Vogon Poetry

It is RazzleDazzle and I'm certainly having a giggle now. Do you know why?

Lets be fair Dazzle, if dummy spits are around they usually come from you, not Saty.

There would be a well reasoned response to that question if you asked them. I don't know what it is and the explanation you got might show they were wrong in their thinking but nothing is done without thought and good reason. If you had the explanation I'm guessing you'd learn quite a lot.

As usual Pro you've nailed it. I think Wagner's and Hannan's selection is for the same reason, they see them as the future and want them in regardless of whether it gives us the best winning chance. Weideman was picked for the same reason. The interesting question for me is "is this development or best available"? I think with Pedo in the team earlier and maybe some other picks we win games we lost. Does this strategy fit the "development" or "best winning chance" scenario? If it's purely for development after so many barren years I find it a little frustrating. I'm sick of losing. I suppose I'll see the upside when we win a flag!

They must rate Wagner very highly. He was injured in the first JLT game and if I'm not mistaken played one Casey game were he hurt himself again. Came back last week and is in this week. That's about two games over 3 months! Having said that Melksham is in awful form. I don't get Bugg and JKH ahead of Kent and Stretch but there you go. Bugg has grunt which is good but I'm damned if I know what JKH has, it's certainly not getting the ball or kicking goals! Saty might be good enough to tell us what his "role" is so we can watch for it on the weekend.

Nobody is saying you can't question their wisdom, we are saying you should question yours at the same time.

Steve I'm not going to bang on about the same issue but I will say that your comment about a coach spending the entire game watching his own team play hugely off the mark. I spent a year in the coaches box, admittedly about 10 years ago, and I can assure you that the coach spends as much time watching the opposition as he does his own. He has assistant coaches who watch "their" group and their opponents and will give regular feedback to the coach. The coach will have his own take. There are stats people in the box giving continual feedback on what the opposition is doing and I'd imagine from my day the stats are significantly superior. I think you are quite wrong about coaches not knowing what the opposition players are doing. As far as who I listen to and how far it extends that is based on two things. Firstly their experience in the game and secondly the quality of their observations and how accurate they have been historically. I also look to their dogmatism on issues and their ego. But having worked in an AFL environment for a number of years it is absolutely clear to me that experienced AFL footy people have forgotten more about footy than the vast majority of those here know. So when JKH is retained in the team when everything I see says he shouldn't be there rather than call the FD idiots I question where I've gone wrong.

I think you've missed the point I was making. Nobody in footy gets everything right but those who spend their entire life in footy at the highest level talking to other people who spend their life in footy at the highest level will get things right more often, I'd contend much more often, than those that don't. They are at the top end because they get things right, those that fail to get things right at the top level won't be there long. They also have much more information. For example can you tell me how Bernies toe is? They know, you're guessing. My point is when you have an opinion that differs from those who are heavily involved in the game then rather than just saying they are wrong you should question your own position. There are more absolutes. STMJ should ask himself why the two coaches at the last match thought Tyson was in the best 6 or 8 players of the 44 who played. As for the collective wisdom of Demonland getting it correct many many times I agree. I've also seen the collective wisdom of Demonland get it wrong many many times. I'm not dismissing others views. I'm inviting posters to entertain the views of others and give weighting to the experience of those offering the opinion. I personally give more weight to coaches than posters. You may differ.

I've been following this game for a long time and know that when knowledgable footy people have a view that differs from mine they are most likely right and I should at least consider their position before dismissing it out of hand. I think you should be asking yourself why you differ from people who make a living out of footy, notably Goodwin and Worsfold. FWIW Tyson has had two excellent seasons and a poor one and IMO had a slow start to this season. But his poor season and this season coincided with significantly interrupted preseasons and I know when he gets it right he's a very good player. I think he's working into good form now and will be valuable to us and unlike some I'm prepared to consider his positives as well as his negatives. I think you're wrong with Tyson and the coaches votes on Sunday make you look a little silly. Funnily enough while you can always disregard statistics when it doesn't suit your argument it's much harder to dismisses coaches votes.

Can you explain the two coaches votes please Steve, unless of course you've thrown them out the window. You're not as strong as Pro......

Spot on Tim. I watched the replay last night and I always find it interesting after reading peoples views on the game. Dom actually hardly made a mistake and got the ball 29 times with less than 80% game time. I thought he was very good. Tom got it a lot and did miss a number of kicks but the positives well out weighted the negatives. As I've mentioned before, I'm a big fan of players who can get it. Both these players do. I'm guilty of typecasting players but when I see my evaluation is significantly different from respected commentators and particularly the coaches I question my judgement. Time for the Tom and Dom knockers to do the same.

