Akum

The decisive factor will be our delivery into the f50. If the team we've picked doesn't make our mids lower their eyes, then nothing can. Even kicking grubbers into the forward line would be better than bombing it like we did last week. No point bombing it in when there's only one tall forward. In fact, if they don't have a hittable target, they're probably better to just aim low & hard for a space. The more we can keep the ball on the ground, the better for us.

This is the important list. What we need from our stand-in rucks is to just do enough to stop the opposition mids smashing us at clearances. Has anyone noticed that after Gawn and Spencer went down, for the next quarter and a half of Watts rucking the team actually did better? This isn't because of Watts's ruck supremacy (!!), but that somehow Watts being in the mix at stoppages actually helped with clearances, at least until he tired. So maybe by spreading the load it might be possible to do this for longer. Generally our best (least worst) option would be a mix of Watts, Pedo, Frost, maybe even T-Mac. Even though they get smashed in hit-outs, those players may help us at least break even at clearances. But against the top flight rucks of Crows & North, this strategy simply won't cut it. That's when we might have to consider King as the better (less worst) option. He will have had another couple of Casey games by then, with Greg Stafford working with him intensively at training on finding a way of competing that allows him only to nullify his opponent. If Greg Stafford can't work this out, then it can't be done. But if we can keep hit-outs-to-advantage of Goldstein & Jacobs down to under 20, it's a win for us.

Not to try to chase down oppo midfielders at stoppages. Smart intensity not stupid intensity.

The other way of looking at this is if we get our No.1 and No.2 injured in any position, we're going to struggle. If, for example, Hogan & Watts were injured at the same time, or T-Mac & Frost, then you could say the same thing about the lack of depth of tall forwards or tall defenders. And you could make a hindsight-based argument that we should have foreseen this and recruited someone good enough to make up for the loss of Hogan and Watts but who was happy to spend the whole year at Casey if Hogan and Watts were not injured. As someone pointed out, any club loses their No.1 & No.2 ruck, they're going to be struggling for the next alternative. And how well did Spencer do against Sandi? About as well as Goldstein did, but without the soft frees.

In a game where most of the team had well over 80% TOG, Tyson & Viney could only muster 74% each. They were both the lowest except for Spencer & Smith. They've been around that mark or less for the last few games. They can't possibly be fully fit. As for the wisdom of playing 2 key mids who aren't fully fit ...

I really like what he brings, and wouldn't at all be surprised if, when he's ready to step up to AFL, he makes a big impact. He was thrown into the ruck at Casey a few times last year and I was surprised how well he did, considering his height. But he definitely shouldn't be pushed before he's ready.

200cm+ players who are good enough to hold their place as a 1st or 2nd forward don't grow on trees. That's why they cost 1 mill per year for 7 years.

If we recruited a ruckman good enough to play second tier to Max, Spencer as third tier would simply have left, rather than to play second ruck for Casey! As it was, we only signed him for a one-year contract, whether that was the club's initiative or, more than likely, his initiative. So back to square one. If we get another ruck and Spencer stays, again we risk losing a whole season of opportunity to develop young rucks of the promise of Mitch King, Flip & perhaps Kielty for the future. Recruiting a 200cm player who is worth his place in the team as a forward who can also do reasonably well in the ruck is very very difficult. And it could be argued that we're getting more from Watts in that role - because far better than any 200cm second string ruckman at gathering the ball and using it effectively around stoppages, and also dropping back into defence for the last 5 minutes of the quarter - than any other team gets from their second-string ruck. But we do need another effective tall forward, which one day will be Weid. And it's just wrong to say "that selection strategy has cost us two games". In both games, against undefeated teams in top form, we could hold them for almost two quarters without our first ruck, but we couldn't hold them for more than half the game. What cost us those two games was that first they were injured, and second they were both injured so early in the game (well before half-time) and it was the resulting loss of rotations over such a long period of the game that killed us. There's also the factor that we lost them both so early in the season, when the VFL season has only just started.

