titan_uranus

TMac: the forgotten man. Possibly because he's no good, and on the rookie list, but I liked what I saw in 2009, and he couldn't be worse than Bate.

This is all fair, and truthful, and a contributing factor. It doesn't, however, excuse a lack of effort. Nor does it explain how we can be so wildly up and down. Sure, I expect inconsistency, and sure, I expect poor performances, but not to the extent that we have shown, and not as quickly as within six days of one another. There is plenty going wrong that is in our control.

It most certainly did not. That bump was perfectly executed: hip and shoulder. Dunn will get at least 3 weeks I reckon. I can't see a defence.

If the Dogs beat the Tigers and Freo beats West Coast we will stay there. Obviously, if Richmond and West Coast win we move to 10th, which would be a hell of a lot fairer.

Proved yesterday that he is not a number 1 ruckman. He is a number 2 ruckman. There is a difference, a big one. The two positions are not the same. Martin is fine when playing 20-30% of the time in the ruck. Against most sides he comes up against their number 2 ruck, and he competes fine. His around the ground work is good, his fitness and mobility outstanding, and his skills not that bad. As a number 1 ruck, he's not good enough. Against the better ruckmen he doesn't do as well. Blame should not be directed to him. He was out of his depth, but that's to be expected.

Agreed. The loose man in defence has never worked for us. Funnily enough, we didn't use it once against Adelaide. I am sick of Bailey resorting to it when the opposition kicks a couple of goals in a row. Rubbish. Having Newton is the centre bounce is the same as Dunn. Newton might be taller, but that does not make him any better, and he proved it yesterday. We were giving Goldstein first go at it whether it was Newton or Dunn. At least last week, Dunn was trying to get his body in the way of McKernan/Jacobs/Tippett (i.e. trying to use a strategy to overcome the height deficiency). Leaving Newton forward would have given us one legitimate target. The way he was marking the ball, he should not have been moved.

I honestly feel like we should be past the wild dips in consistency. I didn't expect us to come out this year and have no bad losses at all, but the extent to which our form is fluctuating is, IMO, unacceptable. By now I feel the gap between our best and worst should be smaller (or maybe what I'd like is for our worst to not be as bad as it is). The troughs are too low and too frequent. The West Coast game could have been an 'acceptable' part of the season, but to back it up a fortnight later with what we served up yesterday is worrying.

Pathetic comment re: Blease. The kid has been injured repeatedly. The Watts comment runs a close second in the pathetic stakes. He is improving each and every week. His agility and fitness have been standouts so far. With more time will come more confidence and a greater sense of his role.

Bail - PCL. Seems like it might be serious but as far as I know there's been no word on length yet. Garland - ankle. Came back on after initially injuring it but went off soon after. Again, no word on length. Jurrah - had his knee taped up at some point but played out the game. I'd be surprised if he missed this week.

Fair comment, but I was still disappointed with Moloney's output today. It's not all about clearances, not all of Moloney's possessions last week came directly from Jamar.

I thought Tapscott's attack on the ball was good. But I think I may have put him too high in the votes. Suffice to say, I rated Frawley, and that's really about it.

I didn't say they were hard, what I meant was that they were drafted because they were more physically matured and their strengths were more associated with fitness and physicality than skill. My argument was that we can whinge about the recruiting all we like, the fact is, our senior players, who have shown that they have both skill and courage, don't fire consistently, and that's killing us. Stop making this personal. It just goes to show you don't really have a lot of confidence in your argument. It's a lot easier to walk tall when you've got some leadership in the side. Sure, some of our players are consistently 'weak' (I'm talking Morton, Bennell and Dunn), but last week 18 of the 22 that played today played tough, aggressive football, led from the front by Green, Sylvia, Moloney, Davey and Jamar. They didn't get that today. FWIW, I go to as many games as I have time for, which so far this year has been all of them bar this one and the two interstate ones. In my case it's too late... Seriously though, by now we should be off the rollercoaster. Some poor weeks are acceptable and par for the course when you're trying to climb back from where we were, but we shouldn't be up and down like we have been in the space of 7 days.

