Akum

Well, put it this way - if the rest of the season improves by the same amount that our Round 1 effort has improved ... And it's always been the sign of a good team to get a result against good opposition despite not playing well. And when was the last time we had a percentage of 100?

The winning margin is greater than Roost It's credibility total.

That was my impression too. Definitely not one of his better days, but I was surprised at the amount of work he did in packs. He looks like he's playing without confidence though.

I can't remember any of those 6 behinds that were difficult shots. On the other hand, it's good that we were able to keep within touch after being outplayed for the first 3 quarters, and that we kept at it and even improved our performance all over the ground when the pressure was really on. I was expecting us to get smashed in the midfield - well, I guess we did until halfway through the third quarter, but the way the mids fought back after that was far more than I expected.

Grimes kicking seems to be worse over short distances and when he tries to do it off one step. That is perhaps the hardest kick of all to execute, and maybe he just shouldn't try it so much. He could take another couple of steps (if there's space) & get balanced, instead of trying to kick off-balance off one step. Or maybe someone about 40m away needs to start moving as soon as he marks it and provide a longer option into space. BTW, in the midfield this wouldn't happen so much because he'd be moving more often when he kicks. It looks bad, but it's fixable.

Me too KC

Whoever picks up Goodes, the Swans will make them play a large part of the match way outside their comfort zone. If it's Dunn, deep in defence; if it's Garland or Martin, on the ball. They'll be at a disadvantage against him for a large part of the game. This will be the value of Morton in another year or two. And we could struggle for 2nd & 3rd options if our first option gets smacked. I think I'd prefer Dunn as the first option; if we're on top in the midfield, they'll have to play Goodes on the ball more than they might like to, which would suit us with Dunn. Second option perhaps Grimes. Or how about Green? If we lose the midfield, we're in big trouble.

Great OP Bhima. We struggle whenever other teams are concerned enough about us to set up specific plans to counter our strengths, which is easy to do at Etihad, not so easy at MCG. In practice matches so far, Essendon put hard tags on Davey & Sylvia, and Scully has hard tags in both the games he's played. I still think that's a bit weird for practice matches - a probable top-4 team (Hawks) putting a hard tag on a midfielder just starting his second year. But oppositions are definitely starting to do their homework on us. I may be wrong, but I can't remember this happening before in practice matches. So this is the next development phase - to learn how to come out on top when our "A-game" is countered.

This. Strauss needs to be able to string together a number of games, even at Casey. So far, he hasn't played more than a handful of games in a row before getting injured. It's been stop-start, stop-start. The comments about 1-on-1s & his defensive game are fair enough. But I'd like to see him string even just 8 or 10 games without a break, before jumping to conclusions about whether he'll make it or not. The thing about him is that his disposal could be such a potent zone-busting weapon if he can get all the other stuff right. Ditto for Tapscott.

On form, Maric & Jetta would have to get into the 22. And Jetta & Wona provide the much-needed forward pressure that's been missing from the practice matches. I don't see Wona & Maric as "either/or", there's room for them both. We did much better last year when we loaded up with small runners at the expense of big men. But against Swans we'll definitely need Dunn against Goodes.

The "i50 count" is the one single stat that will tell us more than any other how we're going in 2011. Our success depends entirely on how much ball we get inside 50. Even better would be the "percentage-for-and-against i50 count", which could be compared to our percentage (score). If our "%-i50" is a lot less than our percentage on the ladder, it means the forwards are doing well from limited supply and the mids need to win more ball. That's probably what happened in 2010. That's what the article means - not that we're slow from kick-ins so much that our midfield defensive pressure is lousy, and we depend on winning contests inside our defensive 50 rather than in the midfield. We need to win more turnovers - and more contested ball - in the midfield. And that's also why opposition coaches will put a hard tag on Scully, but won't bother to tag Moloney.

