Demon Dynasty

The most frustrating thing is I reckon if we played the lions next week we would beat them because we have settled into the the game plan more.

With the current mind set/game style.....which is hell bent on focusing on the "defensive" aspects of the game, i very much doubt it...unless Brisbane have gotten alot worse (haven't been watching their games so wouldn't know).

Even when we get ourselves into a winning position deep into a match playing Neeld's defensive way....the boys are unable to switch from "defensive" mode into attack mode and actually take their individual opponent on, run/carry/bounce, break lines, run ahead of the ball carrier, play with flair and precision and kick enough goals to win a match.

I would say we had chances to win (at various points of these matches) against The Lions, The Doggies, The Tiges, The Saints and The Cats....but failed to switch into an attacking/winning mind set when these games were in the balance. We stayed in "defensive" mode and allowed the opposition to take the initiative away from us through attacking football through their run/carry/spread and play on style (with the exception of the Saints game where the more experienced defensive mindset team won IMO).

I'm sure Neeld knows this. But as to why we appear unable to switch into a full on attack mode (which is a great form of defense in itself as it puts doubt/worry into the opponents mind the next time the ball is bounced after we score) .....i'll leave that up to Neeld, the FD and the players to work out. They're getting paid pretty good folding stuff so they should capable of getting this aspect right at some point during the season...I HOPE! In particular our ball handling and kicking skills.....some of the worst i've ever witnessed in the AFL. Maybe that's why we're unable to make the switch effectively

Mate Geelong had 10 players with under 50 games on saturday. It is not good enough. I love being positive about my club. I do not like being conned, which i fear our list is becoming.

True ,but we had probably 3 with 100 plus games where they may have had 10 or 11.

(stats completely invented by me)

Maybe not...you might've been still thinking about last year lol.

WYL is on the money. Cat's had 10 under 50 gamers and we had 9.

We had 7 100+ gamers and they had 10. You might be thinking of last year where we only had 6 100+ gamers versus their 15.

Here's the summary FYI if you wanna take a bit more of a look.....

Total games played

Cats - 2,325 (Last time they played, Rnd 19 2011) 1,981

Demons – 1,573 1,394

Games Average

Cats - 106 90

Demons – 71 63

Height Average

Cats - 188cm , 188cm

Demons – 188cm , 188cm

Weight Average

Cats - 88kg , 90kg

Demons – 88kg , 86kg

Number of players by category

0-49 Games

Cats - 10/16 (number of players/average games played), 3 / 16 (Last time they played)

Demons - 9/24 , 12 /24

50-99 Games

Cats - 2/89 , 4 /80

Demons - 6/80 , 4 /73

100+ Games

Cats – 10/198 , 15 /201

Demons – 7/125 , 6 /136

You're quite right. But the point was valid. For the last 4 years I've been watching two Melbourne players tackle one opponent leaving the second opponent free for the hand off. For those who didn't hear Mick Malthouse on the weekend, he said this was a 'trust' issue, meaning that at the moment Melbourne players don't trust their team mates to effect a proper tackle so go in to help. This just allows the opposition a free player. When players start to 'trust' each other, Mick says this won't happen. When Malthouse uses the word 'trust' he's not talking about honesty but effectiveness and I thought he made the point clearly and appropriately.

And when Neeld talks about building foundations I now understand better what he means.

It's BELIEF....more than trust IMO. Maybe trust in the back line but across the rest of the field it's a belief that your player will generally win most one on one contests and/or dispose of it effectively (ie., generally to our advantage....not the oppositions) once they do.

Given the way we butcher the ball in close quarters (or any quarters) at this point, it's no wonder that they're all running to the contest. Could also be a survival instinct as most players probably feel like they're being watched minute to minute with regard to their long term place in the team under the new regime. No one wants to be the receiver who has to break away/find another player in the clear and deliver ....potentially the next error as their general ball handling skills are pretty woeful atm and players up the field or around the ground might not be putting themselves into the correct areas as trained/creating space in the right areas etc. The skill factor lays at the coach's feet (plural) though IMO. What were we drilling into them all summer? And please, don't tell me drills are a thing of the past. It's scientifically proven (in sport) that if you repeat a drill enough times (in the thousands) it eventually becomes instinctive and very natural and improvements result in most cases.

