Akum

As far as Hawthorn's injuries are concerned, I think they've certainly made a lot of noise about it, but the table below from the Age this week would seem to indicate that it's just a lot of hot air. Games missed by injury in 2009 for clubs' top-10 players from last year's club best-and-fairest. Essendon 36 Melbourne 36 Fremantle 31 Richmond 28 North Melb 21 Collingw&%$ 20 Port Adelaide 20 Hawthorn 16 Carlton 15 Geelong 15 W Bulldogs 13 St Kilda 12 Brisbane Lions 10 Adelaide 9 West Coast 9 Sydney 3 I still think the biggest factors for Hawthorn's slide are that clubs have worked out their rolling zone and their use of Hodge, and have been able to nullify their seemingly unbeatable (though admittedly still dangerous) KPFs. These factors have uncovered their lack of midfield quality & depth and poor disposal skills. Again, there's a point to this for us to learn from - it's that spectacularly successful surprise tactics may get you a surprise flag, but without the depth of quality to back it up, it will be a one-off rather than the start of a long reign. Hawthorn have dropped right off their upward curve this year; they may get back on it, but on their performance this year it's hard to see where they're going to get their improvement from. It's a matter for whether it's this year or ast year that's the aberration. By the way, us being equal top of this table (which only covers the top 10 B&F players of last year so wouldn't include the games missed by all our injured young players) may mean that we've not done quite as badly as we thought. At least we're got more justification than Hawthorn to claim that our season has been affected by injuries to top-10 players.

Will be either just the one change (either Dunn or Bell for Sylvia), or one or more of Moloney, Bennell or Martin will be at Casey (where they've all been named on an extended bench). Surely whoever's the "in" (or "ins", as the case may be) needs to stay "in" for at least 3 weeks. There's absolutely no point having them "in" one week and "out" the next.

Port are a different team now their coaching issue has been more or less resolved. The only way we can win is if Choco spits the dummy about the behavioural clauses in his contract before the game. If they don't win this game, they're stuffed as a football club. In fact, we will cause serious damage to anybody we beat this year except for Freo (oh god please let us beat Carlton!) We might go close though.

I'm worried about Cale Morton, he's really dropped off in the last 3 games after excellent form earlier, and was the one player who didn't lift last week. If anyone else has to be out this week, it's him. Casey's playing the second bottom team Frankston, he'll dominate this game and play himself back into form & confidence. The two biggest question marks in terms of whether they stay next year are Valenti & Dunn IMO, so to help us decide, they should come in as straight swaps for Col'n'Cale respectively. An argument could be made along similar lines for Bell instead of either of them, though I'm one of those who's written Bell off for next year so I tend not to see him as a "question mark". Much as I like Jack, it's not essential that he comes back this week. What IS essential is that we sort out the situation of some fringe players re 2010 and beyond over what's left of the season.

Sensational post HT. Love this sort of stuff too. A few things stand out IMO: 1. Seems that from the latest year of big recruiting, it takes about 3 years to get entrenched in the top 8 and 5 years to get to the very top. The core of Geelong's current team debuted from 99-02 & the team became big in 07. For St Kilda, 01-04, big in 09. For us, the last of our big recruiting years will be 2009, so we can hope for entrenched in top 8 in 2012 and top 2 or 3 in 2014. As has already been said. 2. Neither Geelong nor St Kilda has recruited much since the last year of their big recruiting in 2002 and 2004 respectively, Selwood being the one exception. They'll be in big trouble once they start to fall again, because at this stage nobody looks to be coming up to fill the holes that will be left when their stars from 99-02 (Geel) & 01-04 (StK) get too old. We'll need to try to avoid this, especially as it's going to be much more difficult for us in this period due to GC & WS. 3. If our big years are going to be 2012-2014, we've got plenty of great mids, defenders and forwards in the bunch that debuted from 06-09, but from your list we look as if we might be a bit light on for rucks. Jamar who debuted in 2004 and PJ in 2005 (if we keep him that long) will be at the end of their careers, and there is only Martin, though Spencer & Meesen aren't there. Do you think we'll need to recruit another ruckman this year or next year to be strong enough in the ruck in 2012-2014? Or will Spencer & Meesen be enough, with the help of an ageing Jamar? Personally I think Hawks were a complete aberration, and might be in trouble for a little while. They sprung a major surprise on the whole comp last year by a major and very successful coaching innovation that won them many games and gave them loads of confidence (the "rolling zone"), by using their best mid (Hodge) as a quarterback, and getting champagne delivery to their two KPFs. This got them to the GF, and they surprised the red hot favourites big-time on the day. IMO they really pilfered this premiership, and good luck to them, they pilfered it brilliantly. This year, when the rolling zone, Hodge & KPFs have all been neutralised one way or another, they're back to more or less where they belong. My point is that, as you've indicated, it's the Geelong and St Kilda models that are relevant to us, while Hawthorn were/are an aberration that has much less relevance. Again, brilliantly done HT.

