nutbean

you do understand that as of today and now he is retired and not on any list ?

Love this guy so much but slightly disagree - I would truly be salivating if his marking was great - it isnt . He doesn't clunk enough marks. The beauty of Dawes vs a Cloke - if Cloke doesn't clunk marks he is of no use to Collingwood. Dawes, whether he takes marks or not, is an entirely different animal - his work off the ball and the little things he provides cannot be underestimated - he is far from a one trick pony. If Dawes could grab more marks he would be an All Australian star.

completely disagree. He is relevant as he gets coverage in papers, on websites, television and radio. He is just rarely right. His major problem always has been that once he commits to a position it is locked in concrete irrespective of what unfolds. Many here dislike Robbo - I quite like him and I give him him his credit because on occasions I have heard him completely change his opinion ( and admit he was wrong). I have also heard him say that he is unsure on certain issues whereas Barrett would rather be black and white wrong than admit that there are layers and complexities to issues. I see the Viney incident as very grey. I dont think anyone can categorically state whether it was a collision or intention to bump ( apart from taking Viney at his word) therefore there was only one conclusion that could be reached - not guilty. To be suspended as Barrett suggests you first have to be sure that the incident was a bump not a collision ( which could not be clearly concluded) and then if it is a bump you have to conclude there was no other option. By Barretts very flawed logic you would have to suspend Dunne for his bump on the weekend.

It looked pretty instinctive to me too.

I do wonder if the message or instruction to the players now is much simpler now and more narrow in focus. Three of 4 clear things to do and thats it ? From your insight would you think that is fair comment ?

The kick from the boundary under pressure to hit Bail (I think) running into an open goal was an absolute gem. And the dragging the ball down one hand was pretty good too.

I believe they do both kinds.

okay - i wasn't excited until I saw these again.

In fact I was very disappointed as the day before he declared that he wanted to go to Melbourne there was report in the paper ( trade rumour file) that the "deal" was done with the doggies.

hey hey hey - there is room on the chair for me too buddy - I loved him at the Collingwood and was gung ho from day one edit - and shouted it loudly on here. Seriously though - it is outstanding the love for a bloke who doesn't clunk too many marks or kick bags full of goals. Its all the little team things that he brings to the table.

Hey Saty, Are you aware of the definition of the roles - not so much as to what they are but the detail ? For example - are they given instruction - Nev Jetta - you need to not worry about attacking the ball and peeling off and just shut your man down - or are they given specific targets - for example - Ro Bail - as a defensive forward you need to lay at least 5 tackles for the match - measurables ?

What we have done successfully this year in most matches is not let the ball waltz into the forward line unopposed. This is key.

Any time a forward pants' the defender it is usually because he is taking lead up marks because the midfield is not putting enough pressure on the ball coming or, ( as we saw with Rivers a couple of years back), the ball is coming in too easily and the defender is isolated. Kick the ball to Cloke when his opponent is isolated and all you need to do is kick to a 60% advantage position and the defender is in trouble.

They are both taking about 5/6 marks a game - the difference is that Elliot leads up and takes quite a few hit up marks. Howe has taken a lot more contested marks than Elliot.

I don't think this can be stated enough times. What the average supporter sees as a game worthy of staying in the team or being dropped is obviously different from what Roos and co see as their benchmark of "play your role". As you have pointed our with Jetta, I also am thinking that the role or messages are kept narrow and focused and their measurement process transparent. This has given quite a few players confidence of knowing exactly what they need to do and we are seeing the results.

His hands are just so freakin strong. He doesn't jump on shoulders, he just jumps into packs and clunk.

Glen McLean and then he nicked off to the Pies and fizzled.

I have noticed this too. Compare that to Sandilands - Sandi jumps ( not all that high) , but always taps or marks with body straight and arms vertical and stretched making it near impossible to combat. Gawn will learn ( or be taught) to make the best use of his height. For me Gawn for Dawes and Riley for Toumpas. We need Dawes and we will be a little top heavy with Gawn in. I didnt mind Jimmy's game but at this stage he doesnt bring the X factor that both JKH and Salem are providing. Riley is pure grunt - but am nervous about Viney and him killing each other to get to the ball first.

Was I the only one to pick up the trip by hand on Nathan Jones that resulted in him stumbling and fumbling and Robbie Gray picking up the ball and kicking a goal in the 3rd quarter ?

or mates with Jack Darling ?

I didn't want to get my hopes up on Roos and his coaches unlocking potential as I have been burned so often on "promises" - I was wrong too !

He said seriously that he wanted to see the direction the club was heading. Hopefully he is clearer in seeing that. He said jokingly that if Roos signed on -he would too. How about we strike a two for one announcement. Roos takes up his third option so therefore Frawley sees the light.

You know this how ? Roos confirmed we would not have taken Kelly but I haven't seen any reporting that we would have taken Salem at number 2 ?

Hey Saty, I was (respectfully) critical of Nev Jetta, not because he wasn't doing a good shutdown job but because we needed a small defender to offer more. He needed to attack the contest rather than wait for his opponent to and then try and shut him down ( which I also said he had some success with). On the weekend he mixed his game up - defended and shutdown when required, attacked the contest first and with confidence when he felt in position to do so and peeled off to present a loose option when we had the ball in hand. This was what I think we all wanted to see and I am sure that Roos would have been delighted with his game.

I am not surprised by the improvement however after years of getting kicked in the guts I didnt allow myself to believe it was actually going to start to happen under Roos. Having said that - Two thing I am delighted about 1/ The raging debate regarding drafting v development - I have never believed we could be THAT bad at drafting - give players a modicum of tuition/structure/clear messages and a heap of confidence and look what can be accomplished in such a short time. More than ever I am convinced that this has been the ultimate failing for so many years. Who know whether the draftees had talent - what I do know is we haven't developed the players we have drafted. 2/ I argued with a mate about Roos stance - forget the scoreboard - just play your role as instructed. My mate insisted that the scoreboard should always be paramount. Roos message is clear - lay 80 tackles a game, stick to your structures, concentrate on defense, win contested possession and kick straight - do all these you are going to win more games than you are going to lose - the scoreboard will then generally take care of itself.