DeeSpencer

Sounds like the entire footy media have a pretty good idea but they for once are doing the right thing. I would like to see Mitch open up about his troubles eventually as I think it can be therapeutic and it's better to tell your story than have someone tell it for you but not right now. Mike Sheahan on the MFC website would be good for business if there is a right time for it.

If he's just done a calf on the back of a hammy then I'd say as long as he's icing the calf, doing a bit of swimming or other light cardio that he can do then for the initial few weeks it will make little difference. At some stage in a few weeks time it will presumably be time for him to resume conditioning activities that are best served at the club. But if the other issues aren't sorted then it's a waste of time anyway. The initial time away sounded like a good idea to me. But eventually after a break the best way for anyone to get back to their best is to get back to work if they can. WIthin about a month from now I would like to here that he's back at the club even if it's just part time for some conditioning and then some time with the players who are his friends.

Jones got an elbow to the head when he tackled someone as well. And I haven't seen the replay of how Fitzy concussed himself. Should we engage in niggling - maybe but it has to be against the right opponents and not distract from the focus of winning the game. Should we take every opportunity to lay a big bump or tackle with force - yes! And should we get some of our stronger harder guys to fix up taggers and those engaging in niggle - definitely. At times I've called for a line in the sand game to really toughen some of this lot up. That's probably silly. Same with the idea someone had of recruiting Campbell Brown. But I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more aggression and anger from the players. Viney and Hogan should help, even Dawes isn't a hard guy but he's a big strong body who won't take a step back. Spencer is getting angry. Gawn doesn't mind it. Plus we have guys like Cross, Vince and Tyson who might not dish it out but can still win the ball under pressure, same for Grimes and Terlich. I don't have high hopes for it but getting Tapscott up to AFL standard so we have a guy who isn't afraid to dish a bit of hard stuff out wouldn't hurt. But footy comes first. Confidence is clearly part of a good young side. If serve up some off the ball physical stuff it can help you back it up when the ball is in play. Loved GWS serving it up to Franklin and the Swans.

We've been lacking a superstar since Robbie Flower if not before but as Vince said we need an even performance. Especially once Garland is back we have a group of capable defenders even if we need to add some skill and pace off half back. We know the midfield needs work but Jones now has some support with Vince, Cross and Tyson plus more. Dawes and Hogan plus the bonus if Clark ever comes back plus the eventual freshening of the small forward roles with players like Salem and Kent gives us some forwards who can kick goals. The best chance we have of getting a superstar is Viney and Hogan. Both have great talent. But it's hard if not impossible to emerge as a young star in a very bad team. Unfortunately right at the moment tall forwards is the one area on the ground where it's very hard for us to get an even performance. We just don't have the cattle.

Whilst being eased back in to AFL in a team with 3 ruckmen. Nic Nat might not be the superstar that Gerard Healy thinks he is but he's still a fine player. Watts has had good games before. Let's wait and see if he can deliver against the men of the West Coast midfield not the boys of the saints midfield. He'll also have to do a lot of running a chasing playing on Gaff and Rosa. The last thing we need to do is contribute to the Nic Nat v Watts debate again. Let's just enjoy our fast and clean skilled wing man who does it all whilst also being 6'4 but still has a lot of work to do developing his game.

I'm more worried about Cox. Spencer is a fighter and has some speed, he can run with Nic Nat around the ground and fight for some hit outs. Cox is just such a great mark and really smart footballer he could show up Spencer. Fortunately it should be Spencer and Gawn together and hopefully they can battle away and stop some of West Coasts ruck dominance. That will probably mean seeing Spencer play forward again though for a bit of the game which is always a massive concern.

I actually agree. Pedersen is a decent long kick in space and overhead mark. Put him at CHB if McDonald is out so at least we will have the defenders to play on Kennedy, Sinclair, Cox/Nic Nat and Darling. Bulldogs tried playing small on them and it's not doing them any favours. The Fitz and Gawn combination seemed to work at Casey in previous years, lets hope they can give us something next week. The scariest thing is how good West Coast's pressure is. They are chasing and tackling like Hawthorn out at Casey. We are going to have to be really brave and run really hard to sweep the ball from the backline to the middle otherwise we will be chipping it across our goal line and kicking to a contest deep in defense.

Plus even if they can't execute it properly they already understand the game plan. The delivery of it should now improve steadily especially if we manage to keep some good players fit and get back some tall forwards. I've always thought good coaches don't try to rush and fix everything over night with short cuts but play the long game. I think Roos is preparing this team to get better as the season goes on and personnel come back. That's the hope.

Note to Cam Pedersen. When people want to replace you with Jamar as a primary forward you are in a heap of trouble.

Because what will that achieve? Jamar hasn't looked dangerous forward in about 2 years and Spencer is a better ruck these days. Spencer can't mark and can barely kick, but he runs, chases, tackles, competes and whilst he needs to work on where he hits it he does win his share of hit outs against lesser rucks. Not matter how ugly it is if all players did their role like Spencer we would've won by 5 goals. Against West Coast we need second ruck, we also need a forward who can at least grab a mark every now and then. Luckily Maximus Gawnius might do a little of both. Not expecting miracles but an upgrade on Pedersen.

