buck_nekkid

Grimes and Michie in the 'ins' for the last 3 rounds. Wonder if they will actually play?

Anyone get to training and can comment on how the group looked, who was doing what? It would be appreciated!

Some points from today: Sydney had a class and hardness advantage that showed up in the wet. We fumbled and bumbled, and they smashed us with intensity. Tale of 2nd vs 10th, and where our teams are at. Simply too many errors. Their ability to defend in their back 50 outdid our ability to find a target or have clean possession. it was one extended contest. Glad there is a bye next week Tony Shaw is a [censored].

KC, You do an awesome job each week keeping us updated, which I really appreciate. Hope someone else at the ground can share the scores and thoughts today.

Replace 'kids' who are performing with older dudes that aren't???? No the way I would pick a team....

I thought there were some really valuable performances that slipped under most radars - VDB and Stretch (a few telling quality possessions just in front of where I was sitting) to name a few. Roos said 'no passengers', and it looked that way on the day. For mine, barring injury and load issues, I would leave the side unchanged. The only issue may be the weather, in which case we might be looking at swapping out a tall for a small. Newton, ANB or Grimes would be the most likely. White would need to be upgraded from the rookie list, and I don't see any pressure for us to do so at this stage. Dawes stays in, probably OMac first tall out.

They had twice as many marks as us. Mark = no tackle. When we allowed disputed ball through poor kicking or marking skills, they could tackle. When they passed cleanly between backs, we had less opportunities. They were cleaner and better organised in their back half, which reduced the possibility of tackles in our forward half. Thought we created lots of contests in their forward 50 in the middle part of the game. spoiling marks really well. Lots of disputed ball and lots of tackle opportunities in their front 50. Also, Rioli got about 8 tackles in 10 minutes at the start of the 4th quarter, I think, playing on the ball - so these stats may be skewed by that as well. However, it is a disgraceful stat for the forward group however you slice it up...

Chunk was rushed and turned the ball over way too often. Yes, he cracked in, but I think I counted 8 times his exit kicks from contests were either direct to opposition or provided no advantage. Hogans bounce... Trac's handball when he should have kicked it. Does my head in. garlett had an absolute dog. He did work hard and made multiple contests in the first quarter, but near goal he was useless. we were dumb as a team coming out from half back. The number of times we took a poor option and turned it straight back over drove me nuts. Frost x 3. that duck to get the free kick was a disgrace. An absolute disgrace. we made better contests, stopped them for most of the day taking marks inside 50 and worked so much harder than last week. disappointed we didn't win, but the team is definitely one that is learning to play against the better teams, and is not far off matching it with them.

Form at Casey, or total form including training? We do not get to see everything that goes on, and are not privy to their process. Maybe form means different things in different roles, and VDB is the best Viney replacement available, for example? Happy with the ins.

The problem is not the 'diamond', or the zone defence. The opposition simply are allowed uncontested possession from their half back, through the middle and this allows them in behind us as we press up to waltz into goal. what is meant to happen is that we spread hard at half forward (hopefully locking it in for a repeat entry) and create a contest, or the next kick to the midfield zone is also contested. Even if they get the ball, the contest allows time for the zone to push back and defend. If the ball is transitioning uncontested in 10 seconds coast to coast, even Usain Bolt is not getting back there. So when our half forwards and midfield fail to spread or make a contest, we could have the 'triple sapphire' defence and we would still be a screwed pooch. Who had a poor game this last match? The half forwards and most of the midfield. The diamond defence is a good, aggressive way to start at the centre bounce, putting outside runners available for exit, or crash-bang extra bodies to thump the contest. How it shifts to create positioning for the incoming opposition ball - to press up and ensure that there is a significant contest - only works if it can roll into position based upon contested exit of the opposition slowing things down and making adequate time. The system itself is just a system. It absolutely demands commitment to make repeated contests, and gain repeat entries or slow the opposition exit. If we don't do this, our backline has no hope. They will get in behind us and kick lots of goals from inside 30. I would be having a hard conversation with the half forwards and midfield who simply didn't push to the next contest, or cover the spread, adequately enough. Do that, and I think we will challenge most teams and have a functional defence. We could also consider a Westoff style sweeper as a plan B if we aren't coping mid game.

The Hawks - They are not unbeatable this year. My point is that the team on the park yesterday wouldn't be able to beat them, though. Our best this year would give them a run.

