DeeSpencer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bazzajim

A couple of the hot potato handballs were poor, but most were good. He plays on a wing, his opponent is going to get some ball the other way. Sure he should've picked up Fasolo on the highlight shown on one of the TV shows but I significantly doubt Fasolo was his man. He needs more game awareness to make those decisions but the reality is he was likely working hard to get back and help the defenders and Fasolo was just as likely one of their men. First year Toump couldn't mark, couldn't tackle, wouldn't win a contested ground ball and was completely lost. He's now much stronger with contested ball and an acceptable tackler. Still can't really mark. But he is starting to think and work his way through scenarios and his work rate is a step above any other options we have in what's probably our weakest position. He's far from perfect but I think it's very myopic not to see the positives in his game today and not to recognise signs of improvement. To suggest he be dropped is massively undervaluing what he can bring and massively overrating what little we have at Casey by way of hard running wingmen.

The best 4 options - Petracca, vanders, Kent and JKH sure. Hence why it's probably time to try ANB and failing that Harmes and Stretch. Stretch didn't do much on a wing and he's not really built to be a robust marking half forward flanker but with his tank and zip he might do well in a more defensive forward role, he's at least indicated he's willing to think through and not waste possession when he gets it.

Might have the work rate and game sense to play 'quick' at half forward but I am weary of a youngster slipping in to the black hole that is half forward for Melbourne. Brayshaw has flourished but it's not an easy task. Some speed and a good tank make it much easier.

I just hope ANB is quick and fit. We have such a need for speed at half forward, especially against the saints at Etihad. Selection criteria: Are you fit? Are you quick? Can you tackle and chase? Is your name anything other than Rohan Bail or Matt Jones? If you answered yes to the above 4 questions then you can get a game on a half forward flank for Melbourne.

Having a laugh at Toumpas criticism. Seriously. 2 silly errors. But a lot of end to end running and quite a few classy possessions. He aint Gus Brayshaw. Deal with it. He's more like our boy Jack Watts with 5 years less bad coaching and a fighting chance and he's taking it. Watts was also very good after that early soft marking effort. Lumumba had a terrible first quarter as well. But those 3 (combined with Vince, Jones, Garlett and Brayshaw) were probably the driving force of our slick ball movement that led to the 2nd and 3rd quarter fight backs. But the errors: - Fitzy tunnel ball - Gawn turnover - Lumumbabumba (times a few) - Dunn kick out - Watts soft dropped mark - Howe fumble on the members wing when Garlett was off to the races The elementary errors quite easily accounted for the game margin. Unfortunately a few of these were from senior players. Some are explained as products of a team that just hasn't trained and played in enough high pressure situations. Some are inexcusable. Gawn won the ruck and Pendlebury, Swan, Crisp and Sidebottom were made to look second rate. Salem is a sorely missed down back, McDonald and Dunn had off days and our lack of reliable line breaker was again on show. The team will need to work more on how to combat a lose man which again is a lack of linebreaker in the middle/back half and just adding a few more half forwards who have the smarts for the position. Petracca, Kent, JKH are 3 options for half forward. Salem back at half back. Frost as a genuine strong key defender. We can't be satisfied with the result but we have to stay confident in the plan and in the talent on the list. Keep practising under pressure boys!

Out: Vanders, Newton, Matt Jones In: Tyson, Grimes,ANB FB: Jetta Dunn Fitzy HB: Grimes McDonald Garland C: Toumpas Jones Lumumba HF: Brayshaw Hogan Watts FF: Howe Pedersen Garlett Foll: Gawn Vince Viney Int: Tyson ANB Cross S: Riley Wouldn't be against Stretch or Harmes either. Riley, Newton and Michie are 3 who warrant further attempts at AFL level but I think they all need preseasons to be up to AFL standard and their best positions are on the ball, they don't have the pace or skill to play half forward. Matt Jones and Bail should be in the never again pile.

Paul Roos set the team up with 6 forwards, 6 mids and 6 defenders. Collingwood went with 5 forwards and 7 defenders allowing Oxley to play without an opponent. Roos decided to use Cross as the spare defender without an opponent. Roos was critical of the forwards not rolling up to Oxley and competing in the air. Those players were: Howe, Pedersen, Hogan, Watts, Matt Jones and maybe a couple of others. The efforts of Howe and Pedersen to get away from their opponents and fly for marks and bring the ball to ground were particularly poor.

Cross will be gone soon. Then I guess the question will be can you fit Jones, Vince, Viney, Tyson, Brayshaw and ANB in to one midfield but if we get to that stage I'll be pretty excited. I think Vince plays half back, 1 plays predominantly half forward and the other 4 go through the inside midfield spots and it's not a problem. The likelihood as well is that for every 6 players from an AFL list you pick out there will be 1 injured. We might be wise to draft more selectively for talls and speedy/skilled outside mids from now but it's a bit early to count our chickens on Tyson, Viney and Brayshaw yet alone ANB after 1 high possession VFL game!

