jimcor

Another thought that has been in my mind for sometime is that we don't acknowledge that our lack of self-confidence is a factor that impacts more on some players than others. We have a lot of senior-ish players that are not natural extroverts e.g. Garland, Bail, Bates, Watts, Bennell, Jurrah, Fitzgerald, Jetta, Morton (how could I nearly have left Cale out?), etc. Even under the best of circumstances, their personalities do not impose themselves on the game. Under the current, less-than-best of circumstances, they are even more introverted. When self-confidence is high, a player will demand the ball when clear, when it's low you present yourself as an option only to be considered if nothing else is available. If the coaching group can build up these players' self-regard by showing that they have a winning strategy, I believe we will see a huge improvement in individual performance and team results. I also think that as the confidence levels build in these payers, they will get much more support and cooperation from the rest of the team - sometimes not forthcoming.

I continue to be surprised at the no. of times that Jack W pops up in an unrelated OP and that so many comments are negative. From what I've seen, his contested marking continues to get better as his body shape changes and, frankly the last thing we need is yet another 'flyer' when what we desperately need is a smart crumber with pace & the ability to hit a target by hand or foot. I know I've said it before but, in my opinion, he is our smartest and most skillful player and one that we cannot afford to lose. My guess is that he is doing the job that he is being asked to do by the coaches.

I'm not trying to suggest that consistency of effort is the only thing. I guess the other basic elements that go into making a superior player would include speed, skill and discipline. Davey certainly has at least a couple of these and the panel seemed to make a judgement that he was a better option than Petterd given the current state of the team. If he gets dropped this or any other week, I would hope that he wouldn't be brought back until his performances warranted a return.

I agree but it seems to be one of the absolute key criteria with our coaching panel and, at the very least, I think if we are going to develop a winning culture, we need to clearly draw the line for players wanting to get into the ones that shows what's expected of them. I am tired of strategy-less experimentation.

If consistency of effort is going to be one of the key criteria for selection, it shouldn't be too much to expect that someone who wants to put their hand up for the firsts, should consistently excel in the seconds. By consistency, I mean more than once in succession. From the Casey report twoweeks ago, it didn't sound as if he's managed it once yet. I would continue to omit him. Your other 3 outs have all at least shown that they'll give 100%, Dunn I don't really understand how he holds his place but that might be my lack of perception. He has a good few supporters so they obviously see something beyond his Jacko-type posturing.

vIns make sense except I don't think Petterd should come back in until he puts a minimum of 2 or 3 games together in the twos. If a player is dropped (as he was) it probably indicates that he lacks effort, fitness or skill. I think that players need to earn their places in the team barring a catastrophe. Fitzpatrick always puts in and has probably earnt a spot given Sellars has struggled. I could also understand if the selectors decide to persevere with Sellars for a notes couple of games to see if he can lift.

Why would anyone assume that there will either be no improvement or too little to effect a win? I'm certainly not putting the house on a win in the next couple of weeks but I wouldn't be surprised if we managed to lift week on week. They are obviously struggling with the new strategy but they are young professionals and they are learning on-the-job. Provided the injuries don't increase too badly, we might give the Saints & the Bombers a bit of a game. Also, Neeld & Brown will be pretty keen for the players to have a bit of a dip against the Woods.

Fair point. As you & others have said, self- belief is a most important factor but equally important, belief in your team mates will ability to hold a mark or make a tackle stick is also a prerequisite. This will no doubt come if the performances keep on improving. I also wanted to say that there were some umpiring shockers against us today but I don't think we should use that as an excuse. If we kicked straighter earlier on, it probably wouldn't have mattered.

6. Rivers - so reliable today and good going forward 5. Bates - not quite a 'break out' game but close. never, ever stops competing. Did some clever things today. 4. Howe - brave and skillful. Took some great grabs. 3. Morton - may not quite be a write-off as yet! How can this be?? 2. Watts - inconsistent but still the smartest (and maybe the most skillful) man in the team 1. Clarke - on current form the leader who sets the best example of leadership

Better effort today. Still woefully unable to hurt them most when it counted but there weren't many that I saw that weren't having a go. For me, the major difference was that when we made mistakes, they were large ones and we consistently were made to pay a price. We still seem to often have too many players trying to make a tackle or take a mark which leaves us short when the ball goes loose. Tom & Morton made me wince on a couple of occasions with their errors but they were having a go and deserve to hold their places. Bates & Watts seem to be combining well and both improved on last week. Rivers was a rock at the back against a much taller Doggie. I don't think we need to change too much for next week other than Grimes back in for McDonald.

Makes some sense. Rosy optimist that I am, I can see that might be a point of view. I would bet a piece of my body that Leigh would also be talking about the expectations that the club has for a 1st rounder. Most of us seemed to think that Bailey had his chance and failed (after 4 seasons) and I'm happy to concede that the coaches have a better idea of player potential than I do. I hope that they're not wrong. Regardless, a couple of games in succession will give us all the opportunity to judge.

Re Morton's continuing selection, I have to say that I have some difficulty understanding what he is seen as offering. He obviously provides some pace as evidenced by a couple of dashes down the wing on the weekend and, occasionally, shows some courage under the ball. Is it simply a matter of confidence? Let's hope he'll put it all together for once on Sunday. With regard to the team in total, I think Neeld has to give the players he thinks are the core at the moment, the chance to get used to each other and the pace of the game. I am now well over 'putting games into the kids' because, frankly, we need to start turning it around. I don't think it will happen if we keep making unnecessary changes. Apart from Couch, no one else seems to be making a great case for inclusion so, until we get our first choice injured players back, we should perhaps try to develop some consistency. Looking forward to a heart-warming performance on Sunday.