I'm sure I can remember stats from last year that Moloney had about 70% game time on the ball, while Scully had something like 9%. If we're to challenge, that's gotta change! In fact, I reckon it's not until Sculls gets 70% on-ball time that we're serious about challenging. Moloney is going to be important against some opposition midfields - Saints come to mind, where we'll need his toughness - but will be a liability against speedy well-drilled midfields ... like Essendon, obviously, and maybe Carltank. We need to use him more wisely, not just plonk him in every game because he can't play anywhere else. The question for me is that if Moloney's on-ball time is going to decrease, where else does he play? I'd like to see how he goes HBF or even BP, where he could give a lot of drive, and could even change onto the ball in the last quarter if the game was tight. Moloney & Jones should never be on the ball at the same time. Jones has more strings to his bow, as a tagger for instance, and perhaps forward. Another problem with both of them is that neither of them kick enough goals. Maybe either of them could be defensive HFFs too. They're both born-&-bred on-ballers, but in years to come they're going to have to get used to other roles, or just lose importance.

Would have thought it was pretty obvious! It just makes no logical sense for them to pursue Scully or someone like him. GWS have more than their fair share of young guns. Why on earth would they need to spend heaps on one more young gun who's just a year or two older? They're going to have enough trouble in the years ahead holding onto the young guns they've got - if they want to keep those guys, the last thing they'd want to do is to spend several hundred thou a year on someone at a similar stage in their career. Any competent recruiter or list manager will be looking to spend big on more established "top-20" players in their low-to-mid 20s ready to step up into a leadership role. Such as ... oh, I don't know, guys who would fit the bill perfectly are Dane Swan, or Pendlebury, or Daisy Thomas maybe. Frankly, we just don't have enough likely players in that bracket, the one exception being Col Sylvia. But I don't think he really fits the bill from the leadership angle. Perhaps if someone like Bate or Warnock struggles to get a game, that's the sort of player they might look for at a lower level, but our bunch of players in that age range just aren't what they'd be chasing. There's really no mystery about it. FWIW, I think Gold Coast did an excellent job of picking up exactly the sort of players they need to complement their young guns. GWS would do well to follow their example.

Totally agree. But to me the key point is that, despite these media types insisting on their "impeccable sources" that he's gone already, he (or anybody associated with him) hasn't even been approached by GWS. Not to say they won't at some stage, but they haven't as of today. The point about Swan, Pendlebury & Thomas is that it's simply going to be impossible for the Filth to keep all three. They will need to put out so much extra to keep the first two that there just won't be enough in the salary cap to keep all three. GWS can just take their time. Thus Eddie's efforts to try to get GWS to overcommit to someone from another club before they start to eye off his boys. What's disturbing is that so many here were prepared to put their trust in the likes of McGuire & Sheahan, ahead of the senior people at MFC. And to allege all sorts of garbage about Tom in the process.

Getting very concerned about the increasing number of gratuitous negative comments being made about Tom, just because he chooses not to seriously sabotage his bargaining position. Nobody would want the club to say: "Tom, we're prepared to pay you whatever you want!" Yet that's the equivalent of what some are wanting Tom to do.

Last night showed up all his deficiencies, and explained why clubs don't bother tagging him. He just doesn't hurt them, no matter how much ball he gets. Yet he's our primary on-baller for something like 70% of the time. This needs to change. But without him, we'd lose a lot of phsyical strength from the midfield; we'd simply get brushed aside. Perhaps Grimes into the midfield, with Trengove & McKenzie & perhaps Tapscott, would offset this in the future. Could he play a more defensive role? Perhaps not as a tagger - he'd be too slow - but as a blocker, which IMO is something our young mids will really need. Or even as a small defender? Or could we keep it simple for him, so that it's all worked out beforehand where he's going to put it if he gets his hands on the ball at a clearance. Like a quarterback perhaps - he calls the plays. He's got the pipes for it. I think he's good enough for our best 22 somewhere, but not as our primary on-baller.

And they showed us what to expect when we meet them when it actually matters. For a start. we have a much clearer idea of who to select where against them. They showed us everything last night, right down to how they make sure they get the soft frees.

