Adam The God

He doesn't lose his feet constantly like those two do though.

I'd go... OUT: Bugg, Melksham and Vince IN: Hannan, Hunt and Weideman Hannan for Bugg. Hunt for Vince. Weideman for Melksham. Weideman plays second ruck and rotates forward. Harmes on thin ice, but would play him off half back. I wouldn't be against dropping Frost either, but I think he'll keep his spot to try and combat speed (although for such a quick guy, he looked slow today). If Lewis stinks it up again, I'd drop him the following week (but won't happen).

To be fair, a few of us having been decrying his inclusion for a while now. He should be a certain delister for mine.

Harmes may not be the best answer to our lack of pace off half back, but I'd make him accountable to someone FCS. He ran around so ridiculously loose again today. Probably our biggest downhill skier. I'd play him back there and see if he can generate some rebound. His decision making does worry me back there though... Completely agree on the dropping of Lewis/Vince. They're not actually providing consistent leadership, so what's the point in having them both in the team? They're slow and they're both done. It's unfortunately, another moment where our decade-long poor drafting is coming back to haunt us. We don't have leaders that are experienced enough that can play anymore and it's resulting in seeing blokes who are finished, still getting games, simply because they've got experience.

Yep, that's about the only thing that's giving me solace, mate.

What an absolutely disgraceful performance. Harked back to 2014 or prior. That's definitely the first time a Goodwin side has given up. After quarter time, there was absolutely no system. I thought going into today that we'd generate enough inside 50s to win, even though I knew they'd play smart wet weather footy and we'd play (at times) dumb wet weather footy. Serious question though. Where was Gawn for most of the second quarter? This is where the tide completely turned IMO. When he was sitting on the bench. Gawn killed McEvoy in the first quarter and when Gawn went off earlyish in the second and Harmes was in the ruck, we got absolutely murdered around the stoppages. And after that we couldn't arrest the momentum. I now have serious questions about our game style after this debacle too and I'm lost as to why we so were determined to play our aggressive press in the wet weather. As we've done every time in the past two years, we continually fail to play to the weather conditions. If you're going to play the press, you play the deeper press in those conditions, not the overly aggressive form. And particularly against Hawthorn, who can pick their way out with good ball use. I thought getting it in long and quick with a greasy ball would be effective in those conditions though, but we fumbled around the stoppages (and inside defensive 50), failed to lay tackles inside forward 50 and made terrible decisions with the ball in hand (exhibit A - Tomas Bugg - an absolute blight on the footballing form). Defensively, our guys let the ball get over the back all day, we were disorganised at stoppages and just generally rattled for most of the day. And what really irks me is that we made Hawthorn look far, far better than they are. If there's any monkey we desperately need to get off the back, it's the monkey of losing to these muppets every season. And not just losing. We are regularly spanked. I went with the Hawthorn supporting wife (and she only ever goes to this game) and I was thoroughly embarrassed by my football club yet again. Also, why in the hell do three of our defenders continue to go all up at every contest? We're lucky if one defender stays down. It's been happening for 2 or 3 years now. And there's always an opposition player or two front and centre to gather the crumb. We're so predictable and must be so easy to coach against. Surely, our coaching team have picked up on this all up, no one down issue. So why do we continue to do it? Even when we're winning games we do it! Is Plapp our defensive coach now? I am seriously doubting his abilities if so. I know Lever is new into the mix but the whole synergy of the group is completely out. They look utterly lost at sea. And don't get me wrong here. Hawthorn's pressure was good, but when the game was on the line in the second and early part of the third terms, we missed ridiculously easy shots on goal and therefore failed to apply scoreboard pressure. And I said Bugg would cost us a game and this could well be a perfect example of it. If he kicks 4 straight instead of 4 points from regulation distance, we keep the pressure on and we're right in the game, if not ahead at three quarter time. Max Gawn missing again from 20m out directly in front is again unforgivable for an AFL footballer. That's not leadership and it certainly didn't help when we really needed a goal to stem the momentum that was against us. These are the type of goals that the leaders at Richmond kick nowadays (I can't believe I'm saying that). We have no leaders that step up in the clutch moments of big, important games. They go missing. Speaking of leaders, I thought Jones was outstanding on Mitchell early on and it was a great early move by our MC, but as the midfield pressure dropped, Mitchell got off the leash and the Hawthorn mids blocked well for him after that. And then Jones spent the rest of the match with his head down. But at least he was involved in the contest. Jordan Lewis was yet again thoroughly embarrassing. The guy is finished, save for the very odd cameo. Overall, one of the major issues is that their ball use was so much better than ours. They were cleaner in possession, kicked to the right places and then swarmed to those positions and we couldn't handle it. Fumbling, bumbling, throwing and slipping right over. I think we'll bounce back, but it was such an appalling effort that if we see anything else like it this year, I'll be on Goodwin's back. As far as I'm concerned, he's certainly on notice now for his complete inability to shift the momentum at any stage of the contest. He also got the game style completely wrong. He failed to take into account the conditions and did he make a single move after the opening bounce of the first quarter? Next week is going to be very interesting and anything less than a four quarter performance should not be tolerated. We may have just blown our season at 2-2 with a tricky month ahead. I now go into next week with no aspiration at all. This team (and club) does not deserve any confidence and owes us long suffering supporters a hell of a lot.