Once more of the boys start 'believing' in each other and the level they're able to play at improves (in particular clean QUICK ball handling and more accurate disposal by foot, currently the worst disposal efficiency % in the league) .....we'll stay more true to our structures when the ball's in dispute....and run and spread more instinctively when we believe we're likely to win the contest or do win it.

--------K---A---H---A---D--A---CP---A--UP--A---C---A---M--A--HO-A--CL--A--T---A--1--A--GA

.Morton 48 12.0 32 8.0 80 20.0 25 06.3 56 14.0 12 3.0 13 3.3 5 1.3 14 3.5 15 3.8 5 1.3 4

Moloney 43 10.8 27 6.8 70 17.5 46 11.5 25 06.3 10 2.5 06 1.5 0 0.0 31 7.8 13 3.3 4 1.0 4

a=Average

k=kicks, H=handballs, d=disposals, cp=contested, up=uncontested, c=clangers,

m=marks, ho=hitouts, cl=clearances, t=tackles, 1=1%'ers, ga=goal assists

So should whipping boy Morton be averaging more..

kicks,

handballs,

marks,

TACKLES,

1%'ers,

than our reigning B&F winner / top 10 brownlow'er, in 2012?

A marginal win for Cale in the tackle count for sure. But it's early days. Really need at least 10 matches or so (played by each player) before any comparative stats become reasonably robust IMO. Gotta be able to go the distance deep into the season i reckon.

But seeing as you've put them up and FWIW.....

Cale's winning the uncontested, as you would expect given his role leans more towards being an outside receiver (with the occasional inside chop out). Beamer's winning the clearances and contested, as he should given his grunt/inside focus with an occasional outside run & carry when he isn't trying to counter his direct opponent at the stoppages on a change up.

In addition Beamer's opponent is usually a pretty top line heavy weight (in terms of mid field designated in & under clearance player) who requires close attention and lots of physicality and body work around the stoppages in order to upset/counter that opponent's effectiveness at clearing or clean 1st possessions etc. More draining physically than a mid who's playing mostly an 'outside' role and probably less likelihood of being on the receiving end to rack up a heap of handballs, kicks or marks versus an outside mid.

Also, Beamer may well be feeding off his clearance work or providing blocking opportunities/space (etc) to the likes of Morton and Jones to run into which might be helping to improve their possession count etc. Beamer might not be doing much of this either, but you'd have to watch footage of each game (or the game live) with an eagle eye to pick this up and work out exactly what/how each player is contributing to the role that's being asked, effective or ineffective.

The devil's in the detail. I'm sure the line coaches, together with Neeld/Craig, are on top of all this and are a mile ahead of us arm chair experts in assessing where each player is at and what we need going forward anyway.

I'm sure they'll be giving both Beamer and Sylvia, every opportunity to prove themselves worthy of a place in the team going forward.

Having said that, i believe i've seen some improvements in aspects of Beamer's game this year (disposal an exception lol) in terms of the timing of his runs into the favoured 'hit out' zones and some of his blocking work in the stoppages. He also seems to be keeping his feet a little more than i recall in the past. Minor things and much improvement needed if he's to advance to a higher level, but i have seen it. Although only in small bursts. But the whole team has been doing some decent work 'in small bursts' so he's not alone here.

Sylvia obviously needs more game time after his injury to see where he's at and what he's offering. From what i've seen so far (prior to this year....which is unfair i realise), he's a flashy greedy player (just my OP) and for this reason i think he'd do better at FF. Blood him there for the remainder of the year and see how he goes. Clark to play CHF for most part as the general but leading his player away from the areas Neeld would like to see Sylvia lead into. Not sure if this style of forward play is in the Neeld mix though so a permanent FF probably isn't on the drawing board. As to where you play him other than FF....i just can't see a role/position for him as i've never seen perform consistently anywhere other than 'occasionaly' in the forward line, (eg., against the pies in 2010). So if he's not being considered as a permanent FF (occasionaly pushing up into the mid as 5th man in or to create a 1 on 2 etc), then personally i'd be looking to trade him.

