Skuit

If we make five changes and put Frost in the ruck, could we be liable for another $500,000 fine?

Roos will be in part judged on our continued development and hopeful success. Which means he's stuck in our corner. And that it's in his best interests to cast subtle, destabilising tid-bits regarding our primary competitors out into world. Being also now that he's in the perfect position to do. His rhetorical manner has form in such a regard. He's surely broken some unwritten rule here with such a revelation and GWS are most probably 'unpleased'. Fantastic.

Fatigue perhaps but you'd be hard-pressed trying to make a case for injury.

He's clocking elite stats now. He's played 18 games. But beyond that, it's plain to see that he's nowhere near yet touched the surface. This is not just some kid who has adjusted early to AFL with a big body. His ceiling is absolutely enormous. If he had played like he did on the weekend just five matches ago we'd be ecstatic, but we've already come to take it for granted. He did four or five things vs. Richmond that would ordinarily be staggering - like no other individual in the AFL could; yet now I just get a quiet little smile.

I'm pleased in general - and obviously in hindsight - that we took the exact opposite approach to Gold Coast. Once we identified Oliver as our target, we left nothing to chance regarding how high he would bolt and simply went out and bought the dice. Love that GC probably thought we were maneuvering to secure Parish.

It seems that we can only get ourselves up properly against a serious challenger or for a big-time match. The worst we've played this year is against Carlton and Freo. In that sense, we're at risk of going 2-4. Not because we're crap, but because every one else is.

I liked this OP not for its content but for its posting. @Rafiki - I'm not some wise old guru but I've been through a lot of it myself until recently and am happy to have a chat to you or anyone else via PM if they feel like they want to talk about it. Edit: The one thing I should I add, it's important that you don't let yourself feel any regrets or anxiety about posting what you have.

Mids, mids, mids was the absolute right call. And we've done superbly in putting together an exciting young midfield (although we're probably still short one or two elite mid talents). But we've also brought in a fair number of small and mid-sized forwards in the past few years - and the latter was said to be the focus of the last draft - and contrary to Roos' often repeated wisdom, we spent big on one of them. When Mitch Clark walked out the door we made no attempt to replace him.

My growing concern is that Lethal had it back-to-front.

What it's like being a Smith playing for Melbourne . . .

Forgive my possible ignorance, but who is Deever?

Yes. I was joking as to our current win-loss record. My personal glass is so full that it has a meniscus. And now I can't get a lid on it without making a mess.

This is true. But they come from somewhere. The drafts. We haven't been drafting or recruiting young forwards with developing potential ruck capabilities in mind.

We need a forward/ruck.

The problem is that we don't have another player to develop in place of Fitzy and we haven't recruited one.

The glass was half-full last week. Now it's two fifths full.

I must be in the very small minority who isn't particularly fazed by what has been perceived as an overuse of handball. Except I think Tyson has been a bit of an offender. Most of our players are hand-balling at speed and moving it around in an attacking manner. Tyson seems to prop and search for a handball or short kick target as the first option rather than look to attack goal-ward. And this where we get annoyed for flat-footed fiddling. I'm probably making too much of a few instances, but when placed alongside our other aggressive or creative centre-mids in Viney, Oliver and Jones - you can understand where the broader perceptions arise. My other theory: Dom Tyson isn't very distinctive-looking. I remember the clangers but otherwise I'm usually a little surprised when I check the disposals column and see Dom with 28. * His goal-kicking radar has also been well off of late - 5-10 since midway through last year.

JKH's tackling stats were pleasing, and they contribute to untold stats elsewhere. But the rest was damning. Visually, and by the numbers. Indeed, his contribution of 11 disposals (3 contested) at 54% d/e with 4 clangers and 1 i50 in 89 minutes of game-time were a statistical improvement on his averages. And I'd argue that some of the 'clean' stats contributed to untold negative stats elsewhere. The kid is out of his depth and has no discernible weapons to overcome his limitations now or into the future. I don't tend to hang [censored] on players - in the recent past, maybe Garland, Grimes, Dawes and Lumumba in total, but I believe we have erred in picking him up. There was a reason he slid in the draft - not a small forward and serious physical limitations as a HFF/mid - and I think we're clearly witnessing why. I will eat my hat if he stays in the team, and then a massive but happy slice of humble pie if he ever cements a spot. But we've been given no evidence that he has or will improve. The main argument though, in terms of using tackle stats as a excuse to keep him in the seniors, is that I'm pretty sure Kent could deliver the same if we told him that's all he had to concentrate on and contribute - and probably Kennedy moreso - and still, they couldn't help but find themselves with a shot on goals here and there even if they tried. Rant over.

Here's how I see things playing out if we don't use Pedersen & Watts in tandem . . . The Dons kick a point or get the ball deep into attack. Leuenberger sets up on one flank and Daniher on the other. We are either forced into the corridor, out-marked, or too many of our smaller players have to fly, leaving Essendon with numbers on the ground to clear and launch again. Our defenders in a tight situation receive the ball, begin hesitating for a split second when seeing our outlets blocked, and are set upon by Essendon's attacking small forwards. We attempt to remedy this by sending our key forwards up the ground. If they capture the ball or provide an avenue out, we have no tall forwards to kick it to and turn it over or hold up the play while they get defenders back. We lose the game in an ugly fashion. Note: Richmond pulled Nankervis out of the forward-rucking in the last quarter to set up behind play at the break-downs - as they knew if Watts was committed we had no-one to compete the outlet kick. When we did break free, Garlett was our only 'tall' forward at home.

This. With Watts out of the forward line we lose the opportunity for Hogan or Watts to roam up the wings as a tall outlet as well.

I think both (as well as having great hearing). But his ability to hit a player blind suggests he has a pretty good idea of where everyone is and is moving before he collects. He's like Clarry-Anne Moss in the Matrix.

And he spends it before he has it but is an uncommonly prescient investor.

Sounds odd, but I've noticed how well he keeps his eye on the ball in the scrimmages. Like a Kelpie when you play 'fake' fetch.

The 'unwilling' was a specific dig at Dawes. But there is another point it raises. To me, playing football is about doing what you're asked and getting on with it for the good of the team. That's why Watts is being lauded as 'manful' by just about everyone at any chance they get - despite, in my mind, not doing anything particularly special. But the players' bodies are a commodity in an economic environment. You could have a situation where Hogan for example is expecting a massive payday in a couple of years but is in discussions for a bridging contract - his management may advise that a stipulation of that contract should be at least a verbal guarantee he won't be played in the ruck. It may sound fanciful, but I'm sure it's pretty much what happened with Dawes coming to us.

The issue with our ruck stock management is the tall forwards we've brought into the club. All unable (or unwilling) to ruck and not much room for development. Mitch Clark was the exception while Fitzy was jettisoned.