DeeSpencer

By the way there's actually a photo of Oliver right next to where I'm posting this and it shows just how high and elaborate his ball drop is. It's certainly a concern I have with him as well as other talented youngsters we've had like Hogan and Petracca that they are so gifted we forget to really work on developing their fundamentals to a high standard. A more compact and fluent kicking action would help him.

Not too worried about his kicking in general, but all of our inside mids need to work on getting the ball out to a player running towards goal who can hit up a target rather than bombing it. In two games this season the inside players haven't taken the ball forward in the stoppage nearly enough. Gawn also has to be part of that both with his taps and by being involved at ground level so it's not 4 v 3 against mobile rucks at centre clearances. And when they do go for the quick kick it has to be to advantage and with numbers running on to the ball. There's no point having Oliver, Brayshaw, Harmes, Viney getting 120 touches between them and nothing coming from it. If those guys do get 30 each then I want Fritsch and Kolodjashnij getting fed the ball on the wings from them rather than 70 inside 50's for no score. I think we went for far too much wet weather footy against the Cats, acting like it was a swamp rather than playing to the conditions but still maintaining smart football.

Spot on. Had a couple of nice kicks against Port, competed well in the air, put his head over it and looked like the running wasn't too much for him. I'd say at this stage with any kind of decent development he should be at least a guy who carves out a career. Certainly way too early to say whether he'll be good or not. We're getting a pretty rude reminder right now that development of players isn't linear. Petracca, Stretch, Kolo, Fritsch, Weideman, Hunt, ANB, Joel Smith, Oscar are all in that 22-24 year old range and we don't even know what they are or will be over the next few years, yet alone the 18 year olds.

It's not so much about reinventing Jones but using what he still has - experience and ability to know where the ball is going - as well as adding what the team needs which is that experience at half back to make sure the set ups are right and hopefully control possession. That said, the wing was always a reinvention for him and I was never convinced it would work. Back or forward made more sense to me. Lewis had that position at half back but if he's out Jones should have a go at it. We also don't have near 22 players who are performing, so we should be working out which players can contribute in roles that make others better. Be it physicality, leadership, unrewarded running etc.

May will be injured and Oscar, Frost, KK, Lockhart, ANB, Sparrow don’t really look up to it whilst Weid, Jones, Hunt, Petracca, T Mc and even Hibberd and Fritsch are struggling. It’s a disaster really. After 6 debuts in 2 weeks I don’t think kids are the answer although we probably need at least 1 more debut with a big bloke. I’d probably go T Smith, Keilty, Stretch and C Wagner for Weid, May, ANB and Sparrow and move Jones to half back.

I get the concerns over his body and fitness but the guy had plenty of tackles and pressure acts and really looked to me like someone who has somehow lost all confidence with his play. Defensively and repeat efforts he seemed fine to me. Fumbling, dropping sitters, not going for the ball, bad decision making. He's all at sea when it comes to getting and using the ball. He's also playing full forward a fair chunk of the game because it looks like we're looking to rotate multiple players through that role but don't have a reliable option that doesn't badly weaken the side. Tracc's never looked comfortable in that role. I would've put in at half back for the last quarter to see if he could get a few easy touches but otherwise I'm not sure what to do now. We need him in the side, even a shocking game like tonight beats the alternative, but then again maybe for his own confidence he needs to go back to Casey and tear it up for a couple of weeks.

Based on last week Gaz played almost always forward, Danger rested at full forward at times. I'm pretty sure they did overlap. Gaz really played as a traditional half forward flanker. Will be interesting to see if they send Nev to Ablett and therefore drag Jetta up around the ground or if Nev stays deeper and they task someone else with the role on Gaz. Kelly, Parfitt, Selwood (rotating to a wing), Danger seemed to do the bulk of the centre square minutes.

He was picked because he was the best available running player with a bit of grunt who could hopefully do his job in the forward line. The only other legitimate choices were J Wagner in down back and keeping Hunt forward, or Stretch in on a wing. Neither were that appealing. The old (Sheedy I think) formula of if in doubt play the kid came in to play. Playing Lockhart wasn't really an option given the limited time on the list, throwing him straight in would've rocked the boat. At least giving him a game at Casey and probably more importantly a couple of weeks training and showing his fellow players he's up to standard makes him far more of a selection option. Now that Lockhart and Kolodjashnij are both options for selection it could easily bump Sparrow out of the side.

