jabberwocky

I have said similar to this earlier, and agree completely, but afl teams don't give up consciously, surely you will concede that. You would certainly say that the Roos applied themselves much better, ran harder and contested better. It was unnaceptable as we all agree. It seems that WYL has argued with me (Yodes) vigorously in an effort to agree with me...

So there was effort now, so they didn't give up?

I have to walk away from this in disbelief. If you think that 22 players were completely bereft of effort after half time then there is nothing more to be said.

Great thread and clearly an area that the club needs to address. There is no reason why under the tuition of Moloney, Jones and Sylvia that we can't create our own squad of elite ball winners with the young cattle we have. The issue that goes hand in hand with this one which is just as pressing is our inability to reward the ball winner with viable options. We have a tendency to stop moving and running in games of football when we are pressed.

I would consider any trade in or below the teens for the player. If I take an honest look at him I still cannot see him as a really valuable asset on the ground in any particular position. A floating half back flanker is about the best I can come up with. Just my take, fire at will.

I understand Chip coming out as he did and wanting to fire a rocket up the a$% of a few of his team-mates, some deserved it others didn't. I understand Davey coming out the way he did, and his reason's for it. There are players who kept trying to attack and run against the tide, they didn't deserve the "give up" tag. Players such as Jones don't deserve it when they are actively working hard to try and change the flow out there in the battle. The fact is that both players are leaders of the club and are trying to do something positive, just going about it in different ways.

Something like that, as I have said the club's psyche needs to change, when we are under attack we need a new plan and a new atttitude. If all you are say is that we "gave up" and next week won't "give up" then you are selling the issue short and addressing nothing. It is an extreme over- simplification to say that we gave up. Davey is actually spot on with what he says. How would you like Bails to address the issue? "OK boys last week we gave up, let's not give up this week ok..." I would expect him to look at exactly why we were over-run, watch the video, speak to the players and address all of the deficiencies on their merit. The problems are not merely physical or mental, our failure was multi-dimensional not withstanding the improved effort from the Roos and the confidence that we allowed them to gain.

If a football team gives up for a half how much would they lose by? 200 points, 300 maybe 600 points.

He is a mature body, he jumps at the footy with intent, has a good boot and from all accounts has footy smarts. Deserves a look I think.

If the footy dept are confident that Gawn can run out 50-60% of an Afl game then he may well come in, the last thing I want to see is the kid hurt himself due to fatigue or lack of condition. Joel McDonald must play. He can win his own footy and has form and experience ,commodities we need, perhaps play him as a defensive forward or wingman takes Dunn's spot. Rivers for Garland if fit. Howe for Wonna, Maric plays as genuine crumber. It sounds like it is a dead heat between Nicholson and Evans for elevation if the club decides to go this way. Either one of these for Bail. Garland out is a bigger blow than many would realise. He takes the quick leading forwards and has a bit of leadership about him.

I'm pretty settled here thanks WYL. Your argument is that it is clearly written by someone else because you deem it as so. My argument is that Aaron Davey is capable of writing it himself and that what you say is not necessarily so. Your argument is that the players simplisticically "gave up." My argument is that the player's did not consciously "give up" but don't have the required leadership, tactics and psyche to deal with some types of pressure. If the players had given up the margin would have been far greater than 41 points. Your arguments are what I would consider to be extreme blanket statements. I don't believe in them.

Okey Dokey.... I speak to the media regularly and I have a set of unwritten guidelines and rules which dictate what I can and can't say. I don't have anyone spoon-feeding me but you seem far more edumacated than I seeing you worked on a documentary so you must be right.

It was with great confidence that you made that statement, "TOLD" with capitals no less..... Why make stuff up? it does nothing for the thread, your argument or your credibility.

