titan_uranus

I guess this is where we disagree rpfc. I don't think the experience of the group should matter: if a group of players has obvious strengths, the team should be playing to them. If a group of players can't do certain things as well as others, then they shouldn't be trying them in matches. Insightful stuff. What do you think teams would prefer: Davey providing precision kicks off half back, or being wasted in a forward line where the ball doesn't come in often enough. To me it is the former. Don't forget that we haven't had Wonaeamirri all year, and he showed last year that he has no problem with finding the goals. You're just proving to everyone here that you haven't seen more than 1 or 2 game this year. Stop basing comments on the past 2 weeks and go and have a watch of the first 10. In particular, look at the West Coast, Western Bulldogs, Richmond and Geelong matches. You will see in whose games the reasons why we should be able to climb up the ladder next year. Jones is somewhat questionable. He's had some good games this year (West Coast for example), but there isn't much consistency. Spot on with the other 4 though. And I reckon you can add Green to that list (in that his football of 2008-2009 is at least as good, if not better, than it was prior to 2008). This is a big reason why we have sucked so much over the past two seasons. To boast a senior list of Bruce, McDonald, Robertson, Whelan, Wheatley, White, Yze and Holland shows just how bad our senior players are/were in comparison to other teams.

As far as I know the demon is back. Alternate strip being one such example. The previous administration made a huge mistake by ditching the demon in favour of that pathetic square logo.

Flat-footedness is a huge problem at this club. Too often the player waits for the ball to come to them. And we all know of our problems when kicking out. Winning mightn't be the highest priority for the next 10 weeks, but those 10 matches should be used to practice simple things like providing moving targets and working on a way to move the ball from full back to full forward.

People should think about Bartram's effort and role in the team before they comment. He isn't in the team to be the flashy midfielder that racks up 30 possessions and dominates. He's in there for his toughness, his commitment to the task (which was to tag Stanton, which he did well) and his consistent effort. Gave much more to the team on Friday than others (e.g. Whelan, Robertson, Jetta).

I'm going to assume that Watts gets rested for the trip to Brisbane, however this isn't a certainty. In: Warnock, Jones, Maric Out: Watts, Whelan, Jetta If Watts stays, then Robertson goes. Warnock and Jones should be right to come back in. Connolly said that they only missed out v Essendon because it was a Friday match.

I just wish that, when we play interstate, we were on free to air. None of our interstate matches are on Ten/Seven this year, and we play 5 of them.

It's an interesting argument, isn't it? On the one hand, he doesn't look capable of playing AFL football at the moment. He's not having too much of an impact. And we have other players running around in the VFL who are much fitter (e.g. Maric). Plus, as Nathan Thompson said, in his physical state it wouldn't take much to get an injury that could stall his development. On the other hand, he gets the experience of an interstate trip, he gets to play against some huge bodies at Brisbane, and he gets more AFL experience. I'm not sure where I sit on this one now that I've thought about it.

Agree. When we go man on man, we look better.

My thoughts of Leigh Matthews as a commentator have taken a sharp decline following his comments on Game Day this morning. He begins by saying that Friday night was the first time he'd seen the Demons live this year. So, based on that game, he then went on to say he cannot see how we are going to climb to the top. Quite incredulous, really. Clearly doesn't pay much attention to any game other than that which he commentates on. However, whilst some people here cannot/will not agree with him, his comments about Watts are correct. He is a boy playing against men, he isn't fit enough, and he's had minimal impact on either game he's played. It doesn't matter what we think/know about him, Watts hasn't shown the football world why he went number 1. We all know here that the football he's playing at the moment isn't indicative of what we're going to get from Watts, and none of us should have expected anything from a school kid without a pre-season and without proper weekly training. But none of that makes Matthews comments on Watts wrong. Personally, I'm glad we played him. I'd rather a not-yet-ready Watts getting invaluable AFL experience than a has-been like Bell, Newton or Dunn.

This is the other side of the argument. We screwed around with Miller, to no avail, and I worry sometimes that switching Martin from one end of the ground to other within the course of a quarter of football isn't allowing him to learn enough about either end of the ground.

