Its Time for Another

tactics against Cats were brilliant. Both individual match ups and the overall tactic of playing them one on one and cutting off the corridor went a long way to winning the game. What was your issue.

The key to this game will be the midfield and the key to the midfield will be the ruck duel. Best way to stop Kennedy scoring will be to have the ball in our forward half. Conditions up there as a night game are hot and slippery. Gawny had 12 possessions and 5 marks at half time. In the second half he only had 6 more possessions and 1 mark. He tires very badly and will do even more so in those conditions. There's no way we won't go in without two rucks. Gawny doesnt' have the tank to do it with a Dawes type second ruckman. I don't think Spencil fits for this game. It will be too slippery for him to mark in the forward line. We will be better with a more agile forward line against their weaker backline. But we will need the height in the backline to counter their talls of Kennedy, Darling and Sinclair. If they play Sinclair we've got to play Fitzy and change him in the ruck, probably more regularly than NicNat will change. Howe will have to fill in the backline while Fitz is in the ruck. Bail will go for sure. He was very disappointing.

I always think we're a sneaky chance to knock off everyone until 5 minutes after first bounce.

Don't understand why they never fixture this game before the bye so both teams have two weeks to recover from the hardest venue in football. We have to play the following Saturday.

Ouch, that's ugly.

Two different issues but I agree with your first point. Roosy said a week or so ago when asked about what type of players to recruit that the fundamentals of the game haven't changed in 40yrs. You have to be able to get the ball and you have to be able to run. vandenBurg, Petracca, Brayshaw, Michie, Riley. All have a similar theme. Big bodies able to get their own ball whether inside or out. This is a different issue to KDA's point that outsiders take longer to develop than insiders.

After his reco he said the surgeon had said he could play by the end of the season and then there was coverage of Roosy saying no way that was happening.

Don't agree with this. As an Insider its easy to get to the ball. Essentially watch your immediate matchups and run where the ball is. Outsiders have to learn where to run to. In order to be able to do this they have to learn to read the whole game and their team mates to know where they are going to kick to and to know where to run to so that you become an outside option. It's a much tougher gig. Doubly as hard in a team where they rarely play to a game plan or are slowly learning it so that it's very hard to read the play. I know that several players have complained about how impossible this has been in the past.

What has he been like on the rare occasions he's been fully fit. i don't ever remember him doing a great deal. I think we all get seduced sometimes by the high pick someone is picked at when in fact they are spuds. Not saying that necessarily applies to him but just wondering.

Had a Messiah effect last year, unfortunately we got hit with the reality bus this year. Agree, no surprise. Hate to think what it would have been last year without the Messiah. Hopefully the second half of the year will confirm long term improvement and a few more wins with an easier draw and they'll start coming back next year.

Exactly. He is starting to be able to use his body work against opposition rucks so he can time his jumps to hit the ball at his apex. At 208cm's no one's going to beat that except for Sandilands. It was clear to see this happening against Grundy and the quality of his taps to running players meant we won the clearances for the first time in how long. The result of that was we were very close in inside 50's and if it wasn't for turnovers this would have won us the game. Gawny's a freak. Not only one of the 3 or 4 tallest players to ever play but incredible agility for his size. Has already had 18+ possession games playing in the ruck and a genuine forward target. The others can't compare to this. Not many can. As others have said, durability is a big question mark and this seems to have effected his tank up to now. Hopefully both will be resolved well in the rest of the season.

OD you are quite right plus I'm pretty confidant Australia doesn't have an extradition treaty with Switzerland anyway. However WADA don't have to do this as they can subpoena them and if they fail to turn up they would have committed a criminal offence with jail terms. They would be put on an Interpol watch list and arrested anywhere in Europe and other countries with extradition treaties with Switzerland. They couldn't go to the States as this would create a criminal record. CAS has already indicated evidence can be given by video link so they don't have to physically travel there. All in all that is a lot of reasons for them to give evidence if they are subpoenaed.

CAS enforces the ASADA and WADA codes and unfortunately the burden of proof rests with WADA not the players.The Tribunal procedures do not change the onus. I truly hope that one outcome of this mess is that the codes are amended so the burden is on the players to prove what they took. Charters was arrested and charged with more drug related offences a week or two before the Tribunal hearing that was the reason he gave for not giving evidence. He didn't want to risk incriminating himself in those proceedings. I never understood why they couldn't have waited just another couple of weeks until after the Tribunal hearing to arrest him. Alavi would have fallen in behind him once he didn't give evidence. IMO the reason WADA want the hearing heard in Switzerland is that they can use the local laws to force witnesses to attend the hearing. They can't do that under Australian law as we saw in the ASADA case against Alavi and Charters. I doubt very much that WADA will be offering Dank any leniency for anything. He would have to be the primary target of the entire proceedings.

