Chook

I'd say that it's up to the players. If the Adelaide players think they have the wood over us because of last year, and our players sort of agree with that, then we'll go backwards, but if the Crows are worried about their current form and how they played against Sydney, and we go into the game confident about how we played against Collingwood, then we might have the edge. And another thing could happen. We could go into the game worried that we'll revert to how we played against Hawthorn, causing us to get nervous. Any one of these things will happen, and maybe a combination of each. So you all might be right.

Wow. Brad Miller was a star. Brock McLean was going to win a Brownlow and Captain the Club. What else were we thinking would happen at the end of that year?

I thought Matthew Bate cost us the game. Or maybe it was Bail. Or Bailey. Or the umpires. Or Bennell. Or Bruce. Or McDonald. Or Jamar. Or . . . A hundred things happen in a game of footy. Why pick out the bad things a person does at the end of a game when they did so many good things earlier? And this goes for everyone. And besides, I don't count a handball over the 50 metre line to the opposition as a "clearance" anyway. If you gained anything by getting it out of scoring range, you almost immediately lose it by giving the ball straight back to your opponents so they can set it up again or waste time. That's why I really judge people harshly if they're inaccurate when kicking for goal. If you kick a behind, you essentially cost your team a goal that they worked so hard to set up, and you give the ball straight to your opposition so that they can get it out of your dangerous area and set up their own attack. Sometimes, it can cost your team 11 points (5 for the goal you missed and 6 for the goal your opponent might score on the rebound). I'd much rather hang on to the ball if at all possible. But of course then you risk losing possession for no reward.

Rohan Connolly? Joke.

I thought that too until the weekend, but I made him a focus of my attention and was surprised at the number of defensive 50 clearances he was involved in. Not just "clearances," but productive, creative, goal scoring rebounds. For me, it was actually Frawley who surprised me by his rock-solid defensiveness.

This is what I think too. As long as you have something that tells you whether you missed or not (could even be witches' hats), then that's good enough. Obviously not preferable though.

LOL! GOLD. "Whoever reaches the carpark first gets a free validation. Ready, set, go!"

I think that comment was directed at me. I've been his only real supporter this week, it seems, and have said a few things about him in the Lynden Dunn thread. But the basic gist of what I was saying there is that he got himself involved in a number of our goals, and when he screwed up, I didn't feel that his mistakes cost us in terms of goals or inside 50s (whether they be turnovers that cause the ball to leave our 50 or enter our opponent's), which I value more than anything else, since if you don't get the ball close to goal and keep it there, how can you expect to win?

Competitive: 1 Reasons we lost vs Hawthorn: Good first five mins, but slow, confidence dropped, second to the ball, didn't take risks, didn't switch the footy. Second half: Broke even, but that doesn't matter when you don't start well. When you're a young team, early opportunities and scoreboard pressure = you gain confidence. That's what happened vs the pies. Unbelievable effort from Moloney to win the ball back vs 2 pies in the last 30 secs. Gave props to Grimes for his composure to find Green to get the ball out of our d50 in the last minute. Effort fantastic. Disappointing not to get 4 points. Spoke to leaders today about setting that standard for effort for the next 20 games. Reasons we improved: Much better games from players w/<80 games. Going to be inconsistent, but we have to be close to the mark we set on Saturday. Satisfied with leadership of Bruce and McDonald (knowledge and advice), Green (leading from the front w/broken jaw last year/KO'd last week), Rivers. Davey really set himself 18 months ago to make something of his career. Leaders do great work with our younger players. On Lyon's comment last week: "Not disappointed with comments. Not distracted by anything." "Was extending your contract wise?" "Absolutely, because of my background and the amount of debate and work I do with Cameron Schwab. Taken a huge risk going down draft path and we'll stick by it because we know it will work." "Grant Thomas said you'd be a good assistant coach." "Win/loss don't mean jack when looking at a coach. My work with the young players is why I'm a good coach. When you change a footy club like I have, that's brave + bold, which is the best form of leadership." "Crappy facilities?" "Yep, but we're doing the best with what we have. Gettting new facilities soon, and goal posts next week. We have the posts, but no net." GARRY: "Yes the facilities are crap, but they are doing everything they can to fix it." Young kids: Scully, Trengove, Grimes good. McKenzie awesome. Jack Watts: First real pre-season, attitude, work ethic great. Takes a while for taller players to adapt to work load. Played two halves at Casey. Will play senior footy this year but won't play until 3 or 4 good VFL performances. Bailey sits down and talks with Jack about comparisons with Naitanui and Jack has a good, mature attitude about those comparisons. Frustrated not to be playing, especially when he sees Sculgove and some of our other guys. VS ADELAIDE: Went and saw them play. Huge chance to win. 1 day extra break, in good form, but need the same application as we had against the Pies.