Disagree. I think the game plan should suit the players, not vice versa. We should be playing to our strengths. Making players adapt to a game plan takes out their intuition and, as we're seeing at the moment, it isn't working. The way I see it, our game plan involves getting numbers behind the ball and bringing it out through the corridor. The problem is that, when a player gets free and looks up, he sees nothing. There is no forward line to kick to, mainly because the forwards are coming far too far up the ground. So the ball carrier looks sideways/backwards, we flip it around as we wait for the forwards to make position, and we turn it over because our skills are poor. So the game plan falls apart.

I don't think it's the opposition, I think it's us. You worded it better though. When I said that the opposition ramps up the pressure, I meant that when we start to fall behind on the scoreboard we revert to a defensive plan. But I agree that these defensive maneouvres are our own strategies (i.e. that Bailey thinks the best way to mitigate scoreboard damage is to flood). I'd much prefer us to stick to a positive, attacking strategy. We've seen all year that this idea that putting numbers behind the ball doesn't work. We must try something different. If it was up to me, the first thing I'd do is ensure that there are always 3 or 4 forwards forward of the half-way line.

No doubt that it's a significant part of it. Watts' Casey form was pretty good, but there's no coincidence in the fact that Watts has played 2 games this year, which are our two biggest-stage matches for the year. I am expecting him to be rested this week instead of going to Brisbane, and we mightn't see him for a few weeks.

We won't be playing games there, though. It's just a training ground, isn't it?

Agree on all points here. Strauss might well be the long term answer. Strauss and Davey on the half-back flanks, each one able to deliver the ball beautifully by foot. Short term answer could be Bennell (but he'll have to kick better than he did last night) or Grimes (ditto). But the true problem is that McLean, Jones, Moloney, Bruce and McDonald aren't reliable enough by foot, which makes them less appealing options.

I said this on another thread, but, though the umpiring was poor yesterday, most of Essendon's free kicks were legitimate, and were a result of Essendon players being first to the ball.

Me too. Have done so for the last 15 years. Solves that problem easily. If we get rorted by the AFL and are forced into playing a home match there, then I will go. I would also consider going to matches involving the poorer clubs (e.g. Bulldogs, North Melbourne) because they are in similar situations to us and I know they need as big a crowd as possible. But basically, I rarely (if ever) go to that stadium because it is so bad.

Have you only watched one match this year? Not only was Davey still alright last night, but his move to half-back has seen him reach form that has some talking of an All-Australian berth. He is getting a lot more of the ball than he did last year in the forward line, and we're making the most of his wonderful kicking ability. He hasn't backed the 'wrong donkeys', he's backed the only players he's got. He's given players like Bell, Newton, Dunn etc. plenty of matches to prove themselves, and they haven't, so we've got a heck of a lot of youth in at the moment. Bailey's true test will come next year. If we can't get 8-10 wins next year his chances of coaching in 2011 will be shot.

There's also the QB play where he got the ball on HB, then spun out of a tackle, then delivered the ball with a precision kick to a lead. His mistakes so far can be put down to fitness and experience. Two things that will grow as Watts grows.

We had Miller, Jurrah, Robertson and Watts all playing forward at times last night. Each of them would be equally as good at taking a contested mark as Newton is. The problem was that the forwards weren't in the right position. They were too far up the ground to be a decent target for our defenders/midfielders. I don't think Newton is showing that he's improving at Casey. He needs to be kicking bags of goals or taking lots of marks (preferably both) against VFL opponents before he gets another chance at AFL level.

A fair and accurate appraisal of Watts so far.

First timers: Jurrah Watts Grimes Cheney Jetta Bennell That's 6. Essendon had 0.

Wonnaeamirri is injured. Has been all year. Wheatley is struggling for form at Casey. This is his last year, and it wouldn't surprise me if he only gets 1 or 2 matches towards the end of the year. Our future certainly doesn't lie with Wheatley.

It's a pity that Jetta didn't play very well last night. His form at Casey has been pretty good, and he's been kicking goals too. But last night, as you said, he was virtually unnoticed. Did a couple of nice things, but did not justify his recall.

Yeah it certainly wasn't his best game. The flat footnedness was something I noticed too. And his kicking wasn't as good as it has been. But he did kick a goal, which was nice.