RalphiusMaximus

It'd be a worry if only one of them drew the game. All in all a good look at the season, but I would have liked him to voice an opinion on the results of the games.

I would expect them to take a fairly careful approach to his development for the next few years. Aside from the usual comment about big men taking longer, there is the fact that someone his size is going to be putting a huge amount of stress on his joints trying to play AFL. Until he has completely stopped growing they will be very cautious about putting too much stress on his body. If they do the right thing now they'll have a dominant big man for a decade once he gets his body in the right shape.

I can't dispute any of the points raised by him. It was a very good assessment of our list. Highlighted a lot of the points that have been raised on these boards. The need for another inside mid will be taken care of in a couple of years, and by then we should be seeing something from our tall forwards, so I think we're in good shape.

They could back off and go for Trenners next year.

This sucks. I work 'til 4 that day. Do they put NAB challenge games up on the website the next day?

I note that the figure being talked about is now 4 mil for 5 years. Seems his value in media circles is dropping.

Well, all I can say is congratulations Nutbean. I'm genuinely impressed. It's a very good article and to have the balls to tackle them head on and get it published is no mean feat.

There is nothing wrong with the tactic. The execution was lacking. If you're going to switch play it has to be done quickly. We were so slow doing it that the bombers' entire defensive zone had reached that side of the field before the ball did.

You are kidding right? It wasn't pace that ended his time at Melbourne, it was his abysmal kicking. This is a guy who could miss a 30m pass by so much that he had to run and fetch the ball himself and try again (note, he actually did this on quite a few occasions in matches at Casey). It was to his enormous credit that he was hard at the ball and was often able to win those misses back and try again, but his skill level was just too low to be persevered with.

I also went to both games, and I think the big difference this time was that I was expecting us to thrash them while last year I knew we were not looking great to win it. I do agree with the OP though. We looked terrible last pre-season and after a couple of rounds it was looking a lot like 2009 and another wooden spoon. Then came the pies and the lions and away we went. I'm not going to make any hasty calls on this one.

Declaring Bailey outcoached is a bit rich. It wasn't the tactics that let us down, it was the fumbles. It is rightly pointed out that Jamar was getting the hitouts. What isn't said is that the midfielders he gave the ball to repeatedly fumbled their takes and let the Essendon players catch them while they were trying to find the ball. Likewise, we conceded many goals through our inability to take clean possession in the backline. Dropped marks and handball receives were chronic and cost us dearly. One thing I did enjoy was the long-bomb kick-out. Used sparingly it is a very good option.

Watts can't stand up to body contact. He would be demolished as a KPD. Give the kid time to get bigger and then see how he does. We've already seen massive improvements to his game int he last year. The rest will come.

I still want to know if GWS can poach from GC17 next year. I would love to hear Vlad preach about even playing fields if they manage to grab Day or Bennell.

I'm more interested in whether any of the bombers are caught on the video review. There were at least three punches thrown that should be 1-2 week suspensions. I doubt any will even reach the panel.

That supergoal of his was a great moment. Am I the only one who thinks he looked surprised when the ball came back to him?

Well, I just got home and can't be bothered reading what others have said, so I'll just put up my thoughts on the game. Umpires. Sadly, we need them or the game really won't work, but can we please have some that are mildly competent? Players. Sadly, we need them or the game really won't work... But seriously, we looked like the Melbourne of three years ago out there tonight. It was a return to a lot of the bad habits that many of us thought a thing of the past. There were aimless handballing circles in the back 50. There were fumbles. There were blind long bombs to clusters of Essendon players. There were missed kicks under no pressure, dropped marks under no pressure, and hospital passes were many and varied. In short, even though the umpires were awful, what lost us the game was that we were worse. I feel the need to single out several players for mention. Garland. He played possibly the worst game I have ever seen from him. While he defended passably (but not as well as we have come to expect), his disposal was simply frightening. I'm sure others have mentioned the pass that never reached it's destination out of the back pocket. I'm pretty sure he's got a hell of a lot of push-ups to do in the coming week for the number of clangers he contributed. Watts. He didn't do all that much wrong, and honestly, even a mis-hit pass into the forward 50 resulted in a goal which is a positive of sorts. However, he was completely uncompetitive when his opponent marked him tightly. He never looked like taking a contested mark. Tonight made it very clear to me that his body is not yet ready. He is far too easily moved away from the ball. Warnock was solid when the ball came in high and long, but was burned on the lead every time. If he can't work on that pace he could have problems. Strauss. I just cant see him making it. He may be a great kick, but there's little else in his game that says AFL. Grimes was good. He stood out to me in a backline that seemed to be scrambling and tripping over it's own feet most of the night. He made some errors, as did they all, but in general was calm collected and got us out of trouble repeatedly. MacDonald. Probably sitting out a couple of weeks, but I cheered when he did it. He was tough and uncompromising in defence, although he's another who was shocking with his disposal. Sylvia was great. After seeing so many fumbles in the middle, to see him crash in and extract the ball was just magic. Trengove is a star. I know everyone says it, but he will be a club legend. From his mark and goal to get us away onwards, he was all class. Jurrah is a freak. Once again, we all say it, but it's true. He missed an easy running shot, only to make amends with a dribbler a few minutes later. Took a great mark in the middle. My big concern with him is sustained effort. We see him do these amazing things, but there are rarely any basics in between. He needs to get fitter and increase his workrate. Bartram. Was very very good. Made some great tackles, took an awesome mark and didn't stuff up his passes. Pity he tackled someone's fist with his face and gave away that free. Obviously there are many others I haven't commented on, but these are the thoughts that stand out for me. Overall, I have to say that it was a sub-par performance. There were far too many fumbles, dropped marks and missed passes. We even saw Jurrah drop an uncontested mark and miss a running shot from directly in front. It was a poor night to be a Melbourne supporter. If I had to take a positive away from it, it would be that we were playing that badly and stil were only 10 points down at the last break. Without the fumbles and turnovers we would have destroyed them. Sadly, there's a lot of work to do to cut those out of our game.

Yeah, I think he's trying a little hard there. Does anyone know if GC are immune to the player-poaching rules? Just wondering how different the AFL's response will be next year when Sam Day is offered a million a season to move south. :D

So he puts Walker on the spot and asks him. How is that going to help the situation? What happens if the player says "you have no right to ask this and I refuse to answer?" Is he going to do the same thing the doggies did with Aker and put them up in front of the entire playing group? Will he keep it private? How will he respond if they tell him that they are gone already? Idiotic plan that can only harm relations with the players involved if you ask me.

Hell no. Frankston may be full of druggies and dole bludgers, but we still have standards!

Hell, at least they're paying him out. It's not like he's being left penniless.

I would not be at all surprised to see them living it up in Tassie. They are a prime candidate with their perpetual financial troubles. I wouldn't be too hard on them about the loss though. They were up against some pretty tough opponents and winning at Skilled is never an easy thing to do.

We should be able to handle the bombers, but a lot depends on who we play on the night. We have also struggled against fast attacking teams in the past, so that should be a good test for us.

I like it. Of course, I was never a big fan of the old time Greek philosophers. They largely seemed to be a pack of pompous windbags who thought that if you talked enough your point was proven regardless of what you actually said. The odd one did come up with something worthwhile though.

While I agree with the content, I have a huge issue with anyone using Occam's Razor as a validation of their argument. Yes, the less complicated answer is more likely to be true, but it is not a hard and fast rule nor a law of nature that this be the case.

He's pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. We're heading in a very good direction and players want to be part of that.