Brent Guerra should be ashamed of himself for the unsportsman-like way he tackles. Look at Jordie McKenzie. He's a guy who tackles really well - just as effectively, but he doesn't kill people doing it.

I've heard various commentators over the years and until tonight, when Healy said "the rest of the game," the only number I've ever heard them say was 20 minutes (which makes sense since that's as long as a quarter goes for), so I'm betting it's that. Healy probably just said "the rest of the game" because it happened with about ten minutes to go (ie 20 minutes is the rest of the game in this instance.)

Because the best jokes must seem like they could be true.

Watts for? It's often the only thing Watts Watts thread titles use to give away Watts the thread's point is. And if you don't know Watts the thread's about, then Watts going to make you click on it so you can say Watts you think?

No problems. Anything for one of the best posters on this site. I'll be taking notes.

I reckon there would have been a lot of casual fans turned off by the poor performance in round one, and maybe even by some bad experiences with Collingwood supporters in the past. But hopefully Saturday's performance will have them returning for more.

I'm pretty sure "rivers" is a word. And Morton as in "more tonne" is two words. But I can't wait until "cat" and "fridge" are both lining up for us on a consistent basis. Then we'll be doing great.

But the difference is that none of those guys, with the possible exception of LeCras, are their team's main focal point when going forward. Petterd is for us. I remember a few years ago Mark Williams nearly kicked a hundred goals for Hawthorn when they were crap, simply because they went to him so much. I'm not saying that Petterd will do that, but I do think that 50 is certainly possible.

Ugh! Don't mention that man. I hate him with every fibre of my being.

I'm not so sure about that. I think it was just an easy excuse for not playing him.

Really? I'm sure I've seen one on the AFL website prior to round 1. If not, then I guess I'm wrong. Man I hate that silly devil face though. But in any case, even if there were a ladder prior to round one, it would be irrelevant, and my post above would merely be technically correct, which (contrary to the beliefs of some) is the worst kind of correct.

I think the ladder is ordered by name before the start of round one, so I guess that if West Coast has ever had the best percentage of the losing teams after round one, it would have jumped from "16th" to 9th. Also, a draw is not a win, so if anyone has ever drawn in round one, they could have jumped to eighth.

It is hard on a player to bring him in and then drop him again straight afterwards. Especially when your team has just nearly pulled off the greatest upset in a while. But I'd bring in Sylvia as a forward who rotates through the middle. He's not as tall as Newton, but he's a good mark and has good disposal. However, he can't contest the ruck, which Newts did quite respectably when he had to yesterday. So unless we also bring in Martin or Spencer, dropping Netwon would also be forcing Jamar to pretty much ruck 100% of the game - which would be Herculean after his effort on Saturday. So that would indicate Newton shouldn't get get dropped. It'll be interesting. I would consider dropping Bartram if he hadn't done some good things in the last quarter against Collingwood. Those few disposals he had then lead to a couple of our team goals in that quarter. And again, it would be hard on Bartram to get dropped after one game.

I obviously was way too harsh on Frawley after the game and should have reserved my judgment until I watched the replay on Fox. Sorry and thank you to all those people who called me out on it. I was certainly wrong about him. But he still had a couple of crucial turnovers that resulted in goals, despite his otherwise fab defensive game. I want to set the record straight and say I think Frawley is an awesome player, and if it weren't for these crucial mistakes today, I would have put him in our best. Such is the nature of being a defender that errors just become so much more costly due simple to where you're playing. I know this from experience. But having watched the replay, Jones was significantly worse than I remembered and I'd consider dropping him along with Michael Newton and/or Strauss for Sylvia, Rivers and/or Garland.

I really rated Bail's performance on the W/E and will be keeping an eagle eye out for him next week against the loops.

In terms of possession leading directly to goals, Jamar had one but also cost us one, but his influence in the ruck and his ability to get the midfielders into the game cannot be understated. Bate also two possessions leading to goals, but cost us one. I'd say Jamar was better simply because of the awesome job he did in the ruck. But I guess you're saying that if someone else had played instead of Bate, those errors you mentioned wouldn't have been made and we would have scored. I can't say whether that would have happened or not. All I can say is that Matthew Bate had a lot of inside 50s and rarely caused the ball to enter our d50. In those occasions you mentioned, we quickly won the ball back, so his errors weren't costly. And because of that, he had a net positive impact on the game, regardless of whether he looked awkward or not. But back on topic, Dunn was great because he had a hand in four of our goals and while he did make some errors inside our fifty arc that led to the ball zooming back out, I don't think any of these errors resulted in opposition forward 50 entries and they certainly didn't result in goals.