Rogue

I don't think I can answer that (at least now), but I'll say two things. One, we're trending in the right direction. Eight games in and we've got a percentage of 100. Two, we're not going to win a premiership now anyway, so that's almost moot for right now. What we do need to do is develop a side, and I think we're seeing improvement in both individuals and the way we're playing footy. My main concern is that DB might be ND-like in his game-day tactics, but we'll see. There's no good game plan for teams that are no good. The idea that we should teach a simplistic man-on-man game plan that you admit is going to lose games anyway is odd, to say the least. I'd much rather a game plan that we thought would win us a premiership once we could execute.

I think the idea that Green goes to water when we're struggling is incorrect. I wish I could say the same about some of the other names rpfc reeled off.

This still isn't as good as the chips thread (was there also a hot dog involved?).

I think that came from the AFL - it was broadcast on SEN too.

I agree. He wasn't an option. I thought Garland looked slower than I remembered him as, which wouldn't be all that surprising given his injury woes. Regardless, a forward should be able to get out on a lead and if the ball's kicked to the right spot the defender [won't] be able to do much.

I don't think Spencer can give us anything outside of rucking, while PJ loses out to a 'break even at best' option in the ruck who'll give us something else. I don't think Miller can ruck. If fit and in form, Martin gets a gig. Newton's the next best option. You left off Dunn, though.

How was that bewildering? I don't condone the guy's behaviour, but it's no surprise that someone got annoyed when they saw a fan/fans clap the players off after a loss. As an aside, if I was Watts I would have been embarassed to have someone clap me after the game. It's akin to trudging off after a game only to have your grandmother start cheering, congratulating you all on 'trying hard'.

No question about it.

There are a few topics on Demonland that just seem to pop up every so often, go around in circles, and then reappear and repeat, like we're in an odd groundhog-style cycle of despair. PJ is one of those. To bring those who've missed out on the fun, there seem to be agreement that he's not a first ruck. I think that a second ruck needs another string to his bow and I think this is pretty uncontroversial. Unfortunately, even those that think PJ is best-22 or near it don't have much of an argument for what that second bow is (let alone a convincing one). Runs on the board based on the couple of matches - years ago - that you constantly reference as evidence that PJ's any good? Wow! From memory, in at least one of those games he was playing as sole (or #1) ruck, a position you agree he won't play for us. You also state that he gives us something up forward, despite getting decent game time up there (from back when ND was coaching) and doing zilch as a forward. Let's be real about PJ, please... I posted up about the main rucks from each team, and a (big) majority of those were from either late or rookie picks. You're right about high picks and rucks, and that's why every year I advocate rookie-listing young rucks.

First, given that we haven't exactly had trouble finding guys to delist in the past few years, we haven't had to sacrifice anyone particularly good to keep Rivers. I haven't exactly shed a tear over guys like Weetra, Godfrey and Ward, and moving on older guys like Robbo and Wheels was going to happen regardless of whether we kept Rivers. Second, being in the leadership group doesn't mean you're worthy of a best-22 spot, nor does it mean you're going to be kept around particularly long. Exhibit 'A' - Miller, who most on here think is finished. Without getting into a primary school-level argument, it is true that the same concerns you're airing over Rivers have been discussed long before now. While many posts do tend towards hyperbole (eg. those who won't hear any type of criticism over their favourite players) there have been plenty of posters talking about the way in which Rivers is being squeezed out of our team because of his limited utility. I know because I've previously posted the same types of comments you've started a thread about, but don't take it from me - posts in this thread from guys like bb and 45 are referring to those discussions. I like the 'logging hours' analogy.

