Nasher

We of all supporters should understand that being a crud team doesn't mean playing poorly for every minute of the game. How often over the years have we played okay for most of the game but lost - sometimes badly - because of a terrible 10-15 minute lapse? They're on top again in the last quarter.

Puffed out this week, but just carp every other week?

I love Titus. I thought his style of one-liners would get tedious after a while, but after months, it just hasn't.

I know. So frustrating; the boundary umpire has ONE job to do. Get it right.

That angle I saw showed Dangerfield himself entirely outside the boundary, with the ball on the out-of-bounds side of his body. Unless I've misunderstood physics really badly, it could not possibly have been in.

He's awesome. That was totally out of bounds though.

Even if they got flogged - you could never be sure it was fatigue, given how Freo have gone in general this year.

Exactly! Just made a very similar comment in the match preview thread.

It's so hard to be sure that's the reason though. It's like everyone always blaming Darwin. Under Roos, we are 18-41 - on any given week there's a 60% chance we're going to turn up and play like poo anyway; it's impossible to know how much of it is fatigue, but everyone blames it as if it is so definitive.

Exactly.

Which three? I recall Roos saying after one match (I can't remember which) that we made one mistake at selection, which I believe was selecting Brayshaw prematurely. Not sure when that evolved in to three.

Wouldn't that be gold? Great start by Freo. Seem to be managing okay on their six day break after Darwin too, but apparently our incompetent FD should've made 7 changes with our 8 day break. Here's to an epic Chris Scott tantrum if this game keeps up.

Has a hint of arrogance that I love (and would hate in opposition players). His surname is appropriate. This one was never in doubt, but I found myself grinning at this news.

You would - based on your fitness and conditioning information, which we don't have. I never understand why everyone always defaults to "the selectors are idiots". I know it's not what you said Stu, but it's what you must think if you think they're ignoring common sense. I feel we just have to trust that they know what they are doing when those in charge have more cumulative years of experience than I have been alive.

Fair enough - like I said, I didn't see the tackle. I was expecting it was one of those ones where he's tackled straight away and the drops it/it spills out virtually straight away, which is what people who moan about this rule usually see. Saying it was a free kick 50 years ago won't do much to endear me to your argument though.

The way I see it, our defenders appear to learning how to defend again from scratch. Based on Dunn's comments, it basically renders all past experience obsolete and makes all defenders equal. If that's true; then reason OMac is in the side is because he is picking it up and applying it faster than Dunn (or Garland). Ideally you'd prefer your senior, more physically developed defenders playing while your young ones learn at Casey, but at present, because of the learning curve, OMac is the better defender in the side, so gets picked.

Yes - a legitimate *attempt*, which is subjective. If he gets tackled without prior and throws it or spills it before he can form a handball or kick, that is *not* a free kick usually. Clint was on the right track (and shouldn't have backed down - soft! ?) Note: didn't see the disposal in question, just talking generally. No prior = no obligation for a legal disposal. That is why free kicks with no prior are hardly ever paid unless the player blatantly holds on it it.

Those comments from Dunn re: struggling to adapt seem to confirm what others thought: his move forward and subsequent omission after the last Saints game were due to a failure to play his role. I hope he works it out - it can only be good for the team if he's able to put genuine pressure on the young defenders currently holding fort, and force his way back in. He's got time, the skill, and hopefully the will. Good luck.

Roos was only ever intended to be a foundations laying coach to start our journey out of the ditch. Can't compare him to coaches who were competing for flags in my opinion.

I took "giving him hell" to mean yelling abuse, jeering etc, not "question or dismiss". Those who do are poor supporters at best.

Can't wait for this match. We're a better side, but we're competing against Etihad as much as St Kilda. Come on MFC, between last year and this years games, we have had more than enough practice against these jokers to now show them who we really are. Get the job done!

Because there is no "we" in this discussion, the only person who can initiate the walk for free scenario is Hibberd, and he probably won't for the reasons outlined. I doubt the MFC gives a fat rat's clacker about how it hurts Essendon. I sure don't. The MFC has to look after the interests of the player it is trying to recruit. I'm sure the MFC would love him to come for free and will probably say to him "how about it?", but at the end if the day if the club wants Hibberd, it should be prepared to pay as it would under normal circumstances. The responsible thing to do is start preparing for that scenario now so we are ready for it, and worry about the cheaper path when that opens up, if it does.

All fair points and hard to argue with. Interesting that Heppell is suing Essendon, but isn't linked to any other club and doesn't appear to be trying to use the contract violation avenue to get out either. You could be right, and it could just be as simple as the fact as the players don't think they'd succeed if they went down that path. Otherwise, why wouldn't they? Hibberd himself re-signed in 2014, right in the thick of the issue (though at that time Hird, Dank and co were telling them it was all fine), so it might be hard for him to argue that his contract was breached.

It's more complicated than that. For some, even if they do feel duped, they'd feel duped by Hird and his cronies, not by "Essendon". "Essendon" to the players would mean the jumper they play for, the fans that love them, the good wins they've had, the fans that back them. For others, perhaps Hibberd, perhaps they do feel duped by "Essendon", but don't feel the need to punish Worsfold, the other players or the new administration - all of whom are totally innocent, by totally burning them. I don't think it's as black and white as some would make out.

*wipes coffee off screen*