Understand the sentiment, but look at this: Next game PA, who are playing for their place in the finals. If they lose to us, they lose their finals chance. They are the other club with a chance of PPs at the start of the year, but they already have 7 wins so they no longer qualify. They will not be tanking. Then Cats - no way can we win. Then Sydney, playing for the best position in the finals, but also for their future post-Western Sydney; if they miss the 8 this year, their future looks grim. Then Tiges followed by Kangas, both playing for their coach's contract next year. Rawlings & Crocker won't be tanking in any way shape or form - they're auditioning to hold onto their jobs next year. If the team they're coaching loses to us, that will ensure that not only do they not coach at their respective clubs, they'll be such a laughing stock as a coach that they won't get a senior job anywhere. These two coaches are playing for their future livelihoods. Then Freo - our best chance for our third win. Then Blues - if we are ever to cause an upset for our fourth win, this is the game. They're the one team that's cocky enough to take us too lightly and lose. Would make the whole of the last 3 seasons worthwhile IMO if we beat them and wreck their finals chances. If we do happen to pick up an unexpected win that would devastate any of the clubs that we play before Freo, this will be the one game when we might need to load with our fringe players and "list-manage". Last game St Kilda - would love to run them close but no chance of winning. My point is, I don't see how we could possibly be on 4 wins when we meet Freo. If we win 2 games between now and Freo, we will have wrecked finals chances or wrecked coaching careers or both. The other sides we play simply have far too much to lose. I agree it would be a disaster to win 5 (like Freo did last year), but 5 wins is outside the realms of possibility. What is marginally less impossible than us winning 5 is that we win 4 and end up ahead of WC on percentage if they get trounced in all their remaining games, giving them a pp ahead of us. But they'll pick Morabito or Lewis ahead of Scully & Trengove-or-Rohan, so we'll still get Scully plus another very promising mid. IMO we're getting worked up about something which is just not going to happen.

If Robbo goes, who takes the No1 defender?

OK Hannibal, apologies & points taken; didn't mean to offend. The risk to me is that tanking or list management will leave such a bad smell around the club in general, and around all these professional athletes who represent us on the field. Carlton can take that bad smell, they're used to it after years with Big Jack, and so are Richmond under Wallace, which is why they were in the toilet until he left and took the bad smell with him. But I don't think we're that sort of club and I'm glad about that. I've always seen us as an honest club that prizes our integrity and abhors that sort of thing. To you and I it's just a "strategy" to use or not to use, but to the players and coaches it's more than just "strategy" because it puts their professionalism on the line. I'm doing my best not to take the high ground, but it's not easy when you're talking about professional sportsmen of any kind. My point is that we just don't need to compromise our performance, whether by tanking or list management, to get the same result come November. Even if the players try their guts out every game, what is overwhelmingly likely to happen is that we'll get Scully and one other top mid with our first two picks. If you see list management as the ONLY way to achieve that end, that's OK, I just don't agree. It's your opinion that we stand to lose a premiership by trying to win; it's my opinion that we stand to lose a lot more if we try not to win. It's also obvious that the club's going to do what the club's going to do irrespective of what either of us think.

My point exactly. My only reason for keeping Robbo is so that Jack et al are not forced to take the No1 defender each week before they're good & ready. And I'd much rather Robbo do that for them than Newton or PJ. That would be Robbo's massive contribution towards the next flag.

