Nasher

I thought the idea of making him the sub seemed pretty good, but CC scotched this in an article (can't remember which sorry), as it means he'd not get the required amount of game time needed to progress his return to match fitness. I guess this seems fairly obvious on reflection. Given that, I agree with you about starting him in the 21 with a view to subbing him off if necessary. West Coast did this with Le Cras in our match to good effect. My changes: In: Scully, Trengove, Howe, Gawn Out: Newton, Bate, Jetta, Warnock. Dunn can come back via Casey as his pre-suspension form was dreadful.

Hehe, go for it

I disagree, no salt needed, just an ability to comprehend subtle messages. And anyone who concludes that the club feels their mission is accomplished with Morton is failing miserably on the comprehension front.

This paragraph sat very well with me, good post. Right list of players too for mine, and I would definitely include Rivers. Time for these boys to stand up and lead the way. Start with each other and the rest will follow.

Mine too.

Anyone notice that this was published on the club website? Nice work KC.

I struggle to see what we gain by leaving out Nicholson after a quarter of football - and a fairly solid quarter at that. If the club had no intention of playing him properly then they should've saved their coin by not promoting him off the rookie list in the first place.

After reading this reply several times I'm convinced you haven't read a single word of this topic.

Every single side in the AFL has paranoid supporters that subscribe to this theory every time they get rolled by an out of form side.

Frustrating isn't it? You try to present facts and get dismissed with "this is just excuses". I've never come as close to actually physically driving my forehead through my screen as I have when reading some of the garbage people post when we lose.

I can't come up with anyone other than Sylvia and Rivers.

This point is what it all boils down to IMO and I agree with it.

Given that on any given match there are infinite possible combinations that coaches don't try, hanging Bailey for ruing not trying one is ridiculous. I'd imagine any coach would have the same thought after every single match (especially a loss) - "hmm, maybe I shouldn't tried XYZ". Given the real time nature of footy I doubt any coach ever walks away thinking they got every single last matchup and every single last tactic right, but one bloke vocalises it and some have him up on the gallows for it.

Yeah. These lying numbers are saying we're grossly under experienced at present, but we're not. We're a hardened, seasoned side with loads of experience and loads of leadership. I'm changing my tip: Melbourne by 150.

What's the opposite of "genuine disappointment" - false disappointment? Anyway, take a squizz at the Casey thread to see why they're in. All that is left at Casey is players returning from injuries, Strauss, and bunch of zero gamers. Every match of experience in the side is critical given who we're going in with experience wise. We're at the bottom of the barrel, folks.

Thanks for that - they're top heavy in experience and we're bottom heavy. Couple that with who we've got out and the 'correct' result to this match is a flogging. If we pull off a win it will be close to the upset of the year for mine. Like most have said here, I'll be happy if we just have a crack.

Blokes in their mid-twenties who struggle to get a game have very little trade currency.

The cards have fallen Cale Morton's way. Time to show us you have learned something.

It's that you've made up your mind already based on idle speculation and call everyone who hasn't come to the same conclusion an ostrich. Even if Tom does leave you won't have been any more right than you would've been if he stayed, because you're drawing a conclusion on facts that don't exist outside your head.

The two are probably closely linked considering the nature of a tackle and the nature of a clearance; both require a degree of "hard stuff". Either way it suggests to me that we're not getting close to maximum value from Jones even though at face value he's playing pretty well, which may explain why opinions on him are polarised at the moment.

What's this grey business? You either love Bailey or you hate him. There is no in between, nor is there any room for doubt one way or the other, and deferring the decision until more facts present is not an option.

I just wish he'd lay a few more tackles. He laid 5 tackles a match for the first two (good numbers), since then he's averaged just a bit over 1 per match. This suggests to me that since the first couple of rounds he is not applying a sufficient level of pressure, despite having played pretty well otherwise. Compare this to Moloney who should be a similar style of player - laid close to 5 per match for the year. Even in the Hawthorn game where he was utterly garbage, Moloney managed 2 tackles (his minimum for the year); Jones couldn't manage a single one against West Coast and only got 1 for the Adelaide smashing. For a guy who is (and always has been) built like a brick outhouse, this is a very poor output in terms of applying pressure on the opposition.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this line. Hands up here who considers themselves a "Bailey fanatic"?

I don't agree. Jamar will be about 30 when this side reaches its prime, he should still be playing great foot by then. Trading him now, even for pick 1, sets us further back development wise. Do we really want to take yet another backward step next year?

Newton laid one effective tackle. I can't recall a single effective thing Bate did. Really though, this is like discussing the merits of a poo sandwich vs a urine-on-the-rocks.