They gambled that lightning wouldn't strike twice in the same place within a short space of time. But it did. The chance that one or both of Gawn & Spencer would be available for every game was much greater than the chance that neither of them would be available for several games. They went with the odds. The most likely outcome of recruiting someone of similar calibre of Spencer - Petrie, for the sake of argument - is that they play the whole season as second ruck for Casey. Forcing Mitch King and Flip to play in Casey Development League, and Kielty not to ruck at all. If the likes of Nankervis & Leuenberger & Vardy had looked at us, they would have looked at their chances of getting AFL games ahead of Gawn & Spencer, looked at the prospect of spending the whole season starring at Casey, and not given us a second thought. They're not going to come to us on the off-chance that Gawn & Spencer would both be injured at the same time. All three of them had a chequered injury history anyway. They'd look somewhere else, where if they get a good run with injury, they're more likely to challenge the No.1 ruck for an AFL spot. If there's someone in your reserves who could walk into any other AFL club, that's what they'll do - walk into any other AFL club - rather than be "A-grade depth".

I'm definitely in the camp that says that that was a magnificent effort, we couldn't have given any more, and when we were on equal terms we controlled a lot of the game. If Smith & Spencer get injured in the third quarter instead of the second, then we win. A good team can carry two short for a quarter or two, as we did, but more than two quarters is beyond all but the greatest of teams. However, I think we need to shift slightly from "dumb intensity" (or "intensity-at-all-costs") to "smart intensity". "Dumb intensity" includes: 4 up and none down in marking contests, forward or back 4 chasing the same ball at stoppages and trying to run it forward with all of them within a radius of about a metre. trying to handball our way through tight congestion, on a wet day (Toiges had a lot of success moving it from congestion with toe pokes of 5-10 metres - why did we never try this?) 200+cm ruckmen chasing midfielders or on the bottom of packs trying to kick the ball around the body and off balance out of defensive pockets kicking to contests instead of kicking to space mids turning into rather than away from congestion when they have the ball, and trying to crash through tackles We need to keep the same intensity level but play smarter - spread better laterally, shepherd & block more in congestion to get the ball to the outside (every handball should be accompanied by a shepherd), and try to move the ball away from congestion rather than toward it. We also need to recognise that other teams now know how good we are with contested ball, and from now on every team we play will park the bus inside their D50. We have to lower our eyes, or run it in, or kick to space. If we bomb it, it's far too easy for oppo defenders to "protect the fall of the ball" (mainly by holding Hogan) and get numbers there, and try to catch us on the breakaway. I say it again - that's how every team is going to play us from now on. We definitely aren't far away. We just have to make minor adjustments, and just be a lot smarter with our intensity.

Viney 74% game time. With Tyson, the lowest game time other than Spencer & Smith, despite Petracca & Hunt looking injured at times. Don't tell me they're fully fit.

Really have to make the most of this. Hibberd very impressive.

"This has been by far the most impressive display for any team this year by the Demons!"

Wonder whether we'll win a game until Gawn comes back.

How would we ever know?

Fixed

Never seen Sandi murdered by the umps before. How do they do it? They're the masters of the holding off the ball, sly little ankle taps, blocking in marking contests, but game after game the umps love 'em. Everything Freo did right against us, they're stuffing up against Norf and playing like kittens.

There are not enough words in all the languages of the world to express how much I hate Norf. Permanent team of pretenders who get an armchair ride with umps.

Massive wraps on him from a couple of Bulldogs people I know. They weren't sorry to see McCartney go but very sorry to lose Jennings to us.

Needs a poll.

When Gawn & Hogan are in the team & playing well, we have far more capacity to reduce the burden on Weid and include him in the team for the sake of their development. With Gawn out and Hogan out of form, we don't have that capacity, and it puts more responsibility on Weid that he's not ready for yet. I'm not a huge rap for Pedo, but while Gawn is out, we need Pedo's 12-15 possessions and good contests more than we need Weid's development. We all know that Weid's ceiling is far higher than Pedo's will ever be, but at the moment, what we need as a minimum is 12-15 possessions and good contests and Weid is a long way off . Also, Tiges will match up Rance on Weid, so that he can zone off & take intercept marks & double-team Hogan in marking contests, knowing Weid isn't good enough to make him accountable. Rance struggles against us because we force him to be much more accountable one-on-one against Hogan & Watts. Rance is dangerous only when he lines up on the weakest forward and doesn't have to be accountable. How will Rance BOG help Weid's development?

Could make an argument for Brayshaw instead of Bugg, but I think Bugg gives more versatility. Especially if we need someone to sit on & annoy hell out of Fyfe.

Jake won't break even with Sandi. Not even close. Our mids will really have to fire.

Clearly you like taking cheap shots at your brother.

It's the old story. Have to convert dominance into scoreboard pressure.