titan_uranus

Definitely our worst effort this year outside of the West Coast debacle. 40 points flattered us, immensely. They made a lot of mistakes, granted, but we were really deplorable I thought. A lot of what we've been doing right for most of the year we did wrong. Bad decision-making, lack of options forward of the ball, being caught behind our opponents, and terrible kicking. Might have been Nathan Jones' worst game for us in a long time. He lacked cleanliness with his first touch, turned it over much more than usual, and called for dinky handpasses out the back when he was in no position to ask for them. We notice it when he's down on form, really notice it. Garland is a shadow of his 2013 self. In an ideal world I'd drop him I think. Salem also should be heading back to Casey, though I'm not sure we really have the players to be making many changes. McKenzie didn't do that well this week at tagging, which makes him pretty mediocre. Viney was really poor too, whilst Tyson was down on what he is capable of. On the flipside, Vince was incredible, Cross superb, Dawes lifted his game from the previous month, Jetta started poorly but improved a lot as the game went on, and I thought Jamar did pretty well in the circumstances (Goldstein is a lot more mobile than him but he didn't really impact the game I thought).

Thanks.

We do not need another thread for the anti-Toumpas brigade to start their bleating for the 100th time. It happened. We know your thoughts. Cry us all a river. And get lost.

As I said earlier, when Geelong's stars can't do the job, the kids are found wanting. We've all sung Scott's praises for his list development since taking over, but he had the easiest list to start coaching with and hasn't been challenged at all. Now he's seeing the stars start to age, slow down and reduce in ability, and his kids are being shown to be just OK, not the amazing future A-grade players some thought they were destined to be. Meanwhile, if Essendon ends this round in the 8 (let's hope they do!), they will surely be the worst ever side to be in the top 8 this late into the year?

Not necessarily - North has a 1.3% advantage over Essendon, so maybe a 1 point win in a relatively high-scoring game will keep North above on percentage! Which would be grand. Though I'd also enjoy a more comfortable win if possible. Agreed. Port aside, I don't think any team over the last 8 or so weeks has had one of those periods against us. We're usually good enough to at least stem the bleeding when we're behind (e.g. v Essendon, v Collingwood), so I'd really hope we don't leak goals this week.

Richmond and Carlton are very good case studies in the 'top six v bottom six' debate. They've clearly gone down the 'we have the stars so we can do this' route, but have showed that if your bottom players are hacks, which in both sides they are, you cannot go anywhere. I think this is the same problem Geelong is about to face. In their recent games where they've been a bit exposed (vs Carlton, Sydney and Fremantle), they've had reduced output from the top players, and their kids have been shown up to be way worse than they've previously looked. Those kids looked stunning when the side was up and firing, but when Selwood, Johnson, Enright, Mackie, Taylor, Hawkins, Stokes etc. are down, they have no idea how to pick up the slack.

This got me thinking - when was the last time we scored 132 or more? Answer - last year! Round 4 vs GWS. The next time was in 2011, a season in which we scored 132+ three times (159 vs Gold Coast, 149 vs Adelaide, 149 vs Fremantle). Since 2011 we've only scored above 100 four times, though. IIRC, Champion Data also says that we concede the fewest points from our opponents' inside 50s, so it should be a great test for both sides. I think Roos has slightly different benchmarks and standards to you.

Very disappointing stuff happening at Casey. JKH's review from last week was appalling and it doesn't sound like he responded to it at all. What's going on there? Happy to write off Strauss, Nicholson and Tapscott. Blease sounds like he showed more than those three, but not a lot. Regimes. As much as we all hate Neeld, these four players you've mentioned all came to the club in the Bailey era.

His kicking today was pretty scary, let's be honest, but he left his one good kick till last. The rest of his game is just superb though.

Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood and Essendon all lost this week. And we won. What joy.

That last goal. Vince tackling Howlett in the pocket, Pedersen shrugging off the tackle, Jones using his left, Frawley's contest to bring the ball to ground, McKenzie's one-two with Frawley, McDonald's fantastic run off Daniher to link up and free Tyson and Viney, and Cross lowering his eyes to find Salem (he wouldn't have made the distance I doubt). Under that kind of pressure, just unreal.

Great thread. Love it. This is such an underrated part of his game. Despite his height he has no problem getting up into marking contests or dropping in front of leading forwards.

6 - Dunn 5 - N Jones 4 - Jamar 3 - Watts 2 - Grimes 1 - Jetta How is Jamar not in people's votes? His work against Ryder/Bellchambers was enormous!

Great tackle. Needs to do more than just that though. Really liked his game against Richmond but didn't seem to get going at all today.

Wow. Just. Wow. I haven't felt like that after a win since we beat St Kilda in the 2006 final. To be copping it down 33 points, but to claw our way back, to dominate the second half, to barnstorm in to the lead, but drop it, but come back, just absolutely surreal. I'm sure it's been covered in this thread already, but big props to Jamar, N Jones, Watts, Dunn and Tyson. Salem of course with that final goal, but I thought those five were just outstanding. I also loved how the Salem goal was brought about by a chain of play involving Garland, McKenzie, McDonald and Cross. They were the players making huge mistakes today, but when we needed a lift we got it. That was quite symbolic for mine.