Yes all of those clubs would and have come out with the same spin. Surely you understand the distinction between consciously giving up and losing confidence and belief and playing too defensively. If you think I am making excuses then think again, it is unacceptable and continues to be a symptom of the lack of leadership on the footy field. The team psyche needs to change completely. Brereton and Dunstall were spot on. We are not yet at the stage where we react appropriately to an attacking barrage, it needs to be owned and addressed immediately by all.

I think this is key. It is also the reason why I don't want to see Jack Watts playing loose in the back-line and flying above packs palming the ball to the boundary in marking contests.

I agree, when I saw it live I thought he took a small step with the footy and could have got rid of it albeit very quickly. It was more the inconsistency on Saturday which was completely baffling.

Never did I lose faith in this bloke to become a very good player such is his attitude to get the best from himself and desire to influence results. He is one who has stood up against the tide this year and has continued to try to create. Congrats chunk on 100, I expect another 100 from you at least mate (and a flag).

Correct, I have no doubt that the players will be coming back to the rooms more physically drained than after a good win. We definitely need to play harder and smarter, but we also need to have confidence in ourselves and our team-mates and continue to take the right type of risks. Once we become defensive and fearful our opponent then becomes less accountable and then they begin to run forward in numbers. Next you know we are 5 goals down with blokes out there scratching thier heads wondering what has happened. At the moment it is like watching a Greek Tragedy unfold. I actually wonder if we are a victim of trying to play tempo football after a couple of goals against. IE, We seem to struggle to come back from a side getting a couple of easy ones against it. I wonder if we are trying to shut down too early and play a brand of defensive football that we are not tactically tuned to or comfortable with.

We didn't give up. Our running slowed, we lost confidence, became stagnant, stopped running forward in numbers, became defensive and fearful, lost belief in or team-mates but we did not give up.

My apologies Jnr, I often take it for granted that I am posting to an educated audience and don't realise that many don't understand the workings of the club. We have an alignment with a VFL team, the Casey Scorpions. Developing players and those who need to work on aspects of thier game will be often asked to do it in that setting. I am old fashioned and believe that only those players with a strong desire to win the football should be promoted. In playing those that aren't fully committed to the contest you are accepting mediocrity in this area. It doesn' help the club, the culture or the player in the long term. I have been saying this for a long time.

I tried to read it, I really did, please change your font, I find it unreadable.

Usually agree with most of what you write but i don't see it this way at all. 1. Tapping the ball away in the way that he does is a concession and a failure to commit to the contest. It can work when you tap to a team-mate's advantage or your own however Watts almost never wins a body to body contest on the ground. Again most, nearly all of the time yesterday he failed to get low enough to win a ball at ground level. 2. I hated that Bailey put him back as a loose man. Sure he did well in that role. He can read the play and pick up some uncontested possession. He can hit a target and moves really well, however we know all this. Getting some cheap footy to validate himself and validate his selection is not what I want to see. I want to see him develop in the areas where he is flawed, not get his possession count higher so he or the coaching staff can feel that he has done enough. I feel we made some of the same mistakes with Morton. 3. A player who is a nice mover and a nice kick but cannot win a contested football has no place in a modern football team. 4. Do not give games to players who cannot or will not win contested football otherwise we will never break through mediocrity.

Chip pushed himself up the ground a lot and tried to take on the responsibility of running the lines and taking risks probably because there were few others willing to do it. A Collingwood supporting mate of mine sitting with me was also able to recognise this. This is damning in itself. Looking purely at the coach or individual players won't be the answer. Our psyche needs to change in it's entirity. When physical pressure is applied our players lose confidence in themselves and stop backing thier team-mates. At this juncture we are mentally soft and frigid.

He is showing good signs, I would like to see him win some one on ones, in the air or on the ground I don't care, mind you he wasn't Robinson Crusoe yesterday, we could hardly win a contested possoession in the last 3 quarters.

This paragraph sums us up pefectly for mine, and this is what must be addressed. These were the questions I had after last week. Had we really turned the corner ar would we fail to run again when pressure was applied by a competent football side.