None of the sides in reach of the finals will lose to us. It's such a tight race for the finals that losing to us might mean the difference between 6th & 9th, or 4th & 7th, for example. They'll play all out, tag all our best players, put pressure on the younger players all day etc etc. That cuts out PA, Cats, Swans, Carpton & Saints as wins. Toigs & NM won't lose to us. They ruined their tanking prospects by taking on new coaches who are auditioning for next season and beyond. If they lose to us, goodbye senior AFL coaching career, next year or ever. So in 7 of our 8 games, we meet sides who are better than us with far more to lose. It's actually good timing that we play Port this week and not Round 22 when they might have lost touch of the 8 and have dropped their bundle completely That leaves Freo at MCG round 20 as the only possible win. Also means that we can afford to win another game without jeopardising PPs, and we play Carpton at Etihad the week after Freo with the chance to wreck their whole season. Then we can finish the season with a close and honourable loss to the eventual premiers St Kilda in a high-scoring game in which Stef Martin holds Kosi goalless, JW & LJ each kick 5 and Morton is BOG.

No Hannibal, not what I meant at all. Every team we play from now on has far too much to lose to let us win, except for Freo. If we beat anybody else, we'll either destroy their finals chance (e.g. might finish 7th instead of 4th, for example) or finish an AFL coaching career for good (because it will put paid to Rawlings' or Crocker's chances of being reappointed, either next year or any other time). Our only likely win is Freo. One unlikely win is unlikely, but two unlikely wins defies any odds. Tiges & Kangas have far too much to lose, their tanking option disappeared when they got new coaches who are auditioning for next year. The only side who can finish below us are Freo, plus WCE if they lose all and we get one unlikely win. I mistakenly thought that Freo would qualify for a PP, but of course they won 5 in 08 so they don't. So if the best we can do is to finish 14th ahead of WCE & Freo, WCE will use their PP on any of the 5 or 6 outstanding WA players in the carnival, probably Morabito, so we still get Scully anyway. Other than that, I don't care too much whether we pick up Morabito at pick 2 or Rohan or Martin at pick 6. Scully + Morabito or Scully + Rohan, not a lot of difference. Scully will ADD to our midfield - the other might keep another of our current midfielders, including Blease & Morton, out of the team - Scully is the only 'must have'. In other words, we don't need to follow your prescription to play (or to 'list-manage') to lose every game for the rest of the season. We don't need to hope we play badly. And - thank God! - DB ain't Wallace, so the club isn't going to follow your prescription either. Whether you like it or not, every coach & every player & everyone else in the FD will be playing every game to win. But FCS, don't take this as a disaster, it will almost certainly end up very similar, whether we get picks 1 & 2, or worst-case-scenario picks 2 & 5. Except that we can forget this stupid panic that unless we tank it will be total disaster. Playing to win will be OK, you might even get to like it.

This interview increases my respect for DB much. He gets all the right tones & nuances perfectly - "he's let the team down; he's aware of what he's done & nobody is more disappointed in him than he is; this is unacceptable in every way in future; his improved performance this year has been very important to the team; he needs to get back to this standard immediately on his return". While this rebukes him, it compliments him also and shows faith in him. Yes, I have no doubt that he would have rebuked Bruce in a similar way, but in private. Trying desperately to get this thread back on topic ...

Rioli's taken the football world by storm and is unquestionably better at the moment. He may or may not be able to make the transition into the midfield, or may continue to be a HFF that flashes brilliantly into the play a few times a game. Cale has unquestionably much more upside to come. Could be anything in future. So for another 2 or 3 years it's a meaningless question. By the way I don't think Cale needs any more games in defence at this stage in his career, he looks to have lost confidence and a lot of his run over the past few games since QB. Needs to be played as an offensive player till the end of the year, that's why he was recruited. If DB thinks his defensive skills need more work, that may need to be held over until next preseason or season proper. IMO it's doing him more harm than good ATM.

Hear hear

In a way I wouldn't mind him slipping under the radar a bit. Sure, if he played for teams beloved of commentators, they'd be singing his praises loud & long. But we all know how good he is, the FD know how good he is, his teammates know how good he is. In a defence that's been under siege for just about the whole of the game time in his career so far, he plays like someone with 208 games, except that he'll get even better over his next 20 or 30. So if whoever decides these things isn't smart enough to recognise his quality, compared to Rich or whoever else, that's their problem not his or ours.

