performing, and I'd like to see one of them dropped if we keep playing like the last three weeks have shown.

I agree with this. Drawing the conclusion that he doesn't care on the basis of his outward appearances is ridiculous - nothing in that regard is different to how he was at Sydney. At Sydney he didn't get emotional often, he was calm, he deflected questions, he avoided tough questions. That's just wrong IMO. Plenty of players are drafted into AFL clubs because they display athletic qualities and their football skills are secondary. Fitzpatrick, Spencer, Bail and M Jones are all players who were drafted primarily because of their work ethic, fitness, mobility, tank, and that's just Melbourne. Every club has done it over the years. Agree with this too. As always on Demonland, things are either black or white, people cannot see in between. Just as it's simplistic to blame everything on Roos and suggest he's the entire source of the problem, it's also simplistic to think the entire blame is on the players and Roos is completely infallible. The truth must surely lie in between. Roos isn't coaching well on match day, and he's also failing to develop the players into a team that can play the gameplan consistently. Whether it's because the gameplan is a bad one or whether it's actually a good one but he can't get the players to play it consistently, I'm not sure. I tend to believe the gameplan is fine and the issue is that the players and coaches have not taken us to the point where we can execute it satisfactorily every week. I think the way we performed against GC, Richmond, WB, Geelong, as well as against Collingwood, the first half against GWS and Port, suggests to me that the plan, when it works, displays high quality football from which we are capable of scoring well, and developing strong leads (26 points up against Adelaide in 20 minutes, 33 points up on GWS in a half, 24 points up on Port in under a half, piling on 5 goals in about 10 minutes, twice, against Collingwood). We can score 100+ points while smashing sides in the CPs and clearances (the Richmond and WB games showed that). The problem, IMO, is that the players aren't capable of doing it for four quarters weekly, and the resultant lapses are appallingly bad. That's the players' fault and the coaches' fault together, not just one or the other.

So much of it is running. We just don't run hard enough. Forwards don't run hard enough to lead, they don't push back hard enough on turnovers. Midfielders don't work hard enough to get from one end of the ground to the other. Defenders don't run hard enough when we're bringing the ball out of the backline. There are a few other key issues (leaders don't lead, freezing under pressure), but running has been a problem for years, and remains a problem.

So you want players dropped, but you don't want the Casey players in? Unfortunately, the AFL players are struggling and the VFL players aren't terribly exciting prospects. Someone has to play.

I expected two things. I expected our best to improve on last year's. We've done that. I also expected the gap between our best and worse to narrow (in other words, I expected our worst to be at a better level than it was last year). This we haven't done. Our worst is the same it was last year. We drop off for too long, we don't play as a team, our senior players don't step up, we fumble, we overpossess - nothing's changed when we're at our worst.

The Dogs have had much better senior players than us over the last few years (Murphy, Boyd, Morris, Cooney, Griffin, Gia, Minson) and a much better development coach than us (McCartney). All Beveridge has had to do is switch the gameplan and a few positions and the talent was all there, all McCartney's doing. Hopefully in time he'll work on our list the same way he worked on theirs. I'm sure you said the same thing before our last game, with them coming off a win in Sydney and a competitive game against Fremantle and us coming off a 100 point loss to Hawthorn.

Switching the kinds and lesser lights around might help with fitness-related issues (e.g. dropping ANB last week), but otherwise is not going to change things. Dropping senior players who are underperforming (e.g. Dawes, Lumumba, Garland, Dunn) would be useful, but we're not going to drop them all, so the conclusion is that they simply have to perform better on the weekend. We have to demand more from these players.

Dawes, Garland, Dunn, Lumumba, Vince, Cross, Jones, Grimes, Watts, Howe, Jetta, Garlett. These are our leaders. How many of them played well today? How many of them have had good years? In 2015 I'd say only four (Vince, Cross, Jones, Garlett) have had good years. Roos is operating below par, but this club cannot rise no matter who the coach is when these are our leaders and they continue to perform appallingly on a consistent basis. Edit: forgot Garlett.