I did say Bugg would cost us a game. It was only a matter of time. VFA level footballer.

Exactly. And he's a beautiful kick. He'll be fine. A great acquisition. His acquisition will pay dividends.

Wow. Haha. We've slammed this journalist in this thread. And rightly so.

He's always the first tackler in the defensive press. A couple of his tackles were broken too easily in the first quarter last week, but after that he was one of our best pressers. It's obviously a vital role for our 18 man defence and it's interesting they've earmarked him for the role. I like his upside as a player. He's also playing a really important function that will eventually release Hunt to play in a higher, more attacking position. I wouldn't be surprised if this is also a position Brayshaw and Joel Smith will spend some time in. He's underrated at the moment and I'm looking forward to seeing how he goes against Hawthorn's zippy forward line.

And Martin the following week...

Fair enough. And I wouldn't bother tagging O'Meara. He's not as good as everyone thinks he is. I'd make him accountable and try to exploit him going back the other way. The Clarkson mantra is backing his players to win the stoppages. He rarely tags. It's a similar philosophy that I believe Goodwin and Roos employ(ed). Back in your guys to win their position. I'd play a defensive forward or wingman on Smith though. Harmed is the guy, I reckon. He can definitely hurt Smith going back the other way and his tank is good enough to stay with him.

I wouldn't tag O'Meara. 1) he's overrated. 2) we should back in our own mids. 3) we can't tag two of their mids and play our own game.

Yep, it's who has more damage. Their pace on the outside (if Mitchell is allowed to release them) could be very damaging. Clarry is a great tackler though.

I wouldn't tag O'Meara and fortunately Clarkson won't tag Oliver. So I only see us potentially tagging Mitchell. You'r right. It will come down to Bernie or Angus.

Bernie is just about done for mine. I'd be trying Brayshaw or head to head with Oliver.

I wonder whether they're thinking Mitchell this week.

Incredibly overrated.

Depends on the order. Historically, anyway.

I should clarify my post. That free kick was always going to be paid. I don't like it, but it's consistently paid.

I reckon we will win this. Hawthorn's ball use inside 50 for large parts of the Richmond game was far worse than our ball use. They constantly kicked to the advantage of the Richmond talls. If you cut off Mitchell or at least limit the damage of his disposals, then it means Hawthorn will have to operate on the counter from half back. They certainly have the leg speed (Smith and their pacey smalls), but I'm not as convinced by their foot skills anymore. If we convert our chances inside 50 (ugh, Bugg and Kent), lay enough tackles across half forward to keep it in there and up the tempo in the midfield, I can't see Hawthorn being able to cope. But Hawthorn are coached by one of the greats, so even though our best is far too good for them, if Clarkson's men can use the slingshot against us and they take every chance inside 50 (think Daniher against us in 2016), they could beat us. My feeling though is this one's in our court.

I agree. It's not the correct interpretation, but it is a consistent interpretation from the umpires. When you take your eyes off the ball as it is in flight, coming inside 50 (often in one-on-one situations), the umpire usually pays the free against the defender.

IMO we sit somewhere between spluttering on and dominating. We are the highest scoring team in the comp, we have a heap of inside 50s, our guys are getting their hands on it regularly, but we're not using the ball as well as we could. We are in the top 4 as a result of our heavy scoring. So that's handy and points to an improvement. It also points to the fierceness of the entire competition this season. Anyone can beat anyone. Being in the top 4 when we're not playing our best footy, but still statistically dominant in a number of categories means that we've got tremendous room for improvement. I disagree with the notion that Brisbane or North are also runs. They can potentially beat anyone on their days. But they won't finish anywhere near the top 8. We will, because we're beating them and winning the games we should win (Geelong being the exception). I agree that Richmond and Hawthorn will make us pay for poor decision making/skills, but neither of those teams are as good as they're made out to be either. Hawthorn aren't as good by foot as they once were and Richmond can still turn it over heavily. So it comes down to ensuring we make them pay for their errors as well. If we can out tackle the opposition in our forward 50, we will win both games. Our statistical advantage over the entire competition at the moment is our ability to get it in there. A fit Gawn and Oliver will go a long way towards ensuring we achieve those forward 50 thrusts. I reckon we're building and if our half forwards bring the tackle pressure and we keep our midfield pressure up in both games, the opposition won't have enough inside 50s to hurt us if we take our chances in front of the sticks.

I agree with you. The taking the legs rule has also become farcical. But the players know this will be paid, so it was a silly one to give away. This IMO was an inexperienced free kick.

As soon as you look at your opponent, which is what he did, and take your eyes off the ball, a free kick is paid. This has been happening for years.