RalphiusMaximus

Actually, I heard it on one of the footy chat shows a couple of weeks ago. Can't remember which one.

Jack Viney is a test for this week! How awesome is that? A round or two at Casey to find touch and fitness and we'll have him back in the side for North Melbourne.

If you have a look at the replay, she was in everything. Had a really good game.

I think it would be insane to throw him straight in with that long a layoff. Give him a week at least at Casey to find his touch. It would also help not to put his freshly healed shoulder in against a really physical side like the Swans.

Maxwell is a great leader for them, but he's not that great a player. A bit like Vandenberg was at the Hawks. He's good value when he's allowed to play as the loose man and get free ball, but if you make him accountable he gets beaten pretty consistently. Garland isn't the leader Maxwell is (although improving), but he is a much better player. He is very rarely beaten 1-1, provides rebound while playing on a man and In the last year or so he has filled out juat a bit more to make a genuinely imposing figure on the field. All things considered, I'd take Garland over Maxwell any day of the week.

I'd say one of Watts' best two. The one against the Bombers was pretty damn impressive too.

I see no value in pushing Fitzy into the backline. He is just starting to find his feet as a forward and has shown he can do the job. Why mess with him at this point? The insane drive towards "versatility" has done a lot of harm to a number of players. There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing a specific role and doing it well. In his case he is clearly heading towards that spare tall forward/second ruck spot that was earmarked for Pedo last season. He is a far better prospect in that role than Pedo will ever be, so let him do the job.

I do not in any way endorse the following action, but it could be worth a look: We have a quiet chat to GWS and determine whether they plan on taking the lad. We then farm out a couple of our tall forward-types for a ready-made mid or two (probably need to hand off draft picks as well) Having made space in our forward line we draft Boyd to be the long-term buddy to Hogan. The problem here is finding a forward who has currency to get us a good quality mid in exchange. Realistically that would be Clark or Dawes, and I don't think we want to part with either one. If Fitz really turns it on for the rest of the season we could get some value for him to one of the sides who need a forward, so that could be another option. Watts would of course be the other option, but I would be very reluctant to give him up now that he's finally showing something. We'd want a genuine A grader in exchange. As I say, I don't actually advocate going down this path. It sounds a bit like selling out the present for a chance at a stronger hand in the future. However, it could be a worthwhile exercise to think about exactly how we could play it to get maximum advantage.

Not many. Chealsea Randall would be as close as you'd get. She was pretty physical and attacked the contests hard and at full pace. It's those two things more than the skills that would be the difference. I'll also note that there is no way in hell Daisy Pearce was BOG. She was involved in a lot of the congested stuff but didn't actually do much in there. She had very good disposal when she got clear, but there were other players who had far more impact. I'd have gone for Randall or Blackburn.

4 actually. Boyh Casey sides won as well.

Long-term I think Gawn is no. 1 ruck and Fitz is backup/spare forward. Spencer may push for that no. 1 spot, but neither of them are good enough around the ground to be the second ruck/utility/forward that Fitz and Clark can be. This will of course leave us with too many tall forwards. Clark, Dawes, Hogan, Watts and resting ruck is way too much for the forward line. Competition for spots is a good thing, but it's a waste to have one or two of them playing reserves.

We're one of the tallest lists in the league at the moment. That's one of the reasons our midfield is so poor, we've been so intent on drafting for KPP and ruck that the rest has been left too long. We're already speculating about what is going to happen to our forward line next year with a fit Clark and Hogan to add to the mix. I suppose it has to be seen as a good thing to have that problem though.

Not quite. Only 10cm apparently.

Oops, my mistake. He got them to the GF and lost. That puts him behind the other two then. Still one better than Craig.

He's still listed as 192cm, but he looks quite a bit bigger than that to me. Standing beside Hogan he looks about the same height. Maybe he's just tall for his height? Either way, I love his attitude at the contest. Not sure about using him as a forward, although he had three shots on goal, so not a bad effort even if he missed two of them. I would be using him as the replacement back rather than Pedo.

I'll take Eade, Chocko or Roos over Craig. All of them have won flags, he hasn't. I certainly have no problem with him staying at the club in that sort of role. It's pretty clear the players get on well with him.

Don't change a winning formula. Blease out if he doesn't get over his ankle. Strauss in.

Well, in this case I had us winning one of the two post-bye games against the Saints and the Doggies. I said at the time that to sack Neeld on the back of two matches against far stronger sides would be a cowardly act on the part of the board and it would be more realistic and fairer to judge after these two games, both of which were winnable and against teams more in line with our own in terms of ability and form. I also said that if we lost both I would shut up about Neeld being the right coach for the club.

A winning lead is a lead you have at the end of the match.

Was good of HB early. Kicked the first ever score in an AFL women's game. I think I saw that she also got the first ever goal. You'd take that right?

LOL, there you go.

Might be on the ABC website.

Awesome. Thanks for that.

I said if we lost to the saints and Doggies I'd drop it. So far my predictions are all pretty much on the ball. OK, firstly, Jurrah was hopeless off the ball. His defensive efforts were non-existent and he didn't work unless the ball was in his hands. He was a freak of nature, but don't be so blind as to think he was perfect. We all knew he needed to develop a more rounded game. I don't think you can realistically complain if the coach tried to make him work off the ball and defend a bit. Secondly, when did he try to trade Watts? Can you provide a link to back this up? I know he was on record as saying Watts is a required player repeatedly. Seriously, if you're going to rubbish a guy at least try to get some facts behind you.

I have to point out, Craig said in his interview that this is how Neeld wanted them to play. It's just a difference in the effort the players are putting in and the fact that they are hitting their targets. I'm not going to speculate on why it is that they are now making it work although the fact that they have played against two pretty average teams the last two weeks springs to mind (didn't someone predict that a month or so ago? Wonder who that could have been).