Nasher

Indeed. Personally I hate the idea of scaling a win (or a loss) based on who the opposition was. It just doesn't make any sense.

Wonaeamirri and Gysberts showed us today why a threatening small forward and a genuine clearance winner (respectively) are so critical. Gysberts looks very composed in traffic - hard to believe that was game number 4.

What happens if Watts then takes the game by the scruff of the neck, as per your intention? You're then in the last quarter, you've got a knackered midfield and the opposition has brought on a fresh midfielder, and you've got a tall you don't need ready as the sub. This is why I've maintained my "midfielder or bust" line since before the season began. Sometimes there might be a need for an extra tall or ruckman, but there'll always be a need for a fresh midfielder. Unless the length of the game suddenly gets cut in half, there'll never be any situation where you won't benefit from fresh running legs.

This is gold - literally three minutes ago I was thinking to myself that there's two very distinct groups on Demonland at the moment - one that thinks the other is accepting mediocrity, and the other thinks the first doesn't understand what's going on. Thanks for proving me right to myself

11 goals in two games is a fantastic effort. Given that he's our 'nominated' rookie, this means the club must have some intention of playing him, and I think it'd be pretty hard to ignore this kind of form. Then again, maybe it might be worth leaving him in the VFL and hold his form until our midfield find some, given the wasteland that our forward line currently is.

I laughed. So, so true. No, this game will not be the nail in Bailey's or anyone else's coffin. In isolation it will mean the same thing as every other game does in isolation - not much. Thankfully our club administration look further ahead than week and further behind than one week. Also, as alluded to be e25 in the other thread, I don't see why it's a foregone conclusion that we should smash them. They might be one of the worst sides in the league, but we haven't improved so much that we can expect to smash the bottom dwellers yet, we've only just exited that level ourselves.

The numbers surprised me too. I'd been lead to believe that the gulf between the cost of the two options was enormous - to the point where the decision was a no-brainer. Where I got that information though has been lost with time, so it could've been from pro-alignment people at the time.

I don't have a problem with anybody, just the things people say. You should get that complex looked at.

Absolutely with you on this one.

Indeed - they promoted him so they clearly intended on playing him at some point. I wonder if they had him ahead of Martin for the R2 possie? With Martin (unexpectedly?) stepping up, perhaps the promotion could've been better used on Michael Evans who looks the goods in the midfield. All just wild speculation of course.

What does "almost in tears" mean? You're either in tears or you're not. "Almost in tears" sounds to me like someone saw him with his head in his hands (or something) and wanted to make a bigger deal out of it than what it was. And even if he did cry, so what? People cry all the time, sometimes in pain, sometimes out of frustration, sometimes out of anger, it's just an emotional response. Oh I forgot - real men don't cry. Sorry about that. Anyway, to take a leaf out of e25's book, I'm going to call this thread poo. Not because of the OP, but because of the insinuations it has triggered that Cook doesn't look any good. I know the response to this will be "but I didn't say that" rah rah, but it's clear that's what some are saying. That is extremely frustrating considering he's about 0.1% in to his career.

Maybe all my years and Demonland have turned me a bit sadistic, but I get a kick out of tripping people up with sarcastic posts. It's amazing how many people try and debate a point that was obviously facetious. Putting it in sarcasm tags would spoil all the fun.

Firstly, I think Watts is a much better player than Maric. The only people that would want Watts out of the side are those who don't understand that there's ground in between "complete dud" and "megastar" - and Watts is on the positive side of that. (Anyone who thinks I'm saying Watts is a "megastar", please read again.) Watts adds to the side - for two games Maric has added nothing, regardless of how stiff he might've been with the sub rule. Secondly, I think Wonaeamirri is also a much better player than Maric and it's a like for like swap. Maric was in the side on the back of an excellent preseason when Aussie had a limited one, so he deserved first shot at the role. He's proven inadequate, the superior player now has match fitness and form together, so the swap gets made. Easy.

GC have the same problem as us - with the exception of an obvious handful, their senior players are 1) few and far between and 2) bog ordinary.

After seeing the replay and reading the Casey player reviews, the changes to me seem like a no-brainer: In: Wonaeamirri, Gysberts Out: Maric, Jetta

I suppose I did myself no favours with the example I chose - the point I was making is that without a crystal ball, if even one event pans out differently then absolutely anything becomes possible. As far as I'm concerned once you start fiddling how things turned out, winning by 10 and losing by 110 become outcomes that are just as probable as each other, because you just don't know what would've happened; therefore there's no point bothering to consider it. The only thing that is real is what actually happened, anything else is just citing fictional outcomes to suit one's agenda.

You're twisting my words there - I didn't use the word "would" in my post anywhere, which puts my post in to quite a different context than what I intended.

As I said in another post, pondering or even bothering to mention these "what ifs" regarding if the points had been goals is just urinating in the zephyr. The ball going back to the middle of the ground clearly has a significantly different impact on the play than being kicked out from a behind, so just one of those behinds being a goal could've changed the direction the game took completely. It's just as plausible that we could've lost by less if they'd kicked more accurately, though I'm sure this point is already lost on most. As Curry and Beer mentioned (in Snoopy's thread I think?) - the only thing that matters is the number of goals they did kick, not the number of goals they might've kicked.

Now that I've had my sarcasm overload (sorry about that - read one too many "we need some mongrel" posts last night and my brain exploded), it's nice to see someone in the media quantify exactly what many here have been saying. For all Moloney gets slammed on these forums at times, besides Sylvia and the inadequate Jones he's basically got no help in the mature body department.

Stop it, WYL and Dermott. These are just excuses. We should take a stand, stop accepting mediocrity and draw a line in the sand. These are the actions at a minimum: Sack Bailey Not bother renewing our memberships Start playing with a bit of mongrel I've had it up to HERE with all these excuses! Top 8 or Bailey is GAWN.

Good thing he's got a bit of mongrel! How would Hawthorn ever do without that bit of mongrel?

I still struggle with seeing what the link is with being thugs and playing good football.

Could you see it coming before the event?

They'll figure it out on their own because they're superior players to their senior colleagues. This idea that young players need to be "taught" by senior players how to handle pressure is pure nonsense. The reason Scully, Trengove et al were so highly rated is because they've got balls in addition to their skills.

I had already written this post in my head on my way in to work this morning, was just waiting for the time to turn up in my day to actually pen it. Well written - totally agree on all points.