As much as I want to see Tyson back and in form and get a look at ANB I'm just as excited by Harmes and hope he can be given a go soon. Without Kent and JKH we need a pacy half forward as much as inside ball winners. I hope he's in consideration. Just read Max King had 18 touches as well as 3 goals. So he's not just sitting in the goal square at the D-League. He probably needs 2 more preseasons to get anywhere with his fitness and strength at AFL level so there's absolutely no rush. I'm glad he's in good form in the D-League and next year will be his time to get in to the seniors. vandenBerg is doing fine at AFL level coming from NEAFL, there's no rush to elevate a young guy. Yes he might not make it with his poor endurance but that's for another day. With the right amount of patience I'm a little excited by the King.

Yeah I think they are moving Howe back to the backline again (which I think is a correct move) and therefore the 6 starting defenders will probably be Dunn, Fitzy, Jetta, Howe, McDonald and Garland. I can understand Grimes getting squeezed out, although both Howe and Fitzy are equally lucky. I'm not sure who will be the sub. Could be Newton, Riley or Matt Jones if I had to guess but wouldn't rule out Toump or Watts. Either way all are likely better options than Grimes as sub. I guess the challenge for Grimes is to make sure he's undroppable when he next gets a chance as he's likley to get another go. Tyson and Neal-Bullen have put the pressure on the likes of Newton, Riley and Matt Jones to play well. They'll know they have to do well to stay in the side.

My take is that if you drop the ball after being tackle then you are at mercy of the tackler for a swing around as long as it's not an unfair hold. The truly impressive part of that play for mine was Toumpas baulk and lateral movement to avoid the oncoming tackler. That's what he needs to do to find space for himself and if he's finding space he'll be a player.

26 when you've been training and playing at 10-15 for the last month at least can be a shock to your system, but Adelaide hasn't been much warmer. I'd pick a running side (as we have) but I wouldn't make the sub decision based on the conditions. I'd only have Brayshaw sub if it's a load management thing after seeing Salem and JKH get injured and Hogan benefit from a week off.

Or our game plan just got lucky a couple of times and we played Port with quite a few injuries in both games last year? Because I think that's possible as well. And now they've had a few injuries this year again their midfield depth just isn't what it was and their running game has suffered. With Wines and Polec fit they beat Hawthorn and took it right up to Freo and Sydney. Those two go out, Hartlett and Cornes struggle and Ebert goes off the boil a bit and all of a sudden they aren't as good. Teams have studied up but I don't think it was Roosy alone figuring them out. They lost to quite a few teams in the middle stretch last year before they got healthy again. Then they beat Freo in Freo. Now if Roos worked out a plan to nearly beat them with our side last year then Ross Lyon should've beaten them with a similar plan in a home final. They remind me of Geelong and StKilda of about 2006 when they had played in those earlier Prelim finals with really good young teams but they just lacked the depth and had some down years before finding their true form.

Riley was a good sub. But the sub this week will come down to one of 5 - Viney, M Jones, Bail, Brayshaw or Riley. If Viney is back in the starting team then I want another running player (Bail, M Jones or Brayshaw) as sub. If Viney is the sub well then he pushes out Riley. Newton is unlucky, but again, once Viney and Jetta take their spots then Lumumba goes back to a wing and then Newton is the unlucky guy. Unless the plan was to play Viney forward I can understand the change. The only thing I think should happen is that Fitzy should have a rest. I know he was great last week but with Ryder out I don't think there's a match up for him. At the same time if we want the extra height I guess we may as well get him consistently in the team but I worry he'll play on someone like Paul Steward who we don't need a tall for and we will lose run and skill. Anyway: Back 6: Fitzy, Dunn, McDonald, Garland, Jetta, Grimes Inside mids: Jones, Vince, vanders, Viney Ruck: Spencer Outside mids: Toumpas, Lumumba Inside/outside/versatile: Cross Forwards: Hogan, Pedersen, Howe, Watts, Garlett, Brayshaw, Bail, M Jones There's some flexibility in the line up. I wonder if we have the skill level to win against Port if they are on but we at least have defenders who can defend, mids who can win the ball and some forwards who can find the goals. I'm hoping we back up the high level of effort we showed against the Dogs as a minimum.

Terlich's player profile on the club website says 2 year deal. I know his 2013 was very good but it's staggering that after his drop off last year they felt necessary to give him 2 more years. In some ways the Matt Jones deal to the end of 2016 made more sense as it came in January 2014 so after a good first year they thought he'd still be around for 3 more. But it looked overly ambitious then and it certainly is now. 2 players who will now have to be paid out or will in all likelihood be battling away at Casey for most of next year. Hopefully Matt Jones takes some belief from his current ok patch of form and works hard to improve because dead wood on the list is a real downer for everyone else IMO.

