Demon Dynasty

Probably all crap but this is my take on it FWIW.....feel free to wack me..... > SKILLS SKILLS SKILLS by hand and foot (including the accuracy and speed at which those skills are executed....time and space). Improve this area substantially and up goes the confidence as will the run and spread (obviously being last in disposal efficiency against the competition isn't great). > Can't string any quick succession of handballs together to get out of trouble or to find the 2nd/3rd rider from a clearance (mind you there's rarely any 2nd rider in the open at this point, let alone a 3rd, as we turn the ball over in the clearances so often we don't have the belief in each other for the designated riders to run and spread). Emphasis on speed and accuracy (even if that means cheating and getting a few cheap throws in in close.....top teams do this quite often. Hawks had plenty of in close throws tonight which weren't picked up). See below re handball. > Not enough damaging "burst speed" and/or evasive players other than Howe, Jones and Davey. > No classy quick small forward to worry the opposition (goal snap/kicker and just to help gain possession or regain possession) when the ball hits the deck up forward on the occasions it goes in there. > No classy/speedy outside rider/s either through the middle or off half back to carry and deliver the ball with speed and accuracy further up the field (Howe trying hard and doing quite well though, Davey/Morton trying hard). > We're playing an old 80's style kick long to a our advantage around the boundary where possible. Or if under severe pressure just kick long up the line to any contest, few handballs. Because we are slow both across the ground and in our decision making, we're often getting caught and we end up kicking under pressure to virtually any contest up the ground (ie., mostly to the wrong contest or an uneven one)....even an opposition only contest! Our kick to handball ratio would be a big turn around from the Bailey era i would think where we hand balled much more often. > As a result of the emphasis on long kicking, our handball skills appear very low as we hardly ever handball in succession to link our way out of trouble. We either have no confidence in our hand balling generally (there are exceptions to this but too few to impact) or we are under instruction not to overdo it and when we do handball we're just woefully under done or lacking the belief to do so (under done in training drills here maybe? Too much emphasis/training on defense?) > Need to find one more solid option to goal (see below for fix suggestion) > Need to find a small crumbing forward (see below for short term fix suggestion) > We attempt a forward press, sometimes successfully for short periods but usually let down by one player not playing close enough on his opponent or occasionally letting him run behind the press to take easy long kick/mark out the back. There's one player in particular who's letting us down here week after week but i won't mention him as there's plenty of other players doing dumb things. In the short term, i would dump Garland, Petterd, Bail, Sylvia & Bate. In Couch, Blease and in 2 to 3 weeks Watts (hopefully) if he's deemed to be ready around then. Someone else for Watts in the short term till Watts is ready (haven't looked yet...suggestions?) and another for Sylvia (again i haven't looked...suggestions?). And another for Bate? And this is the problem. Do we have these 3rd, 4th, & 5th alternatives? Probably not. Chip to CHB to create (loves to run and carry and can create a little mayhem in the opposition at least...drawing players, creating a potential overlap for the run etc). Watts to FB (in 2 to 3 weeks) where he shares this role/duty with T McDonald. Davey in the back pocket on the opposition's best small. Get him away from his problem area (ie., playing up forward or through the middle) and provide some clean ball use, run and to cut through the press with accuracy and hopefully put him in a defensive mind set on his opponent to shut him down. He'll also (in many cases) have most players in front of him so he wont hear as many footsteps as he does up the field atm! Morton to the HB (occasionaly with Howe) to add further marking strength in the back half, extra run and long kicking out of the press. Watts and Davey (Only at this point) to take the kick outs. Couch into the middle to rotate with Moloney, Magner, and Mckenzie. Howe and Morton occasionally pushing up as the outside riders through the middle. Jones up forward to try and add the small crumbing forward type role (even though he isn't really that i realise) pushing up high at times to offer the outside option and run. Jurrah (when fit enough) mostly an outside rider/runner in the middle, occasionaly pushing up forward to offer the crumbing/marking option (swapping with Jones in these two roles) Blease in if he has anywhere near the speed of last year.....just blood him to become a key receiver runner off half back to eventually take over full time from Howe (part time when not resting up forward). Rest/play Howe mostly up forward to give us the 2nd dangerous option until (IF) Watts is ready to step in later this year or next . If Watts does make it up forward (as the 2nd dangerous forward along with Mitch as the main of course) then Howe can be freed up a little higher up the ground as required to provide a utility role (as per now) pushing up on occasions to give a 3rd dangerous forward option (along with Jurrah) or providing a /decoy for Watts/Clarke/Jurrah. Watts, Howe, Jurrah as decoys for each other and Clark. Focus on SKILLS SKILLS SKILLS and speed of delivery, run, spread!! Defensive aspects (other than forward press) later!! That's me short term fix for some short term gains and by round 17. At least 4 wins lol! Sydney, GWS, Brisbane & Port. Now on to my next J&B to numb the pain of tonight Edit: Having slept on this o'night .....Tappy in for Bate. Tappy in at BP only. Long raking kick out of defence and wont get so lost here as he only has one way to look to an d one direction to head in (share kick outs with Watts and Davey, Tappy going long as he can at times to a boundary contest...predictable but distance outside 50 the key and wont be too predictable if we share the role between Watts & Davey for change up). Green in for Sylvia. Green to FF only. Hit up on the lead inside 40 as alternative to Mitch's lead out to 50 and sometimes beyond. Note: Time inside forward 50's last night .... Hawks 63%. Demons 37%. Nothing surprising but ugly nonetheless.

