Vipercrunch

It's a bit too early to make a call on Salem, but like most I think he will be in the best before long. Out of the established players (in no particular order) - Watts, Dunn, Jones, Dawes, Garland, Vince Definitely not Howe for me either.

Tagging Stanton to some degree is always very effective against them too. I would put Cross on Heppell and Jordie or Grimes on Stanton. Having seen the Casey report now, I think the changes will be:- In: Kent, Mckenzie Out: Salem, JKH

I think it is time to omit JKH and Salem (Casey or rest them). First year player who have played much more senior footy than most would have expected but it seems to have caught up with them. Kent is a must to see what he can bring with run and daring. I think Toumpas is the other one to come in. I'm half expecting to hear Jamar is injured also so there might be a change for him too. Otherwise I still can't work out why he was subbed....

Not enough daring when moving the ball forward. Forward line didn't work together to make space, block etc. Not enough run and the things needed to assist run - shepherding and talk. Happy with the improvements defensively. I just have to be patient with the offensive side of the game which requires better skill and confidence. I have to give credit where its due - Collingwood's defenders were very good. Tight and well timed punches.

The reading of posts made in the past are interesting as it shows that some people did not rate him at all and are now giving all the credit to Roos for turning him into a good player while others saw the ability before Roos came along and are not surprised by the plaudits going his way now. Great for him and the club and well deserved. Please don't ever let that mo grow again though....

I'd like to keep the same talls in the forward line that beat Richmond with Frawley up back and Grimes doing a negating role on one of their mids. In: Dawes Out: Toumpas (only got in because Jetta was sick)

Anyone else find themselves very frustrated at Cross near the end of the game? He took a mark/free on the far wing and after a lot of indecision chose to kick it backwards. The game was on the line. We had several winners up forward. Surely it was time to take the risk and pump it forward and go for the win. I just couldn't work out why he chose such a negative option. Yes, they had Westoff sitting in our forward line, but why not drop it on his head and let Pederson or Howe use him a s step ladder? Kick it close to the line and cause a throw in 40 metres out? There wasn't the time to reset and send it back around the other way. Really felt it was the time to attack and take a chance. Anyway, happy with the result. Wish we had Dawes in the team and still unhappy we chose not to fight such a howler. Some glimpses of exciting things to come with some of the youngsters. The line was 36.5 points which going into the game I felt was pretty right, so a 20 point loss was above my expectations. Nice going into the QB game thinking we have a realistic chance.

We're 3 years into 20-30 year commitment. Can't see the AFL panicking at the moment. A semi-successful GWS side is only part of the equation. I think the best outcome for other clubs is for GWS is reach a level of success that is satisfactory, because we all get hurt if they get more draft/trade assistance. I don't think I will ever like them, but I do hope they make serious in-roads into the sporting landscape in NSW. The whole game will benefit in the long run.

Nail on the head. Elbow to the chest.

I hope none of the many supporters who don't know where the game is this weekend are travelling up to Darwin instead of Alice. A guy rang SEN tonight complaining about the AFL scheduling a daytime game in the 34 deg heat of Darwin. Worst part was that it took Mark Allen and the Ox about 5 minutes and heaps of SMS's to work it out.

What was the fuss about? Saw the footage tonight and it was obviously to the chest. You could see Pickens head and the elbow was well below that and the force was low. Total media beat up of a nothing incident.

If by win you mean getting within 40 points of them, then sure, we have a shot. If you however mean the more traditional definition of win and actually mean that we have more points than they do at the end of the game then no chance. Some posters might be getting a reality check this weekend. We have improved, yes, but still have along way to go before we are competitive against the Top 4 sides.

Not sure why it's so much of an issue. The AFL industry, pretty much as a whole now provides specific information about some, but most of the time, all of their players playing in the lower grades. There is obviously a real or perceived high level of interest in that level of information, presented in that way. If there was an equally high level of interest in individual player reports from the seniors, I think it would happen. If you want the senior critique made public, start a campaign and try and get it done. Maybe, for most people, they are happy enough to make up there own mind about the seniors because they can see it for themselves. If the players have a problem with it, they can take it up with the AFLPA and try and get it stopped, but it's been happening for a while now so maybe the players are fine with it. Some seem to prefer the meaningless and less than honest stuff we got given in the past which hinted that all our players were knocking on the door of selection every week. I like hearing the honest stuff and the same stuff that would have already been presented to the players.