'We messed it up at selection' - is code for 'we selected kids that didn't do what they planned or promised'. That is, with hindsight, the selections were poor, because beforehand there was an expectation that the team would be able to do their jobs. Terrible pressure in the forward half allowed them to walk out of our backline (every time) - how many times did they go coast to coast? They spread so much better than us. We got sucked into contests only to see it slip out-and away. They smashed us in the contest and second effort. The niggle was definitely part of this strategy. Forward line looked good, but a few blokes had off days. This was a reality check game. At out best, we play pretty exciting footy. However, we are a season or two away from finals, and this game underlines why. We are certainly heading in the right direction though. Think we may have held off a couple of changes for next week that we should have made this week. Hawks are vulnerable, but not to the team we put out there yesterday. Think there will be a raft of changes, including some additional height.

I sat next to some person who had obviously read the age that morning. The number of times she sprouted "oh, it the Bulldogs star pattern" even when it was in the midfield or their attack. At one point I turned to her and remarked 'yes, I read that in the paper, too...'(it shut her up). God help me, this week all I'm going to hear about is the flipping diamond!

Line by line we look good compared to them. However, I think this will be won on structures, esp how we break down their defense and make use of it inside 50. We have to win it in the middle and run super hard both ways, or we will be made to look like fools. Looking forward to it, see you at the 'G!

Who will be available at about pick 25-30? That should be our first pick this year as GCS have already secured our first rounder. Will be interesting to see if we trade back in (GWS will need a fair few points to bid for academy types, and now they are further up the ladder, it is going to be harder for them to compete for talent). Are there any father son recruits this year??

What have we lost? A list spot, and perhaps a low-moderate contract. what do we gain? A back up #1 ruckman, insurance if the G-monster goes down. Pedo is not a #1 ruck, he is an average chop out at best. No one else is ready. It was/is our core list fragility (back men not far behind) one year- allows other options to be developed/ brought in. id say A good move, for all. good luck to Spencil. I hope he puts massive pressure on Gawn to retain his spot!

I upgraded my old NB runners for an awesome pair for 60 bucks delivered 2 days later. an absolutely brilliant idea. Hopefully win-win-win (me, Mfc, NB) can you do it again next year!

Hard to have concussion when you are a headless chook, H! With both H. And Salem out, we need 2 players to break the lines from half back. Viv and Vince would be perfect for this. Oliver to the midfield, stretch to the wing for outside run feels right. 2 meter Peter can have crusty the clown on him if we stop it from getting in there. Lynch is the big threat forward, hopefully TMac gets his mojo back. maybe Garlo goes forward, Pedo goes back? Interesting forward line then with watts, Garlo and Jesse as targets, with Harmes, Kent and Jeffy lurking....

I don't think we need to call for calm, I would rather call for resolve. forteenthmond and fickedmantle will be calling for calm. We need to stick to our guns, hold ourselves accountable, and do better than this. If we believe we are on the right path, then we need resolve. We will get fluctuations with our young group (etc etc) and the short term pain of a loss sucks ( and I hope it sucks for the players, too, to give up a game they could have won), but there is FINALLY a bigger picture. i call for resolve to stick to that and see where it gets us. We are no longer a complete rabble. I don't want calm, I want resolve to win, to play the way we are supposed to, with the effort that makes it work.

Does Hulett pinch hit in the ruck?

Incredibly disappointing. was hoping at times that we would 'bounce back', but we just didn't. this was poor in many dimensions. We looked flat, slow and almost disinterested. Why we couldn't run a basic defensive plan (1 on 1, even!) after the Saints had strolled through us at least half a dozen times is beyond me. we were pushed out of contests, and they spread so much better than us. Hogan lived up to his billing. Often he was running up to the wings, he stuck a ripper tackle, and marked stuff he shouldn't have. Awesome. Frost had a 12 point turn around- running into goal and missed a sitter. They went coast to coast for a goal. Lumumba is a liability. Chook with his head cut off. Enough. CP5- good learning day. Got caught with it a bit early, but his delivery to Hogan from the center was a gem. Looked like he was puffing a bit! short break? Ahead of ourselves? Poor application and effort? Who knows, but we were average today. We still kicked 15 ( more than we would have last year), but apart from a few players, well down on what's required.

Or that they couldn't spell dustbin

Any chance Lovett?

Doe, a deer, a female deer.......

It is difficult to articulate any degree of insight when we (and the journalists) are not in the room. Saying that they were avoiding anchoring bias is about as valuable as suggesting they had mapped out the MNP's, or whatever. It's rewriting history (like the Harvard case study method, BTW), and offers us no insight into how they did it, or whether it was anchoring or first positioning. A behind the scenes review and interviews of each step of the deal would offer more insight. We could then understand then negotiations and how they played out. We could also learn if the two guys who went to Harvard were even involved, or if this was just a spurious link. Anyway, if you enjoyed it, that's cool. It just seemed like a stretch too far to give the piece an angle.