Right now I wouldn't trade either of them. But they are 2 players who might have currency and might also want out for a fresh start. Toump is out of contract as well.

We are a better list with a fit and firing Dawes. Maybe not quite a better team. His inability to mark has been consistent since his late Collingwood days and he can't ruck. So we will always be better with another option besides Hogan and Dawes to fill the back up ruck spot. Plan A at the start of the year was Hogan, Dawes, Frost because Frost provides the speed and defensive pressure to play 3 big guys. We've tried many combinations since but the plan at the moment is Hogan, Pedersen, Howe. I'd like to give Hogan, Pedersen and Dawes the opportunity to work as a trio. I think Hogan's smarts and ability to play up the ground, Pedersen's ruck stints and Dawes' defensive efforts can see them work together. What I don't see the need for is making the change to the current plan until Dawes is fully fit again and I'd have him establish that fitness and form at Casey first.

I'm a fan of both Howe and Garland. I'd prefer to keep both. I think versatile medium tall players are very valuable and you don't know how much so until they are gone. Delist: McKenzie, Bail Pay out: Terlich, Matt Jones Retire: Cross, Jamar (Neither are certain yet) Monitor: Trengove Watch: Spencer, Fitzy - not sold on either yet. Riley. Hunt. Potential trades: Toumpas, Watts, Grimes (not saying we should trade any of these guys). Rookie upgrade: vanders Rookie hold: King, Harmes, White The tall guys - Jamar, Spencer and Fitzy are all dependant on what we can find in a trade period and/or mature recruitment. It would be silly to axe any of them if you can't find worthy replacements. The same principle probably applies for the contracted Matt Jones and Terlich. It's expensive to move those guys on and doesn't achieve much if you're just adding different limited depth on longer contracts. Hunt and Trengove would both be candidates to move back to the rookie list due to injury. I like how up in the air it is at the moment. We've got plenty playing for their immediate future but at the same time there's not a lot of inevitability about anyone on our list right now. Bail and McKenzie might be the obvious ones but they've both had a shot in the team recently. There's 2 thirds of the year left and every player can provide at least some case for staying on. I think that's a key reason Casey are doing better this year.

There were a few earlier, but the point was raised he might be handy against his old side. Plus he was just back after being dropped so we don't want to yo-yo him and he finds a way to score most weeks. If Viney is right to resume midfield duties then Newton is probably one I'd prefer at half forward/midfield rotation than either of Jones or Bail and probably a not right Tyson. I wasn't at the game on Sunday and I find you can see work rate much better live than on TV so it's hard to judge if Newton contributed to that or if guys like Matt Jones and Bail really did do a power of running to contribute defensively.

McDonald - Westhoff Dunn - Schultz Is what we did last year. This time Port have a resting ruckman (Lobbe and Ryder) for Fitzy to play on. Then Garland can either play on a dangerous small (Jetta to Wingard, Garland to Gray was last years match ups) and/or he can get involved in rebounding the ball more. Howe stays forward. Boyd and Cordy was a nice warm up for Fitzy. Lobbe and Ryder will be a test if he gets the match up.

Terrible positioning by the goal umpire. He should've picked which post it was going closer to (in the end went pretty much through the middle) and then got alongside it so he could see the goal line and was out of the players way. I actually hope Roughead is ok because you don't want to see a player injured because an umpire stuffed up. That said I'm sure the ump was doing his best and I'm not suggesting hanging him for 1 mistake but it was definitely a mistake.

Paul Roos only tells a small portion as well. Lumumba can't get near it in the midfield. Isn't using the ball well and wasn't great (but not terrible) at half back. We need all the run we can get at half back/wing so he's not going anywhere but he needs to find some form again.

Not really. Turf toe in the NFL is often season over right there. I think Sandilands and Kreuzer have missed long patches. It's a stress injury. As soon as they are confident that he's rested up and all the stress symptoms are gone he'll probably be 4 weeks. But until they get to that stage they need to go longer rather than shorter.

Against Sydney and Hawthorn in particular we devoted a lot of numbers to the contested ball to try and win that to get in the game. But I agree uncontested is probably our weakness and the likes of vandenBerg and Brayshaw in to the team really helps contested possession. As does the return of Viney and the tagging role Vince does. When you add in Cross and Jones and some good competitors forward and back there should be enough players who can win contested footy. I suspect the Dogs had a big drop in pressure as we managed some easy possession chains that we probably don't have a right too given our weaknesses in that area. But the run was definitely up and the skills followed.