We needed to win more of the hard ball. That requires extensive effort. Neeld commented on how poor the playing group's level of fitness was when he came to the club, at least compared to top-tier clubs. We are winning the hard ball, but losing the uncontested possession count because players aren't getting back into position.

The team is grossly unfit. It'll take a year and another pre-season before those kinks are worked out.

Makes me that little bit more frustrated at the club, that the players can be so underdone.

I'm not sure this is correct in a general sense. Maybe we're matching some teams or "just" marginally ahead at best. 4th last in contested possession count at this stage against the rest of the comp according to AFL stats.

Might be a little more enlightening if we could see a "hard ball gets" stat for the season so far (if we could get it and it's more meaningful than CP. Not sure that it is though).

There must be vision of the Wojo hit somewhere? Anyone?

We just don't have many naturally "quick" leg speed players either across the ground (in general) or with break away burst speed on this list, with the exception of Blease, Jurrah and maybe Bennell. None of whom are playing in the seniors atm.

We are a slooow, plodding team, with the exception of Jones who has the ability to baulk and feign etc in order to make his way through traffic or to slip the tackler at times.

I suspect this is why we might be struggling in both the contested possession (4th last) and uncontested possession (Last) count. Too slow to get numbers to the contest often enough, and too slow to spread after we get the ball (not great there either being 5th last in the clearance count to date).

In addition we struggle to string a series of more than 2 or 3 quick possessions (handballs mostly) in a row together once we get the ball (last in disposal efficiency), putting doubt into the minds of the players around the ball as to whether they should run off their man and spread once we get it, in the fear that we're going to turn it over straight away....so we don't have the faith to run off and spread instinctively like the top teams do, knowing that their players (once they get it) will generally dispose of the ball pretty accurately and/or to the advantage of our player...not the opponent (in general...even the top 4 teams make disposal/judgement errors of course).

We lack....

> Leg speed across the ground (love to see our play on/run and bounce stats....they'd be extremely low i'd think)

> 2 to 3 quick players across half back through the middle with initial burst speed to break away and run the lines

> Belief that we'll win the one on one contest. I have the feeling most of our boys (in general...not in all cases) don't believe in their fellow player's ability to win the one on one contest, hence we often rush into an existing contest where our player has his player well covered already, leaving that player's opponent free to get the spill or resulting possession IF the opposing team gets the ball....which is much more often than us on the average at this point.

> And an attacking frame of mind when the opponent is being well held (neutral phase of game, neither team dominating, game there to be won). IMO Neeld has made the mistake of putting the players into a totally "defensive" mind set right throughout the game rather than slowly teaching them this option, whilst at the same time having a strong "attacking" take the game on when it's there to be won mindset . Trying to play his game plan and their roles "exactly" as specified which for the main part is focused on "defensive aspects". This is fine when things are going against us in the contest and we're up against a team getting a run on or in great form in order to limit the damage on the scoreboard (a la Saturday). But when the opportunity arises and the game's there to be won (ie., 3rd quarter against the Cats...WITH THE WIND....on Sat, final Quarter against the Dogs, 3rd quarter against the Tigers), we refuse to take our opponents on in most cases, take risks and run forward of our opponents (faith that your player will win the contest and dispose to our advantage...ie., "Attacking" mind set) and play on at all costs in order to gain yardage, break lines and string a series of over lapping handballs together or quick short passes to players hitting up on the lead....hopefully resulting in finding an open player for the mark i50 or a player in space i50 on the run (in space...created by the attacking play and overlap etc) who has a decent opening for a shot on goal on the run. Basically an attacking fast break, using clean disposal, run & carry and finding a hit up or loose player forward of play who then moves the ball on super fast to the next contest (preferably to OUR advantage with the kick or handball....doesn't have to be perfect on the chest passes etc!).

Hopefully Neeld will start encouraging them to attack (play on/run & carry/take your opponent on) and bring some quicker players in in the 2nd half of the year, as well as focus on the disposal skills in general (including kicking/hand balling to the advantage of our player etc).

