bing181

None of whom are AFL coaches. What our Luke says in private to his assistants over a beer at the end of the day is one thing. What he says at a Press Conference where he's wearing a big hat that says "I'm speaking to you in my capacity as an AFL Coach", is something else.

Showing our inexperience, we're a couple of seasons behind the Dogs, and they've got too much class and run around the ball. Petracca, Oliver, Harmes etc. not quite there yet, though as above, can't fault the endeavour.

Need someone a bit quicker than Dunn. Back stocks starting to look a bit thin.

Not just the problem of the backline per se, we're turning it over or losing possession further up the ground, and it's coming in very fast. Hard to defend against.

Softest supporter?

Weak. Supporters.

Don't forget re all these 'young players', AVB due to return next week (or so) as well. Having a decent run with injuries. Good win today, was worried at quarter time. Can't underestimate the importance of having experienced players like Dawes, Trengove and Dunn on the field. Not sure who ANB is due to replace, but whoever it is, they wouldn't want to have an off match.

Well, for starters, there are only 22 players in a team, so for him to come in, someone has to go out. And that someone has to go out in a position that he can fill. Not sure who that might be for the moment. Great to see the selectors sticking with Mitchie and Stretch after only OK games last week. It sends a message to ANB that when he does get in (which he will eventually), he'll be given every chance.

Because there's a low-level discussion of an ex-player from time to time, it doesn't mean people haven't "moved on"? In any case, most of the discussion isn't about Jimmy per se, but about our draft history, and drafting in general.

Based on nothing particularly solid, I think Toumpas will eventually get there - to at least being a decent, reliable player. Look how long it has taken Scully. It was interesting reading Viney's interview re going up a notch after he was able to change his mental approach mid-way through last season. That's a switch that Jimmy hasn't been able to flick - or even find - up until now, but perhaps over the next season or two, it could start to fall into place for him. Yes, it will have taken a while! I don't know that he's doing anything at Port that he wouldn't have at Melbourne, though it's hard to see him getting a game at Melbourne on his current form. One positive out of picking Jimmy is that it seems to have toughened up our subsequent drafting - which has been very good. I get the feeling that they're a lot more critical and harder on the potential draftees, more focused on what's needed to be an AFL player. Perhaps he's the dud pick we had to have?

The benefits of having a competent development team. Well done James.

Bring our A-game and we're in with a chance. Anything less, no matter how much planning there is, and we'll be in trouble. I'd bring H and Salem back in. H was good in our couple of wins, and the accuracy of Salem's kicking is still something we need, as the first quarter last weekend showed. Not sure who out ... Michie, Stretch? Both would be a bit unlucky, but it's the way it is these days.

He's got concussion. Therefore, he doesn't play.

Does this mean we're now a destination club?

Liking Hunt. I was OK that Michie got the call up, but 3 possessions in a half of footy?

Doing our best to throw it away ...

Turnovers, turnovers, turnovers. These poor disposals are killing us.

Interesting interchange - all the kids. Going for the best start possible it seems.

Think you're kidding yourself, especially at this level. Coaches can certainly affect performance on game day, but to a limited extent. Real coaching takes place off the field and in training, trying to install behaviours that then will be replicated on the field. We've all heard the expression "buy-in", and phrases like "lost the dressing room" which by definition, implies that players have a certain amount of free-will in all this. I'm not saying that they're going to deliberately go against the coach (though even there ...), but more that they don't always get the balance right, particularly in the heat of battle with the myriad conflicting requirements and split-second decisions that have to be made. Whenever I hear someone say "why didn't the coach do something", I always wonder "why didn't the players do something". Do you think the Hawthorn/Swans backline would have given Riewoldt and co. the space they were given last week? I don't - and I also don't believe they would have needed any instructions from the coach's box to get it sorted either. You can coach plenty of things, but you can't coach experience.

I'm sure the riot act was read ... after the game/in the team review. I think people here overestimate the impact the coaches have on players on the field on game day. If players won't or can't do what they've been instructed to do, or trained to do, there's not all that much that can be done during a match, especially with senior players. The reverse side of this is obvious with established teams like the Swans or Hawthorn, where the players basically run the show onfield. The plan and everyone's role in it is so ingrained, they don't need gameday input from the coach's box to make it work. Of course, it takes years to get there, and hopefully the errors of our ways last week will help us learn from our mistakes and move forward. We're still a young team, and perhaps some have got a bit ahead of themselves (e.g. the Essendon match). It's a natural human shortcoming: we always gravitate to what we feel most comfortable with, or find rewarding, or think we're good at - rather than what we need to be doing. Maturity?

The problem wasn't the coaching staff, it was the players choosing not to do what they were supposed to. It's also something for the on-field leaders to work out/on during the game, but when one of your main culprits is in the leadership group, then it becomes a ship heading for an iceberg.

But last week, apparently he was hamstrung by the after-effects of concussion which occurred in the Pies game. Which is why he's being rested this week. Apparently.

Apparently that's what happened before the Saints game, and look where that got us. Over to you Tommy.

Michie has been the most consistent - according to Plapp - so surely only reasonable that he's first cab off the rank? As for the others, it's not a case of either/or, Garland and Stretch play (very) different roles/positions to ANB and Michie. Also, Michie has been playing off half-back, whereas ANB is an inside mid, and with two half-backs to be replaced, I would have thought that the choice wasn't between ANB and Michie, but between Michie, White and Terlich. Sure, reward consistency, but in the context of team balance.

But we're only changing players around the fringe, the core of the team is basically the same. Also, only making minimal changes week to week, - OK, this week 4, but usually it's one or two. Perhaps I could have expressed it better (!) I just mean that swapping our 23rd best mid for our 24th best mid isn't going to make much difference.