titan_uranus

Four wins is improvement enough on the Neeld years. But to add to that, we've lost five games in which we were in front at some point in the fourth quarter (GWS, Bulldogs x 2, Port x 2). We've also lost another two games in which we were in a legitimate winning position (St Kilda, Gold Coast). Then there are the middle of the road games in which we've been competitive without being really in a winning position (Sydney and Collingwood). Then there's the four game we weren't in (West Coast, North, Freo, Geelong). Four wins, four games we could (truly) realistically have won, another two in which we could possibly have won, and another two in which we pushed better sides than us all day. That is so, so, so much better, and I haven't even started yet on the type of football we've played or the individual improvements.

His marking has, until now, been well under acceptable for a 210cm player. Seeing him make progress in that area really excites me though. If we can develop him into a ruck who can pose a genuine forward threat, then we're onto something big. He's already got exceptional mobility for someone his size, and he's always shown a willingness to try to get involved. If we can harness that and turn it into a forward who can use his body, take some grabs, and kick some goals, then we're going to improve a huge amount when the time inevitably comes for us to need him to be our number 1 ruck.

It's been said a lot already, but just wanted to give Jetta another shout-out. In two games this year against Jetta, Wingard's had 18 disposals and kicked 1.1. Fantastic effort, Nev.

He's not great overhead, but IMO it's exacerbated by the terrible kicks to him. Some too strong, some too high, some to the wrong side, etc. He's not in the best form right now, to be fair, but it's not that easy to be a CHF in this side.

Agreed. For mine, the close losses to the Dogs, Port and Gold Coast have all been tough, but the hardest game for me to stomach is the St Kilda game. They were missing so many key players, coming off an abysmal pre-season (vs ours which actually for once involved a win) and we had more experience. McDonald gets injured (meaning no one can stop Riewoldt), Fitzpatrick gets concussed (ruining our sub), Howe is forced to play on a corked leg, so we're decimated in one of the years few truly winnable games. Despite all that, we generate 9 more inside 50s and 3 more scoring shots (from our 60 more disposals), yet we blow it in front of goal to kick 6.15 and lose. To a side that then wins again the next week in very similar circumstances, and proceeds to lose 13 of its next 14 games and run up a percentage under 60% (with its better players back). Next year I want to beat St Kilda more than anyone.

Absolutely gutting. But yet again we find ourselves having to play catch up footy because of a terrible start and/or lapse in concentration. We play the first half like we did the second and we win this game by a few goals. Same with the Bulldogs game. In the Essendon game at least a few things went our way to get us the win, but that game should have gone the same as the other two. The Dawes, Jones and Grimes mistakes late were all bad, no denying it, and they indicate a lack of composure which comes from experience, and confidence. But I'm more worried about these periods where we go missing, players fall asleep or don't work hard enough, and our opponent gets a run of goals on. If we take that out of our game we'd have won both Port games, the second Bulldogs game and the St Kilda game, and we'd have 8 wins and be pretty damn happy with ourselves. Fantastic to see Tyson return to his best. No coincidence that our best performance since May was also his best performance since May. Watts' third quarter was both highly encouraging and bitterly disappointing. The fact that we have players who play so well in parts but go missing for others is the reason we're losing these games we should be winning. If he can get some damn consistency into his game though (big if), then watch out. I'll reserve judgment on this until we play Brisbane, but right now I'm tentatively thinking the Fremantle/Geelong fortnight was an aberration of sorts, and that with a freshening up around the edges (e.g. swapping the stale Terlich/Jones for a brighter JKH/Blease) we've brought back a little of what was making us a much better side earlier this year.

Would take, but at the right price. If Frawley walks and taking Malceski lowers our compensation, we'd have to think hard about it, but he's the kind of player that would add a lot of value to the side.

I like the changes. Not sure Blease is going to make it, but at least we're trying to inject some pace and skill and we're taking out a player who's been giving us absolutely zilch and one who probably just needs to focus on a few discrete things (e.g. tackling). Yeah, never. Like, we never win in Adelaide. Or beat Essendon. Or beat Essendon when we're 0-9 and they're 8-1. Never.

Where has that been from St Kilda all year? More importantly though, how did Fremantle let that happen? To lose to the bottom side is bad enough, but to lose by 10 goals and be comprehensively outplayed the whole game is unfathomable. Opens the door for Port to get back in the top 4, too, as if they needed more incentive for tomorrow.

1. Maybe they tried and just couldn't get it to work? 2. I don't reckon soccer has as many relatable traits/skills as rugby does when comparing to AFL, but I stand to be corrected on that one. 3. Tapping into the rugby players doesn't necessarily mean there won't be an influence on soccer players. The general idea is to have AFL become a dominant sport in those states, where currently it is not thought of as much as we'd like it to be. Promoting it via known rugby players is still promotion.