I still like him better as a defender but my guess is May and KK will be added to the defensive mix to boost them up and Lockhart will play forward (that's where he trained a couple of weeks ago) with possibly some time on the wing. As to who he replaces: ANB, Spargo, Sparrow, C Wagner, take your pick really. Sparrow probably isn't ready but he did well so I expect he gets another go. C Wagner wasn't too bad. My guess would be Spargo but it wouldn't be my preferred option.

It looked to me like our defenders were actually too timid at coming up and getting to the ball ahead or with their opponents, whilst our mids were sucked to the contest and didn't hold their width. Rockliff, Boak, Westhoff etc seemed to be escaping out to the wing on a 45 degree run with their opponents stuck in the middle.

We won the centre clearances 15-9. I'd have to watch the replay to see what happened with the wingmen but setting them up defensive side to me looked like a plan to get them to room to go forward as well as defend rather than an unaccountable plan. Only having 53 tackles as well as 183 to 276 uncontested possessions to me tells more of a story about the set ups and run around the ground than at clearances. Salem and Harmes were pretty much a 2 man team in terms of running and getting the ball back or holding up their opponents. Apart from one Corey Wagner chase down tackle the rest of the midfield and flanker group couldn't run with or hold up the opposition.

Seems to happen that way, I think the inside midfield gives the greatest physical challenge as well as gets you most in play, so it makes sense that the experienced guys in the VFL play there, but I see the other side of that argument that they should play the role they'll be asked to do at AFL level. Ideally I think half and half would be about the right balance. The main issue with Stretch from the preseason was that he had very little confidence in his decision making, so was stalling play and/or turning the ball over. He'll never win a lot of contests in close or in space but he'll run hard and to the right spots, so really his game depends on how good his ball use is. If he uses it well he has some value, if he stops the flow of play or turns it over he's useless.

Most likely an infected cyst that they probably hoped would clear up with antibiotics but needed surgery at the last minute. Mid season with Preuss in good form in the 2's you'd either play both or rest Max entirely. Just bad timing that it happened in round 1. Max didn't play well but we still did very well at centre bounces and we should be good enough to move the ball around the ground without the safety net of the long bomb to Max. The off ball umpires should cop an absolute hiding in their reviews for missing copious blocks and holds miles from play from the first bounce and throughout the game. I actually like when a team targets a player but they should be copping free kicks for some of the stuff they did. You can't tackle a guy 100m from the play.

Is it really that great? He's a very reliable field kick who hits his short and mid range targets nicely but if you don't get the ball, don't break the lines and don't deliver inside 50 or even in the corridor it can't be great. I wonder how healthy he is after hip surgery but it's one of the reasons why I'd like to see him have a long spell at Casey. When he first played he at least showed some desire to run and counter attack. He's actually dropped away from 16.3 to 15.4 to 11.6 disposals a game. Some of that will because the ball has been up our end but that should've been countered by maturing and staying involved in the game more often.

His best mark up forward was when Oscar ran in a circle all around the ball, otherwise a lot of his better play was at ground level or when he shifted to a wing for the last 5 minutes. Losing Vanders as a 190cm+ physical wingmen who could hurt him and defend him was a loss. Same with Kade Kolo who would be a decent wing match up as well. Otherwise the way Port were moving the ball at least one of their forwards was going to do damage. The rucks and Marshall did pretty much nothing, so not surprised it was Westhoff. In terms of a long term plan Lever is much better as a 3rd tall and combined with big body midfielders we can finally counter Westhoff, but it's a matter of finding that 2nd genuine stopping key defender.

It's more a design of the system that's at fault. Create a system with rigid guidelines and you'll get people who cling to them. The Cunnington punch off the ball had plenty of force and a whole lot of nastiness to it. But impact comes down to silly things like whether the player went off the ground and if they sat out the rest of the game. Now that tribunal challenges are back in force it's very easy to overrule based on the AFL's own guidelines. It's the unfortunate thing about the May incident. The vision was in my mind thoroughly inconclusive. The medical report similarly inconclusive and he didn't return to the game. Anyway, I couldn't care less about who does and doesn't get suspended from other teams. All I want is our players not be suspended. So if he's lenient that's better than the alternative.

