Nasher

Indeed. Foot soldier yo-yo is for when you're losing by 60+ every week and they're getting massacred. Someone to play for Jetta, and perhaps OMac for Garland, and that's it for mine.

He's without doubt now the most consistent Jetta. Not being blessed with the pace of his cousins has probably proven to be a blessing rather than the curse we thought it might be, as it has forced him to bust a gut developing the other areas of his game. He's definitely the toughest Jetta, too.

These threads are always interesting. Some try to post what they would do with solid reasoning, some try to predict what will actually happen even if it isn't what they would do, and others just post outright fantasy. Five changes - as if.

It may have worked (you could never say without having been present), but you'd think that tactic has a pretty short shelf-life as Hogan gets more experienced and therefore better at handling the psychological side.

Agreed. FWIW I tried to frame this as a positive thing (as that's how I saw it) rather than a WOE IS ME, HE MIGHT LEAVE type thread.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-16/rivals-circle-free-agent-demon-defender-neville-jetta Apparently sparking a bit of interest outside the club. Doesn't strike me as very likely to leave - I expect the club values him greatly and he will get an offer accordingly, and he seems to me to be a particularly loyal person. I reckon he will want to be a part of what is to come. It's definitely been an amazing career turnaround, and just goes to show what can be done with some struggling players with a decent system around them. He's become one of our most consistent players and definitely a personal favourite of mine.

I spent the whole game watching their midfield tear through the middle, in numbers, time after time, thinking if only Dunn were playing!

With a dynamic, mobile, hard working forward line, I find that very difficult to visualize. It's almost like you think if a forward has a solid defender pull up next to him, he's going to stand still, shrug his shoulders and say to his mids' "oh well, guess you'd better kick it to someone else then".

Roos also turfed half the team he inherited. I think that says plenty about the confidence he had in the list. You can't compare the two really. The legwork had been done for Beveridge; Roos started from scratch. A better comparison for Beveridge will be Goodwin 2017.

I don't think it's as simple as someone being "on" Stringer (or Riewoldt). If the supply is reduced, or at least under more pressure, it becomes inherently more difficult for a forward to function. We saw this with our own forward line - their defenders are a bunch of no-names, but we didn't have one winner on the day other than maybe Hogan. I reckon the days of one defender being responsible for one and only one forward are long gone. Stringer's output was purely a function of their midfield dominance.

There seems to be a lot of players in helmets this year - Daniel, Murphy, Griffiths spring to mind, and someone from Sydney was wearing one too. Are these concussion related? I know the general consensus has been that they don't help, but I can't see any other reason for them starting to make an appearance.

Thought the scoreboard was reflective of the difference. It's disappointing, but I thought the effort was there, just too many poor kicks, dropped marks etc against a class side. Bit of a reminder of where we are at I guess. Onwards and upwards.

Cue Redleg: "and some people on here wanted him delisted last year". I'm one who thought he would be delisted (deliberate omission of the word "want") last year, and probably picked up on the rookie list, purely because that's what usually happens to players who don't look close after two years on the list. Glad to have been wrong and that he's managed to stay fit and tie it all together so far this year. His dash off half back is impressive and he's got strength in the air that I didn't expect. I look forward to seeing what he can do over the next few years.

Why would they do that? Seems a very risky strategy even if nobody was in doubt. Never know when someone will do a hammy warming up, or wake up the morning of the game with gastro. Bizarre.

We *always* lose to teams in hopeless situations? I know we like to have really short memories around here, but have you already forgotten last week? We're fresh off demolishing a team in a hopeless situation.

Confident, because I find a win when I was confident far more satisfying than a surprise win. Of course, losing feels heaps worse, but we're a good enough side that I'm happy to take that risk with my own emotions.

It'll be interesting to see which plays first. I have nothing to go off other than Casey reports, but it sounds as if Hulett is already phyiscally developed. It also sounds like he's improving with each game - the earlier reports were of him being reminded to get in to position and so forth. Weideman by the sounds has all the skills, but requires more size. Early days, but how exciting would it be if it turned out we picked up two genuine key forwards in one draft?

Hopefully their rebound is amazing as Gold Coast's was.

Heh. That's exactly the sort of thing I'd notice and comment on, too.

Surely we're past the need to condemn disasters before they happen these days.

Nah - just supporters who haven't been in this position in either a long time, or ever if they're under the age of about 24.

It's a nice milestone. I think it goes without saying that we need to keep winning. Do you reckon the club might go "ripper, we're in the 8 one game in to round 8, let's pack up shop for the rest of the season now"?

So? You could pick out 100 should haves in a game of footy - it's a totally different equation if instead of saying "they should have kicked more goals", you change it to "Adelaide should have hit more targets through the middle/half forward". The possibilites in a game of footy are infinite - I think the only scenario that matters is the one that actually happened. Furthermore, any one of those misses going through for a goal changes the course of the game entirely - ball goes back to the middle instead of being kicked in and trapped again at half back, which takes the contest back to even, rather than giving them another opportunity to trap it at half back, which they've done really well. I think you could argue that if Geelong had kicked more goals early on, they'd have generated far fewer scoring opportunities, and some of them that turned out to be Geelong scoring opportunities could even have been Adelaide scoring opportunities due to the contest being reset.

Why should they?

I'd be stoked if Geelong lost this after so many scoring shots.