Terry Wallace tries to say hello.

A lot of very significant claims there in bold. What factual basis do you have for them or are they just your theories? Just interested as I haven't heard anything to support any of this other than the Tribunal got the application of the burden of proof wrong. As I understand it and correct me if I am wrong but CAS will be applying the same burden of proof. Just hopefully at the correct standard this time. The players were offered deals long before the Tribunal hearing. They couldn't have known then how the Tribunal would apply the burden of proof. No one knew that until the decision came out so to suggest that they knew that is clearly incorrect. Very serious claim of bribing or intimidating witnesses. Where do you get that from. I have read that WADA will not be doing any deals with the players. Where have you heard that they are in return for fresh evidence? What fresh evidence have you heard about? I haven't heard about anything.

35,125 27 May 2015 35,911 30 June 2014

I wonder whether Roosy is using his crystal ball and anticipating the abolishment of the sub next year which means 2 ruckman will be back thus the need for a Tall backman to mind them. Thus Fitzy being groomed for the job

His overhead marking on Sunday was a very pleasant surprise. Hope it was more than a one off lucky game. Reports on Casey had him dropping a lot of crucial marks in the backline. Perhaps he's sorted that out. I think the judgement of when to go for a mark in the backline or punch is one of the very hardest in football. I have huge respect for backmen who successfully mark the ball around the last line of defence. Get it wrong and you have a very high probability of gifting the opposition a goal and having the MCG howl at you. Get it right and you're just doing your job.

It's starting to get hard to work out how to limit the back line to just 6 players. We are finally on the brink of having selection dilemmas. Don't forget at least Salem and Jetta still have to go back into that backline and Frost will possibly be fighting for a spot in there as well. Howe is supposed to be there and Pedersen. Must say it's great to see Howe where I think he should be in the forward line. All 5 of those players are very different propositions to Fitzy. None of them will give a contest against a 200cm forward whereas Fitzy will struggle against smaller faster forwards. Most of the say 196cm forwards like Franklin, Cloke, Cameron would eat him alive on running up and down the ground. Who goes out of the backline for him when Salem and Jetta come back and the opposition don't have a 200cm forward. Likely to be a horses for courses.

35,911 30 June 2014 35,125 27 May 2015

Was going to write this post word for word. Great minds think a like. At least you and I can have that opinion. Can't imagine they'd leave Howe in the backline and play Fitz in the forward line after he's spent the whole pre season and the Casey games till now being trained to play in the backline. I figured there could be a future role for him there playing on the 200+cm forwards in the league. Perfect test against Boyd. That then releases Howe to play forward where against the Doggies he could play havoc with their shorter backs. It does have the look of the Casey team at the moment. 8 players in it that were at Casey in round 1 and a few who should be in Casey this week. Was looking forward to this game when I looked at the fixture at the beginning of the year. Not looking forward to it now. I've had that feeling a few times the past couple of years and seen some great wins, so hope springs eternal.

In addition I'd like to know what's going to happen with Dank. No mention of a WADA appeal against him although they have nearly 3 weeks more after the players decision before they have to confirm the appeal. It's a strange one because he got let off on some aspects which WADA could appeal but not on others which he is appealing to the AFL Tribunal. Surely it would make sense to have it all heard together by CAS. I would assume WADA want Danks to go down on everything. In fact he has to go down for administering or intending to administer, if the players are to go down.

Some day they'll come up with a computer program that could have this lot playing against a contemporary team. I'd love to see that. Now to get way off the thread. Nick Maxwell on SEN yesterday asked the question if the fact that a great player never plays in a Grand Final effects their legacy. Robbie Flower's omission in this list comes to mind. The other thing that comes to mind is how many of these players didn't win that midfielders award the Brownlow. The top three on that list are generally argued to be the best of all time yet none won a Brownlow. That award in it's current form shouldn't be the premier award in the Comp. Umpires shouldn't vote on it for a start. They should vote more like Clubs B & F's. Where they vote on performance in a roll. Only one Full Back has ever won a Brownlow and only a couple of FF's.

Does anyone know who decides the penalty if they are found guilty. Is it CAS or would it revert back to the AFL Penalty hearing. Hope it's CAS

Too risky if you get an injury. My guess is because it's Sandilands and Clarke they'll go with Spencer. If it rains they might go for Riley. Brute contested ball winner in the wet.