Akum

... and yet again, better to sacrifice their games for the team than Viney's & Vince's games.

I'm beginning to think that Coniglio might be more gettable than Shiel or Treloar - GWS will put up the mother of all battles to keep those two, which might squeeze out the likes of Coniglio. The attraction for Coniglio of coming to us is that he's in the first level of on-ballers, not a flanker changing on the ball when the first level need a break. GWS have so many high draft pick mids that their second tier is enormous. They won't all be content to play second fiddle.

Again, people have such short memories. A fully fit & firing Trengove would be like having another Tyson, except right-footed, stronger & could run all day. If he's almost-but-not-quite fit & firing, then it's half-back etc. Trengove fully fit is top-drawer midfielder. He's not as limited as Scully.

Agree totally

So it's a crap post ... that you agree with.

Good post. And you've nailed it about the confidence. We need our playmakers to really "take the game on" ... ... even if they make mistakes !!!!

The other point about Bail & M. Jones ... If we ask, say, Viney & Brayshaw to play negative games on Pittard & Broadbent (or Krakouer) & chase them up & down the wing all day, we lose what they contribute in an attacking sense. As Bail & Jones contribute very little in an attacking sense, we lose nothing by them playing defensive. So this is one time when an ... um ... 'ordinary' player is preferred because they're 'ordinary'!!

Definitely a whinge of roos.

A wada of bombers?

A funk of blues?

True, but that wasn't a set shot.

Saty, in the Dogs game I thought there were a number of occasions where a forward got a mark on the very edge of their range or capability, and very deliberately went back to take the shot, instead of trying to give it short to a lead, or hand off to a better kick. The examples were Jeffy's goal, Toump's second goal, Howe's two shots from the boundary (especially the second which was further out), Hogan's shot that just missed from just beyond 50m, and of course Ro Bail's miss. Maybe Pedo's first goal too, I'm not so sure about that one. They all seemed to ignore a risky short pass or two, took a deep breath, went back & had the shot. I wondered whether this is just what happened on the day, or whether it's a team instruction that if you get a mark inside 50, it's your responsibility to get the goal.

Wait a minute - you'd replace CARL PALMER by some busker on bongos????

Yeah, add Hogan, Cross, Lumumba, Garlett, VandenBerg, Brayshaw, and the new-model Toumpas & Fitz ... ... and get "Benjamin" Newton to change sides. Tho' Tyson & Jetta had great games, and Viney is also a big "out". And Spencer might not be as effective as Jamar against Lobbe & Ryder. Interesting how many changes there are.

"Yeah, a king hit is just a good fair bump."

And if you roll it on about 2-3 mins, you see the point I tried to make about Lumumba's contribution in another thread. Three times in quick succession, he was just in the right place at the right time to stop a Bulldog breakout down that flank. Only one kick to add to his stats in all that, but he held them up 3 times to keep the ball inside our 50. Sure, he didn't have a great game, but he just put himself in the right place at the right time so often. And while I'm rolling the tape, another great bit of play by Riley just after that. The Dogs again tried to make a break and Fitz was under the ball with Dickson, and although Fitz is much taller, it could have been nasty if he'd let it go over the back. Riley made metres to get his body to the contest between the other two, and turned a tricky mark into an easy mark for Fitz. You could argue that perhaps it made no difference, and he could have just jogged past the contest for a possible spill. But he seems constitutionally incapable of "just jogging past the contest", without throwing himself into it!

On the other hand ... My only reservation about getting HL was that he was a bit one-dimensional. Great when he had the ball in space, but not good defensively, and great when it was tight, and could only really play HBF, maybe the easiest spot on the ground. Still worth getting, because we needed his strengths, and because of his great leadership, which was stifled (to say the least) where he was. But I was worried about whether we could get the ball to him in space as well as the Pies did. But with us, he had a great running game against Suns, a good game against Tiges as a sweeper & "mopper-upper", and a very good defensive game against Dogs. I'm amazed how often either him or Cross are in the right spot for a tackle to stop a breakaway, or at the right spot to take a bandpass and give it quickly to clear a pack. You can't teach that, it just comes with experience & intelligence, both of which we've lacked for far too long. That, incidentally, was one of Bruce's strengths, for all his failings - just being in the right place at the right time, again and again. I've been frankly surprised, after 200 games, that he's been willing to take on new & unaccustomed roles for the sake of the team. Same goes for Bernie, by the way. Roos has really stretched them & challenged them, and they've both stepped up from being bit-players in their former clubs to being leaders and core players who have had to adapt to new demands. I also wonder whether Grimes played so well, and was back to the decisive and direct Grimes we haven't seen for so long, because he didn't have to worry about being the main small defender who had to hold the defence together, because Cross & Lumumba were there for that. All he had to worry about was beating his man & generating drive.