A lot of good ideas, some not so good ones too. Agree re: abolishing the rookie list and raising the draft age. On fixturing, I'd group certain categories of timeslot together and ensure that clubs are, as close as possible, even across them. So put Friday night with Saturday afternoon and Saturday night, and ensure clubs have, for example, 2-3 home games and 5-6 games total. I'd do the same for Saturday twilight, Sunday 1.10 and Sunday twilight. I'd also ensure that no team plays consecutive Friday night games, every team plays at least once in every timeslot, and there is some sort of balance in the split between day-night and between Victorian-interstate home games. It can't all be done, but none of it is being done at the moment. Don't agree on some of the contract points - trading contracted players is not necessary IMO. On the percentage lottery, it sounds good in theory but almost any system is tankable. On rpfc's current plan it's too hard to work out.

The inroads soccer is making is part of the reason the AFL created GWS and the Gold Coast.

Not too disappointed with M Jones being dropped, but it would be a bit tough on him if Terlich stays over him. Terlich has to join him. As for the rest, if we're going to give games to Tapscott (which we are, and should give at least one more to), we might as well give a game to Blease. JKH and Kent are musts. So I'd go JKH, Kent, Blease, Tapscott.

The only new part, and interesting part, of this thread is the comparisons with other teams' full lists against ours. Nicely and clearly shows how many issues are in front of us. We don't just lack current stars, we probably lack potential stars and we definitely lack current mid-level players. Too many of our players are either in the 'time is running out' group or the 'time has run out group', and better sides have far fewer in these groups and more in the 'midfield depth' groups. Blease, Strauss and Tapscott have had 5-6 years and are not even in that mid-level group. It's a sad indictment on where we are at and where we have to go.

Would have thought a comment that JKH is in 'good form' is a good start. Also pleased to see Michie and Clisby noted for their improvement. They'd been treading water all year so good to see them both take the feedback on board and get better this week (obviously a rather large grain of salt with Bendigo, but improvement nonetheless).

I'll continue to push for JKH to return to the side as he makes us a better team, notwithstanding that he's not doing as well at Casey as he should. Yes, that goes against what Roos has been doing all year which probably suggests it won't happen, but I want to see us make changes to make us better, and you can't tell me that JKH over Terlich isn't an improvement right now. I think Tapscott will hold his spot, I don't see the point of playing him last week if we're going to judge him that quickly.

It's not the 'bad team, bad list' part, it's the 'these games are irrelevant part' - that's the attitude issue. We most definitely do have an awful list, but that doesn't render these games irrelevant.

I don't agree. This attitude is part of the mire that we're in. Roos' comments on the weekend about the players slipping back into our old habits of 'woe is me' and 'this is too hard' and 'we're just not good enough' are perfect examples of that. It may be meaningless in the context of 2014, but I think losses in these games will hurt our mental make-up. Going into the summer, if we can beat these two sides and remind ourselves 'yes, we were better than them this year' we can take some improvement out of the year and a skerrick of positivity into the off-season. Lose, and the players, for all their hard work and obvious gains this year, may not be able to fully realise how far they've come, instead of focusing on the fact that, in the end, we couldn't even beat Brisbane or GWS.

I think it's another example of how ingrained the problems were in this club, and how hard it is for Roos and co. to fix them. There are significant mental and cultural issues at this club which aren't all gone yet. This is one of them. We're so defeatist that we aren't yet used to hunting in packs, to being confident in one another and to not thinking about the next turnover. That's why players like McKenzie don't leave their man, they're too afraid of being burned on the turnover.

He's really slimmed down, I thought. Otherwise, not really much different to the Tapscott of old. Runs around, lays a few tackles, bullocks his way through packs, but never really doing anything.

This has to be the worst thread of the year. Contested possessions today were virtually even. We got beaten in uncontested possessions by about 60. Also well beaten in uncontested marks.

Gotta feel sorry for Bendigo. Any positives for us? 3 goal to Barry sounds good?

Terrible game today. We're a shadow of the side we were a month ago. I'm sure part of that is due to players tiring and our draw getting harder. But there are a fair amount of other things that are going wrong, getting worse, or not improving that are really hampering us right now. Dunn was the Dunn of old today. Instead of that cool head we've had all year, we had the staging, whinging, finger pointing 2012-2013 edition. He shouldn't have been played forward, granted, but he was really poor when he was back too. Watts was also pretty rank today, the wet took away his clean first touch and without that he's not as good as he can or should be. Jamar's ruckwork was OK but he was totally dominated around the ground. All told gave us nothing other than some hit outs. Tyson may be tired, but he's not delivering to the standard he was at a month or two back. N Jones gets the ball but similarly to Tyson isn't impacting games like he was. Same deal Pedersen. Disposal across the board is still woeful, just nowhere near good enough. Our run and spread is also pathetic; the differential in uncontested possessions and uncontested marks were appalling. Viney was fantastic, and I thought Riley had his best game for us so far. Also though Matt Jones at least gave us some run, if anything. Dawes played a lot better today as well I thought.

Meh. I'll say it.

He did everything right in that situation. After some recent disasters with umpires not hearing the siren over raucous crowds and letting the game go too long, they have been trained (correctly) to end the quarter based on when they hear the noise in their earpiece. Takes the crowd out of it and ensures that the siren is heard by everyone at the same time. In this instance the fault is with whoever caused either the earpiece sound to go early, or the siren to go late (so probably the timekeepers). Either way, Ray did exactly what he should have done.