The best parts of the Watts game were that he took some strong contested grabs that were above his head (as opposed to out in front) and he looked really clean at ground level. The worst parts of the Watts game were that he looked pretty pedestrian and didn't work as hard as I'd have liked, although there were some second and third efforts at CHF after he made a mistake. In an post-match interview Watts said that the step up to AFL-level footy intensity was huge and that he was stuffed by quarter time. Given this, and the fact that he performed very well in sprints in testing, I'm confident these weaknesses shouldn't be of concern long-term. I heard Lyon talking about Watts speed. IIRC he did not say that the fact he doesn't change his pace makes him look slower than he is. Lyon said that altering the pace of his leads could make up for his one-paced run by breaking it up. Good post. Way too often he just stood there with his arm up, half-heartedly waving. As someone else posted, he was often calling for it in a manner you might when you don't particularly want it. However, he admitted he was stuffed very early on (and wasn't the only one who didn't do enough to present an option).

You're probably right, and I'm not complaining However, I thought we were comparing apples with apples, and a big hit clearly isn't in the same ballpark as the Mitchell offence. Apples with apples would be a short-armed jab to the stomach, and yes, I've received a couple of those playing footy.

Clarke doesn't deserve his spot in the T20 team - I think his strike-rate is even a worry in ODIs these days. As he admitted, the selectors will need to re-think his position in the team, and thus the captaincy. Cam White hasn't done his chances any harm lately..!

Agreed. I don't know if I'd have referred to it as a 'dog act', but is there really any reason you need to pull someone's hair when you're playing footy? It's pretty ridiculous. Neither does a punch to the stomach (in my experience), which was your first example. As for the hip and shoulder, the bump is a legitimate tactic. I must have missed the memo that made 'pulling hair' part of the game :D

Even in the games we've played well, I think there's been an issue with our forward structure. We set up much further forward than most teams, and our players often get sucked right up the ground. This causes the handball-mad turnovers that encourage some supporters to yell 'just kick it', failing to realise the sideways disposals have been caused because there's no one forward of the ball carrier to 'just kick it' to. It certainly won't be - and wasn't ever going to be - this year.

Exactly what I thought. Even just this season we've had this debate many a time. If you can't play one-on-one and are just an 'extra man in defence' you're no good unless you give drive. I think you're the only person I've ever seen characterise Rivers as a guy who blasts through with precision and skill (unless you're talking about the way he leaps through the air at a pack ).

We might 'have the players' but they do indeed need good development as they're not good enough (yet?). While the way we lost was poor, it's no surprise we've slipped. Apparently everyone who has played the WB (or all bar one side) so far this year have lost the following week, and we looked pretty flat. Yes to all three points.

Great innings by Hussey. I saw Bond retired from all forms of international (?) cricket recently (following on from his Test retirement). It's a shame - I liked Bond. I wonder how long until Lee follows him.

I like the idea of Strauss because he's - apparently - a pretty good kick but I never saw him as a lock-down defender. It'll be interesting to see if he does end up performing that role. Obviously having a lock-down small defender with a laser-like boot is a big plus. However, I've seen him more as a loping HBF so far, so I'm not sure if he has the pace or defensive aptitude. I hope you're right though.

I can't remember the last time I watched The Footy Show. As for 16, I thought that had been tried before in some decent comp. I'm pretty sure the 'no kicking backwards' is used in some decent comp too (VFL?).

Yeah, the only surprise would have been if we kept him (IMO).

That's more reasonable than 'Gen Y signing out'! Anyway. This is why I don't understand why people start. First, they are machines rigged so that you cannot win over the long term. Second, they don't appear to be terribly exciting. Putting aside issues of addiction, what's the appeal of starting?

I don't think that has anything to do with Morton playing for Casey this week. If he was fit etc then he'd get a gig with the Dees.

Can't complain with our ins and outs. Dunn might feel he is a little unlucky but he hasn't been playing great footy. Haha, that's pretty lame. Pods is out with 'soreness', while TJ got dropped by Brisbane.

Just because Cox and Natanui are our opponents doesn't mean we need PJ. In fact, if you think PJ might be okay but maybe break-even or get beaten, we may as well sacrifice the second ruck role and try and exploit NN's awareness by playing a smaller type, like Dunn, against him. Nope. He's exceeded my expectations but still isn't in my best 22. That said, there's time.