titan_uranus

Out: Toumpas, Jamar, Sellar In: Gawn, Kent, Blease/Watts Watts might get a game in that a game against GWS might help him get his confidence back more than a game for Casey where he knows he's missing the GWS game (just a thought). Sellar has to go, adding nothing right now. We also need to decide if he's a forward or back, as this continual shuffling of him up and down does nothing for his development. Jamar has to go, Gawn deserves his spot. Toumpas needs to go back to Casey and work on all the things he's learnt he needs to improve. Kent seems to have deserved a call-up. Would like to see Magner get a game but he can't play until we get an LTI, or mid-year.

Every single one of your observations is based on what the player has done at AFL level. Like I said. Go back to the build ups to each of the drafts. Every single player we took (with the sole exception of Lucas Cook) was rated highly enough to be taken where they were. That rating did not come from the MFC only, but league-wide. We did not make mistakes in taking these players. Our mistakes have been the way we have developed them. It's just ridiculous. Remember Daniel Rich? He 'had it' in his first year. Then he disappeared. I heard one commentator refer to his good game last night as 'finally, the return of Daniel Rich'. Just because Wines has a bigger body than Toumpas does not make him a better player. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with a pessimistic view is an apologist, or has an apologetic view? You, and anyone else who uses that phrase, mistakes 'logic' for 'apologism'.

Houli butchers the ball like no other. Maric is insanely over-rated (people just love him because of his hair and attitude). Petterd was crap today, Knights is a nothing player, Grigg is no better. Richmond's success is due to having a bevy of A-graders. Any team with Cotchin, Martin, Deledio, Riewoldt and Newman is going to do well.

I don't have Foxtel, but if I did, I'd probably enjoy seeing other scores. Having said that, I also understand not wanting to see the scores of games you later plan to watch. If there is some way to opt in/out, that surely would be best. Otherwise, given the easy ability to get scores from the internet/radio, I'd prefer it to not be there.

Memories on this site are pathetic. Stefan Martin was terrible last year. To claim we should have kept him is a ridiculous call which belies logic and reason, and is purely based on not liking Jamar right now. Jamar gives us nothing other than competition in the hit outs, and even then, he's not doing a great job of giving us first use. For that, he can't stay in the side. Spencer/Gawn will give us more around the ground. Both of them are more mobile than Jamar. Jamar needs to go back to Casey and tear it up down there, remembering that he can in fact kick 50 metres, he can take a contested mark, and he can drift forward and move around the ground. Right now, he's not doing that, and until he does, I don't want him in the side.

Unfortunately, this is a shocking decision from Neeld. The question is not 'why did we have our emergencies at the MCG?', because that's easily answered in Neeld's favour - the VFL game was in Ballarat, and think of what would have happened if we'd have had a player get injured in the warmup and our emergencies were in Ballarat. Before you say 'what were the chances of that?', it happened to Beau Waters. The real question is why Watts was an emergency at all. We knew, and have known for months, that Casey played in Ballarat the same time as we played at the MCG. Neeld would have, or should have, known this when deciding to drop Watts. Despite all this, he still decided to make him an emergency, knowing this would take him out of the VFL, as cover for Clark. That's a bad move. Watts may well be our 23rd best player, but there surely has to be more to dropping him than making him sit a week out. Surely, surely, we're hoping for him to gain confidence and form at VFL level, and for that, he should not have been named an emergency to allow him to play.

Agreed. Suckers.

OK, the answer seems to be as follows (from http://www.aflpa.com.au/images/uploads/AFL_Rules_-_Feb_2013_FINAL.pdf): The total primary list size is now 40 (potentially some exceptions for the new clubs). If you have 39 senior players, you can nominate one rookie to fill the gap; if you have 38, you can nominate two rookies. Our list having 40, we didn't have room for a rookie prior to Round 1. The only other ways to get a rookie onto the senior list, then, are the Long Term Injury rule (promote a rookie in place of someone on the LTI), or, it seems, to nominate a rookie mid-season. The rules say that you can nominate a rookie after Round 11 of the season, and they are then eligible to play for the remainder of the year, provided you can fit their payment under the salary cap (Player Rule 21.11). So, it seems that, unless and until we get a long term injury, neither Magner nor Couch, nor any other rookie, can get a game until Round 12 at the earliest. Indeed, thanks HFF.

I don't think he qualifies; to be a veteran you have to have played for 10 years or more. Davey debuted in 2004, making 2013 his 10th year. As far as I can tell, Jamar, who debuted in 2013, is the only player on our list who qualifies as a veteran, which means at the very least we should have one spot open for us to nominate a rookie.

No one answered Stuie's initial question here. The rules are that you can have up to two veterans on the list. If you don't have two, you can have rookies in their place ('nominated' to the senior list for the year). I've checked, and I can't find anywhere any word of us having any veterans. At the worst, we'd only have the one (Jamar). Does this not mean we have room to 'nominate' at least one rookie? And this could be Magner/Couch? And they could play?

Who said he was 'AFL-ready'? Sigh. At the time, was it fair to take Scully at 1? Yes. At the time, was it fair to take Morton at 4? Yes. At the time, was it fair to take Watts at 1? Yes. At the time, was it fair to take Toumpas at 4? Yes. Stop blaming the drafting and start blaming the coaching/development/culture/lack of leadership.

We definitely were not watching the same game.

