bing181

It's not something you can turn on or off, it's the way our brain has programmed itself to work. Can lead to poor decisions, but overall, minimises risk.

Starting to find the right combination on-field. Liked Rivers, Spargo was good/useful.

Bring back O'Mac. He's a role-player, and the defensive structure seems to work that much better, which is where their goals are coming from (breakdowns in the backline).

I don't usually go "off" players, but Harmes is really testing that. The opposite of a smart footballer, whatever that is.

Laughable.

Tomlinson is not a KPD. Bring back O'Mac.

Frees: 3 for, 10 against. Just sloppy and undisciplined on our part. And costly.

Perhaps. None of us know what specific roles are assigned to the key backs, but there's an argument that Lever was the one to pick up Georgiades when he led, as O'Mac was moving to pick up Westerhoff who was running back to the goal square. It reads as if O'Mac is supposed to stay back in the last line of defence, while Lever runs/roams further up the ground - but in this case, there was that moment too long's hesitation in the handover. Not saying O'Mac wasn't at fault, but it looks more like a system breakdown to me.

Or not.

If you think that this is the first time this has happened I've got a bridge to sell you. Hardly used, great price. You know nothing of Goodwin, nor of what really goes on within the club and behind closed doors. Or of any AFL club for that matter.

"If you can't execute basic fundamentals, you can't expect to be a team that's on top of the ladder." Steven May. At least someone gets it.

Woah. You didn't watch the game?

You can actually. As everyone keeps saying, Jackson went where he did in the draft because of his speed and ground ball play. The tallest mid in the comp, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's not as if we had 3 battleships up there.

Worth repeating. So many turnovers, so many chains of possession that broke down. The once or twice we were able to string together a few possessions, we looked like a side. At least. DE of 66% (against their 78%) is always going to land you in a heap of trouble. Whatever else is happening, and you end up playing chase/catch-up footy.

Woah. 3 big forwards, and none of them have taken a mark I50.

Great to know. And seeing you spend your time in team meetings and in one-on-ones with Goody, you can let us know this week's team selection. Thanks in advance. Mate.

FWIW:

Unsubstantiated speculation from someone who has has zero actual experience of Goodwin's coaching.

Agree. But if you're top 4, you're taking scalps every other week. Lots of potential, and I'm starting to enjoy watching them again - but we're a year or two away from being able to reliably mix it with the big boys. Though even then, our disposal/decision-making skills would want to go to a whole other level, and I'm not sure that with the current personal that's going to happen.

If, if, if. But back in the real world, we didn't beat Geelong. Or the Lions. Or Richmond or West Coast for that matter. The ladder doesn't lie, and for the moment at least, we're a mid-table team who have been consistently beaten by teams in the upper part of the table. We have a forward line built around kids and players with under 50 games. In the mids, after a few stars of the comp, we have players who half the contributors to this thread think should be dropped. We have a backline with a player who's past it, one who's a kid who may/may not make it, and another who's so criticised he has his own ongoing thread. Top 4? Delusional.

Concerning that many of the low scorers are forwards?

Delusional.

Jones was OK, not the worst. Equal most I50's, which is what you need from a wing. Amongst the rest, time for Tom Sparrow?

Also Pickett ... and you could throw in Langdon's miss as well.

Bennel and Weideman had chances to turn it around. Difference between a really good team and one that is just a level below.