Ask Jack Grimes.

I thought you were of the opinion that anything was possible given the evenness of the competition meaning the loss of games is critical, but perhaps that changes with the loss of Gawn and Spencer. Back to reading the draft class of 2017 I guess.

Yes, but we did lose our rucks. And if Hogan and Lewis play we perhaps don't lose as a result (a sort of belts and braces approach - insurance). It's silly to argue their loss had no impact and depending on where you sit you can argue game changing impact or not. The point is we shouldn't have been in the position of what could have been (and we shouldn't be blaming the Carlton doctors). The point of raising this (again) is the dust has now settled and the results are known. We can now sit back with all the results and ask ourselves "what impact did losing those two players on the outcome of the matches they missed". Everyone will have a view and mine is that it was significantly costly. I thought that at the time so I may just be supporting my initial position but I know we were effected, I know we were in winning positions in all the matches even after our rucks went down and I suspect with them (Lewis and Hogan) in the team we would have snuffed out any winning chances for the opposition well before the last quarters of Richmond and Geelong. What do you think?

I agree there was more to the losses than purely those two but the question is "would we have won with those two players playing all games". It's moot of course but I think we'd be unquestionably 3 -2 if not 4 - 1 and possibly 5-0 but I agree that's a stretch. The reality is with Spencer and Gawn both out for extended periods (my mail is Spencer is at least 10 weeks) our chances of a meaningful season are shot which in a funny way lessens the impact of the stupidity of Lewis and Hogan (Vince gets off because we won the game he missed). But stupid and irresponsible they were. Even now if we miss the finals by a game or so they will be largely responsible but I suspect we aren't in the hunt which is very disappointing. But I'd rather have the injury concerns this year than next such is the youth of our list.

I think we would have beaten Geelong. The loss of Gawn meant Watts to ruck and Weed and Smith forward. No forward structure as a result. Hogan would have been invaluable allowing us to capitalize more on our dominance. Lewis would have been invaluable down back. If he'd played as he did against Saints we are a much better team. I know it's moot but that's my opinion - they cost us the game. I think we would have definately beaten Freo with them playing. If you don't then don't read the rest. Would Lewis have made a difference last night. He wouldn't have made us worse and people here have been at pains to point out our lack of composure and kicking skills in defence. Again moot but we only lost in the last quarter when the ball was in our backline continually. That's where Lewis would have been. If Hogan hasn't missed two weeks he'd have been in much better touch and a much better target. Despite 3 goals he was very rusty. And I question if we would have beaten Saints without both those players. I watched the first half of that game during the week and they were just hugely influential. They are two of our best 6 to 8 players. I'm just sick and tired of the pathetic stream of comments about the Carlton doctors. It begs the issue of the stupidity of our players to be in the position to get reported in the first place. It just shouldn't have happened and the Carlton doctors shouldn't have had to write reports about two undisciplined off ball incidents. My view is that while people here have largely let them off the responsibility hook they are all too quick to bury ANB and others for skill errors and blame them for our losses when the two main culprits have been sitting in the stands. It's a different view to those presented here. I don't post "in agreement".

What we really need is having our best players who are fit on the park each week. 2 wins and no losses with Lewis and Hogan in the team. No wins and 3 loses with one or both out. Stupid undisciplined off the ball hits to prove our "toughness". Gee, that was worth it. But it's ok because Lewis feels a "little bit guilty". No fault of the Carlton medical staff there but it continues the great Australian tradition of looking to blame anyone but ourselves for our situation.

So you've heard he was hot behind play on the radio. Thanks

Ok, nothing official.

Where?

Where did you see that? Plapp didn't say it in the article I saw. If it is behind the play it may be better than a full on in play knock but who knows.

Plapp said head knock and followed with "it's a pity because he's had them before". Everyone hoping for the best.

Doesn't matter Ron, Dazzle says he's finished. Personally I'd be disappointed, he was terrific against the Saints and has played with a hideous toe since.

Hey Dazzle, were you there? Can you give us a rundown on Kent's performance and the hit on Brayshaw? How did Weed go? Thanks

Belly has made a full recovery apparently. Very sad for Gus if true. He will be a big loss if he doesn't play on because I think he's a very important part of our plans.