Akum

So we should rookie the duck? Quack quack!

Totally agree with you. I think the problem is that neither Jamar nor Gawn can last a full game at the moment due to lack of fitness (in turn due to injuries over the preseason).

This thread just keeps on giving.

As long as the MFC-listed players do the non-negotiables - defensive transition and reasonable ball use - and don't fade out in the second half again. A few of them have careers on the line over the next few weeks.

We need to take care. At first blush, we look a bit top-heavy. If we go too tall either forward or back, we risk getting run off our feet. Gawn is surely one big man too many, unless there are doubts about Jamar & Pedo against Grundy & Witts, not at stoppages but around the ground. And we need the right mix of toughness & skill in the midfield. The bench as it stands has Terlich, Riley & Jordie for toughness, and JKH, Salem & Toumpas for skill. There may be concerns about us being outmuscled & bullied, but we need the speed & skill too. When we drew in 2010, we played short (Dunn & Sylvia did second ruck) but we ran them off their feet. Not saying we should do that again, but especially if the next few days including game day are going to be wet, we need to take care.

Unless the parasite has sniffed out a story and was going to run it anyway. Trying to be optimistic about this ...

Absolutely!! JB, it would probably be an insult if we all agreed with you!

Apart from which it seems that his opponent could just about have carried out a ritual disembowelling and not given a free away. There were many times Gawn simply wasn't able to get to the contest or get his arms up because he was being illegally held back or blocked. But if the umps don't pay it first time, they tend to let it go the whole game. Anything goes in a jostle these days. I doubt Pedo would have got a free if he hadn't held on to the mark in the goalsquare. And a forward bodily throwing a defender out of the contest before the ball arrives seems to be OK too.

Gawn was very very good in the ruck, all at sea as a forward. For QB they need a quality forward rather than a quality ruck. I'd say it's line ball whether Toump, Riley or even Kent get the job. All depends on whether Roos feels we need more class, more toughness or more speed against Pies. Reckon he'll go toughness, and that Riley is the type of player he loves.

With his ball drop & kicking style, Grimes will struggle to kick accurately anything less than about 30 metres. He's better when he kicks through the ball. His worst kicks are his short kicks, because he tends to try to "pull" the kick. He's not alone.

... and a quick stroll across the Bay after!

Maybe you meant "huge feather in Nev's boa ..."? Any thoughts BBO???

I think there's a consistent message throughout the whole coaching panel, from Roos through Allison & Miller to Welsh. You MUST do the non-negotiables, which are mostly "defensive transition" & two-way running, and to a lesser extent ball use and decision-making. And you'd think that these areas are where the AFL professionals would have it all over the VFL amateurs. You get support if you put in the effort, but you must put in the effort. We're halfway through the season. These guys have, what, 8 games to save themselves from being delisted. Their AFL careers are on the line here. It couldn't be any clearer what they have to do to stay on the list next year. They can't say they haven't been warned, or that they don't know what's required of them. Yet the effort is still missing. If Allison's been to each of them individually and asked them & told them why they're not in the firsts, that's consistent with Roos' overall approach, which permeates the whole club. I'm sure it's been done over and over behind closed doors. The match reviews are the iron fist in the velvet glove. But if they're not having an effect, what do you do? Having said that, it's unfortunate that he singled out Georgiou. If Georgiou gave away even 3 goals, then it's completely out of character, and it sounds to me like he played too soon after being concussed. But I don't think Georiou's the main target anyway - the ones who are hanging by a thread are Tapscott (who was also singled out), Blease & Strauss, who have more than enough ability to play AFL, but they're not making it happen.

Nah, don't want you to take offence. Could do something with picket nose tho'

I think the main short-term purpose to the way that Allison's appraisals are written and presented on the website is to let us know why the Casey players aren't in the firsts and what they have to do to get back there. It does also point out he parts of each player's game that the coaches are pleased with. The overall tone is constructive; it's not just criticism for the sake of criticism. Every one of the 44 on the list wants to play in the firsts - the appraisals are about what those who aren't there have to do to get there. In the light of this clear evidence before us that each player at Casey should know exactly why they aren't in the firsts, it's a concern if some are complaining to the Casey coach about it. Because these appraisals also show us week to week who's working on what they need to do, and who isn't. And this may well play a part in determining who remains on the list for 2015 and who doesn't. The appraisals also give us a great insight into what's expected of every player at the club - the famous "non-negotiables". In the games we've been smashed against really good teams (Hawks in pre-season, then WCE) our game just fell apart and it seemed like every player just stopped doing the "non-negotiables". Port will be a big test to see if we can keep the "non-negotiables" going the whole game, even if we can't keep up with them. Oh, and Saty ... do you really believe that Watts was the main one of a small minority of players who "simply refused to buy in" to whatever it was that Neeld was trying to do? If so, that's a mind-blowingly superficial take on a very complex situation. You really need to be more aware when you're not getting the whole story - or, as in this particular case, anything that even remotely resembles the whole story. Remarks such as Jamar's should give you a clue.

Yep, he's a Perth marketer's dream.

Not only that, but McKenzie is potentially the ready-made replacement for Cross when his body does eventually give out. Unless he gets passed before the end of the year by the likes of Michie & Riley, who can play a similar tough uncompromising type of game, he'll probably stay for another year or two. Allison's emphases in the Scorps' reviews are (1) "defensive transition" (which I take to mean manning up when the opposition wins the ball, or "two-way running" if you prefer) and (2) ball use. These factors seem to be the "non-negotiables", and it seems at this stage that "defensive transition" is more important than ball use. McKenzie and Nicholson are having to work on their ball use, but their defensive transition seems to satisfy the coaches. It seems to me that the ones who are struggling with "defensive transition" are in more trouble at this stage - this would include Blease, Evans, Harmes, Hunt, Kent (surprisingly), Michie (ditto), and probably Strauss & Tapscott. But improving defensive transition is surely just a matter of effort, so these guys have half a season to put in the effort required to hang around.

I know this is a long way behind the discussion, but ... I'm just impressed that you went to a party where you could find another Melbourne supporter!

... and two of them involved big Maxy! His tap-out for the Vince goal was top-shelf.

Way to celebrate a win!

Yeah but without the icing you don't get the win, devalued (in your opinion) or not. That's my point.

One thing to say about Jack Watts. Most of our (rare) wins over the past few years have co-incided with him stepping his game up a notch.

OD, may you have many more experiences of that amazement before the season's out!

In games that are in the balance until very late, the difference between winning & losing is often a bit of luck. Sometimes the breaks go your way and you get a "lucky" win; sometimes they go against you and you get an "unlucky" loss. It just that it doesn't really mean anything to say we were lucky to win this one. Yeah, we were, but so what? We got the breaks this week; the breaks went against us last week. It's far more meaningful that in all but one or two games so far we've been close enough late in the game that if the breaks go our way we get to pinch a "lucky" win.

I know Dom Tyson is good, but ...