Meh. Rodan and Gillies are gone. Byrnes will go after this year. Pedersen the next. None cost significant draft picks and there wasn't a whole lot of eligible quality free agents around. We are and will continue to pay for the Prendergast drafting from 2008 until 2011, add in Morton and Maric under Cameron in 2007. And that complete failure of Bailey to provide sustainable development (hampered by resources) and Neeld to provide any kind of development at all to the majority of the list. When you're down you got to get talent in and develop them. We didn't. So we are still down. Hopefully Roos can make something out of Watts, Tyson, Fitzy, Spencer, Gawn, Trengove, Terlich, Matt Jones, McDonald, Howe, Blease, Strauss, Michie - those mid level guys who are around the mark but need to be consistent performers. Salvage something from that lot and start some proper development and Hogan, Toumpas, Viney, JKH, Kent, Salem will be the cream.

I reckon Grimes badly needs about 5kg of muscle. A shanked kick fair enough, but pushed off the ball nearly the boundary line as handballing leading to a turnover, that's yuck. He's got no power in his game. He isn't taking intercept marks or attacking the loose balls and turning defense in to attack any more. It's a concern. He starting to play like Garland of early 2013 not like Garland of mid to second half 2013.

I don't expect us to be a good side early though. Yes I would've liked us to win regardless. Yes St Kilda were missing a lot and are still heading for about a 5 win season at best I think. But we lost by 17 points. We had our 3 best tall forwards, plus Fitzy (4), plus Gawn (5) unavailable. And the reason they won was Riewoldt turned the game in 5 minutes on an injured McDonald. My point was structurally considering it's early days in Roos' tenure we were ok. Effort wise we were ok. Talent wise we are a bottom side regardless but with so much missing and going wrong during the game all the saints had to do was drop a man back and compete. Adding Cross, Vince and Tyson is not enough to increase our talent level if we lose our CHB, reliable defender in Garland and our entire forward line.

But last night he was only a liability in aerial one on ones and if we persist with delivering the ball long and high to Toumpas we are in a world of trouble. His job was to be the half forward streaming to space. He did that well especially early when we moved the ball well. He attacked some balls on the ground with decent conviction and got the handball off. Toumpas version of one on one contests is using his brain and legs to get off his opponent. I thought he along with Bail were the only forwards who made positive contributions towards winning the game.

What could we have done about the loose man though. If we play 7 forward they play 8 defenders. I think at times our biggest mistake was not putting our own loose man in front of Riewoldt and then getting some quick run from half back ourselves. The extra man around the contest was often wasted. From stoppages I would have prefered to free up Dunn or Terlich and see if we could get some attack from half back if we lost the clearance. Plenty to work on structurally but mainly I think we lost due to personnel. No forward line pre game and 2 in game injuries. When we had fit guys on the field ie. the first quarter we controlled a lot of the game and just needed a half decent key forward.

It's not hindsight I said it at the time. As soon as I saw McDonald hobble out to Riewoldt I thought this wont end well. Play Frawley on him, move McDonald on to Rhys Stanley was my thought straight away. It would've been fine if he could run out the cork but it was getting noticeably worse by the minute the longer the game went. Fair enough they got through to half time but he was even worse when the third quarter started. 5 minutes after half time he should've been on a lesser opponent or playing forward. As soon as Frawley went to Riewoldt it resulted in Riewoldt playing higher and higher up the ground. Frawley some what disappointingly let him go and get his marks but he wasn't hurting us nearly as bad as he did in that 5 minute burst. By the way it's funny how we over used the ball across half back and around stoppages but when streaming out in space we often didn't give the simple handball to the guy with the most space and time to hit up the forward. Nathan Jones is a prime candidate for trying to do too much and not using his team mates effectively. I hate to bag him after he played a top game for effort but he's far from perfect.

Can anyone tell me what he said? Garry is usually pretty conservative in his media. If he was angry last night he wasn't the only one. Dodgy back, broken leg and torn hammy he still would've been our most dangerous forward last night.

No complaints about Pedersen really? Couldn't take more than just 1 mark on the lead all night. Missed a goal from 10m out. Generally slow and inept. There's a reason he was converted to train with the backline, he just has absolutely no impact forward. Down back he's so slow that he's not much better but if a match up can be found for him he might offer something as a depth defender if McDonald is injured. Gawn's now played 3 Casey games I think. If Fitzy or McDonald is out he's a shoe in, if not he's still better value as the second ruck and playing Fitzy as the key forward and getting rid of Pedersen. Excited to see Viney in a photo from the Casey thread. As long as he played enough game time to be match fit then he has to come in. Even if he's the sub.

