titan_uranus

Bruce will play. Trengove will play. So that means we have to pick 2 of Wonaeamirri, Jones, Morton, Johnson and Miller. Can't see Jones being dropped on the back of last week's performance, even though he is a direct swap for the ins of Moloney and Trengove. Johnson didn't play horrendously last week, and if he doesn't play we'll only have one ruck, but we might only need the one ruck against Richmond. There's certainly no way both PJ and Miller will play, but I doubt either will make it. Morton's game last week was neither terrible nor anything to write home about. I wouldn't be surprised if he makes way. So I'm guessing it will be In: Moloney, Trengove and Out: Morton, PJ. Don't be surprised if Moloney is a late withdrawal, with Morton or PJ or whoever is dropped getting a reprieve.

There is no specific requirement for each of the 16 teams to have a white clash strip. Case in point: Geelong. Their clash strip is predominantly blue, as their home jumper clashes with North Melbourne based on the white in both jumpers. Other competitions have a requirement for each team to have 'home' and 'away' jumpers (e.g. NBA, EPL). In the AFL, we don't have that requirement. The away team need only wear a different jumper to their home one if the AFL deems there to be a clash. Some teams, such as Fremantle, West Coast and Brisbane, choose to wear an alternate strip in all away games, which is why Fremantle wears their white jumper every second week, West Coast has its retro royal blue jumper for away games, and Brisbane alternates between the Brisbane maroon, the Fitzroy orange/red and a white strip for clashes. The issue is plain. The only grey area is that the AFL was lax in enforcing this rule with Essendon and Collingwood. That has changed, and from next year Essendon will have a clash jumper to wear when they are the away team against a side like us with whom their regualar jumper clashes. Ours is white because our clash is based upon reds and blues. Regardless of what you think, the AFL thinks we clash with Essendon, Brisbane, Port Adelaide, even Fremantle, so you see us wearing our white jumper in those games as white is a colour we can wear against these teams to avoid a clash. As rpfc has said, there is a history of white in this club, so it is fine to wear white. The issue of the jumper's design is separate, though, and I personally don't like it. So the requirement is for each club to design a jumper that they can wear against all the clubs that the AFL determines there to be a clash with. For us, that means white. For Geelong, that means blue. Get it?

So what will we be using it for? Does it replace the square? Or the Demon? I'm not entirely sure in what capacity we'll be using it. When I first saw it a few weeks ago my first reaction was 'Nice, but I don't like the Southern Cross', and there was a debate on here about the symbolism and the underlying meaning behind the SC and whether or not it had been 'hijacked' by bogans/hooligans/Collingwood supporters. But having listened to Jim explain it all (representing our indigenous heritage and ties, and a symbol of unity), I'm convinced.

B: Bartram Frawley Garland HB: MacDonald Rivers Grimes C: Sylvia Scully Davey HF: Jurrah Watts Dunn FF: Wonaeamirri Green Petterd R: Jamar Moloney McDonald I: Bail McKenzie Bruce Trengove E: Morton Bennell Jones 6 weeks ago I would never have thought that I'd be putting Dunn in our best 22 today, but I reckon he's doing enough now to make me put him in. Same goes for Bartram. Right now I put Rivers in over Warnock but that's only because one of them's in the AFL side and one's in the VFL side. Personally I'm unconvinced either way for the long term. Can't find room for Bennell. MacDonald is playing really well and I reckon his run off half back is crucial, Jurrah's not in form right now but is still a best 22 player, Petterd played more than well enough when he was in to get back in, Bail's run and pace, as well as 50 metre kicking, IMO is more important than what Bennell gives us.

True. But the week after he said that we dropped Bate.

Disagree that he is over-rated. He is quite amazing. As for our chances, well I don't expect us to beat Hawthorn, but Rioli being out makes it easier.

Was McDonald competing with Maric for a role? The point is, whilst Tapscott is starting to find his feet at VFL, and quickly, we still have a bevy of players at Casey who are performing just as well, if not better. There is still competition for spots, even if the players don't play the exact same orle.

No coincidence that we've won the first quarter in the three wins we've had in the last 4 weeks. I prefer it when we get a lead in the first half. Playing catch up footy is usually harder.

Not a lot in that interview, but like Hannabal said I think it's now close to certain that Trengove will be back this week. With Tapscott, he said what he had to say, which is that if he plays well he'll come under consideration. At the moment, as he said, we have a lot of players doing well at Casey, and I'd say that, in no particular order, Trengove, Moloney, Maric, Warnock, Bate and Cheney are all ahead of Tapscott in the pecking order.

