two sheds jackson

This happened because the Geelong game took place 6 days after the Darwin game; an intense, physically draining ordeal that we barely managed to get through. According to some reports, Watts and Trengove blacked out and could not remember parts of the final quarter; that's how grueling it was. The footy department decided it would be irresponsible to play Scully and Trengove after that, particularly in a game that we had absolutely no chance of winning. We didn't rest them to protect them from Geelong's big-bodied players.

Why? Johnson was pretty good today. We also desperately need to develop a competent second ruckman, and the football department will be watching PJ closely right now to see if it's worth giving him an extension. When you look at the upside of picking either player, I can't possibly understand your position. PJ (on current form) is more likely to make a positive impact on the game than Miller, and playing PJ gives the club some insight on whether to extend his contract or not. Whereas with Miller, the only upside to playing him is that we're "doing the right thing" and rewarding his 10 goal performance, when he won't be on the list next year in any case.

Your argument was that people on this forum unreasonably favor players such as Maric ahead of the likes of Miller; that people get very excited when someone like Maric has a good game, but don't get excited when Miller has an even better game. I was simply responding to this, and pointing out that the reason a good game from Maric would garner more exitement than an even better game from Miller is that we all know by now that Miller will not make it, but Maric still might. I wasn't trying to say anything about Maric in particular, who I thought was pretty ordinary today. Of course ten goals is never "easy". It was a fantastic performance in anyones language. My point, though -and I'm repeating myself here- is that we already knew Miller was capable of this kind of performance. We also already know that at AFL level, he doesn't quite cut it. So at the end of the day, while it was a great performance, it really doesn't provide the selection panel with anything new to think about when deciding whether to give him a game.

That's because -after 8 years and 133 games- we know exactly what Miller is and is not capable of. While he was good today, the performance told us absolutely nothing about him that we don't already know. He's strong, he's a good lead, and at that level -especially against a physically underdeveloped opposition with no key defenders- he is capable of completely tearing the game apart. Full credit to him for doing so, but again, it doesn't tell us anything new about him. A good game from Maric (even if it was far less dominant than Miller's) would be greater cause for exitement because, with Maric, the jury is still out.

Calling a player a "dud" is always pretty [censored] poor, particularly when you're talking about a guy who has forged a 100 plus game career on sheer tenacity and hard work. That said, I don't want him back in the side on the strength of todays performance. Without wanting to take anything away from Miller's achievement today, the fact is he was playing against a very young opposition who had no big-bodied key defenders to match up on him. He was also very much the "go-to" player today; they kicked to him at every opportunity. He was very good today, but he is still the same player he has always been, he still won't be on the list next year, and so there is still no sense in playing him in the seniors.

Nobody has bashed him. The strongest criticism I've seen levelled at Jones in this thread was this: that he's a good honest tryer and is getting the job done at the moment, but has limited upside because of a lack of pace and class and will find himself increasingly pushed out of the side in the next couple of years by emerging young midfielders who offer more than he can. You might disagree with this, but it hardly constitutes player bashing. While Jones is still very young, I'm not too sure his scope for improvement is as great as other players his age. He already has a mature body and is about as strong as he's going to be, he's not going to get any quicker, and he's not in the sort of position that say, Cale Morton is in, where he has all the right tools but has yet to "put it all together" and adjust to the AFL game. Of course he can still learn tricks and adjust his game so as to better cover his weaknesses, but I don't think he has a great deal of actual development left despite being a young player.

This isn't really relavent. You might well argue that we should drop Jurrah for Bate, or Bennel for Maric, but you wouldn't drop either of them for Jones, because they're not competing for the same spot. Jones has been in pretty good form this year. Problem is, we can only use so many people who play Jones' role, and we currently have a surplus of people who are playing the role better than he is. As Hannabal said, it is symptomatic of how much our list is improving that a footballer in decent form, who would get a game for most teams, cannot get into our side despite not doing alot wrong.

Great news, and I can't wait to have a look at him for the first time tomorrow. If he manages to play in the Casey seniors for the remainder of the home and away season and throughout their finals campaign, he'll have done well this year considering how far back he's coming from.