Is this that thing they were talking about over the summer, about having some song playing as we run out? I hate it. I hate it more than the bugler. Get rid of it. Why does this club continually think it needs to try these pathetic attempts at being 'cool'? The bugler, the 'Grand New Flag', the bagpipers, Nick McCallum's talks before the game, now this song crap.

He looks bereft of confidence and confused. Hmmm, I wonder why. Maybe because the step up from SANFL to AFL is big? You're wrong, Andrew. As we've seen repeatedly, not every player can just walk up from SANFL/VFL/WAFL into the AFL and play well from their first game. As you've noted, Toumpas is displaying the signs of a player who just isn't ready to be playing AFL. To say 'the signs are not promising' after three games indicates you have no patience.

What was going on when we ran out onto the ground? What was playing? The song didn't start until after we were through the banner.

I didn't say it was the midfield entirely. Seriously, though, go and have a look at the way Kerr, Masten, Priddis, Gaff and Shuey (and others) kicked the ball into the West Coast forward 50. Then, ask yourself what more our defence could do to stop the forwards. I'm not saying our defenders are amazing; they're not. Frawley and Garland have a lot of work to do in their one-on-one contests. I'm not denying that. But they will look a lot worse when opposition midfielders deliver the ball into the 50 with ease and no pressure. If and when we ever get some midfield pressure, you may see a change in that.

I find it difficult to respect ridiculousness. Do you honesty think it's not fair for anyone to comment negatively on anyone or anything if they have not had first-hand experience in that area? Of course, if you did, you would also not be able to comment on Jamar, as, since you've never played AFL football, you would have no idea what a good football player is, right? Your argument was pathetic, and based on the fact that you disagreed with the view that Jamar's no good. If you disagree, then explain why you disagree. Don't tell a person they can't comment because they haven't played AFL football. Lol. The list goes on. To be honest (off-topic, I know), it's such an indictment on where we've been the last 6 years. You have to wonder whether or not any of Dunn, Bate or MIller would have made it to 100 at any other club.

'Melbourne fans again booed their team at three-quarter time.' http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/eagles-inflict-more-misery-on-lowly-demons-20130413-2hs7l.html No we didn't. I didn't hear much, but I suspect it was directed at the umpiring, which for the third quarter was heavily in West Coast's favour (the holding the ball against Clark was awful, the holding the man against Garland was worse). Whoever wrote this garbage can GAGF.

Right. All non-AFL players on this board must now stop commenting, as, according to Grimes is Great, none of us are able to form an opinion.

The number one problem with our defence is our midfield. In the third quarter (the truly problematic one), the West Coast midfield was able to deliver the ball inside 50 at ease, with no pressure. Many of their kicks weren't able to be spoiled as they were purely to the West Coast player's advantage. It's so easy to blame it all on Garland and Frawley, when, truth be told, they got no support from anyone, and had to deal with the ball constantly coming inside 50 with speed and precision. Having said all that, of course it's also not fair to not note their poor games today. Frawley is just nothing like he used to be, whilst Garland is a third tall, nothing more. Problem for us is that West Coast had two or three legitimate forwards at any given time, making Garland have to play KPD, which he's just not good enough at. I'm fairly sure Gillies was recruited to help in this area. That hasn't worked, as yet, and may not work. But Garland and Frawley do need to improve their one-on-one work regardless.

Shouldn't be playing. No one can make any sort of call on his ability, or his career, or our decision to draft him, because he's simply not ready for AFL football. Needs to go to Casey and get fitter and stronger, whilst developing the confidence in his game that he clearly doesn't have right now. Leave him alone, until then. We have many more problems than an 18 year old who's played 3 games.

Agree with the sentiment here. It's wrong to just say 'look at the hit outs'; many of them were straight to WC players or into the ground, rather than to our advantage. And don't even get me started on his 'influence' around the ground. Some contests he just rucks, then stands there waiting to see what happens. He can't kick, he doesn't kick, he can't mark, he doesn't mark. I'm done. There's a fair bit of competition for that. Matthew Bate, for one. Lynden Dunn, for another.

I can't believe my eyes. Terlich?!!??! Made our bottom 6, for mine. Turned it over almost every single time he had the ball! He appeared to have no idea what he was doing, often taking off in a beeline before not knowing where he was going. Wow. Anyway: 6 - N. Jones 5 - Sylvia 4 - McDonald 3 - Grimes 2 - Clark 1 - Viney

To return to the OP: Clark is a total gun. Neeld's decision to move him from FF was bad (I'm sure the idea was 'he's not getting the ball at FF so let him move up the ground to get some of the ball'), but he's a FF to the core and needs to stay there. Evans showed me a lot more than I expected to see from him; combined pace with smarts. Our ball movement in the first half was actually quite good. We had a plan, we didn't freak out as often as the last two weeks, and we had a forward line to work with. Sylvia showed a lot more this week than the last two as well.

Get bent, Stuie. Our first half was great. For a team coming off a performance like last week's, it was inspiring and good to watch. Our midfielders were having a go (we were leading clearances at half time), Clark was leading from the front, and we had a few links from full back to full forward which were perfect. We played as a team, and we looked so much better than the last two weeks. Yes, our second half was awful, but from watching the game you'll see that our problems this week weren't effort, they were mainly talent. Our bottom 6 is so, so bad (and, in fact, is more of a bottom 12). If you didn't see any positives today, then get out of this thread, because many of us did.