Source? I don't think this is true - you're still guilty, you're still a 'drug cheat', you're just not as to blame as others might be. Not that it matters - take the six months and run, I say.

Oh I see what you mean. That 'no fault' clause doesn't mean you don't get found guilty of the offence though. It's called 'No Significant Fault or Negligence', which is about mitigating the penalty. So you're still found guilty of an offence, but your penalty is reduced because you have no significant fault in the matter.

Big game. For all our improvement we hold the equal worst record in the competition and a loss could push our percentage down below GWS'. I don't feel like we're as bad as Brisbane, St Kilda, GWS or the Bulldogs, but we don't have the wins to show that we're any better than them. We can beat Essendon, without Watson their midfield goes down a notch. They haven't played good footy under pressure since Round 3 and they've got holes at both ends of the grounds. McDonald to blanket Daniher, Cross to run with Heppell (crucial match up). Tyson will get Hocking and has to shake him, we can't afford to have him down again like last week.

Interstate crowds are all doing well this year, but the Melbourne crowds are by and large down. IMO, part of this is because the games on Channel 7 are boring. They are all the same sides (it's always Essendon, Geelong, Carlton, Richmond) and some of the games have been really bad. That leads to a lack of interest in the game on TV, which detracts from the game overall. In addition, the varying time slots are hurting people. Footy is like a routine for a lot of people - it used to be easy, 2.10 on a Saturday or a Sunday. I understand the need to have multiple slots and games can't always be the same time, but at the other end of the spectrum some of the slots are awful (3.20 and 4.40 are late times to be starting games IMO).

Evidence is not always a case of quantity over quality. Lots of paper and words doesn't necessarily equate to actual evidence of anything. That being said, I'm sure they have plenty of good evidence. It's just that a positive test is not part of that (and would make this all so much easier for ASADA and worse for Essendon if such a test existed). I know you don't need a positive test. The point that I was making was that any case that tries to allege a person took a drug without evidence that at any point in time they actually had it in their system is a lot harder, and a lot different, to a case where there is a positive test but the player tries to argue they had no idea they took it (like the one you mentioned). It's a circumstantial case because they don't have that test - they're trying to allege (and most likely will succeed in alleging) that the players took Thymosin, but to show that they have to show that the circumstances can only be that they took it (e.g. they signed the form, injections were given, they recovered quicker etc.). But without a test, this is a circumstantial case, and that's not easy to make out in any court. I'm not sure what you mean about 'no finding as a drug cheat' - they still get found guilty of a breach of the Code, they just get the mitigation provisions to reduce the penalty. I'm with you that a 6 month penalty is nothing in the scheme of things, but it's not a 'deal' or a certainty at this point I don't think. The AFL decides on the penalties at first instance, not ASADA, so whilst McDevitt says it could be 6 months it's not his decision I don't think. If there was some negotiation by which ASADA, the AFL and the players could all agree to 6 month bans, with findings of guilt, then the players should take them.

The moment you said this it was always going to happen...

In terms of the guilt of the players there are clear arguable defences open to them, to either reduce the penalty or avoid a penalty altogether. Those defences are fair, especially in light of any charge being laid against a player without evidence of the drug having ever been in their system. Circumstantial evidence cases are that much harder. That aside, the club is doing them no favours with the continued arrogance, delusion, denial and egotism. James Hird is a disgrace and has damaged the name of the AFL in general. The rest of them aren't any better. The club deserves any and all punishment it gets (and that includes losing its players, though I sympathise with the players and hope they are able to access the defences). You're right about the policy. However, ASADA has no evidence at all of any player having any banned substance in their system at any time. The cases against the 34 players are all 100% circumstantial. So it's a very different situation from the start.

Statement from Roos IMO. He's shown this year he doesn't just drop players for the sake of it. JKH he's explained away as him being a bit tired, but for Gawn and Terlich it's obviously more than that. I'm happy with Terlich being dropped. I've grown very tired of the same mistakes being made every week. We'll see how we cope without him, but Essendon's a bit taller so we can afford one less small defender I think.

It certainly didn't look like he was injured when he came off. He ran off, the steward tried to hand him the vest, he looked absolutely stunned that it was him and in disbelief. It was a bad move.

No deal. The loose man behind the ball robs us of something we're good at, which is forward pressure, as we're one down in that half. Who would the loose man be, anyway? We don't yet have a quality rebounding defender to play that role, except maybe Pedersen. Most teams, on the other hand, would have someone that would tear us up if given the opportunity, and that is what almost always happens. We're not scoring enough. A loose man in defence does not help us score more. Great post, agree entirely. We were poor yesterday not because of the game plan or the style of football we tried to play, but because of our woeful execution. Decision making and skills were way down on the last month and way down on where we need to be to win games.