Akum

We left out two of our best midfielders (or three including Jordie Mc), had a few who not yet up to full "match fitness" (Garland, Morton, Wonna) and a few who looked very very tired because of Darwin (Grimes, Watts, Bennell, Jetta, and Wonna again). We used Miller in the ruck against Hawkins, and took at least a quarter to get our defensive match-ups right. I don't think anyone doubts that this was not a game we ever thought we could win, due to the quality of the opposition. A bit rich to accuse them of not showing us enough respect. Though I don't think that Kelly would have given us a second thought after the game, he was just mucking around. If they wanted to show us disrespect, they would have sung the song at quarter time.

Grimes got picked in the centre and I was surprised, given that Sculgrove (plus McKenzie) were out, that he didn't play there. IMO, after Sculgrove, he's the one mid we have who can consistently hurt the opposition the most. About Grimes in defence, IMO we need to get more sophisticated about selection rather than just pick more or less the same back 6 every game. The best teams play their "quarterback" on the matching forward (tall or small) who's least accountable, who they can "zone off" the easiest. But Geelong doesn't have a forward who's not accountable, so it was always going to be very difficult for Grimes to zone off & do the "quarterback" stuff. Which is why I was surprised they didn't play Grimes in midfield, where he might have done some damage, and a defensive small (e.g. Cheney) on Stokes. On the other hand, I think that Grimes was one of a number of our younger players (others being Bennell, Jetta, Watts & Wonna) who looked very very tired against the Cats. But my point is that we need to put Grimes where he's likely to do most damage, and if the other side have no small forwards that he can easily zone off, we're going to lose a lot of drive from him as "quarterback" and he might be better in midfield. Especially against top teams like Geelong.

I love Moloney for his effort & heart, but the problem is that he simply doesn't do any damage to the opposition. It was significant that if Sculgrove played, Geelong were going to tag one of them with Ling, because it's obvious to Thompson that they can hurt the opposition most out of our midfield.

Chook, that is one of the best photos of all time!

Still think we've got the best Jetta

Yeh, Clint comes across as a quality person, and on performance this year is definitely worth his place, much as I like Strauss & Cheney. Hard to see him ever being part of the midfield, but may well be worth switching there during a game if we need more hardness.

Excellent point. Though IMO we can realistically expect Jack to be much further down the track after 52 games than Hawkins is. On the other hand, Jack is purely a KPF, while Hawkins can also be effective (in short bursts only) in the ruck.

There is actually an important point to this thread. This year we've done poorly when we've picked another ruckman to back up Jamar - the second ruckman (Spencer or PJ) has contributed virtually nothing and we've been worse for not having picked another runner instead. We've looked much better when we've used that 22nd spot for a runner, even if it's meant that we've had to resort to Dunn or Sylvia as back-up to Jamar. We're badly in need of a tall who can hold down a place in the forward line, but who could also pinch-hit in the ruck - like Kreuzer or Hawkins - but we don't have anyone at the moment who can fit the bill. Spencer, PJ & even Meesen are all tap ruckmen who contribute very little around the ground, and are nowhere near worth selecting as a forward. Like many, I was hoping that Stef Martin would step up this year, but so far he's given no indication at all that he'll ever be worth a spot in the 22 as a forward. In their junior footy, Fitzpatrick held down FF while being able to step into the breach as ruckman if needed, and Gawn rucked but could provide a dangerous forward target when needed. At this stage it looks like we have no alternative but to wait until either of them come through. In the meantime we'll always be vulnerable whenever Jamar needs a rest.

The other issue here is that if the initial contact was made at an AFL school clinic (even though the players claim not to have remembered her from the clinic they supposedly were involved in, which isn't surprising), it could have a very bad effect on the AFL's ability to keep running these clinics in schools.

The only point in appealing would be if the MRP were consistent and reasonable and objective.

Must say that I can't remember a game where there's been so much variation of opinion about the best players in both the media and on this thread. Jetta, for one, has a lot of BOGs here but others haven't put him in the top 6. Various media outlets have given their BOGs to Frawley, to Junior, to Miller, to Davey & to Jetta, and in many cases these guys don't figure in the top 6 elsewhere. This can only be a good thing.

This is the thing for Watts and Miller, and it was evident when they were playing for Casey. Watts would play further upfield and when he got it he seemed to know where Miller was going to run, and Miller knew where Jack was going to put it. And Miller in particular was good at making sure that his direct opponent did not provide a "third man up" at a marking contest with Watts. I noticed too that there were a couple of times when Jack was not in the best position to mark the ball in a contested situation but managed to get it to ground to the advantage of smaller players such as Bennell & Jetta who also seemed to anticipate that it was going to happen. Certainly in the first three quarters, it really seemed that the forward line was actually starting to function as a team, which hasn't happened all that often. For Geelong, Scarlett is by far the most important player in setting them up from half-back, so Miller could be asked to trail him to try to reduce his number of uncontested possessions.

