titan_uranus

Glass houses, etc., but I'll post anyway: One rushed behind in the second quarter (compared to 6.4). This is against Geelong, too. We're not talking Hawthorn or Sydney here. Geelong's 4-5 and below Essendon on the ladder (not for much longer it seems though). Hopefully we win, but if we don't, at least the focus should be off us.

Great post. This is a good observation. Not from a Watts perspective, just in general. It's still far too frequent the number of times we will take a mark/free kick on half-back/wing and the player with the ball will take an eternity to get rid of it, because there is nothing presenting up the ground. That's when you get the player with the ball asking the forwards to come at him (because they're not leading into the space or they're too deep) or you get the backwards/sideways kick. I think you've identified the main issues - I think fear of separating from opponents is a big one (they don't want to be the one whose opponent kicks a goal on the turnover they see as inevitable). I think fitness is also an issue (the step up from training/VFL intensity to AFL intensity is huge and I get the feeling the players around the edges of the 22 just aren't prepared for how hard you have to continually work in the seniors to continually make space). I also think we struggle against certain defensive opponents - when our opponent stops us from playing exactly how we want to (and do, at training), we don't adapt well. We panic, we don't think our way through, and we lose confidence.

Great to hear Tyson, ANB and Michie all did well. Pressure should remain on the seniors this week with midfield spots clearly not safe without proper four quarter performances.

If the decision is to move Howe back and as a result Grimes has been 'squeezed out', that's a bad call IMO. Grimes has been showing improvement, taking the game on instead of instinctively looking backwards or sideways, and his kicking has improved. That's additional to his consistently proper effort levels. Howe has hardly looked like he's cared for the past month. So if we're dropping Grimes to find a spot for Howe, I don't agree with that.

Demonland of 2015 really has got this new fascination - other teams 'going past us'. The Dogs 'went past us' when they beat Sydney. Then we beat them. St Kilda 'went pas us' when they beat the Dogs. Never mind they lost to Carlton. Carlton made finals 2009-2011 and 2013. Must have 'gone past us' through those years, right? Brisbane beat Port a fortnight ago, I guess they 'went past us', whilst Gold Coast nearly made the eight last year, did they 'go past us' last year? I'm happy to focus on the problems in our backyard, and there are plenty, but ironically one of those problems is our pessimistic, over-the-top focus on losing (players and supporters both guilty). Let's stop the weekly 'X has gone past us, woe is us, we're all doomed, we're all [censored]' and focus on improving our performances (which, despite what some want to say to make things sound more dire, is impacted by our fixture to date).

I quite agree. And we talk about their win over North being something remarkable, when North is currently sitting in the bottom 6 on the ladder. So they have only beaten bottom 6 sides, and Essendon (currently playing like a bottom 6 side). Obviously, then, if we play like a bottom 6 side then it's game over. But if we bring the same intensity that we did vs GC, WB, Richmond, the first half against Port, the first half against GWS, and the first quarter against Adelaide, and we sustain it all day, then I can easily see us winning this game. Collingwood aren't anywhere near as good as their 6-3 record suggests.

I think a key point about the stat rpfc provided is that it is UP differential. It doesn't necessarily mean you are getting a stack of UPs (and says nothing about the ratio of UPs to CPs), but if you are exceeding your opponent in UPs you are, generally, spreading more, making more space, and controlling the ball more (in the context of that game). It's no surprise, then, that it correlates with better results. There is more to football than UPs, but our inability to generate enough UPs (because we don't run and spread hard enough) and more importantly the way in which other sides generate huge UPs and we do not, is contributing to our losses, hugely.

Interesting team. Gawn, Newton and Riley are all in the 18 which means a minimum of three changes, none of which will be forced. That's something of a statement from Roos. I'll be livid if we play both Gawn and Spencer, so surely Spencer is going to be dropped. Not sure I agree with it but at the same time we need to know what, if anything, Gawn provides us and we'll only see that as the number 1 ruck. I'd hope the bench ends up as Brayshaw, Grimes, Toumpas and then either Michie or Watts.

What signs are those?

Quite a classic Demonland thread. General debate interspersed with extreme pessimism, some extreme optimism (but we lost on the weekend so the wild pessimism outweighs the wild optimism), and WYL referring to 186. IMO, our worst is no better than last year which is an enormous disappointment, but our best is better than last year and we're showing it more than we did last year. Being in the top half of the competition for time in front (if that's true) is, I think, testament to our improvement. And the fixture, though many don't like to hear it, has obviously played a role in our percentage (comparing ours to St Kilda based on the fixture to date is one of the silliest things I've read) and our results so far.

