Ron Burgundy

Forward line looks more balanced with Newton in it, rather than Miller.

The Bennell decision was farcical. That umpire should be binned for the rest of the year. And the 'holding the ball' decision award to Davis for his tackle on Strauss. Dead set - such ineptitude should not be tolerated by the AFL.

UMPIRES!!!! Too gutless to blow the whistle in the forward 50 against Collingwood. We deserved this game - the far superior team lost. I'm throughly gutted and p1ssed off.

Totally agree - Bail looks very likely.

Very, very good signs. We missed two very easy goals just prior to half time (Jamar and Scully). Our forward half is working well for the first time in way too long. I was depressed this time last week. Fast forward ONE week, the adrenalin and hope is back. Keep it up, Dees - we're right in this game.

I just hope we manage to keep him.

Totally agree.

We'll have all 18 players doing circle work in our defensive 50 from the 13th minute mark of the first quarter.

I don't understand why Jamar was offered only a one year contract. IMO he's the player we can least afford to lose at the moment.

I agree. Yesterday's performance was pathetic, but not wholly unexpected. Whilst Hawthorn had several key 'outs', so did we. We also do not have a forward line. At all. We also have the experience of a TAC Cup team - and we were playing a team who is a realistic chance of winning the flag. This team will struggle for a while, though, much like yesterday's game, I think things will improve as the season progresses. Scully and Trengove will really increasingly feel they can compete at this level (as they can). I will be very happy if we finish 11th this year, following a lot of wins and strong performances towards the end of the season.

I think the quality of the opposition in 2010 is higher though (ie, the bar has been raised).

Great post, mika. It seems Bell played as a tagger for the whole of this game - and Watson isn't to be taken likely. He appears to have performed well. Bell strikes me as a reasonable athlete and he's hard at it - poor disposal and decision-making being his problem areas. I'd never thought of using Bell as a tagger, but it seems to make sense. I'd be interested in hearing other people's views on Bell as a tagger.

I agree with deevoted too. I love the guy, but I can't see Jurrah ever being our number one FF. He needs space and some others around him to make the impact we know/hope he will. Watts is still a long way off holding down the position on a permanent and effective basis. Bate seems to play off the half forward line with good effect. We could have, and arguably should have, used Robbo for one more year at FF - if only to assist the other younger players on our list. Merely giving the kids game time in a dysfunctional forward line is hardly good development. Perhaps we just need to bite the bullet and play Green at FF on a permanent basis - and have a big man trying to make each contest to create options for our crumbers and Jurrah. The only question I have is - if we did offer Robbo one more year, which player would we not have drafted (Joel Macdonald)? To me, that's the only argument in support of having delisted Robbo.

More than anything, this club currently needs stability. It is showing positive signs of developing that. Extending Bailey's contract at this point in time is intended to maintain stability, given that we are clearly up for another frustrating year and many of the natives in our army are getting restless. One only needs to read this loop to see that. The jury is still out on whether Bailey is a good game day coach. The jury is not out on whether he has positively restructured this list. He has. That was a KPI for him. He has delivered on this. IMO too many of you focus on the obvious micro detail and forget the bigger picture. When Hannibal crossed the Alps, many of his henchmen had misgivings and bitched and moaned as well. The bigger picture seemed less obvious to them at that time - but it came flooding back when they crossed the Alps and flogged the hell out of the Romans. Stay calm. Unity and stability is what we currently need. Fortunately the club seems to realise this.

One possible positive is that it's good to have a reality check prior to the commencement of the season.

The 9 pointer was definitely after the siren. All the commentators have said as much (Jackovich aside).

Despite his horror run with injuries, I expect Rivers is one of only a few players on our list who would've attracted interest from virtually every other club in the league in recent times. At his best, he is elite. We haven't had many in that category for a very long time.

