Akum

I'll see your Duck and raise you a Plugger. Hang on, what were we talking about again?

Way to take the gloss off a win!

Yeah that's my point. It's not a new tactic, it's just strange to see it countered so poorly. FIGJAM couldn't believe it worked so well for so long, especially using a fringe player. Oxley did very little when he wasn't playing as the spare.

Definitely trade value. For each, we'd need a high pick and a very very good player, or at the very least a good player who meets a desperate need. Do GCS or Brisbane need a versatile reliable defender, a specie merchant or a tall forward with iron hands???

Hope you've seen a doctor.

Prefer Riley as the sub. At this stage in his career, I think he offers more as an impact player than over 4 quarters.

Not only that, I'm glad to see they're taking a "horses for courses" approach with Fitzy. They obviously had him in the squad in the first place because they expected Hickey to play. Now he's not, it's the right move to leave out Fitzy. I'd like to think they've learned from when we went in far too tall against GWS & got run off our feet.

You sure you're on the right forum?

I'd be really happy if Aish was our second target midfielder. Wouldn't be as happy if he was our first target, ahead of the likes of Prestia or Coniglio or Sloane. Is it too greedy to want Aish AND Prestia?? Or do we not have enough to give to get both?

Always with a hint of neanderthal though.

If you're standing next to them and they're ball-side of you and just leaning against you to stop you getting past, it's actually just about impossible to get anywhere if they know what they're doing. And the only way to "make 'em earn it" in that situation will get you rubbed out for weeks. You need some momentum to bump them out of the way or to steamroll over the top of them. I suppose you could try throwing them to the ground, but that takes up time. Again, it only works if you outnumber the opposition in the area, and you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that you outnumber them. It's not just an extra defender to make it 7 against 6, it's a set play to make it 1 against 0, and it really shouldn't be allowed to work for more than a minute to two. I hope our coaches have sussed it out this week, because I can guarantee that every side from now on will try it against us at some stage, especially if we score a few quick goals.

The umpires will only notice if it's within a few metres of the ball. If it happens 30 metres away from where the ball is, they won't notice, and if they do notice, they won't pay a free for holding 30 metres off the ball. The Pies are nothing if not well-drilled, they know how to do this. There was one blatant free in the last quarter where Matt Jones (of all people) was clearly being held back by Toovey within 5 metres of Oxley marking unopposed before he could get to the contest. Even with something as obvious with this, umpires are in two minds about paying a free because they can never be sure how much is staging. That's why a spare defender must be manned up. It's just not enough to tell the 6 forwards that they have to get to the fall of the ball. Six well-drilled defenders know that if the ball is kicked quickly & high into their area, they only need to stop their opponent getting to the contest and the only one left to take the mark is their seventh man (six well-drilled defenders would also know how to keep their opponent off without making it blatantly obvious). If the seventh defender is manned up, he can't take a mark unopposed, and then the other 6 have to decide whether to contest the mark or not, and the whole thing breaks down within about 30 seconds. It's basic maths, and to just tell the 6 forwards to get to the ball doesn't cut it.

Demonland Zen! Never thought I'd see those two words next to each other.

So Leuey would be an improved version of Spencer, with the same problem of having him & Gawn in the team at the same time.

And Selwood.

Says it all.

I think whenever Gawn has played first ruck he's done really well. His problem is he can't last four quarters, so he needs someone else to ruck for at least about 40% of the game, and playing a field position for the rest. Pedo comes close, but being first ruck for 40% of the game is beyond him. Fitzy might do it, but it's hard to replace a defender who goes into the ruck, and he doesn't match up in defence against many teams. So it's a problem, and maybe that's why we have both Fitz & Pedo in the team, with a big risk of being too top-heavy. And Spencer & Jamar are not capable of playing a field position while resting. They have to change off the bench. So to pick Gawn with Spencer only makes sense if Spencer rucks and Gawn plays most of the game in FP, where he's not nearly effective and can be easily nullified. It's the Stef Martin dilemma all over again. Someone mentioned Leuenberger. He's in the same position at Brisbane, where both he & Stef are much more effective as No.1 ruck & not nearly as good as forwards. So Leuey probably isn't the guy we need either. We need someone more like David Hale, who can be a dangerous tall forward, but ruck for a lot of the game if he has to. And they are very very hard to find (tho' if that's how King develops, then we're looking good for 2018!!)