Otherwise we'll struggle to beat anyone (with the exception of maybe GWS & Port over here) with this current on field line up and mind set IMO.

I initially thought Beamer for Captain, Clarke for VC and Trengove for DVC. Now i think Clarke as Captain with Jones as VC and that's it.

There's no other players out there who stick their hands up pretty much every week and give us something, regardless of the opposition or the scoreboard. That's the mark of leadership IMO. Performing and leading by example under adversity.

Trengove and Grimes just need to be allowed to play and learn and grow as young developing up and coming footballers without the extra "expectation" burden that comes with being a captain. Not too early for Neeld to change this around. First year coach, should be allowed a few early blunders and adjustments on the run i reckon. And who was to know we were gonna get this kind of output and leadership from Clark in the heat of the battle? Born leader i reckon.

For mine, the biggest problems today:

-We crowded the ball SO much. 4-5 Demons around the ball or chasing the ball carrier, Geelong player would simply handball over the top, goal. IMO this is poor coaching as it has been happening for 3-4 years and all this year so far. Should have been one of the first things Neeld fixed.

-Handballs: this is a 2 parter: 1) We have gotten into the habit of mistaking bold play for handballing to someone 3 inches away after every mark or free, only for the reciver to be immediately tackled and it turn into a waste of a possession. 2) We handball behind our target rather than leading the ball to where they are going, so the receiver either has to go backwards for the ball or turn around, stop running, and face the wrong way to accept the ball.

-Absolutely no team spirit, enthusiasm, or energy. This game was over before the bounce, what happened to us being the hardest team to play against? This comes down to coaching and leadership and I have serious questions about both at the moment.

Good assessment Stuie. In particular .....

> 2 or 3 of our boys will chase the 1 ball carrier (leaving their opponent/s free in space to receive the next "EASY" possession)

> One of our players might be tackling or harassing his opponent effectively....and another of our boys will throw himself into that same contest instead of hanging off for the resulting likely spill or pressured disposal from the opponent being tackled or pressured. There was one particular incident today and Chappy did just that after his opponent threw himself into the contest (whoever it was), Chappy got the spill, kicked a short pass accurately to a leading forward....goal. This tactic maybe appropriate close to goal in defense when you need numbers around to lock the ball in and wait for the troops to arrive. But higher up the ground in general play?

> 3 to 4 boys attacking the ball in the center bounce....right at the ball drop.....as you said, leaving our opponents to gather anything that spills out/or over the 2 to 3 meter radius that they've allowed themselves to move or be pushed into. The opponents simply grab anything that spills over/or out of that immediate 3 meter (or so) radius as they have no one marking them....take possession and spread/run forward of ball, share and carry into the forward line to spot up a target or if they run it in close enough/no clear forward hit up options...take a shot on goal.

> The handball to someone 2 to 3 feet away who's either covered by their opponent or standing still is insane. We just don't seem to learn that sometimes a quick kick forward around the body might be the better option or even a giant handball over the top towards our goals for our boys to run onto. Even if the last two options don't work, at least the team has gained yardage and the defense has a little more time to find an opponent and/or set themselves again for the ball coming back. Unforced errors from these crazy handballs leave the defense severely exposed and open to be punished on the fast rebound, and deservedly so.

> The team spirit is a good one. To me this game was up for grabs in the 3rd and we just didn't rally enough or seem to want it enough. Almost like we were happy to plod along and chase tails and appear as if we were trying hard. I'm sure they didn't think like this or really do this....but that's the impression i was given from what i saw today. Maybe a downer after putting in a big one (for us) last week. There were exceptions to this attitude of course, but just too few to make any real difference on the scoreboard. Plus all the dumb decisions and clangers we make when we have the ball, the lack of a marking presence (other than Clark) or small crumbers inside 50....must be so energy sapping chasing tails all day along with the quick rebounds out of our 50.

Maybe Neeld really meant to say...."We will be the hardest team to play for"

Please God let Rusty Nails be a prophet.

Don't think i'll be putting me neck out like that again anytime soon!

