titan_uranus

I read nothing into that statistic. Doesn't take into account disposals to players who then get crunched. And the definition of an effective kick is flawed too. If you miss a target it can still be an effective kick if it goes into space and the desired target runs on to it (I think).

Agree. And Johnson duly repaid the faith by accumulating a grand total of 0 kicks. I can't remember who our emergencies were but surely one of them would have been a running player. Dunn could have rucked against Andrejs Everitt.

There was also the decision not to pay holding the ball against Murphy when he dropped it (though that probably gets cancelled out by the ridiculous decision not to pay holding the ball against Frawley).

Without having read the majority of this thread... In: Bail Out: Dunn Dunn was shocking again last night. It's unfair on the players struggling at Casey to get a game for Melbourne to watch our games and see Dunn put in pathetic effort after pathetic effort. For him to have played 7 consecutive games is a travesty, and it's a knock on the selection committee who have otherwise done a pretty decent job so far in 2010. One example (of many) last night was in the 4th, he was open at CHF, but he waited for the kick to come to him rather than move forward to present to the ball. Then when the Dogs player cut it off, he stood there and shrugged his shoulders instead of chasing. Pathetic. If Bail's not fit then we could look at Cheney or Strauss for some extra run. This is of course assuming Morton's not ready. If he is then the choice is obvious. Johnson was useless, as I'm sure most of us predicted, but with Naitanui and Cox next week unfortunately we need a second ruckman. And I'm guessing the FD aren't going to bring Martin back.

Did a lot right, but still made errors. Like choosing to kick on his right across goal, which was a turnover. The play was on, but we were under siege and didn't need to rush. He could have gone back and used up some more time before kicking long. He should know the chances of him hitting a target on his right are very low. But he still played a great game.

Played well again last night. I reckon he's turned it around. He played well last week too. Not a moment too soon, either.

Someone should be fired for that decision. The umpires don't ever wear red in Melbourne games, so why did they wear pink last night? Idiots.

Surprised no one's mentioned the 'tripped' call on Cross late. That started the passage of play that led to Griffen's goal. Surprise surprise, that wasn't a free kick. Cross fell over. The umpire panicked. As Luke Darcy continally says, umpires should try to stay out of the game rather than get involved. In close games, marginal decisions should be left alone. The contact on Cross was neglible if it existed at all. Should have been left alone.

Not just that. We should be pushing for more Friday night games next year. We've had 3 in 3 years. Now it's time for 3 in one year (at least).

Played well. Kicked the goal of the week and probably took a contender for mark of the week too. I still want to see a better 4-quarter effort, but he's getting there.

Actually I was a little disappointed with the crowd. Don't forget 14,000 were from the Field of Women event. I was hoping for 50,000+, but I guess the rain stopped some from coming. No doubt it was totally dominated by Melbourne supporters though. Of the 45,444, would have been 35,000 or so Melbourne. Bulldogs supporters just don't show up to MCG games. Me too (but I haven't been saying it). Puts paid to that ridiculous notion that abounded during 2007-2009 that we were a passionless, heartless club that stood for nothing.

6 - Scully 5 - Warnock 4 - Bate 3 - Trengove 2 - Jones 1 - Bennell Warnock absolutely starred in defence. Brilliant game. Harsh on Grimes but he turned the ball over a ridiculous amount of times for someone of his obvious talent.

What? Two letters: P. And J. Having said that, I highly doubt Gawn will get himself to a position where he is pushing for selection. By the time he's fit enough to start playing, then comes back through the Casey seconds, then Casey proper, the season will be close to done.

Odd to say someone's showing signs of fatigue when he collects 18 disposals in the 4th. There were times he was running away from players like Boyd, Cross, Cooney, Harbrow, Griffen and Gilbee, all of whom are top notch mids/half backs with years of experience and fitness. Basically every account of the game says as much.

But missed the easy one in the first. Played well though. Presented nicely, has great hands. In the wet last night he was useless below his knees but hopefully next week it'll be dry and we'll get a more accurate assessment. But no reason to drop him based on last night's effort.