Would have been nice for him to get involved in the first half, but I agree, he did some nice things late in the game.

So you'd like a team full of Joneses, Bates, Dunns, Bartrams and Moloneys? Sure, we'd be stronger and tougher, but we would turn the ball over umpteen times, then you'd complain about how our recruiters had the option to go for the talented players but went for grunt instead. In fact, that's exactly what many thought in 2007/8, when Daniher's legacy was being felt. We'd taken a whole bunch of strong players (Jones, Bate, Dunn, Bartram, McLean; traded for Pickett and Moloney). We ended up being slow and unskilled. Turns out, Robbie, you need a mix of brutes and skillful players. What we need more than anything is for our older players to stand up. Having Green, Davey, Sylvia and Jones flit in and out of matches, turning the ball over, not getting involved enough in the play, and not providing leadership, will mean we will always struggle.

Lack of work ethic. It's a bit of a chicken/egg thing with me, I can't decide whether we drop our heads when the going gets tough, or whether the going gets tough because we've already dropped our heads. A bit of both probably, but the fact remains, when we lose, we don't look like we're giving 100%.

I don't care what he was retained for. He started today at FF and looked dangerous. Moving him gave us no benefit and cost us a forward target. And he is not 'so much better than Dunn in the ruck'; that's ridiculous Jaded. He is useless in the ruck, just like Dunn, and we gain nothing from playing Newton instead of Dunn, whilst copping a loss. Stupid coaching.

Oh right. I wasn't having a go at you btw. He ran past the ball, and chose to bump Pratt, which was uncessary given he was on the ground without the ball. He hit him in the head. I can't imagine what he was trying to do other than bump him either.

Gave them a goal in the first with said 'sublime skills'. They're there, but sometimes he gets too cute.

Slack can be cut, clearly, given the personnel that were out. But North had personnel out too. North were 1-5 for a reason.

Dunn.

Think about what you've just said. Why did it 'make sense' for Newton, who had taken two marks, kicked two goals, laid a strong tackle which led to a goal, and is NOT a ruckman, to ruck? Is he that much better than Dunn, who at that point was sacrificial because he is going to be suspended next week anyway?

Hopefully you're joking. Either that or where you were sitting was so far from the ground you honestly couldn't see him. He was woeful. Deserves 5 weeks for a crude bump on Pratt early on. Then proceeded to give free kicks away left right and centre, soft (again) in marking contests, didn't get involved in the play, and generally looked like a VFL reserves player. Didn't deserve a game last week. Didn't deserve a game this week. Doesn't deserve a game next week (and won't get one), nor for a long time.

If Jetta stays it would only be because of the two injuries and Dunn. His skill level is appallingly bad, and I didn't see him working as hard as you did (someone said he laid 12 tackles, which helps his cause, but his chasing at times wasn't good enough and he doesn't offer too much outside of tackling anyway). Wonna was outplayed by Rawlings but I saw a lot more effort from him.

That's exactly my point. There's no difference between them as ruckmen (i.e. they both suck), so why play Newton in the ruck when he's working as a forward? North went into the game without three quality midfielders (Bastinac, Cunnington, Greenwood) and they were missing McIntosh. The pre-game injuries didn't give them an advantage, they levelled the field if anything. The in-game injuries didn't help, obviously, but we had 21 when we were 31 points up, and Garland was still on the ground in the second quarter when they lifted, and we didn't. With the sub rule the injuries didn't affect our rotations as much until Bail went down midway through the third, by which time the damage had been done.

It was poor. Corey Bowen is a terrible umpire. Not even close to an excuse though, North were hard done by just as much as we were. Having said that, the decision not to pay in the back to Wonna in the third quarter when we were a kick behind was a shocker and sapped some momentum. But not an excuse.