You're clearly an intelligent person who thinks things through and enjoys debating issues, but your hypocrisy can be so infuriating. You say I 'don't seem to like a strong contrary view' - that's the exact problem you have when someone says 'I'm of the view the game will sort itself out'. That's 'diametrically' opposite to your view - that's fine, but don't go telling me I'm stubborn just because I'm at the other end of the spectrum to you. My reference to your suggestion of reducing numbers on the field was exactly that - whether you think it's a last resort or otherwise, you see the game as being in such dire straits that this is a potential option for you to consider. I don't agree with it and I find the concept of lowering field numbers OTT. Then you make it sound like, because I don't agree with you, I must think the state of the game is fine and I have to find a way to 'win you back'. Well, you had a go at me for not reading your posts, so why don't you read mine again - I agree with you that the state of the game currently is not good, and that change needs to occur. I also agree with you that some AFL-led intervention is warranted. In my case, I believe reducing interchange rotations will be sufficient without the need for the other rule changes you have in mind. I think, if rotations are reduced, it will force the hands of coaches and clubs to leave forwards forward and to stop pushing numbers to every stoppage. For clubs who are blessed with tall forwards who can move around (Daniher, Boyd, Hogan etc.), I think we'll see a movement towards those types of forwards staying deeper to goal and destroying opposition defences who leave them too much space. Reducing interchanges will keep the forwards on the ground, and will keep them forward of centre too. So, my view is that one change this off-season could well flow through to create the desired effect, without needing to re-write the entire rulebook (e.g. no need to increase minimum kick distance, no need to stop kicks backwards). Obviously the only way to know for sure will be to see what happens. But does my differing belief to you mean I don't have the sports best interests at heart? Or is that just another unnecessary insult? You're perfectly entitled to believe the game needs more intervention than simply interchange rotations - you may well be right. But don't belittle people who believe the game will evolve and right itself. It's hypocritical, and in my case wrong, given I agree that AFL intervention is warranted and will make things better.

So did we start Garland on Riewoldt and leave it for three quarters? Even on one leg, Garland was never going to be the right match up for Riewoldt. It might have been an attempt to keep the McDonald as a forward experiment going, but if ever there was a game to return TMac to CHB, it was this one. More bad gameday coaching.

Ugly and tight is how we beat Richmond and the Dogs, scoring well in both games. But we set the tempo in both games, we were harder, stronger, more committed. The last three weeks we've been meek and reactive. That's the difference.

8.5, not 10, and we were hopeless under any sort of pressure back then. Roos is trying, but struggling, to build this team into one that can win finals. Bailey didn't. Having said that, I'd kill for some instinctive attacking football.

Our best this year is better than our best was last year. Our worst, however, is still like it was last year - slow, meek, unskilled, lazy, lack of effort, no structure, just not a team. And that, IMO, is simply not good enough.

We haven't played a single good game against a side we considered equal or lesser than us before the game. We beat GC when no one realised how bad they were and, including us, thought they were a top 8 side. Simce then we've played poorly against St Kilda, Essendon, Brisbane, and now St Kilda again. IMO, speaks to cultural/mental issues as much as anything.

Extremely disappointing performance. There's no doubt we've risen to levels this year that exceed anything we did last year, but to continue to play games the way we've played this one (and the previous two as well) is an enormous negative for the players and coaches alike.

No doubt about that, but what I was thinking is more that our players (and those of other small clubs) might adjust to how a game is umpired through the game, but the next week it's different and they get caught doing things they thought were fine the last week.

Another example of how the AFL shafts weaker sides. Continually scheduled in low key games/timeslots which is where the lower quality/trainee umpires are put, to try to hide them from the majority of the AFL public. As a result, our games are routinely poorly umpired and there's a lack of consistency from week to week.

I thought that might be the case. From a cursory look at the stats, we're overpossessing, over handpassing, but being beaten in the three areas we win when we play well - CPs, clearances, tackles. That's very disappointing, given the opposition and venue, and given what we've been able to achieve this year.

For those of us who can't watch (for which it seems we should be thankful), is it a case of St Kila out-pressuring us? Or are the turnovers and poor skills unforced and just our own players' doing?

You've made some good points but you ruin it with denigrating posts like this. I've always been of the view that the game will evolve, and IMO if nothing was done by the AFL the game will still move away from stoppages in its own time. It's only a matter of time before teams with fit, tall marking forwards start playing them deeper and closer to goal, backing them in to use their height and the space provided. That will cause defensive sides to stop pushing numbers up the ground, otherwise they'll continue to get burnt in space by players like, for example, Tom Boyd, Jesse Hogan, Paddy McCartin, or Joe Daniher. IMO restricting interchange rotations will help push the game faster to this point, but I think it will happen anyway. I also think some of your points are far too heavy-handed, and are at times OTT (lowering the number of players on the ground) in pursuit of a goal that is easier to reach than you suggest.

Hawthorn have a stack of members who only exist because they are repeat reigning premiers. They aren't real Hawthorn fans, they're hardly AFL fans. That's why their crowds are so low - they don't have a large contingent of rusted-on, die hard supporters like Richmond and Collingwood do.