binman

Good Lord. Gastro. The curse is real.

Couldn't bring myself to listing why we could win last week. Because i didn't think we would. But even though i've tipped the Crows i am much more confident this week and would not all be shocked if we win. I'm very confident we will be in it for most of the match and would be surprised if they get a hold of us. The betting line is 10.5 which i think is about right. Reasons we can win: They are rubbish Their strength is nominally their big forwards - the likely sweaty humid and slippery conditions will negate this strength and make it very hard for them to clunk their marks (us too but we don't do that anyway) Omac will rack up his 10 plus spoils and make life hell for their bigs (and no one will notice, least of all DL posters and the stoopid commentators) It hasn't been the big forward that have hurt us (last week notwithstanding - but geez Rance, Bruce Doull and Steve Silvagni would have no chance last week) it has be the small and medium forwards. The crows have eddy and not much else i this regard and he is not the player he was They are rubbish They struggle to score so won't get away from us like GWS Salem, Hibberd and Hannan are huge ins Even though obviously the giants well and truly put the cue in the rack in the q last week it was important we kept working hard and brought the loss under 5 goals- there is an old saying in footy that teams carry on from where they left off and we got reward for contested ball and dare The teams we struggle against are those that hold the ball up and spread and use the width of grounds. They don't play that well and our game plan matches up well against theirs (or perhaps it is more accurate to say their approach doesn't not exploit our weaknesses) as is reflected in the fact we have 3 of our last 4 encounters (and should have won the 4th) Dids i say they are rubbish

I listened too. That fella is total peanut. Major axe to grind with casey. I suspect he was turned down for a coaching job or some such. Would not shut up about how disappointed he was - work rate blah blah. I made a mental note to ask KC if he knew of him but i can't recall his name (started with a P?). How can you implement a game plan with so mnay of your team out and so many players playing having NEVER played together? Peanut

Huh? Both are in the seniors.

That's not the case BB but i see your point. Perhaps I should have added 'in my opinion' to my Which is plain wrong comment but in my defence it is a given that it is my opinion i would have thought. An opinion i would bet London to a brick Goody would agrees with given he picked him in his starting 22 all last year when he had other options

Spot on.

I had to laugh at the 2% comment. Is that like a soft, past it Hell's Angel? It was particularly funny given it presupposes TGR was actually correct in his position we should not have traded Lewis in. Which is plain wrong. He has been a terrific addition to the side. Which is 98% of people thought it was good move. It absolutely has been a good move. As you say he would likely not be playing this season if we didn't have so many outs. That said it was instructive they elected to bring Spargo in instead of Lewis (who plays a very similar role to Salem) for Salem. Lewis then goes and clocks some fella in the VFL. Which is dead poor. Apart from agreeing with TGR that that act was stoopid i also have to agree with his comments about Lewis on 360 saying Thomas should not have been cited for calling the ump a cheat. What bollocks. I couldn't believe it. He was all over the shop in his attempt to defend his position. No wonder because it was indefensible. If my son or daughter called an umpire a cheat i would be livid. Simply not on and crosses a line big time. Says a fair bit about where Lewis, a well known sniper, draws his lines. I wouldn't be shocked if the club was similarly dismayed at his lack of leadership and that perhaps that was a factor in the decision to go with Spargo? If so his decision to get himself rubbed out wouldn't have done much to assuage the club's concerns.

Excellent post suit, and I agree wholeheartedly with your criticism of Gleeson, who I rate as a journalist. He contradicts himself. For one the dees situation is not comparable Collingwood as as he points out himself those injuries are all recent and after they have got a good block of wins. And taking his numbers a 30 odd difference in games misses of best 22 between us and the tigers is huge. So we can't fairly be compared to the tigers either. And as you say his point about the quality of the three key players tigers have lost also is a strange one given we have also lost very talented players (albeit not as good) but we don't have the capacity to replace them that the tigers do. To his credit he notes our interrupted preseasons and tbat some players are obviously not fit. However he fails to mention two other interrelated key factors that need to be taken into consideration when comparing us with the tigers and pies in this context (ie capacity to play well despite big injury toll). The first is that it is simple fact we don't have as deep a list as either the pies or tigers. So we are obviously going to be hurt more by a large number of outs. Secondly both the pies and tigers have been been building their success for some time and had the same head coach for much longer than us. So the systems are well embedded, as is often pointed out about the tigers. So players coming in are supported by the system and can focus on their role in it. Goody is only in his third season. We had lots of injuries in his first, with maxy being a huge out in terms the of structure (watts rucked for a fair bit of that season). Last year was better and we were able to play a consistent brand and system. So we have one seaon to embed our system. The tigers and pies have has 7-8.

Go back one page and magically all your questions will be answered grasshopper. 89.

I'm not one usually to get too discombobulated about selections but i'm bamboozled by Spargo getting a gig ahead of JKH. Flummoxed even. Was an emergency after struggling at VFL level, gets a late call up and puts in a stinker.

We can rule out leather poisoning

That is 3 quality ins. Two quality defenders, one of whom is our best kick and the other a key to our ability to transition forward, and a forward who can grab a mark, win a contested ball, win a ground ball and appy forward half pressure.

