bing181

Amongst the dross, a few positives - Brayshaw's best game for the year, Stretch wasn't the worse, and Salem showed why we need him. We were just steamrolled, and never managed to even get close to getting going - though as above, the constant turnovers didn't help.

Got to get some players into the team who can kick and dispose of the ball efficiently. Not the only reason we lost, but we're never going to go far if we can't stop these turnovers, they're just killing us, and killing any momentum.

Skills and turnovers kill us yet again, not able to string together 2 or 3 possessions and keep control.

Geelong very good, look better than Hawthorn for mine. Could go close if they can produce this kind of footy across the finals. Dangerfield could just about beat Brisbane all by himself. Remarkable.

Geelong: Top 4 team, building into the finals, determined to get the jump on us Melbourne: Not a Top 4 team. Game a reflection of where they are and where we are. Getting Hibberd and Melksham will be one thing, but we need mids and more mids.

Boys look turned on, which is a relief, but the story of the day will happen is already there: Dangerfield in another class, and we have no-one like that, and b) poor skills and turnovers will kill us against a top 4 side. (Nev Jetta ...)

That's the problem with most of what you post right there.

Perhaps also a decision made in consultation with Oliver himself. I thought the same might also have been true of Brayshaw, and if so, wonder if he was offered the option.

Missed these last 2 games, presumably injured, or been told to go away and start getting his body right for next season. Or, just been told to go away.

Perhaps, but: a) Dawes seems to be injured (again), didn't play at Casey last week and not named this week b) Pedersen has been specifically mentioned in terms of "not being able to finish off his work and hit the scoreboard" in the Casey reports. Don't mind it. Reminds me a bit of the O McDonald scenario, and we can see how that's working out. If playing Weideman for these couple of games advances the time when he'll be our first-call FF, then all for it. If Dawes, Hulett or Pedersen had been knocking the door down, perhaps another story.

Because people like you come on in consistently clammering for the big-hitters at Casey to get games.

Not just the players, coaches as well. We need to be careful here. We don't have that many experienced players around the club, yet alone players with their heads screwed on and a premiership. Also, Weideman is not yet ready, and Pedersen isn't really a KPF. For mine, keep Dawes on a short-term, performance-based contract, unless there's someone similar we can get in the off-season. Brad Millar mark 2, and we saw what happened there.

Based on the Casey player review, the only ones ready for a call-up would be Grimes, Trengove and JKH, perhaps Salem (who was ill during the week it seems), and even more perhaps, Wagner. Pedersen was criticised for not being able to finish off his work and be damaging on the scoreboard (again), Matt Jones dropped off in the second half, and Kennedy was off the pace (been ill apparently). Dawes didn't play, not sure why. I suspect his body is just about shot.

Yes. Has been cited before, but it's been said about teams like Hawthorn and the Swans that on match day, the team pretty well coaches itself on field. I don't buy any of this re Roos and the supposed problems with match-day coaching. If there's a problem with match-day coaching, the moment to bring it up isn't after a bad loss, but after a win. It's during a win that you see the coaches' abilities on full display, and if there are deficiencies, that's where they'll be apparent. But strangely enough, no-one put up one of these threads during our recent run of wins.

Garlett for Kent (injured). For the rest, I have no idea, except that I'd like to see Salem. But whether he's fit/ready for a big game like this is another question.

Nev needs an award named after him.

Team selection had nothing to do with losing this game. When you get to half way through the first quarter and the whole team have only had a handful of kicks and laid 2 tackles, it's pretty well game over. The game was lost in the middle and around the stoppages, but both ANB and Weideman played forward, while Mitchie did as well (I'd actually say better) than what Harmes has of late. We didn't turn up to play, had difficulty putting it together when we tried to, and then blew chances up forward to score and get a bit of momentum going when they came along. 7 goals 16 isn't just terrible kicking on goal, it's team-killing kicking on goal, especially when for the most of the game, a goal would have put us right back into it. Finally, if you think Carlton should have been walk-overs, think again. They won 6 on the trot early in the season, (something we haven't even come close to), have taken it right up to many of the top sides, and in Cripps and Gibbs have two mids that are a class above anyone we're putting on the park (for the moment). Watch Jayden Hunt's interview on the MFC site. Smart lad.

Whatever it means, it's about the future: the pre-season and then the season ahead. It shifts the responsibilities to the players and the new coach, or at the very least, forces the players and new coach take responsibility.

Even in this game, we were with them at 3/4 time, which has been true of a lot of our losses this year. That gap isn't as big as some (here) would like to make out.

Symptomatic of what was going on further up the ground.

Just to confirm, our percentage went down.

Pathetic. That loss had nothing to do with Roos.

Some shocking set-shot kicking.

Might as well start the post-game thread already ...

Apart from Dean Kent (a lot of time off the ground?), the three players who came in, Mitchie, Weiderman and ANB are the worse performers. Can't blame the selectors, they were logical choices, but once again, Mitchie and ANB have been found really wanting at this level. Of course, we're not losing just because of those 3.