titan_uranus

Hopefully these annoying showers don't deter people from showing up. This is one of only 4 home games we have all year against Victorian clubs, and it's the last one too. Need to drag a decent sized crowd to this one to remind the AFL that we deserve a better split than 4-7 in our home games.

Both fantastic pieces of news. For McDonald, it's both relief and excitement at locking in one of our most promising and important players. For Barry, it's mainly anticipation at what's to come. Obviously he's done something right this year, and probably in particular the last fortnight, so good on him.

IMO his biggest problem has been his running - too slow, and (consequently or otherwise) not enough of it (e.g. defensively). Gets his chance this week to show he's worked on that.

It's an article that's on the money and makes sense. It's also the same story for the 100th time. Hird is arrogant. Essendon is delusional. The players' health is in danger. Thompson's a fool. The AFL's got itself to blame. All she's doing is making good use of her thesaurus.

Damn it. Saw the 'new posts' sign next to this thread. Thought maybe there had been some discussion about our match the other day. I should know better.

I'd pick him based solely on this comment. Is he doing well for Casey? Probably not. But he is exactly what we need in the AFL side, and at the moment I'd like to see, possibly for the first time this year, us bring in someone not just to fill a void but to actually make us better.

You've really missed it on this one. rpfc said, and AoB agreed, that focusing on his skill execution misses the point that he's the FB/CHB and shouldn't be the one doing the bulk of the kicking. It's a good point. Doesn't change the fact that his kicking is still not good enough even for a FB/CHB, but it vastly changes the dynamic of the discussion when you realise that he's not supposed to be the player doing the elite kicking out of the back.

Lake straight to the Tribunal, good news. Hope he gets 6. Petrie copped one though, which is ridiculous. He's challenging, and I hope he wins. 'Unnecessary and unreasonable conduct'. How ridiculous. He was being choked! I'm not suggesting we'll win, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a close game. Geelong is mediocre this year. As I said, they're the worst 11-4 side I've ever seen.

Am I the only person who thinks Geelong is the worst 11-4 team there's ever been? They can't compete with the decent sides (beaten convincingly by Fremantle, Port, Sydney and Gold Coast, and they're falling over the line against the lower-middle sides (Bulldogs, Essendon, Richmond, Carlton).

Round 6, 2009. Haven't had a home game against them since. This is also only the second year since 2001 that we haven't had to go to Geelong (the other year was 2007). Edit: IIRC it was the game where Ablett scored a goal in the first 10 seconds.

Agreed. The stats really do show this. Last year we couldn't even get our hands on the ball, so we've improved in that regard, but every week we see the same thing - lots of possessions, very few inside 50s, even fewer shots on goal. Our decision-making is terrible and means that possession chains which should be turning into inside 50s and/or goals are instead breaking down, and our skills are so bad that those possession chains are not just failing to give us scores, they're giving our opponents scores. It starts, IMO, with the players in the back half of the ground. We either need to get McDonald, Frawley, Grimes, Garland and Terlich to improve their kicking, or we need to replace them with players who can kick. Unless and until we have players able to execute the kicks needed to create those possession chains that lead to goals, we will not improve enough.

I've only seen parts of the game, but from what I've seen and from what I've read (which, granted, don't tell a wonderfully accurate picture): I think we need to play JKH. We need to improve our starting 22 and JKH will do that. It's going a bit against our trend this year, as he hasn't been doing fantastically at Casey, but we need to be bringing in players who can make us better, and he's one of the few not playing who can do that. The general consensus is that we're too tall, so I'd also drop Gawn and bring in a small player. Jetta comes straight back, so I'd swap JKH and Jetta for Gawn and then one of the players who is giving us nothing - either Terlich, Salem or Barry.

I haven't seen the game so I can't commemt on last night, but I can say that the clanger stat is, like the disposal efficiency stat, very flawed. His miss from 10 metres, for example, is not a clanger. That to one side, your point about Grimes always being singled out is pertinent for a couple of reasons. First, you're right in that others seem to fly under the radar in that regard. It is clear that we have far too many players who don't have the skill needed to play AFL. Second, though, it asks the question 'why Grimes?'. Partly it's because Demonlanders love to havw scapegoats. But, IMO, partly it's because other players do more to even their performances out. So Viney, Vince, Tyson and N Jones all make errors too, but unlike Grimes we see a lot of positives from their games. Also, I find that Grimes and Terlich, for two examples, make hugely crucial mistakes, ones that cost us more than others. So I notice them a lot more. What I'm trying to say is that Grimes cops it a bit more than others partly deservedly.

His argument is that the AFL breached or repudiated the agreement via Harcourt making those statements in November. Who knows when he was supposed to have paid, but the argument is that the agreement has fallen through, either because the AFL has breached it, or because the AFL has shown it isn't going to be bound by it (repudiation). Either way, it's yet another side-show generated by Essendon and aimed at distracting attention from the real issues, again.

Fremantle's due for a loss, they've been up for a while now. At some point someone's going to get the better of them, and if we turn up like we did against Adelaide and Port Adelaide (both sides who thought they had the win before the game started), then who knows. Of course, if we start like we did last week, we'll be 10 goals down at half time. We cannot afford lapses against anyone, let alone a top 4 side, so we'll need to actually be on from the start to be any chance. We'll also need much improved performances from a few key players (e.g. Garland, who's probably going to get someone like Mayne or Ballantyne) if we're any chance.