While I agree that Sellar has done nothing this season i still notice that he manages to draw to players every time - something Martin can rarely accomplish. martin has had a shocker of a season though.

And those saying that we showed nothing today are exaggerating. Morton nearly took the game on and broke out of the midfield and nearly kicked a goal from 55; Mitch Clark gave us a reliable option up forward when really our delivery was pretty ordinary. i was at the game last year and I can tell you it was FAR worse.

But it was like the cats were just mucking around at times and cutting us apart.

He wasn't our worst and tried hard, but he needed to kick this (or find a target who could) in order to make up for the blunder he had just made (which resulted in the centre bounce which resulted in him getting the receive and run out of the middle for the shot at goal) on the wing, giving one of the worst cough ups of the day straight to a Cat when we were running the ball, cleanly till that point for a change, out of defense and were within 3 goals of the cats. His turnover directly resulting in a Cat rebound goal to give them the extra breathing space and power on from there. I agree his contested ball and tackling efforts were an improvement on what he's dished up earlier in his career so he is improving his game slowly and surprisingly.

This, and Grime's poor decision to play ring around the rosey out on the HFF earlier in the game (eventually losing the ball to his opponent), instead of a quick kick to the danger spot.....cost us 2 rebound goals and any chance of getting within striking distance of the Cats. 2 huge team deflators.

2 of the softest umpiring decisions in front of goal to Bartel and Pods didn't help our cause either. Standard fair at the Cattery though.

Probably all we can ask for at the moment. Will be interesting to see what/if any changes for next week. Sellar/Fitzpatrick, Bail/Couch? Wouldn't mind Bennel given another chance, has had a couple of good games at Casey it seems, and we could use some leg speed. Sylvia? Has been ordinary for his first two games, but he's exactly the kind of player we need doing well.

Same for me. Sellar has no idea how to play forward and had no impact at any stage of the game other than some occasional half decent ruck work (compared to Jamar anyway) in the centre bounces and a one off contest on the ground at HF at one point in the last.

Jurrah into the middle to provide some evasive skills, a little run and some clean ball handling. Although i fear he'd be a week or 2 away from coping with a full game at AFL level. I would replace Davey with a small classy crumbing forward...if we had one. At this point i'd take Bennell for Davey until we can find a replacement for Bennell. And hopefully that'd be within a few weeks as i don't rate Bennell at all at this level. Davey is a shadow of his former self and it's too sad to watch him play at this level any further. Time to hang up the boots IMO.

And if i see Jamar give off another handball to the advantage of our opponents, to a player standing still, to the feet of our players, or to no one in panic, or to someone who's well covered...i'll spew up. The opposition must be gathering around Jamar like vultures, waiting for the scraps he gives off. His disposal by hand and choices once he gets the ball are not AFL standard at this point other than an occasional quick kick around his body out of the middle into the forward line or out wide, and who can't get that part right. Pitty we don't have a decent replacement pushing up.

I also hope Neeld doesn't persist with Howe, Morton, Bate and Trengove rotating through the middle. We'd be lucky to win against GC or GWS with that set up. Although i guess he doesn't have too many alternatives at this point. Must be tearing his hair out on this one.

Unbelievable. Viney & Gysberts in the one match and first up game for Jack. Smithy's curse strikes again.

We now know that Neeld will not play anyone who does not tackle or go in when it is their turn. No matter who it is.

Finally this club has woken up.

JOY.

You can say that again. Maybe 1994 was the last time i saw anything like this at the MFC.....and i'm not even sure we had a mantra like this under Balme. Northey yes, but that was 20+ years ago. Been a bloody long wait but we're finally seeing some baby steps towards the emergence of a real hard edged, hard nosed footy club on the field of battle.