I can see the sense in bringing in Joel M for Jack G. The effort he puts in is always 100%, he's brave and he's consistent. Sure, his disposals are not 100% spot on but given the pressure the back line is always under, who's surprised? My guess is that the selectors are looking to develop and encourage players that are committed, consistent, quick and skillful. We start off with almost none that tick all of the boxes so they have to compromise every week. If it was me on the panel, I'd love to have a JM option to plug a gap rather than a one good performance in ten player - and we've certainly got a few of those.

I agree, WYL. What's to be gained (apart from some short-term supporters self-gratification) from publicly humiliating players? It would destroy trust and simply make them more unlikely to perform honestly. Much better to deal with poor performance privately. As I've said on occasion, it will be a little while before I feel that a judgement can be made about whether what's being tried is working or not and whether further changes need to be made. I think the FD should be congratulated for trying to add some pace to the mids by playing Watts & Howe higher up the field. They are both quick and they are both smart. They are also both inexperienced so I think it's unlikely they'll be immediate game changers but it'll be a good learning experience for both of them so it might pay off big-time down the track. Patience!

On the other hand, we should be pleased that JG wasn't cited for unduly rough play on himself. The penalty would've been far greater because the impact was much more severe. On a more serious note, anyone would try and land on the tackling player if they can get away it. It's smart to avoid landing on the hard surface if you can. Undoubtedly, they'll be tring to improve on our tackling techniques; first to make them and hold them and second, to execute them in a way that doesn't bring the MRP into the picture. No point whingeing about it, look & learn. It'll be interesting to see if there's an improvement in the coming weeks.

Like you, I can't really say what the plan is other than to observe that Neeld obviously believes that it will not work until we can run as fast as and for as long as the best of the opposition. The second part of the basic foundation would seem to be that we need to learn how to kick (straight , hard and below shoulder height) and handball as well as the best. When those two areas are at an acceptable level, the individuals that make up the team then need to understand their roles and to do different things when, and if, the circumstances require it. Given where we've started from, I think it's a huge challenge for all involved - players, coaches and, not least of all, supporters. That's why I still think we have to give them more time before we do our lemming impersonation.

I agree with this. Unless someone beats the door down after a terrific performance at Casey, we'd be better off giving our best 22 (and this might be them at the moment!) the chance to bed down the strategy in some real games. I can see little point in substituting strugglers for strugglers.

The thing to bear in mind is that if we can see it, there's a pretty good chance that the coaches will see it as well. There's enough showing to encourage me to give it another few weeks before unpacking the razor blades - do they still make them?

Just watched the replay and noticed that when we don't have the ball, there are often 2/3/4 of our players in pursuit of the player who's got it. Unsurprisingly, this leaves 1/2/3 opposition players unmarked and ready to receive the hand pass or kick. This means that one of our other players then has to run 10-15 meters to cover (leaving their player in the clear). No wonder they run out of puff. Until single players learn how to make a tackle (and hold it), it's going to be tough.

6 Howe - did almost everything well in unfamiliar territory 5 Jones - puts in consistently and not getting caught with the ball like he used to be 4 Watts - see Howe above but not as consistently for the 4 quarters 3 Clark - impressive (mostly) 2 Rivers - I've got no idea why he's not rated by some. Almost always does the job when he's not on a monster 1 Bate - stood up and will continue to improve if he gets the ame time. Strong over head.

Absolutely right. The difference,as I see it, is that Bailey had 4 full seasons to prove that his plan no longer worked, Neeld has had 3 full games. Just not long enough to make a judgement.

It's still far too early to make any sort of judgement about the game plan. I clearly remember the DL consensus under Bailey was that, if we had a game plan, it didn't work and the coaching staff had no idea how to respond. Clearly, Neeld does know about a game plan that works - it helped C'wood win a premiership. What we seem to lack is players with the required skills to be competitive. This doesn't mean they can't be taught, it just takes time before that judgement can be made. There definitely were some positives that I saw: - Clark tried all day and could easily have had another 5 bag - Howe & Watts competed well in the air. Watts has a great football brain & his use of the ball is a stand out - I suspect that I'll be abused but I thought that Rivers & Frawley did a pretty good job all day under trying circumstances - Jones has become a real highlight. For many years, I thought he was well over-rated however I was wrong. he's still young and learning but already he is becoming a potential game-changer Believe it or not, like most saw, there were a fair few negatives: - After half-time, the mids were absolutely smashed. Jamar disappointed again but the mids did not seem to know how to get near the ball during stoppages. How does that happen? I don't understand. - Garland was a weak link at the back. He threw a bit of a tanty when he kicked out poorly to Bate and it was intercepted by a Tige. The kick was the problem, not Bate. It needs to go on the chest, not overhead. Poor skill, poor attitude. For the rest, sure, some things didn't happen but, as I said earlier, it's still too early. Bailey had a lot of seasons to create a platform from which to go forward and he didn't do it. Neeld hasn't taken over a cohesive team/squad, he's got us - something less than cohesive.

I agree, BP. It's way too early to write off the season. There are far too many examples of teams initially struggling to come to terms with a new way of playing and eventually coming good.

I am still believe that it takes more than a couple of competitive games for things to click. The pre-season doesn't show too much because there isn't the pressure felt in a real game. Having said that, repetition is the key to the success of most training and they're certainly doing that. I haven't seen any sign that members of the playing group are not giving their all. It would make no sense for them not to put in. If they are eventually shown to be not up to it, they will undoubtedly be replaced.

I was there for the first hour. For what it's worth, I thought we looked good - sharp, kicking accurately, etc. Same drills. They looked in very good spirits. Lots of press there. Moloney was doing laps.