titan_uranus

McNamara's been playing both back and forward at Casey. He could be played in the forward line if he did debut. Bailey's been talking about getting players to be flexible enough to be able to play in more than one position: I'd think McNamara fits that mould, and should be looked at over the next few weeks.

I'm not entirely sold on this. It would help in that we wouldn't be having MCG home games against the likes of Port, Freo, WCE, GC17 and Adelaide, and the financial windfall is obvious. But this administration has been talking about making sure our home ground is the MCG, about how the other clubs are all tenants. By selling 4 games to Darwin we lose that dominance of the MCG. And of course there's the extra travel. Based on 4 Darwin games, I'd be happy only if we had another 3 interstate games on top of that. Of the remaining 15, we could still have 12 or 13 MCG matches, with the rest being Etihad. But if we were to lose 4 MCG games per year to Darwin, then I would be against the idea. Strawbsodwyer's suggestion of back-to-back games in Darwin is something that might make it easier to stomach (i.e. we could have 2 fortnights in the season where we play in Darwin both weeks, spending the rest of the time marketing and drumming up support).

McNamara. Probably should have already debuted. I think, if the coaches base this on performance at Casey, McNamara would be very stiff to find Watts promoted before him (unless Watts' next couple of games are absolutely brilliant).

Agree. He should only be picked if he's ready, and he's not doing enough at Casey to suggest he's ready for AFL football. So if we have to wait until later in the year, then so be it.

I have to agree. Umpiring this game is extremely difficult. I can't think of any other sport where the umpire has so much to do. It's just inherent in our game. Lots of rules means lots of decisions. I've heard the proposal that umpires should be a full-time role. I agree. I think if umpires were full-time umpires, they would be more able to focus on learning and applying the rules, and there might be more of an incentive to become an umpire. This is law 15.2.3 ( b ) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so. So regardless of whether or not a player has had prior opportunity, if they don't correctly dispose of the ball when being tackled, it's a free kick.

No, it was both stupid and selfish. We all know why it was stupid. It was selfish because he was thinking about how cool he would look if he kicked the ball whilst lying on his back. He was thinking about how great his speccie was and how he wanted to continue in the same vein. He was thinking about how he would look once he'd kicked it. He wasn't thinking about how much the team needed the goal. And if you're going to reply to this, do you think you could refrain from calling me names? It shows you have little ability to maintain an argument.

I said in other threads that the margin made our performance look better than it actually was. Hawthorn outplayed us convincingly for the first half, and may well have continued on with it if they didn't cop two injuries in the third quarter. I was really disappointed with our first half. Nonetheless, we never gave up, and I love the fact that we've won 7 out of 9 4th quarters. It's a great thing to be able to run out matches (regardless of the opposition).

If Whelan's injured then Cheney in for Whelan. If Jamar's ready for AFL footy (which I suspect he's not), then we must bring him in (out Petterd?). We can't continue to ruck Martin when he could be learning the trade of a forward or a backman.

I believe that was Umpire Avon. I too found Mr Avon to be somewhat inconsistent/incorrect in his decision-making.

In 3 words I tried to say that Frawley started off poorly but improved as the game went on. 'Bad but improved' shows that. These 3 word analyses are in regards to the game, not the season/career of a player. We might not have been beaten by 200 points, but the margin flattered us, and made our otherwise poor performance look a lot better. If it wasn't for their two second-half injuries, the margin would most likely have been closer to 60. Our first half was close to our worst football so far this year.

Yes I went to the game. I agree with Warnock. Frawley got towelled early, but improved considerably as the game went on. That's what I said. Green played well. Hence 'an OK return'. Though I guess 'a good/great return' wouldn't be out of line. Johnson was good around the ground. I'd like to know how many of his hit outs were to advantage, but from what I saw he wasn't proving our mids with first use.

Petterd has been sucking big time this year, but it's because he's being played out of posisiton IMO. He's not a forward. He's a half back flanker, maybe a wingman. I think he was moved there in the second half and he got a bit more of the ball. If the coaches are adamant on him being a forward, then they need to think again, because he just isn't going to make it as an AFL forward.