Um he did? For most of the first 3 quarters he played as our deepest forward. But Fitzy and Pedersen couldn't get open at CHF quickly enough to then get it to Howe one on one. Too often from the wing we went sideways and slow and then Howe had 2 opponents. There were a couple of occasions he was one on one but they didn't pull the trigger. The new game plan and sharing the ball across half back especially when the saints had a spare man back did Howe no favours at all. We didn't take enough chances from open play at half back/wing to get a bit of run and carry going and then straight in to Howe. Howe often led from his defensive position in the centre of the ground towards the forward 50 instead of out to the wings to get the ball. The obvious thinking being the the half forwards and midfielders have to be responsible for getting the ball to that stage and he could get the ball inside 50. Sometimes I'd rather him just take off and get the ball at wing/half forward and worry about the other forwards filling in behind him. He cost himself opportunities to get in the game, presumably by following the game plan.

How was he out coached? The saints played a pretty simple game plan - drop a loose man back and see if a VFL level forward line can kick goals against an extra defender. The result was obvious. The saints got enough fast break goals from dumb Melbourne mistakes which come through inexperience with a game plan and no confidence in the forwards. And yeah Richardson is a first game (well actually second he coached Port in a game last year) but he's been around footy as long as Roos. Besides a bad mistake of leaving McDonald on Riewoldt after half time Roos did what he told us he'd do. Create a game style that revolves around sharing and keeping the ball and play hard and sound defensive footy.

Sat next to David Neitz in the crowd. Suggested he would be a chance of a game. Didn't look too unfit!

Gawn obviously comes in but if Fitzy doesn't come up then we probably have to keep Pedersen forward. If McDonald does come up (and given how sore he was I think he wont) then we might need Pedersen down back. If West Coast play 2 rucks plus Kennedy (Frawley), Darling (Georgiou) and Sinclair then we need someone bigger than Dunn. Blease for Byrnes is obvious. Keep JKH as sub I think. Most of the rest of the running players went ok. Did Viney not play VFL? Jetta apparently ok but so were our small defenders.

The reality is right now I think most if not all teams in the AFL have guys who are as fast as Blease but also fit enough to run, chase and tackle etc. I don't think anyone is suggesting Blease has to do it in the midfield like Dangerfield but more like Yarran/Garlett/Michael Walters/Josh Green/Lewis Jetta/Jordan Murdoch, plenty of other quick guys who seem to run out games. For what it's worth Blease's endurance and second efforts looked better in the preseason. I think he's a limited footballer by way of talent and that's just as much as his problem. Can't mark, not a great kick, poor decision maker and doensn't get to the right spots.

You really haven't thought much of this through have you? Mandating kicks would increase short backwards or sideways kicking. If you have to kick under pressure you're more likely to go backwards or sideways. Same with the kick outs. For every attacking rule you aim to create will come with defensive tactics. Any rules that aim to stop congestion need to be thoroughly tested at lower levels and Preseason football because there is a huge risk that they backfire or have no effect at all. Take a drop punt from kick outs. When a team scores a quick point and the other side has an open defensive 50 you want players to move the ball as quickly as possible which means you wouldn't restrict them to an unreliable kick. Looking at that 1945 game you'd be tearing your hair out as a supporter. No chasing, no tackling, no smothers and the foot skills are pretty ordinary compared to modern players it's just they have so much time and space to get the ball. Watching that these days you would do nothing but complain it's like watching under 13's. Their would be media backlash about how the game has turned in to meaningless aerial ping pong. As for CTE it pays to remember the research is still in it's infancy. I doubt anyone suing at the moment could provide enough evidence, the US lawsuits have focused on hidden medical knowledge and aimed at the helmet company. But at the same time the AFL (and NFL) are way ahead of the curve. We've got the concussion sub rule. We've got advanced concussion testing. We've increased the penalties for head high contact at the tribunal. Footballers who played in the 90's and 00's may have cause for legal action although I doubt it will be a massive class action as seen in the US. But I hope the lawyers have protected the clubs and AFL from any players who play today because if you are playing today you should be well aware concussion is a risk.

Capping interchange or substitutes will just mean more rotation between positions and more athletes over footballers. Rohan Bail will thrive, Liam Jurrah will dive. The simple fact is that once full ground pressure footy became evident that elite endurance takes priority over everything. Ross Lyon with an interchange cap still plays Ross Lyon footy, he just makes the players fitter and more versatile. Already teams are down to one ruckman. Interchange caps will eventually kill the small and medium forwards who are already on the way out. It really will be come 5 big guys then 17 versatile runners. Interchange has to stay. Methods need to be considered to retrain the focus on style of play which will then dictate the athlete. I believe the TAC are looking at introducing a rule to keep players inside each respective forward 50. That should be considered. But so far we've had 6 games this season. Freo v Collingwood. The winners of the other 5 games - GWS, Gold Coast, Port, Geel and Ess all played attractive football. The Geel v Adel game was beautiful to watch and highlighted all skills AFL players have.