bing181

It's a start ... maybe he'll be right for the last few matches.

Such as? From reports, no-one "of size" is really playing OK, which is why they're at Casey.

The reasons are obvious, for anyone prepared to look at the big picture instead of just throwing a tanty. As for Oliver, he's specifically being left at Casey for his development, as Plapp noted in his player review. Has been consistent about what they want Oliver to work on. Finally, it's laughable to suggest that the selections are being made by Roos alone, without input from all the coaches, including Goodwin. This isn't some backyard club where the coach pins up the team on Thursday night after the post-training BBQ.

How many Casey forwards had big numbers? From what I can see, all the big forwards, including Pedo, had mediocre games and low numbers. (BTW, no, Dawes and Mitchie are not interchangeable.) The standout player at Casey, ANB, has been rewarded and included.

Pedo has missed a big slab of footy, needs to get his match fitness up. He was never going to be a possibility this week, but Dawes would want to count his lucky stars that he's the only one left standing who can fill that role.

Dawes' last game was poor, and he was dropped/punished accordingly. But it's also clear that the coaches (and from everything you read, players) feel that the team structures up better with Dawes in the side. No question, he's a limited footballer. But he's not a dumb footballer, and he takes pressure off both Hogan and Watts - how many times was Hogan marking against two or three opponents last week? Put it this way, if he's in, I can understand it. Edit to add Roos comments, which clarifies the above: "We'll probably bring Dawesy back this week because I think what happens with our team at the moment, with Wattsy (Jack Watts) going in the ruck, Jesse's often one-out (in attack). "So that's probably our end of the bargain, making sure as coaches we're providing players with a really good opportunity to play well and not get frustrated."

By nature they have to BE positive. If any player thinks that we can't beat WC, no point even getting on the plane.

What situation would that be? A young team with a lot going for it, even if the wheels still come off from time to time?

Well there is actually. We don't have enough leaders. We're paying for the drafting mistakes of 10 years or so back.

Suspect that just simple old-fashioned want the ball more than the other bloke would go a long way to sorting out a lot of our shortcomings.

Simply not true, as the players themselves (Viney, now Kent) have publicly acknowledged.

Not just Melbourne.

You can never set the bar too low around here.

And all we had to train in was a shoebox in the middle of the road.

It's no-one's "fault". It's just the way it is. It's a bit like saying "who's fault is it that we're not at the top of the ladder?" For the rest ... players past it, injured or suspended: Lumumba, Salem, Frost, Dunn, Garland, Terlich, Melksham. What's left? A Casey-level back-line, which can just about hold their own As Long As Those Further Up The Field Do Their Job - which as Jack Viney pointed out on Sunday, they didn't: "You start winning and everyone gets away from their roles and tries to get a kick and a touch. It breaks down the whole system."

I think to some extent they are ... but off-field unfortunately. We were 5 points down in the last quarter, the game was there to be won, and we needed calmer, more experienced heads, to make sure it was, Jack Viney can only do so much off his own bat. (though thought Vince was trying). No accident to see Riewoldt step up when the game was on the line. Just don't think you can underestimate the kind of experience that the players listed above bring to a team. Let's not forget that St Kilda were in the finals consistently from 2004 - 2011, including successive grand finals in 2009 - 2010. That's a LOT of big game experience to draw on, even if it's only a handful of players. I know people here talk about inside grunt and outside run and zone defence and coaches and game plans etc. etc., but it's this lack of real A-grade leaders (which isn't necessarily the same as A-grade players) that is our biggest Archilles heel at the moment. Hopefully it'll come over the next couple of years.

We have a defence "featuring" effectively 4 first year kids (O Mac, White, Magner, Hunt), and it's the coach's fault? Seriously? Some of the posts/threads here at the moment are beyond belief.

Didn't look like we lacked leg speed the week before, or in the first quarter, or when we put 4 goals into them in the third ...

Not so much with not having a Plan B, it's about having a Plan A and everyone sticking to it. "You start winning and everyone gets away from their roles and tries to get a kick and a touch. It breaks down the whole system." Jack Viney

Exactly. The point is that we don't have any of those kinds of players, the nearest we get is Dawes and Lumumba. Roos was just referring to the experience of players like Riewoldt, Montana, Dempster, Gilbert etc. who not only have been around for a while, but played under a very good coach and were playing in finals etc.

Presume Frost will come back in - perhaps for O'Mac? Depends on match ups, perhaps Garland. I know some here are saying he was poor at Casey, maybe that's the case (didn't see), but his numbers look decent. Then we get into the rest - hard to know. If Stretch just needed a freshen up he could get a run, but if they want him to work on aspects of his game, he'll have to come back through Casey. There were 4 or 5 who seemed to do OK there, from ANB through to Oliver, Newton etc., but Oliver apart they've all been found wanting at AFL level, and Oliver only plays restricted game time, so not sure there either. Plenty of candidates if we wanted to drop a few, and perhaps Grimes has played his last Demons game, which would be disappointing. I think there'll be a few changes, but suspect that from now on, they're going to be made with one eye on 2017, so hard to guess. I'd go with White, Grimes, Kennedy out, then add Frost plus two of Spencer/Stretch/ANB/Oliver.

Hard to know what to make of some of those numbers. Bugg 15 possessions isn't great, but he topped the tackles with 11. Trengove and Oliver good all-round games it seems. ANB a lot of possessions, but wonder what happened to them.

Agree with the second part, but not really the first. Players like Harmes, Matt Jones, Kennedy, Hunt consistently manage to get the ball to go somewhere else than where they'd intended. Even N Jones and Viney aren't exempt.

Especially as the big knock on both of them is the lack of "hurt" factor in their disposal. Agree with an earlier poster, we miss Salem's disposal off half-back. But feel like we need half a dozen players with Salem's disposal.

We had too many players who were "off" today. As Roos said (though it's obvious!) we don't have a margin for error, nor do we have a Dangerfield who's going to pop up with 4 goals and turn the game. The rest ... sure, maybe, but for the most part, deck chairs.