Akum

This one actually makes sense. Should it be in this thread?

So who can we slough off to Carltank for a first-round pick this time?

This argument is so wrong, every time it's used. It's a fallacy to say that if he was drafted at 60 nobody would bother - a player drafted at 60 would have much less upside than Strauss, and that lack of upside would be why nobody would bother. But we "bother" about Strauss because of his massive upside potential. Some of his kicking is jaw-dropping. Some of his kicks at Casey have split the opposition & created direct scoring opportunities from deep in defence. Though to be fair there have been turnovers too, usually because he's been over-ambitious and just missed the target from 50m or so. IMO if he's been encouraged to just go for it if he sees an opportunity 50m away and thinks he can hit it, that's exactly what I'd want him to learn to do, even at the cost of occasional turnovers. If he can overcome his defensive flaws, and fine-tune his kicking skills, he'll be a potent weapon and very hard to counter. But if he can't overcome his flaws, he's not worth a place in the team. With Strauss, it really is one extreme or the other, and at the moment it's impossible to tell which way he'll go. Hence the "debate". God I hope he makes it.

Correct. You're not being smart.

One lesson from Round 1 is that we went in with 2 rucks, Jamar & Spencer. The next week we dropped Spencer for a mobile small player & rucked with Jamar alone, and started doing much better. If the selectors consider this to have been significant, we'll go in with one ruckman. If so, do we go with a probably-not-fully-fit Jamar? Or with PJ, who's not as good (though he's certainly done better last few games), but who could probably ruck for more of the game, leaving us less time with Dunn or Sylvia (or Miller???) in the ruck?

... and if they start niggling & sniping at us before the ball is bounced, that's the signal that they're REALLY worried about how to take us on.

We need to be on full alert for the sort of off-the-ball first-bounce garbage that Carltank sucked us in with, when experienced players got pinged for retaliating. We should be expecting it & not be surprised by it; see it as a sign of desperation by them & set ourselves to not get sucked in by it.

Our forward line has worked best this year with fast mobile players - talls as well as smalls - who run intelligently, use the ball well & apply good defensive pressure. I can't remember a pack being crashed in our forward line the whole season.

Just thought I'd look back at the Round 1 team & compare it to last weekend's team & was surprised at the number of changes: Midfield: Sylvia (now) instead of Moloney (then); Defence: Bail, Garland & Bartram instead of Grimes, Warnock & Strauss; Forwards: Jurrah, Watts, Wonna & PJ instead of Petterd, Miller, Bate & Spencer. Some very good players from Round 1 that we're missing, but overall I think we're in better shape to take on the Hawks this week than we were then.

Jordie & Jack (especially Jordie) have been thereabouts for a Rising Star nom for the past 3 or 4 weeks now. Garlett's come in with one very good game (and before him, Stratton, Grant, Hurley etc) but hardly been noticed at all in others. Jordie must have come 2nd or 3rd now each week for the past 3 weeks I would have thought.

This is my concern about Moloney - he can only play midfield at this stage. No reason why he couldn't be a sensational HBF, but at the moment he doesn't have another position. The day will come when both of them will be superseded as our A-grade mids. Jones has added another string to his bow as a very good tagger of dangerous smalls, and could also play as a hard-at-it HFF or maybe even BP or HBF if required. But as things stand, we don't know what Beamer would be like as HBF, or anywhere other than midfield. This means that if he's fit this week, he either plays a large amount of game time in midfield, or he goes to Casey. It would be good if there was a reliable third option for Beamer, and in years to come he's going to need another option.

Bate still doesn't look 100% fit to me, he seems to have been trying to throw off these niggling injuries for most of the season and he's slipped back as a result. Amazed that some have him written off already. When he's on song, he's definitely worth a place in the 22

Couldn't agree more - well done MM. These are not the stats of a "poor decision maker" with "substandard kicking skills". Even if "disposal effectiveness" isn't a rock-solid stat, anybody in the team would be happy if they had those stats over the season.

