old55

Like Rhyce said Nick Malceski spent time back there too getting 10 rebound 50s - in between kicking two goals including the winner. The bottom line is we need to get a settled, versatile back 6 or 7 - horses for courses is bullsh1t

Yeah - most recently I went to last year's Grand Final. The winners played a stable back 6 of Richards (97% TOG), Grundy (98% TOG), Shaw (83% TOG), Mattner (83% TOG), Johnson (87% TOG) and Smith (93% TOG). They played this set-up in all 3 finals against 3 different oppositions except against Adelaide when Grundy wasn't available and LRT had to go back. Rhyce Shaw said after the GF: "How have you viewed the form of the backline this year? "We’ve done pretty well. Our back six or seven including Nick (Malceski) is really a tight unit and we play together and probably complement each other a lot in a lot of different areas which is fantastic and is just a great support for each other and it was a great end to the year. The guys really stood up in the Granny and it was fantastic." http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2012-11-06/rhyces-season-wrap-the-best-moment-of-my-life The Swans had the lowest points against in 2012. How about you?

I think the forward line is the opposite of the backline. In the forward line you want constant rotations to try to get a mismatch (or no match) so there's only a couple of fixtures. In the backline you want stability - a consistent 6 or 7 who have flexibility and understanding to can take any rotations the opposition can present. I'd say Dawes and Clark are two fixtures but I'm not against Clark rucking if the structure is better that way. A defensive forward on the attacking back is warranted - Tapscott or Bail appear to be training with the forwards and one or other could fill this role - Magner did it last year. Pedersen, Sylvia, Howe, Byrnes, Davey, Blease, Rodan, Toumpas, Barry and any number of others could routinely rotate through there from the midfield and bench

Disagree - we need a settled back 6 or 7 (if we play a 7 man backline) that's flexible enough to combat any opposition structure - it's more important to work together effectively. Frawley, Garland and Watts should all be capable of playing tall or small. And interchange is for midfield rotations not the backline. I've posted elsewhere that we have 15 players in our defensive group at training so it's difficult to settle on 6 or 7. Frawley and Garland are in the leadership group and Tom McDonald finished 3rd in last years B&F, that's 3. I'm hoping Watts is in there too but he'll have to earn his place. The other 2 or 3 slots are up really for grabs.

It's interesting if there is a single response from all parties facing possible charges - Bailey, Connolly, Schwab and the Board. IMO that's highly desirable from the everyone's pov but may not have been easy to achieve. I can imagine some discussion and negotiation right down to wire including "well we'll submit our own response then".

I'm guessing it's something to do with player availability for the NAB Cup - but I don't know waht because I thought rookies could play anyway.

Fear of "climate change round"

That's unknown. If we defeated Richmond they would have finished last and had first pick and we would have had second pick. It's unknown whether Richmond would have selected Scully, Trengove or Martin at pick one and therefore whether Scully or Trengove would have been taken by us at pick two. As Jose and Clint point out - what is known is that Scully was the priority pick - not Trengove. The priority pick went to GWS and we got 2012 pick 4 and 14 in compensation - that's what has to be weighed up in the "tanking" debate - not Trengove.

IMO there's little doubt we did a deal with GWS for passing on Viney, there had to be a sweetener for GWS in there - when you bundle up a quite complex deal 3 +13 for Hogan + Barry + 20 this becomes very hard to unravel - great work I reckon. That's the deal from GWS pespective and it's a great deal for them but from our perspective it's 3 + 13 + 26 for Hogan + Barry + Viney + 20 which is a great deal for us - massive win-win (yes I know those picks beyond 3 are all +1 after the Goddard compensation, but that's what they were when the deal was done).

It's not slow - that's point - he looked slow and had zero acceleration last year. He also couldn't kick properly. He was either fatigued or injured.

"We didn't tank" - the Emperor's new clothes.

I doubt interchange spots will be wasted on defenders who usually spend close to 100% TOG. Although I do think DemonAndrew makes a good point about 7 defenders on the field: http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/32574-the-case-for-the-defence/?p=687735 So there could be 7 slots to fill from the 15.

It's a devilish concept ... I'm picturing "no case to answer" and then we shoot up the ladder this year a la West Coast in 2011 with Hogan to come in 2014. Ohh yeah!

He had a sub 3 second 20m prior to being drafted that doesn't evaporate but injury can affect pace and acceleration however BH reported he was running with pace at training before his foot flared so let's hope whatever was wrong with him last year is fixed and not ongoing. His foot problem shouldn't affect his pace when he returns so he should be firing there. Endurance is in his genes, he's a superb endurance athlete so missing the pre-season won't affect him as much as some others. I'm a believer - he's got everything going for him and I expect him to be a gun. <<< =====

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/analysis-finds-blues-similar-to-2006-cats-20130123-2d7hy.html#ixzz2Iqj7d5yE

Just for laughs ... B: Terlich Gillies Tynan F: Davey Howe Fitzpatrick HB: Taggert Sellar Clisby HF: Sylvia WattsTapscott C: Toumpas Viney Barry C: Trengove Grimes Blease HF: Kent Hogan Rodan HB: Dunn McDonald Jetta F: Byrnes Dawes Pedersen B: Nicholson Frawley Garland R: Clark M.Jones Magner R: Jamar McKenzie N.Jones I: Couch Stark I: Strauss Macdonald Evans Gawn Davis Spencer Bail

I think 20 arrivals since Neeld became coach ... B: Terlich Gillies Tynan HB: Taggert Sellar Clisby C: Toumpas Viney Barry HF: Kent Hogan Rodan F: Byrnes Dawes Pedersen R: Clark M.Jones Magner I: Couch Stark

Wonder whether his strength improvement is a requirement for selection?

Talk of Grimes, Blease and Tapscott in the backline is all very well - but the point is they're not training with that group now so that's not what Neeld is thinking (it can change - look at Tom McDonald last year) and he's had a year to get his thinking sorted out. There's 15 backline candidates without those 3.

One of the interesting snippets from the great training reports and the coaches' pre-season reviews is who is training with which group. It seems like 15 players are training with the defensive group - that's a lot to go into 6 spots and there should be some fierce competition - particularly when the ink is drying on 3 spots already with Frawley and Garland retained in the leadership group and Tom McDonald 3rd in the 2012 B&F and by all reports having a cracking pre-season. Watts, Frawley, Dunn, Strauss, Garland, Tynan, McDonald, Nicholson, Gillies, Macdonald, Sellar, Jetta, Davis, Terlich, Clisby ...

It depends who is doing the leaking. But I am hopeful you're right, that there is nothing concrete in the report that hasn't been revealed. If there isn't IMO we're home free, if there is neither the AFL or MFC would leak it. Nevertheless the club brought scrutiny on itself by telling too many people the plan.

No I'm basing it on a 6 month investigation occuring - where there's fire there's fuel.

If you want a harmonious coaching box the assistants have to know. I think all the board members have to know too - it's a pretty important strategic matter - they're giving their precious time FOC - if it was me and I strongly disagreed with the strategy, was not included in the decision and found out it happened I'd be ropeable - plausible deniability or not. All the people who need to know must have skin in the game - it seems we had people who knew but who really had no influence or skin in the game.

Only the board, Schwab, Connolly, Bailey and the 3 assistants Wellmann, Mahoney and Royal(?) needed to know and nothing in writing.

I'm referring to the tanking issue - they set McLean up and flogged it for all it's worth.