The umpiring yesterday was the worst I've seen in the past couple of years (even though I agree that it's better that they're putting the whistle away somewhat). Completely inconsistent with the holding the ball decision, and plenty of blatant push in the backs weren't paid either. It was in stark contrast to the great umpiring I saw the previous night at the Richmond-Essendon match.

You put the word 'seriously' in there, then you make a ridiculous comment. You actually think, of the 39,000 people there, that there were only 1500 of us? Come on rusty. At worst it would have been 10,000 to 29,000.

Unbelievable thread. I'm going to assume Brockstars didn't actually see the game, because McDonald was one of our best players. Aggressive, hard at the ball, lead from the front in those respects. There are plenty of other players who should go before Junior.

Positives: Sylvia, Maric's first half, Bate (though there's still more work to be done), Johnson's around the ground effort Negatives: Petterd, Robertson, Johnson's ruckwork

Bate - better than most Bennell - he looked lost Bruce - not that great Davey - made some mistakes Frawley - bad but improved Green - an OK return Grimes - a little overawed Johnson - smashed in ruck Jones - doesn't know limitations Maric - a definite improvement Martin - not a ruckman McDonald - good physical presence McLean - troubled by pace Miller - very quiet game Moloney - down on output Morton - poor decision making Petterd - shouldn't have played Rivers - not his best Robertson - too damn selfish Sylvia - his best game Warnock - fantastic shut-down effort Whelan - one good tackle Oh please. They were 2 down on the bench in the last, and they chose to play it safe instead of continuing to attack. If they'd kept it up the margin would have been a lot worse. We were completely outplayed in the first half. It was probably some of our worst football so far this year. Me too. I've seen improvement from Bate over the last two weeks. He's getting more of the ball, seems to be at least a little more mobile, and he is absolutely spent every time he comes to the bench.

6 - Sylvia 5 - Warnock 4 - Green 3 - McDonald 2 - Bate 1 - Johnson

No he didn't. Miller played his best game at CHF against Fremantle in the semi final in 2006. He took something like 14 marks and dominated. Miller is a third tall playing as a first tall. He needs to back himself in to take shots on goal, and he needs to work on his kicking. But he's never going to star, especially not until we get someone else into our forward line. And don't blame the supply. Yes, at times yesterday it was awful. But there were also some passes to Miller that were spot on, and I reckon he dropped about 3 sitters.

Well why didn't you say this in your first reply? As it is, I'd say Jerry got the bottom 6 pretty right. Quite right. Carlton has a lot of star players (Judd, Gibbs, Murphy, Stevens, Fevola) but when they are down (Judd was basically ineffectual yesterday, Gibbs too, Fevola's had his worst 3-week period in 5 years), the other Carlton players can't stand up. Robinson's a good example. When the team's up and firing (e.g. vs Richmond and Collingwood), he plays well. When the better players are down and the team's losing, he looks completely lost and doesn't play anywhere near as well. Carlton still relies too heavily on its best players. Which makes Jerry's argument completely valid. Melbourne doesn't have to rely on our stars, because we don't have any. But our bottom 6 beats Carlton's.

It doesn't involve Melbourne, but if they do choose to do a match on Good Friday, it should be Western Bulldogs v North Melbourne. Neither team has a blockbuster/event match yet, and both need help in drawing crowds. I'd be livid if Good Friday became a Collingwood-Geelong or Hawthorn-Carlton match, given the states of those clubs. As for Melbourne, well, a Melbourne-Sydney match, playing up the rivalry between the two cities might be an option (though it's tough to draw crowds with interstate teams).

I was trying to say that Petterd played worse than Whelan last week, and, based on that, it would have been fairer to drop Petterd before Whelan (regardless of who comes in). But given that it was Cheney who was left out, you're right in that it's Whelan's spot he was playing for. I think/hope we can both agree that Cheney was unlucky to miss.

Yeah, anyone from that list wouldn't do us much harm if they were to leave (though we'd best reserve judgement on McNamara until we see him play). Include Newton.

I didn't say that they were. I said that Petterd deserved to be dropped before Whelan did if Cheney was to be brought back in.

Whelan did play well last week. I understand your argument, but I think the real issue is why did Cheney go before Petterd, not Whelan. If anyone currently in the team deserves to make way for Cheney, it would be Petterd, not Whelan.