bing181

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.

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.