Radar Detector

Appeal dismissed. F*n sucks.

I think you'll find it's Tinney's job whether he agrees with what he's saying or not. He's been hired to prosecute for the MRP, not go in and argue for Jack. Give the Tinney bashing a rest.

I think it's clear from the live feed that the biggest mistake we made at the MRP was using Iain Findlay instead of David Galbally. The QC is presenting a much more coherent, factual defence that is far more likely to succeed than "this is how they are taught to tackle and he did it again in the next passage of play". Still not confident, but he's presenting a much better case.

Adelaide have tabled a new medical report as new evidence stating that Dangerfield has trained well and suffers no lingering effects. Not sure it will change everything but surely a better start.

Surely Joel Mac. Should've been in before Bennell. Agree with the other ins thouhg, best outcome possible in the circumstances.

Time to "Let loose the JUICE!" Oh dear, what has happened....

I reckon Gawn should play. He's been ok for Casey 1's and was really only been sent back to the 2's because of the enourmous number of talls we have been trying to squeeze in this year (i.e. both Spencer AND Martin AND Fitzpatrick last week). We gave Spencer a run at 19y.o. I reckon it would be great to see the big fella run out. And probably wouldn't be great for the confidence if Newton or Dunn were given first ruck duties ahead of him. He'd murder them both at the hit-outs.

Brad Scott is a peanut. Fighting to make his club and himself relevant. Losing battle.

Agree, but we clearly carried too many outside type players for the early part of the season. I don't think it was any co-incidence that we added some grunt this week and put in our best performance for the year. Also, Maric probably played Bennell's role on the weekend as an outside mid/forward and TBH did it better than anything I've ever seen from Bennell, albeit without the one moment of excitement that has kept Bennell in the side to date. Agree with you that he needs to show consistent form at Casey for a few weeks. Would also like to see all our players have a crack at winning their own ball despite whether they are notionally "inside" or "outside" players.

Great post ADC

I agree Jaded. We can argue the fine print of the rules ad infinitum, but the fact is that the rule relating to a tackle resulting in a head hitting the ground has been applied once. Ever. I'm sure there were a dozen instances in the game where Melbourne players were tackled and their heads hit the ground. These should technically warrant a suspension on the same grounds (although impact may be regarded as lower). I have to admit, I find it baffling that we didn't focus on this a bit more in the tribunal defence, and I think that using another Trengove tackle as the one example to demonstrate the inconsistency was a bit silly. It may have had greater effect if examples from other teams were used. Back on the rules: The tribunal rules also give the tribunal discretionary powers where appropriate (which also apply to the appeals board): I have no idea which way this decision will go, but I think that there is plenty of scope for the outcome to be favourable under the rules. Are there exceptional and compelling circumstances here?

Check it out here:

I know North's form looks terrible on paper, but have they really been that bad? So far they have: - Lost games to Freo and WCE in Perth (very close to beating the Eagles) - Beaten convincingly by Collingwood and Geelong - Lost a close game to Richmond (backing up from a Sunday twilight game in Perth the week before) - Smashed Port Adelaide by ten goals Looking at those results, the only game that I would expect us to perform any better in is the Richmond one, and even that would be a pretty good win at the moment. I expect the Roos to make a mini run up the ladder at some stage as their draw can only get better. Will be pretty happy if we get four points out of this one, especially given the double hoodoo. Hope the boys show the same level of intensity over four quarters as last week.

Our biggest issue is still the midfield. When our midfield plays well, we win and when they get smashed (Hawthorn, WCE) we lose. All the other issues like i50s, kick-ins, tackles inside the F50 etc. are by-products of the midfield performance. That said, Adelaide has been particularly weak this year at hard-ball gets, clearances etc. so the OP's point still stands that Adelaide didn't test our biggest weakness.

Was going to post the same thing. I agree it's a chance to reward Evans' good form by promoting him. Don't think we should bring back any of the players dropped last week as yet and Jamar can manage another week with Dunn suppoting him.

Don't forget the 9 tackles. Great game.

Massive fan of the diving smother by Brad Green. Felt his 1%ers set the tone a fair bit today. Great leadership from the captain.

6. Moloney 5. Jamar 4. Sylvia 3. Jones 2. Petterd 1. Frawley

Spot on Thomo. I distinctly remember a game against Hawthorn a couple of years ago where he got three Brownlow votes (30+ posessions and about 4 goals) in a game we lost by about five goals. Single handedly kept us competitive until late in the game. Wouldn't call him a front runner at all. That said, he is also inconsistent and undeserving of the "elite" tag for the time being.

This is the only change that has me genuinely confused. Cannot see how Dunn would provide better value than Martin given Adelaide's ruck strength and tall forward line. Would've though Bate's inclusion would've forced Dunn out for sure.

I went up to that game at the Gabba and agree whole heartedly. This issue has been prevalent in EVERY game we have played so far this year, not just the WCE and Hawks games. It just so happens they were the only teams so far to fully exploit it. Whilst I agree with a lot of Artie's points, I am yet to see the endeavour of the 2011 Demons reach anything like the levels seen in 2010. I know the season is still young but I would've thought we'd have seen a sustained effort for at least one game of the five. I am a believer in the "young teams will be inconsistent" mantra, but it's incongruous to say that should excuse the general endeavour this year being down on last year. "But we're missing three of our four best tacklers from last year!" I hear you say. "Surely that impacts the ability of the team to compete physically!". Unfortunately, given that two of those players were 20 or under last year and both were essentially in their first season, this lends further weight to the idea that age shouldn't excuse effort.

I think the point that Trident is making is that the premiership players that they had playing actually performed as well as a collective as they have in some time and this may go some way to explaining the result.

I'm really happy with these changes. Am also hoping for a bench of Gys, Newton, Joel Mac and Bail. I don't think the effect of so many changes will be too bad. All have been in at least decent form at Casey and should add a bit of desperation to the side which has been sorely lacking. And most are reasonably proven at AFL level anyway.

If you're judging an eleven win season as a fail this year then you can't see the wood for the trees. Despite the impatient urgings of vocal supporters, this year is about improvement in the players that will become the core of our side from 2013-2018. Whether we win 8, 11 or 15 is hardly the point. This season will be a suceess if - Jack Watts continues to improve - Frawley, Morton and Grimes can regain some form - We continue to get regular games into Tapscott, Gysberts - We can get a decent contribution from Scully and McKenzie in the second half of the year - We can get some more senior games into Strauss, Maric, Petterd, even Blease It will be an easier season to watch if senior guys like Green, Davey and Sylvia pull the finger out and we start winning games, but to me that won't define a successful season.