I feel like in the blizzard of disappointment the fact that weed is not in the team has been skimmed over a bit, here on dl and in the media. Much was expected of weed this year and for a young player he is inordinately important to us given he is one of only two key forwards we have. He gets dropped for form and to work on his craft. Yet to return despite our inability to score and huge injury list. He hasn't looked fit and part of me hopes that is due to carrying an injury as the alternative is he hasn't done the work he needed to have done. He has the talent, is still young and may well be carrying an injury so the alarm bells are not ringing. Yet. Fingers crossed he is back soon and delivering on his talent.

He totally is. And there is 8 or so others

Putting facts where? That's confusing.

yes an issue, not our greatest weakness as even when there is a good option offered we miss that target more often or not - or alternatively put on their head not out in front of the leading player.

I disagree.Of course a fearless desire for and commitment to the contest is important and every team needs some players like Viney who are next level in that regard. And yes all players have 'to go when its their turn' But not all have to be competitive ball winning beasts. And i think we have too many of those, even when we have our best 22 on the park. The best teams have players with mixture of strengths. GWS have a brilliant balance and as grapviney said on the podcast hard not to be envious. My number 1 is being a really good, natural footballer who at a minimum can execute AFL standard fundamental football skills: can hit targets by hand and foot, has a capacity to read the play, anticipates what is going to unfold, knows how to use their body in marking contests, wants the footy, knows where to run to (and where not to), can weight the ball to advantage when kicking to team mates, and understands the nuances of the game. You can teach a player to have commitment to the contest (and drop them if they don't show it - which is what will happen to jeffy soon enough unfortunately) but by the times a player gets to the AFL it is is too late to teach them the above skills (by and large). A player who does not have at least most of those fundamental skills is of little use and really you can only carry one or two. Maynard is a classic example. A goer, a competitive beast but that is simply not enough, particularly when we have Viney who is simply a terrible kick (but does have some of the other skills, fortunately).

A bit stiff. Video inclusive. I'm not convinced LHO actually did it. Heard a rumour the coach directed players to target JHK.

If you get the gig whatever you do don't agree to a medical exam from the club. They'll recommend surgery and you will stuggle to perform at your best for the next 12 months

You should apply for Misso job. Some on here would rate you ahead of him on this assessment alone

It's weird and my feeling is it a footy thing. Maybe rugby too? Certainly not the case in cricket. As an example once Smith and Warner went out expectations went through the floor. My sense is it doesn't happen in NFL or NBA though stand to be corrected as I don't follow either closely. Not sure about top level soccer. I wonder if it is partly stems from how many players play the game. Most team sports are dependent on key players to score (e.g. striker, quarter back, point guard). Footy is higher scoring, with a bigger spread of scorers and with 22 players each player is not as influential as sports with half that or less on the pitch, court etc

This. In the Wagner's, Lockhardt, Spargo, possibly Stretch, and possibly Smith we have five players who are good VFL players who would not be in the team if we had even a third of our injury list available. Add players like Lewis, Petty (who may not be ready) and Garlett who would not be selected due to form if others were available and that is closing on half a starting 22 who should be playing VFL. That is a bridge too far, pure and simple. I just find it ridiculous that so many that people, including people paid to comment on football, don't understand this is the reason we are not winning games of AFL football. One reason is so many footy media people are ex players and the culture of not blaming injury for poor performance is hard wired in of the DNA of football clubs and footy culture more broadly. Stoopid is as Stoopid does.

Agree on all points. What I'd add is the above list only covers games missed through injury, not the number of players who couldn't build a proper fitness base in the preseason because of surgery or being in rehab. Tmac (despite his comments it is a form issue), Oliver, Melk prior to his injury and Viney have clearly been hampered this season. That's four of our best 10 players. The pies and tigers do have better depth. Who would dispute that. But both teams had good pre seasons in terms of getting miles into the legs of most players. And besides neither club has suffered as badly us injury wise. Melks latest setback (not back until after round 16 according to the hun) is yet another example. The injury worm will turn. Too late for this season, unless a miracle happens. But it will turn. Fitness is another issue. Facts are facts. Players who have interrupted pre seasons will always struggle to get near their optimal fitness during a season. Too much recovery and too little time to focus on fitness.

Our kicking skills are poor. Even worse when you have close to half of your best out. And without reopening an old argument - and reiterating that I respect and understand the decision - tgis is the key reason why I disagreed with the decision to trade watts. Our biggest weakness is our foot skills and we trade our best kick. And by the by on that the Fritsch as replacement argument does not hold up. One because it assumes we could not have got fritsch without trading watts and two even if you think of fritter as a direct replacement he is nowhere near as good a kick as watts.

Don't agree. You may be proven to be correct but way too early to write off our game plan. Way too early. And impossible to make an accurate assessment with so many injured and unfit players. A key issue for us is so the injuries and fitness issues we struggle to negate the spread and keep possession style. Just as we did against West coast in the preliminary because we were cooked. But prior to that we were able to neutralize that approach, most notably against the hawks, with hard running to cover the outlet and hold them up. We did the same against wc, this year and it was instructive that it wasn't until we lost Smith and ANB (and late in the game salem) that they were able to reestablish their game and get on top. Without those injuries our game style would have likely prevailed.