Nasher

No, to me it was no surprise. That he's started actually touching the ball does come as a surprise, but that he's become influential in the ruck contests is not surprising. If PJ does start becoming influential (in the ruck) I will be surprised, because by nature he's not very physical. He will almost certainly be given another chance to prove himself (IMO no player who is still on the list should ever have a line through his name), but I'm not expecting much.

Thanks Redleg. It was an interesting exploitation of an unclear rule -- smart play by O'Brien IMO. I'd love to know how he came up with the idea, as nobody's ever done that before to my knowledge. It takes a fairly thorough understanding of the rules -- does he spend his evenings leafing through the rule book?

Agree with the gist of most of that, particularly re: Bate. For some reason he always takes a while to get back in to the swing when returning from breaks, be it injury or the pre-season (or in this case, both). Once the cobwebs blow out he'll be fine. I don't think he'll be able to blow them out properly in the VFL. Is Rivers automatic 22? Point of contention for me. I haven't made up my mind. I'd keep Newton in the side for this week. Melbourne are as likely to drop Frawley as they are likely to drop Brad Green. Laughable suggestion.

In short, yes. I'm not sure what PJ offers now that he hasn't in the past, which is not much. He is not physical like Jamar and that's our core requirement for a ruckman. Anything other attributes are just optional extras. The only ruckman we have on our list that is really physical (besides the unknown Gawn and obviously Jamar) is Spencer. It's just a pity the latter is no good at this point. Jamar has always been extremely physical, so it's no surprise to me that he's come on. Conversely, PJ has never been physical so it's hard to believe that he will ever come on.

Agreed. If the captain is to come from the senior players rather than the pups, which I assume it will, then it's got to be Green IMO.

lol. You've taken the argument many have used on assessing coaches ("how could you possibly know") and applied it in a completely arse backwards way to team selection. Well done. I've had my good laugh for the day. If we can't discuss team selection on a fan forum, what can we discuss, Your Majesty?

Different sport of course, but the Australian cricket team are the masters of perseverance. Their philosophy is that once you're happy with who you selected, you continue with that side until you're left with absolutely no choice, and it has paid off nearly every time (Shane Watson success story is the best example of this). In cricket it's a bit different because you've only got 11 spots, however the same principle can apply to a football team. In order to get a team to play well together, you've got to keep them together. That means senior players who are still undoubtedly part of the best side (that applies to Bruce and not Miller, that's why there's a difference) then you allow them some 'poor form' credits. While it means that some talented individuals (Phil Hughes for Australia) remain on the fringe, the idea is that the team itself gets set in concrete. For more relevant examples, see Brisbane or Geelong dynasty sides last decade. Both teams had two things in common: gun players and team selection that rarely changed. An even better example would be Sydney in their flag year. No real gun players, but a side that was consistent in both results and selection. In short, "you played poorly" is not and should not be an automatic ticket for being dropped. There's also got to be some upwards pressure from the players playing in the grade below, which doesn't appear to be the case with us at the moment. Mine: Out: Bartram In: Sylvia This fits in with my reasoning above -- the fringe player comes out and the automatic best 22 player comes in. It's that simple.

I'm inclined to agree. Given the nature of our list at present, there's both a fantastic win and an embarrassing snotting lurking around the corner. I suspect it'll be the latter next week. At least there's some glimmer of hope of us being able to beat them on merit. I feel alive again as a footy supporter.

The claim's not that he always shirks the contest. Once is too many though and it was very costly in the context of this game. As Rojik said, it was extremely disappointing especially given his other efforts in the game. If this element of his game is not repaired now, his career is cactus before it's really gotten off the ground and that would be hugely disappointing since it's clear the guy can play. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that.

Despite a reasonably good game overall, he committed the cardinal sin. I'll forgive mistakes, but he directly cost us a goal by not going at 100%. Contrast this with Petterd's effort in the last quarter. Had anyone been coming the other way, Petterd's match stats would've been 3 goals and a broken neck, not 4 goals. I'm not sure if dropping Bennell from the side is the answer, but I'm definitely not against it. This element of his game needs to be removed ASAP.

I'm not clear on the rules, but I'm pretty sure we're allowed to keep one on the senior list. I wouldn't worry, the club will do everything it can to keep him on the senior list for the whole year, as he's easily in our best 22.

My overall opinion hasn't changed, but he was very good today.

6. Petterd 5. Jamar 4. Grimes 3. McKenzie 2. McDonald 1. Green Many others were stiff - honourable mention to Trengove, Frawley, Bail, Davey particularly. My heart is still racing.

Me too. It's nice to feel 'normal' about a loss again. As horrible a feeling as it is, it's much better than the dirty relief I felt after the Richmond game last year. I'll take this over that any day.

I'm absolutely shattered. Hands shaking, stomach feeling sick. In a sick and twisted way, I've missed this feeling.

That effort from Bennell was absolutely disgraceful. Come on boys. I'm feeling very bloody stressed right now.

Likewise. So aggressive, in all the right ways. Probably the highlight of the game so far for me.

Best to half time in my eyes: Petterd, Trengove, McKenzie, Grimes. Bit of a theme there.

I feel sick.

I said they're reasonable ins.

Has a bit of a feel of deckchairs on the Titanic to it really. They're both reasonable ins though. Disappointed that Sylvia's not back yet, and hoped we'd find someone better than Dunn, but looking at that emergencies list, it'd seem we're pretty close to the bottom of the barrell anyway.

For the sake of $25, why bother? That's a very high risk, very low return investment. Remind me never to trust you with my money.

I'm another that has never understood the soft tag. In recent years that seems to have gone where it belongs anyway thankfully. Another big fan of Brad here.

I just don't understand what you think players would get out of being berated for a mistake that was clearly unintentional. Rather than looking at what the negative aspects of dragging someone for dropping a mark are, perhaps you could explain what you think the positive aspects of doing it are? I'm just trying to understand your point of view. My view is that a) they already know that dropping a mark in the goalsquare is a massive faux pas that is not acceptable to make, and don't need to be told and B) dragging them is not going to have any effect on what happens next time they're in the same situation. It was an issue of confidence, NOT an issue of attitude (which I'd definitely drag a player for) and that's where the line is in my opinion.

Warnock actually has quite a bit of pace, probably more than Miller. He's very quick for his size. This was mentioned as one of his primary strengths when he was drafted. Miller's just as likely to have a blinder forward next week as is he to have another stinker like last week (such is the nature of Miller), and the forward line is where the holes are. I'd leave him there. If he struggles again, so be it.