Deemania since 56

Is it really? Novel.

...leaving the entertainment obsessed general public and footy fans across the board totally at odds on the integrity of the AFL, its poor selection of the first tribunal panel who now appear to have made the wrong decision (most unlikely) and confidence in the the whole process of rule scrutiny at its nadir. The whole process has been proven to be totally arbitrary and indicates that preferential treatments of rule violators will be tolerated in the interests of AFL gate receipts, where necessary.

It does not auger well, I am afraid; still, who are we to consider alternatives?

Wouldn't matter if he did read Demonland, '64, he's already had thousands of treatises, reports, theses, intense and widespread analysis including measured advice and fault correcting suggestions (ad nauseum) from the foundation of the football club - US! Such extensive contributions to his onfield well-being have so far been wilfully ignored or 'placed into the too-hard basket'.

Surely Goodwin is not that foolish? In the eyes of so many supporters and members, he'd lose his job.

He'd probably do a very good job at that task. He's not the sort of bloke to mess around with - very serious, almost intent and he's as big as Barry Round - except meaner. Heaven help those who fail to learn under such tutelage.

History of injuries, age, doubt that we'll get 5 years from him. Handy, at best, now and in the future. Nothing more. We'd do better elsewhere, particularly if we could find a young forward or two who might also lend a rucking hand. We have developing talent at Casey and that is some bright future (across the ground) to relish and blood into the big time. Grundy just won't improve any more, but it is conceded that he has been a great footballer. We'd get 40 more more goals per season if we could teach Max to kick - and develop a leading forward line from the talent already there.

Bennet was a perfect, goal-kicking example. With almost no lateral force exerted, he also gained incredible distances, straight as an arrow. He was a really big bloke, too - but made a consistent effect to contact the ball as low as possible - the start of a straight kick, following through with the regulatory knee/thigh and then the extension of the lower leg in line. A perfect model for Gawn - whose stylised approach and delivery throws him off-centre, out of target line; often, sky-scraping the elevation of the ball in its trajectory. If he'd kicked the ones he has missed this season, we'd still be top of the ladder and headed for the Premiership.

Referring to 'Hail Mary', I guess even footy has its moments of faith.

Joel Smith - about time he came in against a weakened Carlscum. We need the movement, agility, marking and a straight set shot or two, plus his backline experience with us will have served him well in combating (with movement) the opposition allocated to him. He'd also give our midfield a target or two across the game not fixed like a pillar of self-gratified granite in the hot zone, counting the mounting numbers of opposition clearances. Joel in deep forward, for mine.

Someone mentioned it is a 'kangaroo court', and in its practices and variations in outcomes, that would be an extremely generous assessment. It was one event, well exemplified, so what 'fresh vision' could be so imperative as to take over two hours to arrive at a decision - unless some stroker wanted Cripps found innocent against the evidence?

Hence, the frustrations! It is a direct and relatively straightforward - almost easy - way to play footy, so who, what and why is holding us back?

Peripheral vision is a powerful tool to make sure the resulting line of impact is correct. That's what nailed his deliberate impact and its style consequences. You can watch the ball as much as you like in a contest to feign your real intent to damage, and that is what our Carlton lad intended. Guilty, as assessed.

Damning vision - we see it weekly - we talk about it in its various forms, there are space-makers available with room to turn and move closer to goal for a really positive shot, including considerable time before a defender can attempt to intercept or spoil. Golly, eyes up, best options, and no leading forwards actually available. That level of player control just does not work well or often enough, so coaches, make the adjustments. If we play close to the boundary line to put the ball in the pocket, the chances of turnovers or 'defensive out of bounds' are extremely high and the alternative set shots or snaps go into the 'hope and a prayer' category. We often see Clarrie up between CHF and FF in space - there is room there, significantly often, and Sparrow is usually in support or creating space for himself further back towards the midfield. The only player who seems to take advantage of this scoring zone is ANB, and even that is rare because of the delivery method dictated and ingrained in our 'going forward' ball movement. We had the Cats on toast, we had Footiskry on toast, we had the Filth unable to make an impact - yet we let it all slip by in predictability.

Who could forgive Gysburts? Absolute clean-up specialist, from memory.

I question whether it is a 'risk'; risks definitely occur during games with a high proportion of negative outcomes. Sparrow strikes me as a player who might well be capable of some 'initiative' producing positive results. Some of his great goals have been a result of this characteristic - though seldom used (presumably seldom encouraged by the coaching staff). He is tough as nuts, he can be a glorious, wilful goal snapper and he pleases me each time he moves towards the ball in the forward midline. He really can kick 'em. In a previous version of our game, Sparrow would have made an knockout utility and for this reason, we should encourage his contained forays into 'kicking distance' onfield.

Sheet, pragmatic but I hope you are correct. So far this season, there have been games when we all prayed for this outcome but it did not occur - leaving results to fall short of our buoyant expectations.

There are no targets. Just pillars of static salt. Agree with you, CYB.

Conversion rate ability is enormously dependent on the where, when and wallop of umpiring decisions. It begs the question: why were the umpires so intimidated by the Filth to the extent that 'catch-up' moments existed in the face of two different sets of rules being applied across the game?

Leading patterns, simultaneously, good move.

That's all we offer opponents - an opportunity to double team in our forward line specialists - because of a distinct lack of mobility and no real support structures near goal. Had we that plan to be fully mobile, our midfielders' kicks would hit targets, opposition defenders would be forced to play catch-up all game (exhausting and uncertain), and the half-backs + flankers + midfielders and half-forwards we field would have targets to more easily hit, more frequently.

If only Goodwin could turn those looks into words and subsequently although more quickly into onfield deeds and we could all reap the very subsequential benefits of having a reactive Coach with tricks up his sleeves for control of the strings that contribute to player dominance.

That is going to provide the options that our forward line has neglected for so long; it is imperative that options and space positionings - that would include a chasing/following but emptying opposition defender or two - are pursued for the better benefit of the team.

You betcha.

He's a great Captain. He's got to work harder on his shots at goal - particularly the high drop and the swing foot. Jackson could have done more around the ground, particularly pick-ups, not taps into further troubles.