buck_nekkid

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.

Learned at Harvard....and any decent negotiation or sales course. Wow, a simple behavioural concept of anchoring bias made into an article to suggest that the Adel/Geel was somehow special. Obviously fluff filler whilst nothing else is going on.

These three are not in our best 22. None of our players are. Preseason begins in about 6 weeks, every player should start from zero. They should work their butts off to earn a place in the team. No one gifted a spot any more. You earn it, or play at Casey. These three have the same chance as everyone else.

Why is there an assumption of a 'gentleman's agreement'? The trade was completed in the two club's interests. Now we shift to drafting. For us not to evaluate all potential draftees and go to the draft clear on our order of preference would be ridiculous. If a GWS academy player was the best, and available at 3, we would have to nominate them. I think the idea of nominating kids to 'force' someone to burn their points is also stupid (you might just get stuck holding the bunny). I don't know too much about the academy kids, but we bid on 'glass jaw Heeney' last year. If Mills is as good as they say, or even Kennedy slides to 7, then we should have interviewed them, evaluated them and be ready to pick them. It is then up to the academy club to decide if they want to bid up and match for them or not. However, these clubs have actually already shown their hand by trading down for points. This means they limit their ability to draft anything else other than the academy selection at the quality end of the draft. We, on the other hand, have the ability to draft academy (depending on matching strategies) or non academy kids with our delicious picks 3 and 7. I think we are in a really good spot. I would be pizzed if we now didn't go after the best available simply to benefit another club.

So if we finish better than 11th, we have done well. We have essentially traded next year's pick (>7) in a deep draft year to get two goes at the top talent of a shallow one. Very, very good thinking. Should be lots of quality deep next year (from reports), so I don't see a problem. 3 and 7 bring us top end talent, I can see the team bringing in a smokey (aka Vanders), upgrading Vanders and Harmes. King to stay a rookie. Our list, if healthy, starts looking half decent. Roos has done his job in turning the 'tanker' around (yes, pun intended...)

Lots of teeth gnashing.... We got rid of a mercinary who didn't want to play for us, who screwed up the plan A deal with GCS. Toumpas wants back to SA, and the consensus was he was never going to make it due to lack of speed, lack of heart and lack of poise. Port did us a favour ( shows, moving back 3 picks means they have low expectations) We targeted Kennedy, and got him. We got a second and a third rounder. I think this is OK. If we do a bit more with these picks coming in, then we can judge the whole thing at the back end of the week.

But if the bird eats the bugg, we will be left with milkshake all over our faces...