Really important now that he stays on track off the field in the next 3 weeks. Hope he realises how stoked everybody is in the efforts he's been putting in over the past half dozen or so games, how important he is to this team, and how much support he has around the club. OK, he's blown it by lashing out, but that's history now and he needs to show the strength of character to hold it together until he can play again, and then to put up with opponents inevitably trying to get under his skin when he returns. I have a feeling that if he can overcome all this to the end of the year, we may have seen the last of Col's brain snaps.

In which case his big effort against WCE is all the more remarkable. In which cae I agree with Jaded, he deserves the big send-off. In which case Newton & Miller, much less effective IMO, will be needed for at least another year for similar reasons to those I put for Robbo. Not good?

Isn't it more accurate to say that we just want the pick that gives us Tom Scully? Isn't it possible that Freo or WCE will prefer one of the key players out of the side that was undefeated in the carnival, that provided a third of the All-Australian side? Isn't it possible that Anthony Morabito or Kane Lucas (or Colyer or Darling or ...) would be more attractive to them than another Judd experience? I believe that if WCE had No.1 pick last year they would have picked NikNat not Jack. They see these guys in the WAFL every week, and their Vic-hating memberships & fans (not to mention media) would scream blue murder if they chose Scully first pick ahead of a WA native. It's probably fortunate too that both Richmond & NM have changed coaches halfway through the season; that's usually enough to improve a team's performance, and both these sides are playing much better now. These new coaches will both want to keep coaching next year, they're not going to do that by tanking, they'll only be kept on if they get some wins (especially unexpected wins) on the board. NM & Richmond will finish well above us, bless them. PA have their sights on the finals, they only have to finish ahead of Carlton, and even if they do badly & decide to tank, they will have already won too many games. The only teams who may finish below us are WCE & Freo, and they will both choose from the plethora of WA players who lit up the carnival rather than risk apocalyptic wrath by picking another Victorian with all they've been through. IMO all this is academic, a lot of bluster over nothing. I don't want picks 1 & 2 or 3 necessarily - I just want whatever pick will give us Scully. Whoever else we get is a bonus, the main thing we all want out of the draft is Scully, isn't it? We can do this even if we finish 14th with WCE & Freo below us, which the tankers here might see as an absolute disaster. All the hype about Scully going No.1 is all based on the assumption that we're odd's-on to get No.1 pick and he is just what we need, but he may well not be every other side's No.1

I would like to see Dunn, he does seem to have picked up in confidence at Casey. And confidence is the main thing he seems to need. If he hits form in the Dees, we'll have the makings of a really solid forward line. But don't they have to fit Jack back in this week? And they couldn't drop Petterd after his game, could they?

Guns, both of them. Did anyone see the table in today's Age showing the number of games missed for each time by players in the top 10 of their B&F last year? This is a good way of comparing the extent of each club's injuries to key players. Despite much howling by some clubs (Hawthorn, Collingwood, Adelaide etc etc etc) about injuries to key players, they're well down the list. On top with 36 games lost each are Essendon and, yes, Melbourne.

Look, honestly, I can see how this makes a lot of sense. I don't particulafrly like Robbo either. Like most posters here, my favourite players are the young guns, and I can't wait for the time when they're the core of the team. My point is that we can lose some of the senior players from our midfield and defence, because there are young guys who have either stepped up already (Grimes, Frawley) or will step up at some time over the next 12 months (Morton, Cheney). And enough experienced players will remain in midfield & defence so they don't have to take the major responsibilities until they're ready for it. But KPF is not the same. I'd love it if Jack & Stef, for example, started ripping it up as KPFs before the end of this season (though not ripping it up enough for us to win more than 2, obviously) - nice fantasy, but not going to happen. OK, maybe preseason comp 2010 - highly unlikely. Or 2010 season - possible, but probably still too early. I want Robbo to help keep the pressure off these young guns until we know they're ready to take it. I'm happy to concede that Robbo staying on may not contribute much to team performance, but it's making a substantial contribution to team building. Not the ideal situation, but I'd hate for Jack's career to be seriously damaged by having his body & confidence smashed because we let Robbo go before Jack was ready to take on the No.1 defender each week. Just don't see why we should risk unnecessarily sacrificing a great young player just because some have major grudges against Robbo, even if they have good reasons for those grudges.