Surprised to see Jurrah in the starting 18 after his performance last week. This is a big vote of confidence for him, and he'll want to deliver. You'd also have to call it a big vote of confidence for Bail and Bennel, and well done to them. Aussies tackling and forwardline pressure will be important against the Toigs rebounding defence and I'll be surprised if we drop him. They never drop Bruce, and he deserves to play on current form anyway. Trengove surely has to play. I get the feeling Jones will win out over Morton, as he's been busy and reliable lately, but I think I'd prefer Morton. Miller and PJ are superfluous to our needs.

It's probably impossible to answer the "greatest Demon of all time" question in terms of who in history has made the biggest overall contribution to the club. That said, the point of the article is absolutely spot on. The enormity of what Jimmy Stynes has achieved for this club in the last three years -combined with his already staggering on-field achievements- will see to it that he is remembered as an icon and a central part of the very mythos of the club, in the same caliber as Norm Smith and Ronald Dale Barassi. That's no eulogy; I hope and believe his best work is ahead of him and he'll be around for years to come. That's just how he'll be remembered even if he walked away from football tomorrow.

I was actually born and raised in Rochy and my old man works on their senior coaching panel, so while I love seeing Robbo, Yze and Woey do well, I have to quietly hope they don't do too well. If I recall correctly the GVFL -after a long and futile attempt to enforce a salary cap- have ended up completely scrapping it, which has worked out nicely for the Swans, who seem to have always had a bit of coin to throw around for ex-AFL players. I bet the guys would be absolutely stoked about getting the chance to play together again at this stage in their football lives, though, so it's great in that regard. And yeah, Goffy, that is our Doggy Brown.

I'm really in two minds about Jurrah. He was insipid this week and deserves to get dropped on the back of that performance. On the other hand, he's just come back from a major injury, his form has otherwise been pretty reasonable, and, most importantly, this is the sort of game where he could have an absolute field day. Logically, you probably have to drop him, but I have a bad feeling about doing it this week.

While I think people are being a bit hysteric in labelling STMJ a "Watts hater" (he has been pretty clear that he rates Watts, but didn't rate his game on Saturday night), I think both you and he are being extreme in calling it one of his worst games. Yes, he had his share of turnovers and skill errors. Alot of kicks went nowhere on Saturday night though; it was just that sort of game, particularly in the second half. Even Scully and Sylvia had their share of kicks that didn't go to advantage; of course they had resoundingly better games than Watts, but my point is that Watts' disposal efficiancy needs to be considered in the context of how the game was played. What impressed me about Watts was his workrate and the sheer amount of ground he covered. He racked up much of his 27 disposals by constantly running back to help out in defense, often picking up or giving off quick handballs to relieve pressure. He also looked dangerous in the 50 arc at times, and if he'd had a bit of luck and kicked with a bit more conviction he probably would have finished with a couple of goals. It wasn't a rising star performance and it didn't hold a candle to Hurley or McKenzie's game, but he was pretty good.

Of course I'd be disappointed if we make the finals this year and underperfom next year as a result. But even if this did happen, my reaction won't be "wow, I wish we hadn't made the finals one year two early". My reaction will be, "wow, it's a bit of a concern that our list is flaky enough to let last years better-than-expected performance get to their heads, and to rest on their laurels". In a nutshell, if we make the 8 and go backwards, the problem won't be that we made the 8, the problem will be that we're soft in the head.

As I said in the other McKenzie thread, it would be very hard to justify not giving Hurley the nomination this week. Jordie was fantastic, but if I had to be unbiased and I was on the committee, I would probably nominate Hurley. Watts shouldn't even rate a mention. He was handy, but his wasnt a match-winning performance like Hurley's or McKenzie's. EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not subscribing to the argument that Watts was poor last night, and that he simply ranked up cheap, wasted possessions, which seems to be the popular view. He made some mistakes in a high pressure environment and in conditions that didn't suit him, but the good far outweighed the bad, and, for mine, he played a pretty good game. It's just that there's probably half a dozen blokes who deserve this rounds Rising Star nomination ahead of him.

