Nasher

Alienating him hardly sounds like a great way of persuading him. I guess we had also better take Dunn back out of the group, since he is also a UFA.

Really going out on a limb there RGRS!

Surprised about Dunn - pleasantly, as I have been all year. A good recognition of effort. The other two just being put where they obviously belong.

I'm pretty sure hogans_heroes was complaining about players getting injured.

Howe as a defender was borne out of necessity due to his form. He just wasn't getting near the ball in the forward line. It's our proactive coaches finding a solution to a hairy problem. Sunday he looked back to his best, marking the ball and just being involved. Having Dawes and Frawley is also a massive help; I think we have now established that Howe can't be the chief target. I'd be more than happy to see him forward again and Dunn back; when both players are playing at their best, that's our most dangerous set up.

If Dawes had kicked those goals it would have literally been a match winning performance. Notwithstanding the misses, he played an excellent game I thought, looked even more dangerous than the week before. His post match interview made it clear that he sets high standards for himself.

Simple indeed.

I knew he was a good in and under player, but I hadn't watched a lot of Footscray over the years, so I didn't know the extent of it. Sometimes he ends up first on the ball when he has no right to. I thought he'd be a good match for the club as soon as he became available, and so far I couldn't be more pleased.

I disagree Bobby. My view is that if he is professional enough to umpire at the top level, it must also be assumed that he is professional enough to umpire against ANY side without bias. I see your point, but I reckon this is different to high school footy sides. I wouldn't be bothered if he's umpired in our Saints game, as I assume he would behave professionally.

There's no such thing as what the margin "should have been", only what the margin was.

Why should it have been?

lol. We lost by 8 points. Given where we've come from, the improvement has already come from somewhere. Perhaps it'll keep coming from the same place.

Because it's a risky play. By doing that, you're putting the ball in contest again; their players are just as likely to mark it as ours. In comparison to controlling the ball out of the back half, it's fraught with danger. Going coast to coast in three kicks looked sweet and the situation called for it (I'm assuming the players did not know how long there was to go), but if we'd been ahead - or there'd been more time on the clock - and Dunn did a kick like that from full back, I'd have throttled him. It's a strategy that has its place, but only in real "roll of the dice" scenarios.

Much, much better quarter. If we can repeat and find a way to score we're a chance. Come on boys!

Hehe. Yes, it seems for all most of our players it's a case of "hard, skilled, quick. Pick which two."

Disappointed that Kent's injured. I've been really enjoying watching his progression over the last two seasons.

For what it's worth it's not the content of your posts in this thread that I object to, it's the timing. We all know Nev's limited, but surely he's just as worthy of some of the benefit of the doubt we've afforded all the other players who have been on our list for the last few years.

I love that Jack "Worst Disposal In The History Of The Game According To Demonland Experts" Grimes is ranked 4th for effective disposals. Further proof that people just see what they want to see.

Too ugly to coach. That is definitely a new one.

Agreed. Has always been a player I've wanted to make it because of the way he goes about it.

Of course I do. That's because Geelong aren't trying to grow a team from scratch.

You might as well have said "Todd Viney was probably completely unprofessional". I think if you're going to sling accusations like that around, you ought to have something to base it on.

Me, and just about everyone else I know would be a start.

If you say so. If it is written, I doubt it's to protect a footballer keeping his broken rib from 20 years ago private. I understand that the rule is black and white and I understand why, but I reckon in this case Webber's "disclosure" is a pretty soft target.

I really, really doubt that AC would be bothered by his physio talking about a foot injury he suffered 20 years ago.