Dr. Gonzo

I will try and let you know. Not much to see to be honest very low scoring game (Collingwood kicked 2.2.14 for the entire game)

Looked like cramp to me a couple were suffering from that near the end Petracca as well

GWS are interesting - early days I thought they played the game well, even if not winning they seemed to love the hard stuff. But watching them last week I'm not so sure. Saints applied manic pressure and run and Giants couldn't match it. Will be interesting to see how they respond, yesterday's game was underwhelming from them too.

I'm pretty sure I've got the last quarter of the GF will email you (it was one of the footy marathon cuts introduced by Jack, Bob and Lou)

We say it every week but the guy is a star regularly takes and beats the best small forwards in the comp. Composed, creative and solid as a bull too. One of my favourites. Oh and his grandma was wrong, pretty sure we ended up with the better Jetta

Play him at CHF

What a one-two punch we've got here. Oliver was outstanding and what a goal! Petracca was being wasted up forward when we couldn't win a clearance and like last week putting him in the middle got us back in the game. He wins the ball with brute force, keeps his feet and uses it well. I love him.

WOOHOO-HOO

Vince is taking Sloane out of the game. Watts and Garlett stuck up forward when the ball was barely down there for the second half of the first quarter and first half of the second quarter. May be worth moving Watts up the field to get around the footy and Petracca on the ball

And lost by 38 after being 51 down with minutes to play

Tough. He's been pretty good this year and would've had to deliver a precision pass amongst a plethora of brown and gold jumpers

The Hawks were on their game early. Besides trying to control the tempo and take the sting out of our game early, their pressure and structures were fantastic, probably the best they've played this year. Our handball stats were out of the park because as soon as we got the ball we were swamped by Hawks players so we just flicked the ball around trying to get to someone who could get a clean possession. Then inevitably when we did get to someone who could get a kick away we turned it over as the Hawks had set up across our half forward line to chop off any low passes. Any high kicks were easily nullified too as Hogan was the only tall target down there. I agree, although bitterly disappointed with the loss the team really did do well to get back in the game, draw level and almost pinch it in the last.

He can score

You've missed the point though. Using GWS as an example was only to show how ludicrous the thinking is that because a team didn't win proves they are incapable of having won. I only used GWS as the most recent example and the first that came to mind. I could've easily used any number of examples, I could've used West Coast against the Hawks 2 weeks ago or Port against West Coast last weekend.

No use explaining it rationally mate, misery loves company and some people on here would rather talk about curses and demand action from the president (?) than stick fat with the club and players.

In 2010 Bailey was in his 3rd year But if you want to continue wallowing in misery and self pity go right ahead. There are none so blind as those who will not see

So he picks the time when things seem to be turning the corner with a young list and inexperienced coach? Righteo

Mate you can't see the forest for the trees. Two teams may play each other 10 times and they win 5 each. Or one team may win 7 the other 3. Or even 9 and 1. Both are equally capable of beating the other, the outcome of any singular game is irrelevant. Cast your mind back 4 years. Melbourne were incapable of beating the overwhelming majority of teams. Many games lost by 60, 70, 90 points. Had we played those games 100 times we probably wouldn't have won any. That is "incapable".

The guys a lunatic in desperate need of some perspective

That doco is brilliant by the way

There are a few different coaching trees, a couple of which can be traced back to thr games beginnings. To take the above further Smith played under Checker Hughes who played under/with Dan Minogue who played under/with Jock McHale. There's an SA lineage that goes back through Fos Williams as well which Neil Craig was a descendant of. Goodwin played under him too.

Yeah this week. Just because a team is capable of beating an opponent doesn't mean they will beat them every single time. Upsets happen, that's why we watch sport. A game may have 2 opponents equally capable of beating the other but only one will get the points. To say "we didn't beat the Hawks/Tigers/Freo/Cats therefore we are incapable of beating them" is a logical fallacy

The Freo game was interesting, they hit the lead and then didn't really know what to do. It's like they were caught between continuing the attacking play that got them the lead or going defensive and shutting the game down. They don't really have the experience or belief to play that negative style and run time off the clock so they were stuck in between both styles where they started to chip around for a bit before trying to pinpoint someone or going down the line to a contest.

So if they play again this week will GWS be capable of beating the Saints?

So what is easier to remedy, having the talent and not the nous or having the nous but no talent?