titan_uranus

Plus you are allowed to upgrade another one at the halfway mark of the season. We must surely have room for Harmes if we want to play him.

Agree. The rule is that if you have had prior, then when you are tackled you have to immediately get rid of it (legally). At the moment players who have prior are being treated a little too similarly to players without prior, in the sense that umpires are giving them chances to get rid of it.

I'm a Toumpas fan and will back him in, but not using the DE stat - meaningless. Over the last month he has worked on his decision making but it seems last night there were a few blunders. I don't see the benefit in dropping him though, we can't be turfing players who have been on an upward trajectory after one backward step. Best 22 on form, but I wonder whether fitness wise they can see the year out (or at least see it out until Salem et al start returning).

Right, well, Harris has retired. What a pity. Loved his bowling and a staple of our recent wins has been Harris' ability to swing the ball early and often and create huge problems for opposition batsmen. Clearly now we start with Johnson, Hazlewood and Starc, and Siddle may well make a surprising appearance this tour. Cummins brought in to replace Harris, so there is depth in our reserves at least.

I thought last week may have been a change of mindset for Howe. It might not have been the best 0-disposal half, but his workrate off the ball was where it needed to be. Of course, I was wrong, and that was not the standard Howe wants to set himself. His apathy and unwillingness to put in the required effort embarrasses me.

Were there more WC supporters there tonight than Melbourne? If so, surely the club should end the NT experiment after the current deal is up. We're not generating membership or support up there, we're not winning, and it has a physical toll on the players. The money is useful but reduce it to the Alice Springs game only if need be, get an MCG game back, and focus on winning.

I can tell you why Riley didn't play - he's freaking awful.

We have to reduce the number of talls, especially given we've got Essendon who don't have one ruckman, let alone two. I'd say in that regard Spencer is on the chopping block. Other than that, Bail, M Jones and Howe need to be looked at, Brayshaw might not get up, and I'm not sure how ANB and Stretch will pull up after the Darwin game. Casey played well today so hopefully there are some players to choose from. I'm not sure whether Michie and Newton have done enough at Casey to get recalled - they have been sent down there for a reason I assume, and I don't know whether they have fixed whatever they've been asked to fix. Who else is there? Harmes? Will Lumumba be fit?

I started a thread two years ago looking at the results of the post-Darwin games: demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/34589-the-darwin-effect/ Adding in last year, it now reads: 2014 - 66 point loss to Geelong. 32 scoring shots to 11. Disposals: 374-295. Inside 50s: 57-30. 2013 - 122 point loss to North Melbourne. 40 scoring shots to 8. Disposals: 439-290. Inside 50s: 66-30 2012 - 54 point loss to North Melbourne. 32 scoring shots to 18. Disposals: 429-337. Inside 50s: 62-37. 2011 - 54 point loss to Hawthorn. 32 scoring shots to 18. Disposals: 409-298. Inside 50s: 59-39. 2010 - 54 point loss to Geelong. 31 scoring shots to 17. Disposals: 434-328. Inside 50s: 57-37. Now, we've clearly run into very strong opponents most years post-bye - Geelong in 2010 made the GF, Hawthorn in 2011 made the prelims, Geelong in 2014 finished top 4. And though we had North in 2012-13 who were middle of the road, they were the Neeld years where we were as bad as can be. This year's opponent, Essendon, is much much worse than these opponents. Nonetheless, that's 5 years in a row where we've been annihilated the week after, not being able to even get our hands on the ball most years. I'd be astounded if it didn't have an effect, but this year will show us what it really does - we're not playing Hawthorn or Collingwood, we've got a fellow bottom 6 side.

I'm not against dropping Howe but we're not going to be going in even taller next week, especially given our opponent is Essendon (they don't really have a ruckman).