Yeah completely forgot about that one, he's had that knee taped up for a fair bit of this summer. Which suggests it's not an immediate problem but also doesn't help. I'm hoping it's not the foot but simply a whole bunch of little things and just not having done enough match practice to be up with the pace of the game.

Viney has looked pretty good in the rehab group (yes I know) for most of summer. They seemed to be timing his run pretty well. Apparently he got a corky at the end of the Casey game, and then there was talk of a head knock in a Friday training session. Both of those could account for his performance as much as any long term foot concerns. I commented after training last week that he was held out of drills and something didn't seem exactly right otherwise he would've done the whole session. Absolutely agree that he needs to be 100% right to play again. No corkies. No concussions. No anything. Still think there's some chance that could happen by Saturday and he just had a shocker but I want to hear Goodwin say he's 100% and it's almost to the point where I'd like to see him prove it by dominating at Casey first.

2 Clayton's, 0 Brayshaw's. After hearing the Casey reviews and reflecting on the game some more I'm actually more likely to stick with Hore and hope he can pick up the tempo. Change both the key defenders. And make at least one change to the half forwards. The other thought I keep coming back to is what to do with Viney. If he isn't 100% cherry ripe I'd rather he miss a couple of weeks. There's just too great a difference between his best football and when he's not healthy.

Yes I should've said that, I wouldn't have him going anywhere for a month and if it was then the case it would be either for a Keilty/Preuss with a Tim Smith/Joel Smith. Teams are working well with 2 rucks, 1 key forward and 1 slightly undersized mobile forward. I still think we can use Gawn, Weid, T Mc with Melksham, maybe a Smith and a rotating cast of big mids - Petracca and Fritsch mainly. But I can see the appeal of 2 rucks - it helps the midfield and provides a long bomb target, Tommy Mc as the main man and then another mobile guy.

Austin being competitive at VFL level is a great sign. If he can compete and get involved in games he has the skills and athleticism to develop. 2nd quarter was in to the wind right? I always played my best footy at CHF in to the wind, the ball holding up let me lead up and grab it easier! Kyle Chandler??

When I've seen Keilty play forward at VFL level he's only been hit and miss. He got drafted on the back of good defensive play including taking some nice marks but it's always easier to take marks as a defender than a forward. Especially with some of the delivery at Casey - both our players going forward and the opposition bad clubs attacking. I wouldn't be against Weid going out of the side, he's still yet to look consistently involved in games and his ruck work at throw ins was inexcusable, I'm just not sold on it working if it's a straight swap for Dec.

Bit early to judge but from one game against the Suns I think we can cover Kent's 8 disposals, 6 clangers, 6 pressure acts, 3 tackles and nailing a bit of a flukey set shot to win the game. Sparrow and Wagner did more than that against a better opponent. We need a crumber and we need some depth on the wing. Kent promised both was never either of those.

Missed Weid's big contested clunk? Sam was bad in the ruck, mostly at boundary stoppages, which is somewhat a surprise because he's usually ok in the ruck. Follows up at ground level and around the ground does ok. If you remember the Richmond JLT game Keilty was good in centre bounces but also beaten by a ruck who grabbed it from a throw in and kicked a goal. According to the website Keilty is 194/94kg, Weid is 195/97kg. Who knows how accurate those numbers are but I'm not convinced there's much difference. Keilty might be a bit more effective in the ruck but I'm not expecting miracles up forward from him, he didn't do a heap up forward against the Lions. Realistically swapping Weid for Keilty would be getting a similar player without the upside. I've got no interest in that. Preuss for a big contested body would at least mix things up. Or adding Keilty alongside Weid, playing Tracc in the midfield and T mc on the wing for part of the game and changing the forward mix. Or waiting until Tim Smith is back soon and getting that 3rd tall versatile and defensive forward in the mix.

I'm not entirely sure what people want. After the game I was [censored] off. I still am. But there's very little that can be done about the number of injuries and surgeries. I think they pretty much nailed the best available 22 yesterday given the attempt to balance picking experience and the formula that worked last year and making drastic changes. Sparrow as a late in tells me they were getting pretty desperate. The main thing I want Goodwin and Co to change: No more talking about our brand, contested footy and getting the game on our terms. More talk about players executing skills, team first attitudes and disciplined smart football. I want a team that has a style but can adapt and withstand the opposition, not purely bludgeon them because you can't simply beat up on every team every week.