On the surface at least (because I don't follow Port that closely), their strengths seem very similar to the Dogs. Attack off half back, fleet of good mids who can move the ball quickly but also play it tight, smart dangerous small forwards but also a very tall forward who must be matched up. Except that Port have stronger rucks, so we'll need ruck options in case we get smashed at stoppages. I'd feel much more comfortable with Fitz & Pedo in the team. If Tyson or Viney come in, it will be for Newton, who's a more similar mid.

Roos said something really important in the presser - that he thinks we got the team balance right on the weekend and he feels that was a factor in the win, as every team member contributed. So my guess is that he won't want to upset that team balance by, for example, bringing in Dawes & dropping a small, or dropping a defensive mid & bringing in an attacking mid, without a very good reason.

Lumumba?

Something else that just occurred to me. It was great to see forwards within range taking the responsibility for the shot on goal, even if it was difficult, rather than give it off or try a hell-or-glory short pass. Garlett's banana, Howe a couple of times on the boundary, Hogan from outside 50, even Toump's second goal that just made it (by the way, is it now OK to use the goal umpire as a stepladder if you're trying to touch the ball?) Obviously not all of those were goals. Could it now be a team rule that if you're in range and you think you're a chance, you back yourself & take the responsibility? Perhaps another reason that Ro Bail took the shot himself rather than tried to give it off just before 3/4 time. Saty, could you ask a forward about this when you're next at training? I'd like to know whether it's a deliberate change, or just what happened on the day.

The top 3 teams have midfields that are like a machine. The different parts (players) all combine for a steamroller effect. Other teams might have a good group of midfielders, but they don't work at the "machine" level. Machine midfields don't just beat lesser teams, they smash them. Getting smashed means that your midfield is renderned helpless - no matter how hard you try, there's little you can do (unless you're lucky enough to catch the machine midfield having an off-day and you try a different unexpected "Plan B" that actually works - Dogs vs Hawks). What's actually changed this year is that we're now competitive against teams with "good" midfields. Tiges, Dogs, Suns, Crows. And maybe Port, Pies, North (who think they're better, but they got smashed by Freo), Cats. GWS are probably transforming into a machine midfield this year. If you're down against a "good" midfield, you can get back on top by tackling harder, by successfully tagging the opposition's key mid, by handballing & running the ball more & combining better, by a great individual effort, by swinging in someone who makes a difference etc. These tactics rarely work against a machine midfield that's on song. And a machine midfield can lose one or two key components (Hodge & Lewis) and still function just as effectively. We will still get smashed by machine midfields, until we ourselves develop a midfield that works like a machine. We don't have a Plan B yet, so if we're getting swamped, we're powerless to stop the avalanche. So how we go against Freo, Hawks & Swans will tell us very little about our improvement this year, unless we happen to go close to any of them (which would actually be a huge surprise). A far better measure of whether we've improved this year is how consistently competitive we are against the "good midfielders" teams. Which, so far, is not bad at all. But the team I really want to beat is North, probably the best of these teams. Or maybe Pies.

He doesn't "play angry", he just plays it hard & tough & controlled - the cold assassin. In fact I think we got the "controlled aggression" thing just about spot on, and it was the Dogs who were getting a bit frustrated. For example, early in the third quarter, Bont sling-tackled Jones, legally but probably unnecessarily. A minute or so later Spencer returned the compliment to Bont, and a few of the Dogs started pushing & shoving until the umpire bounced the ball. If you start getting frustrated, you're usually not as effective. So rather than having pig dog or vdB "angry", I just want them within arm's length of the poor b'staad with the ball.

Yeah, good point. But if we want our guys to "take the game on" - and it's the likes of Toumpas, Watts, Salem etc that we want to take the game on - that involves taking risks that won't always come off. As long as they do come off a lot more than they don't. The margin between "brilliant" and "clanger" can be paper-thin a lot of the time, and sometimes "zero clangers" can mean "not taking the game on enough". Which also shows the limitations of judging a player's performance by his mistakes. Toump's game was a great example - he did a lot of positive things, but gave away a goal, and missed a target or two. Similarly, if you run off your man to make position but your teammate turns it over and your opponent gets the ball metres in the clear - you've done the right thing, but the result is badly wrong.

He really caused some concerns among the Dogs. In their desperation to find someone of sufficent strength to try to keep him away from the ball and stop him burying their mids in crunching tackles, at one stage they had Crameri standing him at centre bounces.