Having just watched the game, what stood out to me was not Sylvia, nor McKenzie, nor Jamar, but Watts. His running, second/third/fourth efforts, more running, pick ups off his feet, quick hands, blocking, and even more running were highly commendable. I really liked his effort. Still has to work on his kicking, though I'd say some of those turnovers were nothing more than a byproduct of his being knackered. Sylvia and Jamar were visible stars, with McKenzie doing really well in the clinches. Bennell, Wonaeamirri and Jurrah all did a couple of nice things, but Bennell, as per usual, faded in and out, and didn't make the most of his opportunities, Wonaeamirri didn't get much of the ball but applied good pressure, and Jurrah didn't get in many contests at all and had very little influence.

Well we did get 49,000 to the Essendon game a few weeks ago. With us having won 3 of our last 4, including the last 2, and Richmond having won 5 of their last 7, including last week vs Adelaide, hopefully we can get close to that figure, if not past it. Weather will be crucial though, only 19,000 at Rich vs Adel.

Barry Hall did, against Shane Wakelin, when he came back from his suspension after the Staker incident. It's a bit offputting that someone can get suspended for attempting to punch, which therefore means making no contact, when Judd can draw blood from Pavlich's face with an elbow to the cheek yet get off on accout of the force being 'below that required to constitute a reportable offence'. Haha, classic. But I guess the rule is there to try to stop this kind of thing from happening in the first place.

Now that's true. I'm probably under-estimating his output by devaluing it with respect to his 2009 and 2008 form. I guess there are 2 followers, a 'centre', two wingmen, and 3-4 spots on the bench for mids, not including slotting one or two into the half back/forward lines. I'd be looking at Hayes, Montagna, Boyd, Swan and Selwood as the first 5 mids selected, but I guess that leaves room for Ablett too. Hodge on a HBF if room permits, otherwise he forces maybe Selwood out.

Agree re: Milne. Being 2nd favourite for the Brownlow doesn't mean squat. Tredrea was favourite for it in 2004 IIRC. But I take your point.

But has he been as good or better than the group I mentioned above? Maybe. Probably. But I don't think he's a dead set certain pick like he has been the last two years.

From a Melbourne perspective only Jamar and Green would be in calculations IMO. Frawley I'm not sure will get a spot in the defence over players like Lake, Taylor, Gilbert, O'Brien, Enright, Hodge, Fletcher, even Newman. Jamar is the second best ruck in the competition. His selection probably depends on whether they pick a second ruck or not. Green has been great this year. IMO he should get in over LeCras but there are others such as Milne and Steve Johnson who are competing for that spot too. Not entirely sure Ablett gets in. Swan, Hayes, Montagna, Goddard, Mitchell, Selwood, Chapman, Boyd, maybe there are too many others. Ablett's been good, but not as good as the last 2 years.

Yep, Daniel Giansiracusa on One Week at a Time last night talked about LT and this is exactly how he explained it.

Oh yes, that is true (well, at least the general consensus is that he was ill that day). Still, I'm sure in the back of Chip's mind he remembers playing, and being beaten, by Riewoldt that day.

Don't think Akermanis likes it... Having studied such crap as Organisational Behaviour I think this kind of program can have real benefits for a football club (honest appraisal of colleagues can lead to increased confidence and harder work ethic to prevent oneself from being called out in the first place), but I can also understand players taking Aker's approach to it and truly disliking having players calling each other out in front of the group. Whatever we're doing at the moment seems to be working well. If that doesn't involve Leading Teams then there's certainly no need to change anything.

I laughed so hard when I saw that footage of CJ dropping a simple handpass with the ball then going out of bounds. Despite the thread I started, if us making the finals means Carlton missing them, then that would be a nice feeling.

Captains don't get dropped. Especially when their poor performance happened to be their first game back after a 5 week absence.

And I think this is what it all boils down to. Warnock can take a gorilla, but not a lot else.

Really? Neither is a particularly good kick, but I reckon Rivers turns it over more than Warnock does. Still, I'm with you that Rivers is a better defender.

Me too. Last time Riewoldt killed him, but that was before anyone really knew how good Riewoldt actually is. It's been a while since Frawley was beaten, I'd love to see him get one back.

Of course when we play I want us to win, and of course if we make the finals I'd be happy and I'd love for us to win one (or two or three or four...). What I was trying to say was that I think there's an equally good argument for finishing 9th, that being that it adds a little extra motivation for next year and it might lessen the expectation. Clearly I'm in the minority on that. FWIW I think we're the 8th best team in the competition and we deserve the final spot more than, say, North Melbourne (having just seen them get thumped by a Bulldogs team playing at 60%). I think this thread was more of a reflection of the fact that I, and others it seems, are indifferent about finals, which I think is a good thing.