Akum

For one thing, Bate & Bruce & perhaps Davey (who was concussed) will probably miss next week. For another, for most teams we have one tall defender too many. Le Cras really exploited this today. Then, some of our senior midfielders (not Junior) have gone missing whenever Jamar can't give them an armchair ride. Remember, we had the worst midfield in the comp in 2008 & 2009, and we have young mids at Casey in Morton, Gysberts & Jetta who need game time this season. And PJ ... no. He showed that he should have been dropped for this game instead of Dunn.

Can understand your point, except for one thing. We have a heap of young players who need to be given plenty of game time during the season & who have been doing well at Casey - Morton, Cheney, Gysberts, Jetta, Wonna, McNamara etc etc. It's much harder to turn players over while we're winning. If losses like this have a bright side, it's an opportunity to give these young players a chance and drop any of the older ones who are underperforming.

And compare the amount & quality of delivery into the West Coast forward 50 to ours, and Nik Nat had twice the opportunity but only 2/3 the disposals.

Main reason for it getting blasted back out was that forward would make a lead only for the pass to miss by several metres. The delivery into forward 50 was abysmal.

The problem with this sort of thread is that "attitude problem" is such an easy accusation to make, and that no matter what anybody says to the contrary, there are always some who remain absolutely convinced that he has an attitude problem. Let me assure you that if Jack had any attitude "issues", there'd be a long line of family & friends waiting to kick his butt. Anybody who's actually spoken to Jack knows that his attitude is fine.

Gotch often uses the word "cleanness" in his player review comments about Gysberts. It's actually hard to give an idea of how remarkable he is with his "cleanness". Try to imagine a one-touch pick-up in traffic at full pace and in the same movement spearing out a 20m handpass to a colleague moving into space. Or winning the ball at a stoppage, lifting his eyes just enough and then a flat hard 40m footpass on to the chest of a leading forward. That's Gysberts' level of "cleanness".

"Oooh, the little master won't like that!"

Just a few comments about some players, not a complete summary. Wona played in short bursts and was rusty as hell, but just oozes class. Kicked 0.3, but the 3 behinds were all posters (which must be some sort of record, who knows?). Probably needs a few more Casey games to improve his fitness, but it's so obvious that he'll just rip it up when he gets back in the AFL. Seemed to chat & joke a lot with JW during interchanges, and the thought of these two playing alongside each other for the Dees ..... ooooooooohhh! Jetta is just a real jet. A number of times he made supreme efforts to get himself to a contest that looked like there was no way he'd get there. Hits the ball really hard as we know, but the best thing about his game is that he used it well. He's a totally different player to Davey or Bennell, and agree that he's a mid, not a FP or HFF. No doubt that we've got the best Jetta. But the one who impressed me the most was Gysberts. His ball-handling is so clean, no matter which way it comes to him, and he often seems to get the ball in traffic but have time to use it quickly and well by hand (almost Scully-like) or foot. For someone who's essentially an inside mid, he has such great disposal skills. He's an unusual type of player who's going to create loads of headaches for opposing sides, and I have no doubt that he'll prove to be a fantastic pick-up at #11.

Very strange comments. There wasn't a single dominant player because it was a team effort and several did well. But little doubt that he would have been in the best 3 on ground. The requirement was to string good games together, not to dominate or get BOG, and his last 2 games on wing and flank seem to have satified the main judge. For his first game at CHF at any level (except his school) since being at the Dees, this was a good game, and in the position he was recruited to play. He definitely looked much more at home as a KPF. His main opponents were McGuane & Gourdis, who have both had AFL games. You are right about one thing though - he can and will do better, much better. A "good-but-not-great" game (admittedly against poor opposition) nets him 4.2 & 3 GAs.

Is it possible to be satisfied with the performance but not with the result? They were deprived of 2 goals in questionable circumstances. Was it Griffin's greater ability to know how to win a match that made that kick bounce just over Warnock's head? If that bounce was a metre lower and Warnock had spoiled it ... In games like that, they put in a performance that was enough to win the game but the chips just didn't fall their way. I think we all hate the loss, but that's no reason for us not to like the performance.