I, like the first few posters thought it was top 5 in the club, which was a strange question. Glad it was clarified. Top 10 in the league seems about right, not Top 5. AFL coaches voting so far:- LEADERBOARD 55 Gary Ablett (Gold Coast) 44 Josh Kennedy (Sydney Swans) 39 Scott Pendlebury (Collingwood) 38 Joel Selwood (Geelong) 35 Nathan Fyfe (Fremantle) 35 Robbie Gray (Port Adelaide) 32 Patrick Dangerfield (Adelaide) 32 Nathan Jones (Melbourne) 31 Nick Riewoldt (St Kilda) 30 Brent Harvey (North Melbourne)

The reason might be no more than there is no perceived demand for coaches reports for senior games. Very few supporters see the reserves play and there is relatively very little media coverage, so the clubs have decided to communicate as honestly as they see fit about how those players in the seconds are going. If enough supporters want and ask to see coaches appraisals of the seniors maybe they will get it. I'd say most supporters are currently happy watching the game and reading and watching the media coverage in the days following. Maybe it could become a members only perk? The AFLPA would represent all players and I doubt they would forbid it for the seniors but allow it for the reserves.

The reviews are very honest and I like it. What is the point on telling the players one thing (the honest appraisal) and then publically saying all is well and they're doing great? I doubt the player is going to make it long term if they get all precious about public, honest appraisals, especially if it identical to what they are being told privately. They don't need to do it publically for the seniors because nearly all the supporters get to see the game themselves, although maybe it would be insightful to see how the actual coaches view things. The weekly appraisals the AFL over for the seconds (for want of a better word these days) are notoriously fluffy and dishonest. Everyone who reads them thinks their team is chock full of super talented kids who are all tearing it up in the lower leagues and every player is really close to senior selection. I am glad we are no longer doing it that way.

Meanwhile, Roos said the club genuinely wanted to challenge Chris Dawes’ one-match suspension for striking Richmond defender Alex Rance. “We would’ve loved to have challenged it – there’s no question,” he said. “Sometimes you take your punishment, rather than getting an extra week, so there’s no doubt that we felt that Dawesy – based on some of the other decisions and I don’t want to say it was an incorrect decision – but we probably disagreed with the decision. “You go and risk another week and you just can’t do that with the unpredictability the way it is.” From the MFC Website in the article about Racism. Basically they felt the decision was wrong but the system is so bad it was safer to cop the ban.

Pretty disappointed. We copped it.

A bad ruling is a bad ruling. I can't believe some of the posts here. It was never more than a one week down to a reprimand incident at the most. Plenty of similar ones have received even less.. Have a look at the ruling. He has no carry over points or bad record. They judged it as a action worthy of two weeks before the early plea and that is a joke. Also can't quite understand why people are looking at the fixture to decide if we fight it. We are not going to make the finals and I know you all would like to beat Collingwood on QB but perhaps that's not the thing highest on the clubs priority list. Put the fixture aside. I don't want my club to accept a crap ruling because it's convenient.

They can't rank the impact of this one same as they ranked the Viney/Lynch one. It's just not possible. The whole system is just broken. I hope they take it on.

The team is crying out for the attributes that Blease possess (outside speed and finishing) but it doesn't sound like he warrants selection. I believe there is a spot with his name on it when and if he improves in whatever areas Roos is demanding of him.

Rapt for the kid and the game. Yes!!!

The letter of the law is "elect to bump". It is clearly those factors that are in question, not the impact. Did he have another reasonable alternative? You can't "elect" to do something if there are no alternatives or no time to execute those alternatives. Was it an actual bump or someone slowing down and bracing for unavoidable contact? The uproar is because so many people don't believe he had and a choice (did not "elect") and because it wasn't how most describe a bump. In most peoples view, even to the letter of the law he wasn't guilty. He was neither reckless, negligent or intentional in his actions. There is no "accidental" box which is how most people see the incident.

Would love the live Footy Show audience to boo and heckle Barrett throughout his segment. What could they possibly do about it? He is simply grandstanding and acting as though he is one of the enlightened few who really understand the rule but making himself look so disengaged from the general public. Arrogance and attention seeking at it's worst.

Re comments from Demetriou - Glad to read it. Still doesn't ensure a better outcome but certainly glad to read it.