The Cats vs The Demons Round 6, 2012 – Team Stats

Total games played

Cats - 2,408 (Last time they played, Rnd 19 2011) 1,981

Demons – 1,573 1,394

Games Average

Cats - 109 90

Demons – 71 63

Height Average

Cats - 188cm , 188cm

Demons – 188cm , 188cm

Weight Average

Cats - 88kg , 90kg

Demons – 88kg , 86kg

Number of players by category

0-49 Games

Cats - 9/17 (number of players/average games played), 3/16 (Last time they played)

Demons - 9/24 , 12 /24

50-99 Games

Cats - 3/86 , 4/80

Demons - 6/80 , 4/73

100+ Games

Cats – 10/199 , 15/201

Demons – 7/125 , 6/136

Stats courtesy of footywire.com

On side note, im thinking about Saturday and im worried. Tell Moloney he is not thinking about a zero possession game last yr. If he gets 10 or less than 15 possessions this year, it will be seen as a failure, or result of last year. If we lose by 100pts, it will be seen as a result of last yr. Any thing less than 10 goals will be seen as par. I get the sense that the club is on a hiding to nothing this week. If we are thrashed, the media will go crazy. If its an honourable loss, the media will leave us alone. If its a good loss or (god forbid) we win it, it will go down in club history (the win). Im not holding out for a win, but hope we get within 6 goals, at best.

This week is a week that could be the making of a club, or the continued culture of 47 yrs. Pls Dees, stand up!!!

Don't worry too much Gid. This is gonna be a last man standing arm wrestle...right to the final siren. The Cats will know they've been in a massive battle to the death....that's IF the Cats survive, and if they do i'd say about 4 goals max.

A break out "line in the sand" game for Neeld and most of the boys tomorrow and a paradigm shift for the Melbourne Footy Club.

We could also lose a few players at the tribunal. I'm prepared for a trip back to the 80's as far as the biffo goes for this one, i just hope they keep their eye on the footy after they stop brawling lol.

This game will be spoken about for many moons by Demonlanders, footy scribes/journalists and ex players ... as much as, if not more than 186.....for entirely different reasons.

Get ready for one all almighty battle Demonoids!

Give the teacher Neeld some time to work with the troubled student and we might see some lifts in grades. He has already dished out one suspension, and I assure you if Sylvia is caught smoking on the oval or graffiting the boys toilets again he will serve a heftier suspension. The point is we don't expell him because he may just become an A grade student. A rambunctious A grader. Maybe.

It's a good point Strawb. My only problem is, where do you play him? He doesn't come across as an A grade anything position wise atm. Not saying he wont be A grade. He's had flashes of brilliance in a few odd games that's for sure. So i reckon if anyone's able to get to A grade in this team, apart from Jones & Mitch, it's Sylvia. Just trying to work out where he does that.

Can be a bit of a selfish player at times (goal hungry i mean).....so maybe FF is a good place to start? Mitch would have to move out to CHF, which i reckon he's been doing in small patches in some games anyway till now (or just being asked/pushing himself to play high from FF maybe).

Whatever happened to e25, Lutz & Artie Bucco?

Aren't Bucoo & the Dr one and the same?

If there is even a wiff that he would look at coming back to Victoria then we must have a serious crack.

As an aside, does anyone else see the irony in Dr Who having a crack at our 'old culture' whilst adopting a pseudynom form a 1960's BBC sci-fi character. What a hip cat! Tells me he is a troll, just not a clever one.

Nice post RR.

Would be a major asset in the midfield and could help take us to some extraordinary wins and seasons during the Neeld era.

Might make up for missing the Judster a little too and give us that extra hard edge and run through the middle.

Gotta go real hard on this one.

Cons

Unless you've trained as a ruckman before, your chances of doing a serious injury are very high.

Watts is no ruckman, never was, never will be. Why waste his development learning a very specific craft he'll never use long term?

Kthanxby.

Agreed. He'd be smashed in the ruck at AFL level by the bigger crash and bash blokes and still won't learn much.

FB or CHB is the only option for the remainder of this year IMO, whether that's at Casey or in the seniors (if a place arises). Preferably the seniors when there's 2 talls to match up on, like this week....Pods & Hawkins. Replace Tom for Watts or Garland for Watts. Not this week obviously as Tom & Garl have earned their place. And Frawley is too important to leave out down back. But for the future, in a similar twin tower set up if Tom drops off or needs a rest at some point, or maybe Rivers injured etc.

