bing181

Don't know that we're lazy, but we're certainly flat.

Hindsight hero? Pretty well every team in the comp could have picked Cripps before whoever they took. He went where he was rated.

Neal-Bullen 3 disposals. A bit different at this level. Viney 8 ... though he has laid 5 tackles. Just not working today. A step too far after rising to the occasion the last 3 matches?

Have had our chances to get back into this ... poor disposal and kicking at goal.

A few here have put more into maths than some of these players have been putting into the game today. Need to get going.

Going to be interesting trade period, especially after the giddy heights of the last couple of years. After Round 2 for Hibberd, if we even get a pick in the top 40 or so, it'll be the result of some more Taylor/Viney magic. We don't even have a James Frawley ready to leave either, none of the players who might go are worth anything. Oliver, Weideman, Brayshaw, Petracca, Tyson, Salem. Guess the party had to end sometime.

As Sue said, we still can. Percentages are not determined by difference but by a ratio. We could win and have our percentage go down, and lose and have it go up. The point I guess is that if you have a percentage of 105%, your percentage will only stay the same if you beat your opponents by the same winning average, i.e. 5% (e.g. 105 to 100). If you win by a percentage lower than that, say 1% (101 to 100), then your percentage will go down, (and vice versa). How much will depend on totals for/against, which pretty much depends on how far we are into the season. At this stage, high/low scores don't make much difference, but they'll still make some difference.

Think he meant 120 to 90.

Yes! As often, there's more than one way to skin a maths cat, and he's only seeing his way. He's right in this case that it's about a differential, but that's mainly a quirk of the points/for against being similar, and where we are in the season, which minimises the difference. In the first game of the season, a 50 point win over an opponent's score of 50 will give you a percentage of 200%, so no, it's not just about the differential. Regardless, we really need a big win tomorrow, and keeping them to a lowish score would help, and I'll be keeping an eye on your calculations ...

? Higher percentage puts you higher up the ladder for the same wins, so it is definitely about percentage. Teams on the same points for/against difference will have a different percentage unless absolute points for/against are identical.

Well, they have lost 1%. If they lose by a goal or two next round, that'll take off another 1% or so. We probably need to make up most of that percentage difference against Carlton. From what I can see, if we limit them to 60 points or so, we'll need to win by 9+ goals. Of course, GWS could thrash North, or we could thrash Geelong even if North lose a close one, but there's not much margin for error here. To have any chance, we're going to have to play at our very best for the next two games.

Not the only one it seems. Clubs/AFL getting serious on concussion, and not too soon. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-19/concussion-leaves-crow-sam-shaws-career-in-doubt

Gutsy changes, obviously looking to the future, keeping the pressure on the players, and rewarding players who work when they're at Casey. Bummer for Trengove and JKH that they didn't get a look in, but those included have earned it.

Int; Oliver, Michie, Weideman, Neal-Bullen Em; Garland, Pedersen, Harmes Michie, Neal-Bullen, Weideman in for Garlett, Pedersen, Harmes

Have to remember, it's only his first season, and he didn't have a full pre-season to prepare. Should have a better run at it next year, but with Melksham and Salem back in contention, will have to fight for his spot.

Ignorance much? Lumumba on hold after another head knock

Who the hell are you to pontificate on who should/shouldn't be affected by someone's death, and how they should respond?

Or simply have a long-term concussion issue ... but probably too obvious.

Bit of end-of-season slump for them, players with nothing to play for, Murphy out etc.. This means a lot more to us than them ... just hope we haven't got ahead of ourselves.

I'd go Mitchie for Harmes. But then I'm probably not seeing what the coaches are seeing. Disappointed Salem isn't included, feel that we need that kicking accuracy, but perhaps it's a step too far for him at this stage of coming back. Also, was wondering whether Trengove mightn't get another look in, he seems do be doing increasingly well at Casey. But probably needs a solid pre-season before that'll happen.

Wouldn't count on it.

I wonder if the match committee mightn't be keeping an eye on a side to take into the finals, if so ... Salem in? I know that publicly it's "one match at a time", but behind the scenes, surely there's some planning going on, just in case ...

His field kicking is fine, it's the set shots that are problematic.

I remember back in the day, after yet another Melbourne thrashing, going across to our opponent's Board (Hawthorn, Swans, North ... whoever) and see everyone complaining about how badly they'd played, and dreaming of the day when we could [censored] about how badly we played, but still come away with a win. Especially, remembering that this was Port at home, and they had as much to play for as us (finals etc.). Wonder if Ollie Wines had a teensy twinge of regret? Not sure of the way forward for Port. Demons on the other hand ... and we've still got Salem, Weiderman etc. etc. waiting in the wings.

This from the Age will have a few choking on their drinks: "Dom Tyson, Clayton Oliver Jayden Hunt and Angus Brayshaw also had their quality moments, backed up by a resilient defence led by Oscar McDonald."