These are the kids that we have to get maximum game time into. If you'd watched Casey yesterday you would have added Cheney (on performance, he's ahead of just about everyone on that list) & Tommy-Mac, who are starting to look a class above VFL. The question is going to become - who will get left out so that these guys can get game time into them? If the club is serious about this, the selectors will have to make some hard decisions about which more experienced players are going to make way to give the 2014 premiership team some game time. And it gets harder the longer they put it off; only 15 rounds left. Unless, of course, we get our standard run of injuries in the last half of the year.

For those who weren't at Casey, let me put it this way. If Juice or Stef had put in the performance that Jack put in yesterday, what we'd be saying is "this is the game we've been waiting for them to play ever since they came to the club!" Got 4.2 including a poster, dished off 3 others.

Have u got your votes upside down? It's 6 votes for best, 5 for second best, etc.

1. What makes you think he'd be worse than NicNat if he did play? 2. He's picked at CHF for Casey this afternoon. It's up to him whether or not he does well enough to get a place next week.

Great news. Please let's not pump his tyres up too much before he's even kicked a ball for us in anger, but definitely looking forward to see what he can do.

Disappointing. i have a lot of respect for the club, they do a lot of fantastic community stuff here in the west. But some of their supporters are pure cro magnon.

Nailed the pressure goal in his first game. Looked like he belonged out there.

We're playing Wet Toast. Can Jamar take both Cox & Nic-Nat? Does Riv make our defence top-heavy?

6. Scully - first of many career BOGs 5. Trengove - Scullgove just about our best midfielders already 4. Grimes - his runs out of defence were brilliant 3. Bruce - Bruce bashers very quiet tonight 2. Bate - big big game, really stepped up 1. McKenzie - maybe it should be Scullgovejord! Apologies to Davey, Jones, (Davey Jones??), Warnock, Junior. I thought Hughes really looked the part too. Can't think of anybody who didn't contribute.

What if Port made a big play for Jamar?

Can guarantee you he's totally and permanently BS-free.

Game set & match

I agree that there's reasons for playing him as wing & HFF, but my point is that he's not likely to show his CHF attributes playing as a wingman. And while in some games he might make a reasonable fist of playing in a position that's so unfamiliar to him, he'll have others where he'll struggle just to get into it. Imagine, for argument's sake, trying to judge the value of Rivers or Warnock by playing them on a wing. It's not a problem if the coaches have set him specific goals to achieve in his performance as a wingman, to let him know what he has to do to be considered for the Dees. It wouldn't help if they've just said "look, we don't want you to get crunched, we'll put you on the wing, and if you go well enough, we'll consider you for the seniors". The dilemma is: how well does he need to play on the wing for Casey in order to get picked for the Dees as ... what? Wingman? Or KPF? I agree with Hannabal - perhaps he should have some games at Casey as KPF, though that would mean that Miller & Newton would have to play somewhere else. Since he's come to MFC, he's yet play a single game at any level at CHF, the position he was drafted to play.

I take your point H, but he's being played mainly as a wingman, occasionally as HFF next to Miller at CHF. For someone who's played probably every game since he first kicked a footy at CHF, wing would have to be just about the most unfamiliar position on the ground. If he looks lost in some games, it wouldn't be surprising. And playing HFF he'd be expected to be second fiddle to Miller, whose future AFL career depends to a large degree on showing a physical presence. I'd expect he's been instructed to leave all the "lead-up" stuff to Miller and not to get in his way. In other words, I don't know that being played on the wing or HFF for Casey is a good guide for how he'd play if he were CHF. And to push this point further, I'm finding it harder to understand the wisdom of selecting him on the wing for Casey as the best preparation for a future KPF. Perhaps he needs a few games as KPF at Casey, but to do this he'd have to displace both Miller and Newton and probably Hughes, all of whom have their careers on the line at the end of 2010 season.

The other one you left out was Rivers.