I was sure the Green/Hargrave one was a point, but it seems according to most here it was a goal. The Lake one I am certain was a goal. I agree with Nasher's question: goal umpires are now nothing more than just men/women who signal the result of a scoring attempt. They have no power. If there is any doubt, any at all, the field umpire rushes in to make the goal umpire second-guess his/her decision. Goal umpires are called 'umpires' for a reason. Both times the goal ump made his decision that it was a goal. You don't see boundary/goal umpires rushing into contests in the middle of the ground saying 'Hold on, are you sure that was holding the ball? I'm not'. Yet with goals for some reason every man and his dog gets to question the goal umpire's decision. I find it hard to believe that the boundary umpire in the Lake one could have been 100% certain, yet he decided he was, and that cost us a goal. The microphones on Channel 7 clearly picked up the field umpire saying he didn't know and the goal umpire said he thought it wasn't touched. Majority rules? Nope. It's not fair to blame umpiring for our loss considering we had about 7 inside-50s during the period where we led by 8-9 points and didn't get one shot on goal. Not true. If you juggle a mark, and you complete it over the boundary line, it's not a mark, it's out of bounds. That's what happened.

What's the bet Richmond and Adelaide/West Coast/whoever finished 15th will get grouped with the GWS.

No he hasn't. If he'd taken his chance this debate wouldn't be occuring. Martin? Can't see why Martin can't play this role. In fact, he did it quite well 2 weeks ago against Brisbane (which everyone seems to have forgotten). Look, the end picture is that we have Jamar, a decent ruckman who is really helping us immensely both in the ruck and around the ground. But we don't yet have a viable second ruckman on our list. None of Johnson, Martin, Spencer or Meesen have shown that they are AFL quality players. My point is that I'd prefer us to be investing time in Martin, as we've seen a lot less of him, and I can see a future in him, compared to Johnson, who has had more time, is older, and just hasn't shown a great deal when he has been given his chances.

Yes well the Fitzroy Lions will always be the Lions to me. They're the Lions. Move on.

Anthony > Hawkins. That says more about Hawkins than Anthony. There's been an undue amount of trade talk on Demonland this week considering it's Round 7.

Played well in our wins but I feel he's somewhat limited with his disposal. Gives good run and can also hold his own one-on-one, but he really burned us with his disposal last week. It's hard to keep someone in the team who turns the ball over repeatedly like he did last week. He'll be back sooner or later.

I probably am a harsh critic. Under-evaluating players gets you nowhere. If you can't play defence or forward as a ruckman then you have to be a damn good ruckman. Johnson just isn't. Name any decent ruckman and you'll see that they're either totally dominant in the middle (e.g. Sandilands, Jamar) or they can be dangerous going forward (e.g. Clark, Gardiner, Ottens). At the very least, they can link up through the middle. Beating Sandilands once isn't enough to hang his hat on. Disagree re: possessions, but time will tell who's right. And he won't be no. 1 ruck. No way he gets that off Jamar.

I'm liking the recent trend of debuting players in big games. We had 4 debutants in Round 1 last year, we had Watts on Queens Birthday, Jurrah in our only Friday night match last year, Scully and Trengove in Round 1 this year, and now Hughes in our only Friday night match this year. Of course, we've had plenty of debutants start their careers in absolutely un-memorable games, but still, I reckon a big game is the best way to start.

Lol yeah I can't be bothered. I'll take your word for it.

I do agree that Martin's not close to fulfilling his potential, but I still believe he has a better chance to do that at AFL level, and I also think he's still a better bet than Johnson. To be honest, though, neither are much chop (at the moment, anyway), and neither are likely to have a massive impact on the game. I'll give you 5: 1) He's had multiple chances at AFL level and never made it 2) He can't kick 3) He's no good as a forward 4) He's no good as a defender 5) He isn't fantastic in the ruck either He does have good speed and agility for a man his size, and nobody can question his effort, endeavour and hunger (but that's the same for the entire playing list). But he's not going to make a decent AFL player. Martin still might.