bing181

Find this aspect of it interesting: so many here [censored] and moan about how devoid of content the interviews with Goodwin, Mahoney etc. are - when in reality they provide a good insight into the rational and context for player choice. No surprises in the selections - if you've been paying attention.

They played him round 2 - even though he had to be nursed through it on just over 50% game time - because the players he's competing against for a place, VDB, Hannan, Spargo and Pickett were either unfit or unavailable. Now they all are he needs to step up. Made clear by Goodwin in his recent interview. Once again, not complicated.

Bennell isn't fully fit. Not complicated.

Jesus.

Confirmation bias. (Also hindsight bias in any case.)

This is where it all goes wrong. Stop kidding yourself. Especially once you get past the first-picked dozen or so, it's only OK at best. With the players we have, at the stage they're at, if we finish mid-table, we'll have done well.

“Oscar McDonald was outstanding – he was clearly best on ground for us."

Also about game time. Both Hannan and VDB only played around 60% of game time, and Bennell was even lower than that against Carlton. There are only so many players you can carry in a match.

(i) Goodwin is but one member of a committee that picks the team (ii) if it's an illustration of anything, it is that outsiders (including Demonlanders) do not have access to the full range of criteria used for making selections. Or in short, "form" means something different to someone sitting on a couch watching the footy on telly than it does to a member of the match committee or football department.

Also is our chop-out ruck, not to mention, had more "metres gained" than any other player on the field (both teams).

Agree on continuity. Hannan probably did enough, especially on reduced game time, but VDB looks underdone. Bennell for VDB? Other changes determined by matchups, though one smokey might be Salem out. Only 9 possessions? Not like him.

Fantasyland. You have no idea what either Clarkson or Goodwin say to their players behind closed doors.

How many games has he played this year? I'll wait.

Ah, another Demonland myth.

Agree re foot skills and decision-making. But where we need those most are with the mids and on-ballers. You look at that key group, Brayshaw, Viney, Petracca, Clarrie, or the wings with Langdon and Tomlinson, or even the forwards themselves when they get up the ground ... Hannan, VDB, Hunt, Melksham, McDonald. Not one of them are players you could count on to hit a target under a pressure in general play. With predictable results. It's not so much a Watts we need, it's a Bernie Vince or Jordan Lewis. Fingers crossed for Bennell, though perhaps we should rob Peter to pay Paul and move Fritsch further up the ground, he's the one shining light in this regard (as Tom McDonald mentioned in an interview earlier in the year.) Though for mine, what's exacerbating this is the chronic lack of games. Even though it's July, this is a team that hasn't played 2 games in a row since last season, yet alone 2 games in a row together. There's only so much you can do in training. No accident perhaps that both Melbourne and Essendon lost this weekend.

What does that tell you?

We look like a team that has played 2 games in the better part of a year.

Laughable. And he was let go for much the same reason that Howe and Watts were let go.

Of course they did. Egg. Face.

You may be right of course, but all we have from the intra-club is the play leading to the goals, which isn't much. We don't really know who was playing where, what they were asked to do - we don't even know how long they played or who might have been rested etc. Difficult to draw conclusions, but if they were going to stick with Jackson for Essendon, would imagine they'll do the same for Geelong. But what would I know?

Not repeatedly. (he's tested negative 5 times over previous weeks).

Tuesday is the next test. All other players/staff were tested again Saturday (all negative).

Not if you're being tested, and tested on multiple occasions. And it's disingenuous to suggest "we don't know". We do know, which is what all these protocols for isolation etc. etc. are based on.

Understatement.

Given the reliability of these tests, the chances of 5 false negatives on the same person are as good as zero. Re a false positive, he's been tested a second time, and that's positive as well.