Based on what I've read, Trengove. I also like the fact that, along with Tapscott, he's committed to the club for three years. But Scully's clearly an elite junior and he was obviously picked at number one for a reason. As an aside, it's interesting to observe the universal excitement about now having both of these players - the consequence of a strategy that wasn't universally endorsed by all on this site only 6 months ago. Would we have been better off to have beaten Richmond or some other battler club at the end of last season? The answer surely has to be 'no way'. Hence, thank you Dean. No one can dispute that he's turned the quality of our list altogether. And that's exciting.

Any prospect we may tank the intraclub?

Wonder what Shane Crawford would think about that ...

Interesting to read in today's Herald Sun that a system devised by some over-enthusiastic banker reveals that our drafting over the past few years has been the best of every club in the competition. What's more - the focus of our recruiting over the past few years has been very skills-based. This team should be an incredibly highly skilled team in due course.

I actually accept that. Having re-read my post I agree it is a pretty annoying. My apologies.

These decisions need to be seen in the context of the time. Quite obviously, all players get too old to play at an elite level at same point. If this wasn't the case, Robbie Flower would still be on the list. It also doesn't mean you shed experienced players towards the end of their careers if you need them for a couple more years. Hence, in trying to keep it to the facts, I reiterate the following: 1. We were a kick away from a preliminary final in 2002 - and, but for injuries and bad luck, we would've been in at least the preliminary final that year. Fact. 2. In 2002, we beat the Lions at the Gabba and West Coast at Subiaco that same year. We had a bloody good team and many pundits predicted a top 4 finish in 2003. This team could run. Fact. 3. Most of our experienced players were at their peak. Fact. They were also a tight knit group. 4. We then traded Woewodin to Collingwood on salary terms not exactly favourable to us. We also did it in a way that it p1ssed off the player group and many supporters. And we needed support. Fact. 5. List management is something the club controls. We were not good at it. Fact. 6. 2003 was a complete debacle. Fact. 7. Despite our performances in 2002 (and 2000), in the middle of the horror year that was 2003 the club suddenly stated that we were "rebuilding". The benefits of that "rebuilding" year never eventuated. We continued to rely on the same group of experienced players, and even lost the one really promising midfielder we had - Scott Thompson. Fact. 8. Meanwhile, Woewodin had a very good year in 2003. Collingwood nearly won the flag. We finished 14th, having won only 5 games. Woewodin then finished second in the Pies' B&F in 2004. Facts. 9. Powell also had a good couple of years, including finishing third in St Kilda's B&F in 2003. The Saints had a talented young list and finished 11th that year - their highest finish since 1998. 10. We got pick 14 in exchange for Woewodin. According to some reports, we also agreed to pay $320,000 of his salary in the first year. Whatever the amount, the fact is we paid a lot. 11. We picked up Daniel Bell with pick 14. Fact. It is my opinion that Bell hasn't lived up to the initial expectations. Relatively uncontroversial opinion. 12. Furthermore, Woewodin, despite some of his failings, was a fitness freak and a great clubman. He was a top influence on the youth coming through. We lost this. Instantly. 13. We got nothing for Powell. Nothing at all. 14. Our midfield, which accounted for some awesome wins in 2002, suddenly looked young, weak and inexperienced. It did nothing in 2003. Fundamentally, it lacked heart. Fact. 15. 2003 was a complete write off. It didn't need to be. Looking back, I fail to see the benefits of these decisions. Conclusion In light of the above facts, I cannot see how these decisions benefitted the club. To the contrary, I think they really harmed us at a crucial time. But then again, I can't understand why they refuse to teach evolutionary science in schools in Kansas. My conclusion is that many people are incapable of dispassionate, clear and logical thought. So I just shrug my shoulders. But at least I've done my best here. I've tried to keep it to the facts. Don, surprise me with yet another of your adolescent "hahaha lol" responses.

No Don. Just keeping it to the facts.

I don't accept all you say as 'fact' simply because you either say so or because you know someone's brother's cousin. We missed Powell in that period. Let's call that a matter of opinion. But I'll give one fact, Don24 - you're not my buddy.