Cale will be a devastating player for us because he'll be impossible to match up on. He'll be a huge attacking weapon, we can put him wherever the opposition is weakest. If their forwards are not mobile or don't chase, he'll win heaps of ball out of defence and put it to good use. If their defence is too short, or too tall, or can be easily unbalanced, he'll be an X-factor in attack. Or he'll roam the midfield picking up possessions - I wonder how long it will be before he gets picked up by someone like Goodes or Pavlich, rather than the other way around. But yes, he has to adjust to the pace all over again. And yes, he was probably a bit underdone, especially for the conditions in Darwin. But when he gets there, he'll be dynamite.

What action could possibly have "warranted a hair pull" at AFL level? Similar level of courage and honour to a "Hopoate" IMO - which wouldn't hurt as much as pulling African hair or dreadlocked hair but it would get anyone fired up. If (Samantha) Mitchell and (Hayley) Ballantyne escape penalty, then it's open season on hair.

I must say, the three games where we've been really disappointing (Hawthorn, North & WCE) are the only games where we've gone in with 2 rucks. So go with Dunn.

Welcome deewakka, not something I'd thought about. Though I reckon Jack would probably prefer worthwhile delivery into the forward 50.

RR, I'm concerned at how far the performance of some of our midfielders falls away when Jamar is not able to dominate the stoppages. Let alone play well in a team that's getting beaten. We also seem to get strangled so easily by teams (even ordinary teams) that employ a zone. If we can't beat a zone (quick ball movement with accurate disposal & sensible risk-taking??), we're not going to get very far. I thought an obvious move yesterday would have been Grimes on the ball. He is one who does seem to maintain his performance (despite some wayward disposals) when the team's struggling, and we needed someone to find it in the middle rather than the defensive 50. Somebody wrote that we don't have a "Plan B" - Grimes on the ball is a pretty good "Plan B", but we didn't pull the trigger. Perhaps sometimes the coaches need to take sensible risks too. IMO the midfield is where it all starts. And IMO it's not the young mids, or Junior, who are the problem.

The clear leader in the award for most ridiculous comment of the year. I thought it was only a 5/10 game from Jack, but our benchmark for tall forwards (except for Bate) is pretty low. If Newton or Martin ever played that well as a forward, it would be a pleasant surprise. Votes: 6. Junior 5. Grimes 4. McKenzie ... The rest don't matter.

Agree on all counts. Assuming that Bate is out injured and/or PJ is dropped, a factor that would count against miller is that he'd be competing for the spot (lead-up forward and help in the ruck) with Dunn who was stiff to get dropped. Though sounds like Miller was much better for Casey. And it would be wrong to pick them both - it has to be one or the other.

If Bruce is injured, Cheney in. Cheney has simply deserved a spot on his performance over the past 3-4 weeks at Casey.

Something about Miller that hasn't been picked up is that he and Jack Watts combined well for Casey. Miller seems to be one player who has a good understanding of Jack's game.

We struggle against teams who shut down the corridor and who play some sort of zone. We MUST work out a way around this strategy - or better, a way to maintain our gameplan in the face of this strategy. We don't want to become like Essendon.

Look, I have nothing against people criticising Jack for what's there (example: "he's got a strange kicking action off his left foot - will it stand up under pressure?"). But I reserve the right to call those who try to pass off what's in their imagination as holy writ when it's beyond ridiculous. For some reason that I can't fathom, Jack seems to attract these bizarre pronouncements about his psyche in a way that no other player does in living memory. It's the difference between "even when he calls for the ball, he looks uncertain" (which is what can actually be seen, and which I can disagree with but it's a reasonable comment) and "he doesn't want the ball enough" (which says much more about the poster's psyche than it does about Jack's).

Just doesn't make sense to me to drop young forwards when the main problem is getting smashed in the clearances whenever Jamar isn't able to give the mids an armchair ride, combined with absolutely terrible delivery into the forward line. HFFs - even those with much more experience than Hughes & Bennell - will always struggle in that situation. Some of our senior mids only seem to be effective if our ruck is dominating, which IMO is a serious concern into the future.

So the times he was on his own screaming for the ball only to see it bombed aimlessly or turned over - that was because he "did not seem to want the ball"? And when he led and the pass missed him by 10 metres - "did not seem to want the ball"??? Might be smarter to wait for a game when he's getting good delivery before pulling out a statement like that. And how can you be NOT having a dig at him? If this is the sort of carp he gets from so-called supporters ... sheesh!!