Akum

Actually nailed it. Though I'd prefer "hard-nut" to "blockhead". And if you're a coach, you need to know how to motivate different types of players. Every coach knows how to motivate a "hard-nut" - in fact, you can do just about anything. But how you motivate a player like Watts is not how you motivate a "hard nut". Roos knew that, and got the best out of Watts.

This article includes an interview with Jasmine Grierson (no 19), who I think has flown under the radar a bit with the standout performances of the "big 3" mids (Daisy, Elise O'Dea & Karen Paxman). Jas has been very very good off half back - she's good in the air, knows when to run with the ball and her disposal is excellent. I'm surprised that she was only switched there recently because she looks so comfortable there, and also that she's the second youngest on the list. It's the improvement in these younger players - as well as Jas there's been others like Lily Mithen, Alyssa Mifsud, Deanna Berry & Katherine Smith - that has driven the team's improvement over the past couple of weeks. It's a much more even team now, rather than relying on a handful of good players.

I'm grateful for the report, but "he and Goodwin had words" can mean an angry heated exchange, or a friendly conversation, or just about anything in between. Can you make it clearer how they were getting along?

The tabloid journo (a.k.a. "newsbreaker") tries to give the impression that the words are from Goody, although he doesn't say that straight out. From the article: Melbourne Demon Jack Watts position for Round 1 is in doubt says Mitch Cleary. The Sportsday newsbreaker said coach Simon Goodwin has laid down the law at AAMI Park. "He's returned to pre-season in poor shape, poor attitude is what I'm hearing down at AAMI Park" he said. "He didn't play at Whitten Oval against the Bulldogs, it wasn't an injury concern, it wasn't a resting, he was simply not picked" he said He says that Goody "has laid down the law" and then follows with the quotes - from "he said". It's meant to look like the quotes are from Goody (or at least from inside the club), but it's actually just quoting Mitch Cleary himself. And where does this crack "news breaker" think Goody has laid down the law? AAMI Park!!! For the original poster of the rumour, I take back all my cynicism. It was a brilliant bait to lay for the first eager young space cadet to report it as news and think they're making a name for themselves. And just think about it for a second - if the rumour was true, who is going to leak it? Since the coming of PJ and Roos, this club just doesn't leak. Remember?? Frankly I don't know whether it's true or not. But just analysing it for a couple of minutes, it doesn't sound right. Despite it confirming a lot of prejudices.

Beginning to sound like a campaign ...

Great review as always. Just wanted to pick up these two points. The most important outcome of the Gawn / Spencer thing is that "the option is always there" to play them both, and much more so this year with the no-third-man-up rule. If the other team has a great ruckman (Sandi, Goldstein, Mumford, NicNat) we will need to use Gawn for most of the game and a fill-in for the rest. If the other team has a dangerous midfield but both Gawn and Spencil have their rucks covered (Dogs being a great example, but perhaps Hawks & Cats are others) playing them both can maximise their impact and help our midfield to stay on top. For the 2nd & 4th quarter fade-outs (Dogs actually only got 4 goals in the rest of the game), could our rucks only playing half a game each have meant that it was too much game time for their teammates to make up? Just wondering.

We were 4 goals up with 10 mins to go. In the last part of the 2nd & 4th quarters we gave up something like 7 goals, and only allowed 4 goals the rest of the game. This could be because we just relaxed our intensity & let them back in, or because they were only really playing with real intent for those 2 bursts of 10 minutes. On the other hand, as Goody said, we're 3 or 4 weeks ahead of them in preparation.

Wanted to put this thread back towards the top, because there's been such an amazing change since it was posted. Daisy is a great player & great ambassador, but some of the other 'senior' players - Elise O'Dea, Karen Paxman, Mel Hickey - have been amazing too. And some of the newer younger players - Alyssa Mifsud tonight, Cat Phillips last week, Deanna Berry, Jas Grierson, Lily Mithen, Jess Anderson - are really exciting. And they play an entertaining attacking style of footy. For all of Daisy's qualities, it's certainly not the one-woman show that some of us who were less familiar with the woman's game might have expected back in December. What do others think?

They look much better with Daisy on the ball.

Saty's comment about Joel Smith applies to the whole team. We've got the potential. We've done it in training. Today shows that they are capable of putting it together on the ground - against the reigning premiers no less. If there's any significance in today's game, that's it.

