bing181

No problems with that. Making it hard for Angus B though, but you can understand why Bugg would be selected ahead of him.

Good to see at least someone pointing out the obvious. I was struck by how uncertain Hibberd looked at times now that Lever is down there. But you're right, the synergy will come, as we started to see in the second half where we kept a top 4 side to 2 goals for a half (which is not all down to the backline of course).

Or not.

I noticed that as well, not sure what's behind it, especially Melksham and Harmes, they're quite low figures. Cramping?

Having waded through these few pages, I'm still little the wiser as to what Jones actually said. On the other hand, I have plenty of speculative information as to what people think he said, what he didn't say, and what people would have said if they were in his position.

Jesus wept ...

- we were able to steady and turn the game around - the new-look backline improved as the game went on - Max's mark in the dying moments. A bit lost in focusing on the kick that followed, but was massive.

Just not sure what happened with Melksham. For me he was perhaps the greatest disappointment of the day because he's been doing so well in the latter part of last year and the pre-season comp. He seemed to be playing further up the ground and/or not sure of his role/position ... though as always, I could be wrong.

You can coach all you want, but if for one reason or another the players don't execute. Someone (Goodwin or Nate Jones post-match) commented that this was the first match that the backline had played together with Lever there. I thought that even Hibberd didn't look his usual AA-self. There was (some) uncertainty as to who was doing what and the finer points of who was playing what role, especially in the first half, which Geelong were able to exploit. Yes, there were moves made which switched things around, but it's no accident that they improved as the match went on. Keeping a top-4 side to 2 goals for a half of footy isn't to be sneezed at.

While execution could be improved, the problem is not that the game plan is flawed - or at least this part of it. We had 29 shots on goal, and kicked what should be a winnable score (or close to). The problem is down the other end, where we let them kick an even more winnable score. You cannot have the opposition manage 12.8 in a half of footy and expect to win.

Wagner won't be dropped, nor should he be.

Viney and Tom McDonald are big outs which really hurt us. Both play key roles, and we don't really have anyone to replace them in those roles.

I think the more relevant question is "how old are you?"

Seriously? You've decided he can't coach because of the sound of his voice?

God almighty, Hawkins was kept goalless in a winning team where their mids had control for much of the day, and people here are bitching about O'Mac.

Well, we didn't lose because Maynard and Wagner were in the team, both did enough. The fact that apart from one bad quarter, we equalled or outscored them for most of the rest of the match shows that the team we had on the park was capable of winning. But too many out there not doing enough for enough of the time: Hunt, Harmes, Hannan, Salem, Garlett, Melksham, even Lever ... that coupled with some shonky kicking. Roll on next week.

Not confident about this, to be honest. Viney and Tom Mac out are big. Still, fingers crossed.

What part of "that's all we could get for him" isn't clear? We only had one (one) offer and had to take what we could get. If we only managed "near on nothing", then the place to look for the reason is with Watts himself.

Yes, because all injuries/pathologies follow exactly the same course, and all bodies respond to treatment in exactly the same way and because the club always knew exactly when Jack would be back but are keeping it from us.

Rot setting in or not, it was the right decision. Frost himself admitted that his form was down, and you only have to see the work Salem has put in over the off-season to see that he realised he needed to do more. As for Watts, well we know what we know, and when he was dropped he deserved to be, he was playing like shite.

Interesting the Tyson/Brayshaw omissions. If we assume both are fit (even if slightly underdone), perhaps it says something about the mindset of the coaches, especially after shipping out Jack W. Playing well isn't enough, having ability isn't enough - it's about doing everything that you're capable of doing to get the most out of yourself. Are we seeing the bar for Tyson and Brayshaw set very high because that's what the coaching staff think they should be achieving? After all, they were both drafted pick 3 as gifted juniors.

He's not right.

Brayshaw I can kind of understand. Either teeth (wisdoms can really knock you around), or there's a lingering question over his confidence after all the concussions. Tyson? Who knows. Either he's still a bit underdone fitness/load-wise, or anyone's guess. Hot spot in a toe?

It's not Wagner for Gus, they play different positions. It's Wagner vs Frost. We have to have at least one on the interchange who plays in the backline, so Wagner it is. Not sure why it's hard.

B: Hibberd, Lever, Jetta HB: Hunt, O. McDonald, Jones C: Vince, Lewis, Salem HF: Petracca, Pedersen, Harmes F: Fritsch, Hogan, Garlett Foll: Gawn, Oliver, Neal-Bullen I/C: Brayshaw, Tyson, Frost, Melksham, Hannan, Maynard, Bugg, Wagner.