Needs to learn 3 major aspects of the game.....

1. To be accountable and play a close checking game on his man when we (or he) doesn't have the ball. Playing him on some of the AFL's solid or great forwards will show whether he's capable of doing this (given enough opportunity).

2. IF we're earmarking or considering him as a forward at any point from here.....he needs to learn where to run, how to run the patterns and the most important part....the timing. In addition he'll also learn how to use the body to move his opponent in the marking contest. Playing him on some of the AFL's solid or great forwards will hopefully show/teach him this.

3. Courage, hardness and commitment at the contest for extended periods of time (sometimes referred to as intensity). If he doesn't find this he'll be in trouble and it'll be there for all to see when playing a key position down back. There's no where to hide. On the positive front, if he does bring that side....it'll also show and he'll be rewarded accordingly and learn while doing so.

Yes, he'll get some hidings on occasions in a key defender role, but he'll hopefully learn and grow. And if this still doesn't help him to learn how to play forward and to be accountable/bring the intensity up forward.....then he might learn how to play a solid role in defense as a fall back....maybe. He might even be able to go both ways and give us some run and good ball use out of defense etc eg., Scarlett. He's been doing that as a loose man across HB for a while now to some degree.

Edit: Playing him in the ruck for 2 to 3 weeks or so at Casey wouldn't be such a bad idea to start with. Might harden him up a little before his key defender stint. Preferably AFL level as defender though...not sure he'd learn what he needs to learn from many of the opponents' forwards at Casey...apart from the accountability aspect.

6 key match ups that we'll need to break even in if we're to have any chance IMO.....

Jordie to Selwood

Beamer to Chappy

Tom Mcdonald to Pods (initially....swap with Frawley at some point if it's not working)

Frawley to Hawkins (see above)

Bartram to Stevie J

Trengove to Bartel

Carn the Mighty Demons!

We rarely clear the ball from the centre bounce. This failure is important in our poor results.

One of the four Demons in the centre square is low-skilled, slow, and has no spring. He is invariably shorter and slower than his direct opponent.

We blame the midfielders for their inability to clear the ball. Perhaps they receive less assistance than their peers.

We are too much influenced by the hit- out statistics, though against Richmond they did highlight the lamentably low efficiency of ours. Forget the hit-out stats. Watch the game closely. We are rarely hitting the ball to our advantage. Perhaps Spencer or Gawn will one day be able to knock the ball to our advantage.

No. 2 in average hit outs in the comp over the first 5 rounds. Only bettered by Sandilands. Mumford a close 3rd. Tom Bell-Chambers sitting in 4th but with about 9 (on average) less hit outs per game so far. Jolly in 6th with about 10 less on average.

Hit outs to advantage efficiency might not be up there with some others, but the middle is seeing some pretty major rotational change ups through there atm while Neeld and Co. filter through the players to trial, try and train them.

I wouldn't worry so much. Once the efficiency goes up ie., Everyone learns where they're supposed to line up in the structure and when/where they're supposed to run into the regular Jamar hit out "zones/spaces" you'll find it'll slowly get better, as will our clearance work. Currently ranked 10th in clearances.

We don't just need more clearances though.....it's the disposal efficiency that's letting us down big time IMO. We're sitting last here behind the Cats and GC. Once this goes up substantially you'll see most aspects of our game improve, including better quality of entries inside 50 and more goals.

Dumping Jamar at this point would be a huge error IMO, unless you replace him with someone of similar quality or better and who has a ready made AFL frame. And other than Sandilands and Mumford, at this point we'd be taking someone of lessor value IMO.

Build up Fitzy and Gawn as back up etc sure....but a big mistake losing Jamar (if we have any say in it) for mine.

Would be wasted in the ruck. Jamar can handle that bit provided he's fit. Hawks won a GF in 2008 with a pretty average ruck set up.

A great CHF clunker/goal kicker/leader up forward in the making....and will be way more valuable to us here (unless Jamar gets injured).

Once Bennell earns his spot back i reckon he'll be a good player for us. He has pace and skill which would help our team balance at the moment

What do you reckon old dee?

Pushin' your luck there WA