bing181

Same as the (possible) Watts/Goddard scenario? Juice was needed to have his turn in the ruck, as simple as that. Ruckman resting forward ... new concept for you? You're like a dog with a bone here, taking one tiny remark out of context from a lengthy interview, and using it to justify a point that wasn't even made. I'm with some of the other posters, hard to see how that interview shows Bailey in anything other than a favorable light.

Really? How do you know what an "effective coach" would have done? Why move a player who's playing well, as Watts was? This is being taken out of context. Bailey was talking about the work he puts into his own coaching and that of his team. As part of that, he reviews the match-day coaching, including listening to audio tapes from the box. The Watts situation was one that he picked out as something he (they) could learn from. It's easy to be wise in hindsight. And criticise. Not to mention if Watts had been moved on Goddard and pantsed, you would have been one of the first here citing it as an example of Bailey's poor decision-making.

Strauss and Blease have both missed games (and training) recently through injury, and are probably a little underdone.

And that about sums it up. The inability to see an argument in anything except black and white. I'm not calling for Bailey's head. That doesn't mean I necessarily think he's the best man for the job going forward. I know I know, it's difficult ...

... not unreasonable in the circumstances. I particularly like that. Where were the "circumstances" in regards to Trengove!!! Still fuming.

Not sure why everyone keeps mentioning Blease. All the reports from Casey suggest that he's still some way off. While the run is there, the defensive work isn't.

People here who think Bailey's the problem are in cloud cuckoo land. We have out of form players, inexperienced players, underdone players, experienced and key players missing, and players who under normal circumstances wouldn't have a whiff of a chance of playing AFL ... all thrown together in a makeshift team where there are constant injury-imposed changes in the team, or even in what's happening on field (having to restructure during the game to cover the likes of Grimes, Garland and Tapscott). Because of the injuries and subs (first quarter again this week), we're even down on rotations and running out of legs. Look at the players in the Demonland header ... Frawley missed most of the business end of the pre-season, Scully out, Jurrah (still a comparatively inexperienced player) hot and cold, Sylvia good, Grimes out, Green struggling with captaincy and Davey ... well, the less said the better. So, of those 7 masthead players, the "stars" of the club, we have a grand total of one (Sylvia) who's half-way consistently decent. It is what it is.

Yes, given the team we're putting out, probably best we can manage for the next while is going to be "tried hard".

Because people disagree with you they're soft?

... or our delivery to the forward line.

How the hell are we still in this!! Newton - no way, takes us back 3 years all by himself. Davey ... sad to see. McKenzie underdone, others having a crack. At least ...

Notsureifserious .... We upgrade him so we can play him. We have three LTI's, so can upgrade 3 rookies, doesn't change anything re list management for this year or next. When Spencer and Grimes (and Fitzpatrick?) come back, any upgraded rookie can be downgraded again. It's a temporary elevation, even if it lasts the whole season.

Tell that to James MacDonald.

... and perhaps Lawrence, and not to forget our pick 33, Howe. Sure, they haven't played a game, but are consistently amongst the best at Casey (cf., for example, Strauss), and are being touted as possible inclusions in the coming weeks. N There has been some criticism around the place of Prendergast for not taking player X or player Y, but it's getting good picks lower down and in the rookies that is less obvious, and on the basis of the above, you'd have to say that the drafting has been very good. If only Campbell hadn't done his archilles ...

... especially with the absence of Grimes. On another note, what's the exact definition of a Long Term Injury? We can promote 2 rookies for Spencer and Grimes. But does Fitzpatrick's 8+ weeks constitute "long term" enough to promote another one?

Nailed it.

Nah, that makes too much sense.

... but you do anyway. Over and over.

Big Ouch. Of the above, Blease and Strauss probably a bit underdone with their recent injuries. Bate has been tried and found wanting, Morton still has some homework to do it seems, and of Evans and Nicholson, would be surprised if they both got elevated, as that would leave us without the ability to upgrade Campbell (as things stand). McDonald surely must be a chance, if he can't get a run with 8 of the first 22 out, you'd wonder what he's doing there. Whatever happens though, think we're in for a rough ride for the next month or more.

I thought Sylvia tried, as did a few others ... Frawley, Martin, Maric late in the game. I don't know that Davey was as bad as some people are making out, or as his WCE game. We were just killed through the middle - no Scully, Trengove, McKenzie, Grimes is perhaps just a step too far, and once the rot set in ... More changes for next week, will give a few young'uns a chance, which must be about the only positive from a disappointing day.

Sums it up.

So you're going to sit there and take stupid pot shots in retaliation? Vent away, by all means, but post after post of mindless slagging off gets a bit tiresome.

Easy to say from behind a keyboard. Feel that they've been really thrown by the Trengove decision. Tentative tackling, hesitant to put their bodies in or go in hard.

He bounced when he was tackled.

Agreed. Martin hasn't been disgraced given the circumstances.