I haven't seen much of the game but we were nearly level on clearances (37-40), CPs (116-121) and the inside 50s weren't the disaster they often are in blow outs (45-53). It would appear to me, then, that West Coast were simply a lot cleaner with the ball going forward (34 scoring shots from 53 inside 50s (which is a score from 65% of each entry) compared to 15 from our 45 (which is 33%)). This is easily explained, really: we went in too tall, exacerbated by losing Brayshaw and therefore not being able to sub someone out, and we are carrying too many substandard players (masked by the Geelong win but exposed by a better side in West Coast) which meant we turned it over too much and couldn't get clean ball inside 50.

Classic Demonland, really. Overly pessimistic when we lose, but overly optimistic when we win.

I just tuned in briefly to see that mark to Kennedy. Dunn's attempt to cover him was insipid. Not just dumb - selfish. Too often when the going gets tough our players resort to fending for themselves. We're not tackling well tonight so off they all go trying to get a tackle. Not playing team football. At some point we have to rid ourselves of this individualistic, selfish football and stick to playing as a team. We win as a team, we lose as a team. I can't stand it when we are overrun because our players stop doing the team things and start doing what they think they need to do themselves.

This thread reads like we're 60 points down, and although we're more than capable of losing this match by that amount, it is only 24 points, which is the sum of what they've scored from goals from free kicks. Disappointing that we haven't managed to get 22 players putting in like we did vs Geelong and the unfortunate reality of the 22 on the park is that if they're not at their best, it's not pretty.

That last goal to Edwards came as a result of Miles being given far too long in the tackle to get rid of the ball - should have been holding the ball on the GWS half-forward line. The rain should have suited Richmond, not GWS, and GWS has some really key players out injured (is Richmond missing anyone?). I should be surprised that Richmond didn't blow them apart, but then again it is Richmond.

I'm not sure why but I'm nowhere near as concerned with Naitanui as I am with other parts of West Coast's side. Their dynamic forward line is a huge threat, as is their midfield (Gaff, Shuey, Priddis, Selwood, Masten). Those are the two areas we have to focus on, way more than Naitanui IMO. I know deep down we are capable of winning this but as with the Geelong game I also know that if we don't put in the right effort and have 22 performers we're not going to win. I'm so excited to watch it play out though.

Agreed. The other thing he's improved is his willingness to take the game on - last year he resorted too frequently to backwards and sideways kicks and handpasses. This year he's grabbed the ball and run forwards off half-back a lot more. Really impressed with that aspect of his game too.

Happy enough with the changes. We get back two good players, we lose Lumumba which is disappointing as he appeared to finally be finding some form, but Garland can help cover his role, and we drop the least important player from the Geelong game.

A bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

It's got nothing to do with what Edwards did or didn't do. It's about Franklin and what he did. He could have decided to go for the ball, but he made the clear, conscious decision to bump instead. When you have that choice, and you choose to bump, fine, but if you hit the player in the head then you deserve to be suspended for weeks because you elected to do something which carries a high risk of causing serious head injury. He doesn't get the right to knock players out because, if he picks the ball up instead, he might get tackled. He chose to bump, he hit him in the head (that outcome should have been obvious to him at the time). The fact Edwards didn't get knocked out, or worse, is a blessing, but not a reason to give him just 1 week instead of 4.

Nice words about Spencer and Toumpas there. Interesting with Tyson, noting 'his commitment now to defence is really good' (i.e. his commitment before to defence was not).

They've only played three current top 8 teams from what I can see (WB, Fremantle, Richmond), and lost two of them. Jury still has to be out on them in those circumstances.

So if you're tall, you're allowed to size a player up in a conscious decision to bump (i.e. elect not to go for the loose ball that is right there next to you) and if you hit them in the head, we just say 'oh well, he's taller, it was 'unavoidable''? If anything, the inherent height difference should have sounded a warning bell to Franklin to realise 'hey, I might get this bloke high' and instead, maybe he could have tried picking the ball up.

Is it possible that Howe played a good game against Geelong (not just played his role, but actually played a good game) and simultaneously Roos is trying to 'up his value'? Yes, of course, and I suspect that may well be what is happening.

How has Ablett going to the Gold Coast made them 'much further away'?