I think this is a worthwhile thread. Finals have never really been on the radar for this year, and it's not unreasonable to express concern about the effect on a young team if we scrape into 8th by default and get absolutely hammered. On the other hand, if this did happen, the team would be just as fired up over the preseason as if we lost by a point, or if we missed out on the 8 by what could effectively be a single point in two games against the Pies. Or if we finished 12th, as hoopla implies. The trouble with both Essendon & Carlton is that the FANS got way ahead of themselves and believed that if they made the 8 by default last year, they will definitely improve this year. It's the flaky fans of both clubs that are putting the coach & players under pressure, when this year is a more accurate reflection of where both teams are at. Similarly, the greatest risk for the Dees is that if we scrape in by default this year, and certain fans start to get ahead of themselves and believe that anything less than top four next year means that Bailey must be sacked. But that won't happen, will it??

1. I know who I'd rather have out of Jordie & Hurley. Bridesmaid or not. 2. For about 3 or 4 weeks now Jordie & Jack have got better with each game.

Any chance of them playing Leuemberger or Clark in FP alongside Fev?

There was no "change" as such. All that happened was that a number of things we've been trying to do all year just came together: * The leaders all stepped up when they needed to. * We spread and presented and created space well, and used the ball extremely well and at great speed. * Although we used the corridor a lot, we weren't afraid to move it wider if that was the better option. * All our forwards put fantastic pressure on their running defenders (Wonna being an inspired choice here), which messed up their whole game plan of attacking off half-back. * We had 22 contributors and no weak link. * Our defence ... well, they just played like our defence. * The addition of Bail, Maric & Wonna gave us a lot of pace around the middle. Yesterday showed what we're capable of. We probably would have beaten anybody yesterday. But the difference between us being Geelong & us being Essendon, for example, is the ability to produce what you're capable of week in week out. At the moment we're capable of being terrible next weekend (and we'll probably still struggle against sides that play a zone), but IMO it's only a matter of time before yesterday becomes our expected standard no matter who we play.

Or "even except junk-time"

Maric's speed was very good today, he got in the clear & burned off his opponent a few times. Frankly, he was better than I thought he'd be, and he had a number of "almost-but-not-quite" moments today so when he sharpens up with more games he's got a lot of improvement to come. Good to see Bailey giving him a talking-to at the end after he gave away the last goal. Speaking of which, I thought Bailey being down at ground level went well. TV showed him at various times talking to Watts, Scully & Maric when they came off. So who would have been up high doing the strategy & match-ups etc?

Totally agree ddm. What puts him ahead of being just another hard nut is that he actually uses it so well, both in traffic and in the clear. IMO it's his skill that flies under the radar. And Jones seems to play better when Jordie's going well (there may be others, but Jones is the obvious one).

And they could be letting Bate know he's "close" going in the other direction!

Seems such a simple & obvious thing. And if players are slipping & sliding all over the place in the first quarter, surely they can change to more suitable boots at 1/4 time? This has been mentioned for a few weeks now.

This is the indicator par excellence of weakness of character.

But look at who they were playing against! It was Melbourne's fringe players (plus Jurrah) against the Bulldogs fringe players, and let's face it, some of our fringe players are very very ordinary & will probably struggle next year to make a VFL team. In comparison, half of Willi's 22 - Tiller, Addison, Callan, Hargrave, Ward, Eagleton, Stack, Everitt, Minson, Roughead & Moles - have had very good performances at AFL level. Spencer, for example, rucked against Minson & Roughead.

My question about pokies is this - if everybody who used them used them sensibly, would they still make so much money? The reason for there being so much fewer pokies in higher SES areas is not because there are less casual gamblers but because there are less addicts. I don't know the exact numbers for this, but I have great reservations about the extent to which their profitability depends on exploiting the relatively small number of addicts who do gamble far far more than they can afford.