Not if the alternative is retirement. I like what they've done with Shannon Byrnes this year. I like it that they're making consistent noises about keeping Crossy around the club in some capacity once he retires. I'd imagine there would be a discussion with Jamar about his future, in the context that his days as first ruck are numbered, that would come up with options for him to remain involved with the club.

Nah, you get used to it after a while. It doesn't mean anything.

Having cut 1/4 of the list in the past two years, Roos may prefer to avoid disrupting the list to such an extent leading up to his last year in charge. Our midfield in particular still isn't what you'd call settled. It needs to function as a machine, when every mid has a sense of what his fellow mids do, where they like to get the ball, what they like to do with it once they get it, and just run to the right spot without thinking. But that only happens when the same mids play together for 2 or 3 seasons. The midfield has been disrupted this year by injuries (Tyson, Viney, Salem, JKH, Kent, and even Jones looked hampered for a couple of games), but also by some new players really stepping up (most prominently Brayshaw & VDB, plus Garlett who's spent time as a mid). It's also possible that Riley, Michie, and perhaps Lumumba may have a role in the eventual midfield but it's not yet clear what it might be. I really doubt that we'll go for any more fringe mids who may or may not step up (the likes of Newton, Michie etc). We'll be looking for blue chip mids only, via trade or draft, and look to add only 2 or 3 (given that we have potential blue-chips in Petracca & hopefully Trengove as new mids already for R1 2016). So if we finish this season with a midfield of Jones, Vince, Tyson, Brayshaw, Viney, Cross, Vandenberg and Salem, that's a great foundation to build on with Petracca, a blue-chip trade (Prestia? Coniglio?) and a top-rated draftee, plus whoever steps up into the big time out of Kent, ANB, Trengove, Stretch, JKH, Toumpas. You get the idea. We don't need to cut a swathe thru that midfield this time.

It's tricky to know what to do with Jamar at season's end. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he monsters the other two at training. His body use is still the best, it's just that he doesn't do much with the tap because he lacks Gawn's vision & smarts, and he lacks Spencer's desire to get involved in general play. He'd be a great developer of young ruckmen in terms of body use, & if he retires I'd expect him to get snapped up somewhere else & we'd lose him as a ruck coach. Then again, Stafford seems to be doing fine, and when he was playing, his body use was at least as good as Jamar's and he was far more imposing around the ground. He'd also be great to keep on as insurance against the other two getting injured together. Rookie???

Changes have been minimised this year. With two compulsory changes already thru injury, they're less likely to make another one, let alone two. Of course, being a Sunday match, they'll name an extended bench.

Never seen Sandi jump either. His asset is his strength, though he can be knocked off balance surprisingly easily if an opponent does what Jamar did once or twice and gets low and pushes up. Gawn has to get down low, especially at throw-ins, to stop an opponent getting low on him & knocking him off balance. He was getting held a lot too, until he ran out of steam. So he not only needs to build aerobic fitness, but also core strength, because that's what opponents will do to try to stop him, and he won't get the armchair ride from umps that Sandi gets. It was really interesting what Buckley said about Gawn in his presser. They expected to beat us by smashing us around stoppages, but he said they got "nutted" at stoppages because Grundy got "absolutely nutted" by Gawn in the 2nd & 3rd quarters and we got "a lot of taps to advantage". He then reeled off our clearance stats - "Jones & Vince 8 each, Viney 6, Watts 4 off a wing, Toumpas 4 off a wing". We've all missed this, even if Buckley didn't. Our mediocre midfield beat one of the best "stoppage" midfields in recent years largely on the back of Gawn's taps to advantage.

No, this can't be right! Not about our wingers. How could he say they were "effective"?

No, their defenders were very disciplined in blocking their opponents from getting near the fall of the ball, knowing that they had the extra number to snag it. This tactic only works when the 6 defenders trust each other to all hold their opponent off the ball, and the extra man also trusts them to do this. Oxley's marks were mostly uncontested, remember? It also depends on the opposition not manning up on the extra man. If they man up, the whole structure falls apart in minutes. I don't think Buckley could believe how well it worked and how long he was allowed to get away with it, every other team would have manned Oxley and it would have fallen apart in minutes.