We lost because they killed us for intensity. Words are being used like "desperation", "forward pressure"; they laid 80 tackles (who lays 80 tackles in a praccy match? that would equate to 100+ tackles in a full-length match) & got 10 of their goals from turnovers. They tagged our best runners (who the hell runs two hard tags - on Davey & Sylvia - in a praccy match?) We didn't expect to come across a team playing with such intensity in the second round of the NAB Cup. Yet we were only 10 points down early in the last quarter. We were missing some of our most "intense" players - Scully, McKenzie, Frawley, Wona (who adds a lot of forward pressure). It's not the end of the world. But it did show up beautifully all our problem areas where we'll have to improve, especially against that sort of intensity. It's always the clubs who play against us with that extra 10% of intensity that make us look ordinary, the main examples being North & Carlton every year, West Coast last year. Our advantages in skill won't be enough to be competitive against sides playing with that level of intensity, unless we can match that intensity. Here endeth the lesson.

Where the hell was our intensity tonight? They laid nearly 80 tackles, mostly in their forward line; 10 goals from turnovers. They harrassed our forwards, tagged our best runners out of the game, niggled us all night, and really got up our noses in the last 20 mins. They even staged for frees with intensity. They played as if their lives depended on it. They played as if it was an elimination final. We played like it was a practice match. Hmmmm. What sort of a team tags guys in a practice match??!! How does a team get 78 tackles in a practice match??!! We lost because they killed us for intensity & desperation. In a practice match. Good luck to them.

Agree with everything else. For this, if we do lose Tom (which I don't think will happen), we should be compensated for what he would have given us if he had stayed. In other words, for his future not his past. So when you compare what Scully is going to give in the rest of his career with what Murphy & Ablett are going to give in the rest of their careers, I think there is an argument for saying that we should get compensated more because we'll be missing out on more if he goes. Which I don't think he will, so it's a moot point

I for one would be very disappointed if the Dees took this approach with Scully or anyone else who wants to wait until the end of the season. They're obviously gun-shy after the experience with Bock. And they clearly think Bomba was far too soft on Gazza - oh well!! It's reasonable to ask that if they get an offer from another club, they let us know & give us a chance to counter it. That doesn't seem to have happened with Bock, perhaps because the club made it known that anybody talking to another club wouldn't get a game. If you want someone to be trusting and truthful with you, you have to make it easy for them. Doing it the way the Crows suggest makes it just about impossible.

IMO the most interesting parallel by far is this: Walker is regarded as a player with enormous potential, whose asking price could increase dramatically if he has a breakout season in 2011. This is by far the most relevant reason for both Walker & Scully (and Knights too) to wait until the end of the season.

Hawthorn '08 was my first thought on reading the OP. For a team of very poachable youngsters at the dawn of their careers,"team of the decade" is a brilliant mission statement, and we are the first to have laid claim to it. It's the ideal incentive for every single one of them. We've definitely got the list to achieve it, with more than enough ability and balance. It's the intangibles (teamwork, desire, commitment and so on), to be sustained over a long period, that will determine what level the list performs to, and therefore what each of these guys will get out of their respective football careers. No better way to foster those intangibles than to offer "team of the decade" as the prize. As dandeeman and others have posted, DB knows exactly what he's doing & saying and why. This isn't a throwaway line by any means.

Interesting info Wolfy, you obviously have some connection with Tom. Wonder if this is what's behind Bailey's "team of the decade" statement. If so, what's "on offer" to Tom (and for that matter to all of our poachable youngsters) is to spend your early 20s playing in multiple premierships, in a team of your mates, as potentially one of the best-known & most highly-regarded sportsmen (therefore people) in Australia etc etc; in addition to all that other stuff that Keyser & others have mentioned before. To be a key part of the team of the decade. As against spending your early career having to battle one-out against a hard tag every week, with little help from your mates, in a team that will struggle for years until it gets anywhere - the Daniel Kerr scenario, if you like. As well as watching your former mates win multiple premierships and throwing away your chance to be part of the team of the decade. What would be the price of giving up a spot in the team of the decade? As you say, Wolfy, it'd have to be an amount that's impossible to refuse - and totally insane!

What I think is on all of our minds is: where is the best hope for improvement this year? From these reports, although it sounds like it was pretty scrappy, there were some good (though indefinite) signs.