RalphiusMaximus

I am actually feeling a little bit let down on this game, and it has nothing to do with the Casey side. The saints have a young rookie named Minchington who has been playing for Sandringham seniors quite regularly. I've known his family for most of my life, played a variety of sports against his brothers, and was really looking forward to seeing the kid play. Wouldn't you know it, he's strained a groin muscle and is going to miss this week.

Not happy with the final team. Davey and Joel Mac in the side, Blease and Davis as emergencies. We have two older players who are very limited in what they can do getting a game over two young players with the potential to be far more. On top of that, when will we have a better opportunity to debut Davis? Surely this is a game where he will be reasonably comfortable with his ability to hold his own with whoever we play him on? A huge opportunity thrown away here.

Just don't get ahead of yourselves here. This is a real danger game for us. GWS have been holding their own by playing a close-checking, bodies at the ball style and refusing to take a backward step. If they had slightly better match fitness they'd have pinched a few this season already. I am very concerned that they just might throw us off our game by getting in the faces of some of our more fragile players and snatch the win.

Hard to argue with most of this. I think I'd have rated Bartram a little higher. He's been really good this year and has not only improved his kicking but also his judgement so that he rarely makes silly decisions when using the ball. I'd rate him as one of our few winners this season.

The editing at the Age has been substandard for quite a while. Not that long ago they had an article talking about a base 1300 km south-west of the South Pole. The notion that The Age is a better credentialed paper that the Herald Sun is sadly outdated.

I don't know if I'll boo him, but I will certainly applaud every up and under turnover kick he makes. For someone who supposedly works his ass off to improve his skills, his kicking is terrible.

This was in the weekly video session justifying poor calls by the umpires. There was a query on Luke Tapscott being penalised when he was tackled with no prior opportunity. It was explained that he should have dropped the ball, even though it was pinned to his side and couldn't go anywhere. They pulled out footage of (I think) Alan Didak to illustrate the point. He was tackled without the ball being pinned and promptly dropped it, a clear case of incorrect disposal. I couldn't believe that this was being shown as the example of a legal way to cope with a tackle.

The big problem with umpiring at the moment is the powers that be at AFL House issuing their "official interpretations" of the rules, often directly contravening the rules as they are written. This is a thin attempt to change the rules without going through any sort of proper procedure and leads to endless confusion and contradictions. The holding the ball/incorrect disposal conundrum is a classic example. The Geisch has declared that a player who is tackled while in posession of the ball may drop the ball and not be penalised even if they have had prior opportunity, while a player with no prior opportunity who does not drop the ball may be penalised. Both of these cases are directly opposing the rules as written. To me, the real humour of these interpretations is the desired effect on the game. A few years ago it was all about making the game free-flowing, hence allowing players to drop the ball to keep play going. Now suddenly there is a panic that the game is getting too fast and we see new rules attempting to slow it down again. If the muppets in charge would stop tampering with the rules, many of these issues would sort themselves out as coaches came up with new tactics to couter the things they are seeing on the field. The constand rule changes and reinterpretations are doing far more harm than the ongield incidents they are trying to control.

The issue is that he's not being played in the role he was recruited to play. He needs to be in the guts wining the clearances. Playing him in other roles is a waste.

I was searching for a bar that would play the game in Honolulu. Now i'm kind of glad I couldn't find one. :D

Selwood, Selwood and Selwood. Our free kick tally would go through the roof! :D

"Humphrey pantses Pies"

I wonder if that was payback after Garland dubbed him "Good Times Grimes." Letting the world know a name like "Humphrey" is a little harsh.

Anyone seen Menzel in action? Sounds like he can play. Did I read it right that he kicked 15 in two games?

Sounds like a great game from both. It would be great to see Cookie get a start, and you couldn't ask for better opponents than GWS. I'd also love to see Stef in the side so Mitch can stay forward. The only problem is where to play them.

Awesome news! The Gys, Williams and Strauss all making a return in the same week. Good times ahead people!

Looking at that draw, the op isn't that outlandish. GWS and GC we should win. Brisbane, port and freo depend on which teams turn up on each side, and north always beat us. If we were to get to 6 wins It would look ok.

Anyone see that Jack was named in theHS team of the round? Watts in the backline anc Col Garland as a forward. Good job to the both.

We need Dunn to play the defensive forward role. When we matched them a couple of years ago a big part of it was tagging their half backs. Garland and Dunn are ideal for that role, and would allow us to keep much the same back 6 as this week. If Frawley does com in, it needs to be one of the backs who goes. Whoever that is will be desperately unlucky.

I think if it had cost us the game I would have been up in arms. I feel bad for Nicho, because it was a great goal and I was screaming for him to take the shot, but I can forgive and forget given that we won anyway.

Rivers - a dominant game

The Good - A passage of play across half back where Jack passed to Jack, who passed to Jack who passed it back to Jack. The Bad - Crap effort by the commentators on 7. The complete inability to notice that Watts was playing on Monfries for most of the night drove me up the wall. I suppose they didn't notice because 'Gus hardly touched the ball? The Ugly - ?? I think everything is pretty damn good looking right now.

Garland's mark and goal in the square. Not only way it great play, but in terms of the game it happened at just the right time when we were all on the edge of our seats desperately hoping it could actually happen.

I'd like to say no changes, but Frawley needs to come in if fit. Who do you take out of the back 6 to make room for him?

Love Neeld on Garland. Had a chance to look at the draft notes during the week and it turns out he was drafted as a forward, so I thought we'd try him up there.