Akum

Also, we brought Cross & Lumumba in to be part of the midfield, and because of injuries we're having to play them as full-time defenders.

Once again, Dawes does not have match fitness for Casey!!! He's almost no chance to come in this week. The Casey report mentions Newton being concussed and Jordie Mc. having "a bad corkie" before half time. Jordie had to come back on in the last (and I think kicked the winning goal) because Newton couldn't come back on & they had to stick to Dawes' limited game time. It was considered that increasing Dawes' game time - he played less than half the game - was a bigger risk than Jordie with a bad corkie. Surely after a calf injury they wouldn't bring him straight in if he can't play anywhere near a full game for Casey. Fitzy, or even Spencer, are far more likely than Dawes. Fitzy is also a better ruck chop-out, and will be needed as a physical match-up if Hawkins has a day out (and after Cloke's 7 straight and Riewold slotting goals from each pocket on the boundary line, that's on the cards). He also offers far more as KPF than Spencer or Jamar. Or they may play Watts at CHF & Bail on the wing, where he's far more suited than defensive forward. And when we've got a number of games against sides in the lower half, it wouldn't be smart to debut someone (White or Harmes, for example) against Geelong. So we're far more likely to see Terlich again. I like ANB, but he looked completely at sea, partly because he was playing out of position as HFF. He's an in-and-under on-baller; if they don't play him there, he's going to struggle. He'd be better to play on the ball for Casey than HFF or FP in seniors. So the ins are likely to be Fitzy, Terlich & Bail. It's far from ideal, but at the present time it's all we got.

Hate to say this, but Grimes' injury sounds similar to Dawes' injury, which still doesn't seem to have healed properly as it's probably what messes up his marking. And Pedersen's injury sounds like a Galeazzi fracture dislocation, which is a nasty injury. It's absolutely essential to get the right treatment from the start for both these injuries. They've both had surgery already and it sounds like they're in very good hands. (these are just guesses from the information we've got so far, I don't have any inside knowledge)

To be fair, Daz was referring to one of the Cro-magnon types from Big Footy who holds Toump wholly & solely responsible for the loss and the last goal. Not in the best taste, but if you'd read this BF moron's post it would make more sense.

It's this difference between "resigns" and "re-signs". Where's the hyphen, people??!! In Sloane's case, unfortunately the latter.

They were talking about Collingwood on SEN. The plan being, Swan out, Dangermouse in, on maybe twice as much as Pendles. Great recipe for instability, I sincerely hope they go for it. When is it time to get in Swan's ear?

Selecting Fitzy as a forward would also provide a useful swingman option if Hawkins is too big & strong for either T.Mac or Dunn.

And from the Casey report it seems that Dawes was on limited game time - so much so that Jordie had to come back on when he had a bad corkie - so he's unlikely to be ready to play the full match. So we're again light on for the second KPF - the options are Howe, or Watts, or even Spencer & Gawn changing at FF. With a half-forward line of Garlett, Watts & Bail, we could really stretch their ageing defence for pace and run. But let's face it, that's only possible if the ball's in our half for about twice the usual amount of the game when we play Geelong. Edit: Forgot about Fitzy.

This has turned out to be a great thread and a great OP, much to my initial surprise. "Still a long way to go" is interesting. In a way we do; but in another way the pieces are coming together.

Except that it's up to the guys in the leadership group - or for that matter, those on the Demonland banner - to be directing traffic. None of them are Watts, and it's bizarre for one of Watts' more persistent detractors to suggest that he should be the one to show leadership. And Watts wasn't in for the centre bounce anyway - it was Viney, Vince & I think Tyson. That's three of our top four mids, but unfortunately Viney & Vince both had to focus on their direct opponents. Now if only Jones had gone to the defensive side of the square instead of wandering over to HFF. And you're probably right about Garland - he's probably the most likely to think, "Now what could possibly go wrong here?" The plain fact is that at the time of the centre bounce, none of them could foresee how it was going to unfold.

Great stuff H. You should write a book or two about it.

So if that last score was a rushed behind and we'd won by 3 points, it would have been a great performance?

Something else can be said is that he's got more tools in his kitbag than we all thought.

This is surprising, but it explains a lot. We always struggle to move the ball forward against a team that puts a lot of pressure on us. We'd better improve by the time we play them again in 6 weeks.

Hey Ern, what's the best way to get from a kind of manic derision to "love and affection" when you tell 'em the final score? Do I have to go through "pity and shared sadness" to get there? And how much does it rely on sucking up to the in-laws??? (who'd have thought Hemingway would be the go-to guy for relationship advice!)

So far it Michie seems better when he plays from the start (rather than coming on as sub) & Riley seems better as sub (rather than playing from the start). Yeah, I know it's a small sample, but is it possible that some are better when they sub & some are worse?

Sooooooo ... equanimity in the face of mind-blowing incompetence? I reckon if the Dalai Lama were a Dees supporter, he would have lost it yesterday.

The other side of the question, which doesn't seem to have been asked anywhere, is: Why change from flooding the backline, when we'd been doing that for the whole quarter up to the last 41 seconds? You could (almost) understand them playing 6-6-6 if that's what they'd been doing up to then, but they actually changed to go back to 6-6-6. When Howe took the mark, surely most of the forwards were standing in defence. So why did they run back to the forward line, instead of just staying where they were? In other words, it can't have been that they didn't have time to reposition themselves for a flood. They were already in "flood" positions, and all they had to do was stay where they were.

King. It was a poor attempt at humour. Followed another poster suggesting that his not being named in the best might have been because he didn't follow instructions. I was trying to guess what the instructions could have been that he didn't follow. Sorry.

My lovely wife asked me how Melbourne did ... And I told her. Her response? "That's sort of innovative. They find ways of being bad that nobody's ever thought of!" (the sound of grinding teeth - again!)

Yeah, OK, assuming that his instructions were to not under any circumstances kick goals.

Do you?

Could it have been that the 3/4 time instructions were to flood the back line, but if we got ahead, to go man-on-man??? And if the players thought there were still a few minutes to go, then that's what they did. And Roos only realised what was happening once they started to line up for the bounce after Howe's goal.

Remember they'll also have to stop Jones, Vince & Tyson, as well as Brayshaw & Viney.

Agree. It's also much easier for a young forward to come into a strong settled team than into a forward line that has different personnel each match and is part of a struggling team. Hopefully by the time King is ready, we'll have a stronger midfield who will get it to the forwards much more effectively, and a more settled forward line that he can just slot into.