Have a "Plan B", and even a "Plan C", for when "Plan A" isn't working or we're getting unravelled. And anticipate the predictable tactics that half-decent coaches will use against us - especially "nullify Gawn (a la Hickey)" - and know how we'll counter it before it happens. And own the corridor.

So how did that make you feel?? Hmmm???

Thought I heard it mentioned in the commentary that we've got 6 or 8 of the team who are under 20. Is that right? If so, it explains their up-&-down form in both games so far. They played more as a team and combined much better in the second half & looked really good.

"I'm the chairman of the bored" according to James Newell Osterberg Jr.

If you finish 6th, you can have a shot at the "double chance" if you can beat 4 or 5 of the other top teams. Why on earth would you give up that chance to finish 7th and get an easier run into an elimination final? And if you finish 12th, you get a chance to play in finals, if you can beat 4 or 5 of the teams immediately above you. Why on earth would you give that up for, say, a chance to finish 13th and be in the running for a pick near the top of the draft? A team would be foolish to tank under 17-5.

How about this as a way of preventing the bottom 6 teams tanking for draft picks? The draft picks go in order according to how much each team in the bottom 6 has improved their position in the last 5 rounds playing against the other 5 bottom teams. So if the 18th team after Round 17 wins 2 of the 5 games & finishes 16th, it's improved its position +2. If the 16th team after Round 17 only wins 1 game & finishes 17th, it's -2. And so on. The 18th team would have the biggest chance of improving its position, so it would still have the best chance of the top pick, which is only fair. But to get that top pick, it would have to win at least one and probably two of those last five games, so it couldn't just cruise; it would have to go hard in every game. Even the 13th team could still improve its pick, but it would have to beat the other 5 bottom teams to do so. It would then get a score of 0 (as it would have maintained its 13th position), but this would be perhaps the 3rd or 4th best score so they'd get pick 3, say, rather than pick 6. Therefore to get the best draft picks possible, every bottom-6 team would have to play as hard as it possibly can against the other 5 bottom teams in the last 5 rounds. And we get a competitive last 5 rounds between the bottom teams, with both sides having something to play for in every game.

They also make plans against us, which gives them the confidence to expect and then to deliver. Especially because they know that we won't counter-plan. We don't like being 'the hunted' (favoured to win), because when the 'hunter' makes a plan to tie us up & then follows it really well, we've just watched it happen & not done anything about it. And as we improve, more teams will plan against us, so we must get better at it. Remember Port a few years ago who had great success with attacking off half back? As soon as teams sussed out how to plan against this tactic, their effectiveness dropped off and they haven't really been able to get it back. That will be us unless we can work out how to still be effective when Gawn, Hogan & Viney are nullified.

Weid??

They will comprehensively out coach us tactically again, like they've done each time for the past 3 years with a weaker side.

We'll focus on quick ball movement and massive pressure on the ball carrier. So we won't go into any games too tall; we might look too small in some games, but in those games, we'll do really well and surprise some top sides. For this reason, we'll go into a lot of games with just Hogan & Watts as our tall forwards, and either VdB or Tim Smith plus three fast smalls to maximise defensive pressure in our forward line. For this reason, Tim Smith, will be an inspired signing, especially with his strong marking & straight kicking, and will be a really difficult match-up. By the end of the year we'll show that we're clear winners in the Kelly deal, IF Tyson and particularly Salem can play most of the season uninjured. Salem will prove to be pure silk, but (unlike most "silk" players) very tough to go with it and will win 2 or 3 games off his own boot. Tyson will have a number of 30+ possession games. One of our "big three" talls - T-Mac, Hoges or Maxy - will spend a few games injured, but Dec Kielty will take their place (whichever of the three it is) and step up so well that we won't lose any momentum and will get Brownlow votes. Unfortunately we won't be able to keep him in the team when they return, because team balance will be so important to our quick-ball-movement-and-pressure-on-the-ball-carrier. ... or maybe not. I've been delirious with food poisoning for the past couple of days so this may all just be the result of some undercooked chicken!

Gotta love this time of the year

He's just using the old language - 6 ft 5 ins.

Apparently you can get pills for that.

... except for fourth from right, unless orange rug is removed. Fake hair is always a problem.

Saty, think you're mitching & maxing here. One of these max's is a mitch but I can't work out which one. It's important to match your max's & mitch's so they don't get mixed up.