Good thread, outstanding OP GNF. All the points are good but your 4th point is where the rubber hits the road IMO. A lot of people seem to want Robbo to be someone else. I'd love to be able to give Robbo another 10cm - according to the team list he's the same height as Grimes, 1cm taller than Sylvia & Bell, 2cm taller than Petterd & Strauss, and 3cm (i.e. just over an inch) taller than Blease, Cheney and McLean. We'd never consider playing any of these as FF. I'd love to give him another yard or 3 of pace, to put him in the Brad Johnson category, or another 10kg weight. But we have to go with the Robbo we've got. He's not the ideal FF, never has been & never will be, but I can't think of anybody who's worked harder over so many years to play well above his physical drawbacks. At present, we have no other forward who's capable of taking on the opposition's best defender week in week out. In fact, a good indicator of when we no longer need Robbo is when another potential KPF - don't care whether it's Jack W, Stef, Jurrah, Bate, Dunn, Butcher (??), Miller, Bruce, even Juice or PJ god forbid ... whoever! - attracts the opposition's best "stopper" defender for 3 weeks in a row. That day will come, maybe next year or maybe not (meaning that we may need Robbo for another year or another 2 years, hard to tell at this stage - sorry Rhino!), and when it does come we can put Robbo out to pasture in a FP, if he's our best goalsneak FP at the time. But until that day, the simple fact is that Robbo's considered, at least by every other team (if not by some supporters), to be our top KPF, like it or not ... with all his deficiencies, with all the things we'd prefer him to be or to do. If we lose Robbo, we expose Jack or Stef or LJ or Bate or Dunn to being smashed every week so early in their careers, with all the inherent risks to them. For 2009 and 2010 and perhaps for 2011, we simply have to go with the Robbo we've got, imperfect beast that he is, until a better alternative comes along.

H.B.K., I assume you mean that if the shoulder is allowed to dislocate a 4th or 5th time or more, the op is less successful. So maybe this is what's been done with Maric & Strauss, who are certainly both part of the club's future plans. They've had a few dislocations, so the club's not messing around but has stepped in decisively and got it done relatively early. Would this be right? I'd imagine the good Lord didn't design shoulders to be hit against other shoulders with serious force from all angles, or for them to be rammed into the ground when arms are pinned. H.B.K., I assume yours (and probably Maric's & Strauss's) were anterior dislocations?

To stop the head from rolling off?? Let's face it, we'd look ridiculous with just one. Or three.

Seems that the Selwoods were set to tag our two most dangerous players, Flash & Col, in whatever way but just to not get caught. Didn't see much of Scott on Col, but Adam was clearly holding Davey back from the play and stopping him from running at the ball. Sounds very much here that Col might have been impeded from getting involved in the play, and did the wrong thing and lashed out. In the one really positive change to umpiring instructions early in the year, the 2nd & 3rd umpires watched very closely for taggers holding ballplayers back illegally. It should have been obvious to them in this game, but that instruction has clearly gone right out the window now. Typical umpires, can't sustain a positive change for more than one or two rounds. Maybe they know that if they paid every tagger infringement, the free kick stats would be much higher, so they've decided to turn a blind eye like they have every other season. Unfortunately these two clearly didn't like this illegal treatment and can probably expect it now every time they play, without any protecion whatsoever from umpires or - sad to say - from teammates. The team is going to have to realise this and make things really hot for the taggers. Col has to realise that the Leigh Matthews method for dealing with taggers isn't as effective as it once was, IMO tagging illegally is a blight on the game. But the club can't afford to think the same (perhaps it's no coincidence that we might be the only team that has no tagger of note), because umpires and the AFL seem to give taggers free rein these days. We have to deal with it as a team issue, or Flash and Col will continue to get into trouble if they're left to combat it themselves. I like the way Judd deals with it - he starts his runs just off the packs and tries to run close to another Carlton player hoping that as soon as he passes they'll shift their bodies into the path of his tagger. Even if the tagger has to deviate slightly to get around them, it gies Judd that half metre that he needs to get the clearance.