In terms of selection, if the rumour is true that JKH isn't in the squad, I'm not sure what is going on at the moment. Had a good game for Casey (at least a much improved game from his previous weeks), we're lacking a crumbing forward (amongst other things of course), we have about 8 players we could drop this week, and to be fair to him he never really should have been dropped. He should play this week.

I enjoy getting the updated on how the players are progressing, but the overly negative reviews week in and week out are disturbing for one of two reasons. Either they're completely accurate, in which case we have a worryingly terrible lack of depth. Or, they're being a little too negative and aren't playing up some of the positives that are coming out of the games, in which case I'd like to see some more positivity coming through from Allison. I find it very hard to believe that we are getting nothing weekly from these players, sometimes literally nothing, but then again who knows. But I think it's folly to suggest the players don't notice or aren't affected by public negative reviews from your own coach. Roos doesn't sit there after matches and say things like 'Terlich had a role today, and he just didn't execute it', even though we all know it. He might say it behind closed doors but publicly he stands by the list, and I would like Allison to be doing that a bit more. They may be at the VFL level right now, but like it or not some of these players are going to be our future and we need to stand by them (where possible) rather than taking public pot shots.

Disgusting. Two obvious holding the ball decisions in the final two minutes - not sure how much clearer the Crameri one could have been, plus just an error on the Murphy one. Umpiring is ruining the game right now. More than fixturing. It has to be fixed.

I don't actually think Spencer is a 'competent back-up' and, frankly, I'm still disappointed that after six years on the list he's still only at the 'competent back-up' stage. But that's what he is, and in the context of our list he clearly needs to still be here. It's not even close to our weakest link, either. To me, on the list of contracts, Blease, Tapscott, Strauss, Byrnes, Nicholson and Terlich should be the ones most worried. They probably won't all go as it's pretty rare that everyone you think will go actually goes, but that's got to be the core group of six that just cannot be a serious part of our future at the moment. Of course, there is still 8 weeks left and who knows what may happen from here, but if the season ended today that's as good a group of a 'bottom 6' as you're going to get from our list and they happen to all be out of contract.

His point is that you are a complete and utter imbecile. A very valid point, I must say. Agreed. I'd rule out the Fremantle, Port Adelaide and Hawthorn games as I don't think we will be good enough on any of those days to beat those sides. Geelong has been very poor at times this year (surely the worst 10-4 side in the game's history. They're hardly a 7-7 side right now), North is up and down and West Coast is nothing but downhill skiiers. You never know with any of them.

I think there is a blessing in disguise from all this - the unprecedented backlash from fans will surely be a wake-up call to the AFL on a number of fronts. Every Friday night and Thursday night game this year features at least one of these six teams - Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn and Geelong. That is, there is not one Friday night game that doesn't involve one of these six. It's a six-team competition right now, as far as prime time goes, but with Carlton still to play 3 Friday nights and a Thursday night in the last 8 weeks (that's 50% of the remaining fixture), plus possibly one more in Round 23 when they play Essendon, the AFL has learnt that it cannot put all its eggs into a select group of teams' baskets. I'm confident that there will be a better sharing of the prime time games next year because of the reaction this year.

I'm fairly sure he doesn't actually want, or think he can get, compensation. I think he's just trying to tell the AFL that Sunday nights don't work and to stop trying to manufacture atmosphere.

A lot of similarities it seems. FWIW, I'm a supporter of the GC and GWS movements, and I think they're both good for the game long-term. What I am not a fan of are the constant rule-changes, the use of rules and umpiring to forcibly dictate how the game evolves, the prioritising of the media over the fans, the inequitable fixturing, and the timeslot-choice farce (Thursday, Sunday, Monday nights are all awful, 3.20 sucks, not enough 2.10 games etc. etc. etc.).

Nicholson and Terlich should be dropped and their papers may as well be stamped. One of Kent and Salem should be rested, they're giving us nothing right now though that doesn't bother me long-term. I'd also drop Garland. We're a player short in defence right now with him back there, and he's not showing any signs of finding that form in the AFL. McKenzie worked hard enough while he was playing to get his spot straight back. I'd then bring in two of JKH, Toumpas and Blease. Blease seems to have done enough at Casey and we're unlikely to see any more or less of him if we leave him there any longer. JKH never should have been dropped, and though I've not been impressed with his response, we need him in the side. Toumpas has been doing enough at Casey for mine, and I'd rather him in the side than Nicholson/Terlich. McDonald if fit, or Georgiou, to replace Garland.

There's no way in hell that was the correct call on Bail. That is not what the rule was brought in for. If you are under pressure of any sort the benefit of the doubt rests with you and you are allowed to concede the behind. The rule is there primarily to stop players kicking in from wasting time, kicking to themselves, and then going backwards, or from players who have time and space but no real intention of going anywhere other than over the line. When there's a player almost literally tackling you as you get rid of it, hounding you over the line, you are allowed to concede. Do you believe we should be picking 18 years olds to have an impact in 1-2 years? If so, you don't understand recruiting. If not, then why are you complaining? The fact that Toumpas started off a lesser AFL player than Wines or Macrae or Stringer, or that he hasn't developed as fast as them, does not mean the decision was wrong (yet, anyway). This is the 36th possible game any of them could have played. If you're willing to draw the line in a 19-year old after 36 possible games, then you don't understand, or in Toumpas' specific case don't want to understand, the realities of life. None of this is to say that picking Toumpas was definitely the right call either. We don't know right now. But we aren't supposed to know after 1-2 years. That's not what drafting is for.