I didn't say he was getting enough of the ball, or even that he was disposing of it well, so I'm not fussed about his disposal level or his DE (which is a useless stat and says nothing anyway, but that's beside the point). At any rate, his 14 disposals was more than Lumumba, Bail, Spencer, Jones, Jetta, Garlett, Howe and Fitzpatrick. He also had the same number of tackles as Hogan, Dunn, Fitzy, and more than Grimes, Jones, Bail, McDonald, Jetta and Watts. In the context of our limp half-and-a-bit, I don't really think you make any meaningful point by referring to his disposal stats. None of this is what I was talking about though. Two of the biggest criticisms of Toumpas to date have been that he is a poor runner (both in terms of gut-running and pace), and that he is soft. Over the last fortnight he has made obvious, and quite marked, improvements in both those areas. He has put himself in the hole in front of leading players. He's been at the bottom of packs. And most noticeably, he has displayed a level of gut-running that has been disappointingly absent in his career to date. The point being, Toumpas is finally beginning to show improvement, especially in the two main areas he has been hounded for to date, and yet your post (and someone else's too) read like they have for the last year or two, with no regard to his recent form or the efforts Jimmy has clearly made. The above post refers to 'panicking' and not being any good on the inside - long-standing problems, but the last fortnight, not as big of a deal. We need to be rewarding the improvement he's showing. As for the comment on Dunn, I may not like him, but I was there to support and applaud him in 2014 when he lifted his game to the next level and put in for the team. So far in 2015 he has regressed, badly, and isn't putting in the required effort. He's a part of the leadership group and we need more from him. But, making my argument really, I acknowledged his improvement when it was plain for all to see - he stopped doing in 2014 what I couldn't stand in 2013 (and earlier).

Poorly, IMO. I think his leadership down back is important and I think his one-on-one stuff is fine, but we're getting so little run from him off half-back, he isn't taking the game on and breaking lines, isn't running hard enough, and we're not seeing him generating inside 50s like he used to at Collingwood. I want more from him.

Disagree. For too long it's always been about who we can bring in who's not currently on the list to make things better (whether via the draft, or trade, or FA). But that's just playing around the edges. We won't go anywhere as a club unless we seek/demand improvement from those currently on our list. We need Spencer/Gawn to make it. We can't just go find two ready-made ruckmen with 5+ years experience. Ideally, we need Watts and Howe and Grimes and Garland to push their games to the next level. It's probably not going to happen, but if it does, that is much more likely to make us a better side. Waiting for the end of the year to bring in 4 new kids and a few new trade players and to delist 8 NQRs is all well and good, but the remaining 35-odd players who are already on our list need to get better or it won't matter.

Saying this after the last fortnight simply shows your bias. The last two weeks Toumpas has shown great gut-running and increased courage. That's the kind of improvement that warrants re-selection. Same with Grimes, he is showing an increased tendency to take the game on and not to resort to backwards/sideways dinky kicks that he isn't capable of executing. That kind of improvement should be rewarded at the moment. McDonald's good, but I'm not sure he can take Cloke and Elliot at the same time...

The concept of two ruckmen isn't without merit. It's the concept of Spencer and Gawn being in the same side that worries me.

Agreed, there's no way we can carry both in the same side. If Gawn keeps the pressure on at Casey then Spencer will need to step things up or they'll be switched. At the moment Pedersen is doing pretty well as the second ruck anyway.

Not sure exactly what changed between the second and third quarters, but whatever it was, you'd hope Roos etc. were paying attention. 21 scoring shots to 7. I haven't seen the game but on that basis I'd suggest Geelong are lucky to only be 9 points behind.

Sums it up well IMO.

Just like the Bulldogs, right? I mean, with their wins over Sydney, GWS, Adelaide, West Coast, we'd be no chance of beating the Bulld... Oh, wait.

We did. Last week's result was based on hard work, not simply talent. We increased the talent levels in the side but we had decreased effort levels.

I, quite randomly, went to the Dogs v GWS game yesterday - we ought not forget what a great performance we put in last week. The Dogs were so fast and aggressive yesterday, like a totally different side. But it was based primarily from run off half-back and GWS just didn't want to work hard enough to stop it. Yes, yesterday was crap. But we beat a quality side last week, and didn't get enough credit for it.

How do we match up against Collingwood? I would assume McDonald will take Cloke, who takes White - Dunn? Garland? And if Witts/Grundy rest forward, do we need a third tall defender (i.e. Fitzy)? Fitzy wasn't necessary against Port and shouldn't have played, but if we need him against Collingwood maybe he'll stay. Midfield-wise, I'd be astounded if we don't see at least two of Tyson, Riley, Newton and Michie in the side.

Would have thought M Jones, Bail, Fitzpatrick, Howe, Watts and (IMO, anyway) Dunn ought to be the candidates to be dropped. They won't all go, and part of it will depend on who comes in. I'd suggest Tyson, Riley, Newton and maybe Michie are in the frame. Match committee needs to do a better job of matching us up against Collingwood; keeping Fitzpatrick in despite no Ryder was a bad move.

Leaders. It's all in the leaders. Last week Vince and N Jones were dominant. This week? And CB, this is for you - time to drop Dunn. Hasn't played a good enough game all year and his 'leadership' is embarrassing.

Ridiculously similar to the GWS game. This is now 3 interstate games this year where we've come out breathing fire, dominated early, and then at the smallest hint of pressure, dropped our heads and fallen apart. No leadership, too many passengers, no work ethic. Away from the G we obviously have no confidence in our ability.