I don't really think Essendon's and Carlton's current situation can be put down to making the finals last year. In Essendon's case particularly, they over-achieved with an ordinary list and a one-dimensional gameplan, and this year is simply a more accurate reflection of where they are at. I really think if Essendon had lost that game agains the Hawks and missed the finals last year, they would still be in the same position now. They have alot of problems, and while last years finals appearance probably helped the more naive Essendon supporters gloss over said problems, I dont think it added to the problem in any meaningful way (i.e., they have not underperformed this year due to overconfidence). Carlton finished last year about where they should have. They are now at a stage in development where they should be consistently making the 8, doing damage in the finals, and building themselves up to hit the top 4 in a couple of years as a seasoned finals campaigner. While not in great form right now, they are still on track to do that this year. And, again, I would put their current form down to list issues: they are still forced to experimenet from week to week trying to develop something resembling a permanent forwardline structure, and their bottom six to eight players are arguably not AFL standard. This makes it very hard to be consistent. I don't care much if we make the finals; it'd be a nice way to cap off the year, but unimportant in the scheme of things. But I'm certainly not worried -based on the Carlton or Essendon experience- that if we make the finals we'll underachieve next year.

Just to be clear, I totally agree. I get the feeling there are guys on our list who'll reach higher accolades and be more fawned over by the football media than Jordie, but who will not necessarily contribute as much as he does in terms of real output.

I went to Friday nights game with a Saints-supporting mate, and it was the best I've seen Hurley play. While taking nothing away from Fletcher (who was clearly BOG), it was Hurley who held down the HB line and freed him up to play such a roving, attacking game in the first place. People keep pointing to his and Jordies raw stats, but what's more important is the effect they had on their respective games; I would say Hurley was Essendons most important player on the night. Jordie was fantastic too -I would have him behind only Sylvia and possibly Jamar in terms of importance to the win. I don't think he'll get the nod over Hurley, though. He's already hindered by the fact the RS nominators tend to prefer KPP's over defensive mids. Even allowing for that, they'd be hardpressed to give anyone the nod over Hurley. I'm sorry.

Haha. When I saw this thread this morning I was half-expecting that by now, there'd be a vintage Hazy post about how this is a complete false economy and -in any case- any genuine bit good news from this article can mostly be put down to the previous administration laying the groundwork. It's getting tougher for him, but I've got faith he'll come through with something in the next couple of days.

Perspective? We've now had a development coach for 3 years, the best of the draft, and improvements in most areas around the running of the club, but have still only won 4 games with probably not many more (if any) to come... Perspective is fine, but it's not limitlessly ongoing.

WRT Watts, he absolutely must go. Some people are writing him off and saying he'll never have the hunger or the physicality to be a great AFL player. I'm not sure about this, but if we keep rewarding him with games on the back of insipid performances marked by a lack of physicality, then he'll never be hungry for a place on the list or have any motivation to improve the physical side of his game.

PM' timestamp='1277624301' post='343363'] The marketing dept has done well selling us the dream of a premiership...

Right, so the Gold Coast coach and CEO have bought a house. Somehow, the only logical conclusion to this is that they bought it specifically for Garry Ablett as part of an under-the-table incentive to lure him to the Gold Coast FC- a scheme so well executed that it is happening right under the nose of the AFL and the GFC, and, paradoxically, so poorly executed that you've caught wind of it already. I guess it's not that much sillier than saying Petterd is a certainty to go the the Gold Coast on the grounds that he grew up there and (GASP EXCLAMATION!) he recently went and watched a Gold Coast game. If he goes, I think unfortunately we're looking at a category 3 at best, category 4 at worst. Looking solely at his age and his output when on the park, he'd be a category 3, but if they factor in his draft number and history of injuries, he might fall into category 4. While I'd rather keep him, we'll be getting off relatively lightly at the end of the year if all we lose is Petterd for a 1st or early 2nd round draft pick. Clubs will lose very good players at the end of the year, some will lose current and future champions. Petterd is a good honest footballer and a very handy player right now given his skillset and our current deficiencies, but is no superstar and is not imperative to our premiership plans.

Why?

For people who think our forward coach needs to have been a star forward themselves: Do you seriously think that Matthew Lloyd was a good key forward because he had the best conscious knowledege of how to kick alot of goals? Sure, he would have learned tricks and techniques that helped him throughout his career, but he didn't necassarily learn more than other experienced players of lesser quality. By far the main thing that set him apart was his superior natural talent, and you can't just impart that on other players. It is silly to assume that Lloyd, Schwartz, Lyon, or anyone else would be a better coach than Mahoney because they were better footballers. Unless they have better communications skills (I would seriously doubt this in Schwartz' and Lloyd's case) or have a superior knowledge (which we can only speculate on), chances are they wouldn't be better.