DefinItely DO NOT bring him back! At least not straight away, otherwise we've wasted a fabulous chance of Wattsy "getting it" i reckon. Has the "potential" to be a great forward in the ilk of Dermott. Needs to find the mongrel though (obviously). If he finds this, he'll go on to be one of our greats i think. If he doesn't...well.... At least 2 weeks helping out in the ruck (after some decent coaching from a former ruck great or whoever our ruck coach is ...assuming we have one). Probably need assistance in the ruck anyway to help out at VFL level with Fitzy moving upstairs. Assuming he does what's asked and hits the contest hard, spreads well, gets to plenty of other contests (impacting them) etc...then take him to the next step (below). No he aint no ruckman, but there's absolutely no where to hide in the middle and some around the ground work going for the ball up. He either brings the attack, intensity and uses his body (to the best of his capability/strength at this point of his early development) or he don't. Don't even need him to beat his opponent as such. It's the intensity, attack and fearlessness i'd be looking for. In fact he'll probably get smashed in that role. But that's ok (subject to no major injury of course). Assuming he does what's asked.... then move him upstairs to match up on some of the greats of the game down back. Make him accountable and take on a role where he'll not only earn his place but learn forward work off some of the best in the AFL. 6 - to 8 matches here. Hopefully he'll hold his own and keep his opponent reasonably quiet (depending on what's happening up the field of course etc). Even get some assistance/advice from Dermott re forward work and possibly an insight in to how to man up defensively on forwards etc. Then throw him forward for the last 3rd of the year say.....assuming he's earned his place down back and the FD feel his good to go for a stint up forward. My opinion means nothing, but this is how i'd like to see the FD try with Watts for the rest of this year. If he finds his mongrel and his mojo down back (one on one) and then up forward later in the year, then we've got a potential super star just around the corner (ie., from next year onwards). I really believe if he finds the mongrel and has a big learning curve during this year, he could end up being as good as (or very close to) a Dermott up forward (at least as returns and value go.....not necessarily playing with the all out Dermy attack and grunt....but i live in hope!).

Some positives (and negatives) on the stats side. Would like to see stats such as (to name a few)... effective tackles, effective clearances, hit outs to advantage, play on %, etc but don't have access to them...anyone have that here??: Rankings Contested possessions: Demons 15th / Hawks 14th (Positive? lol) Uncontested possessions: Demons 18th / Hawks 7th (i think that might be a negative!) Disposal Efficiency: Demons 18th / Hawks 3rd (oops) Contested Marks: Demons 4th / Hawks 14th (Yahoo!) Clearances: Demons 11th / Hawks 18th (given our disposal efficiency i reckon we need to see "effective clearances" , still a win is a win i guess) Tackles: Demons 10th / Hawks 4th (i'd rather see effective tackles) Goal Accuracy: Demons 7th / Hawks 9th (if we can only deliver accurately i50 and get it in there enough times! Woot woot) Entries inside 50: Demons 17th / Hawks 7th Rebound from defensive 50: Demons 2nd / Hawks 13th (the pressure being brought on our defense might pay off big time later i hope...doing a pretty good job given how often it's coming in atm).

I'd have to say i'm a little worried too OD. I get the feeling the boys (and coach) seemed in some way "satisfied" with their efforts last week, yet we still lost by over 7 goals against a fairly depleted and relatively inexperienced (compared to recent years) Cat side. They had the wood on us and better quality players at the top (experience wise) and were playing at home in front of a home crowd i realise. But if we don't step it up to another level (which might be just 2% extra effort/output or so....who knows) this week we might get a nasty surprise i reckon. Hopefully we do, but the mindset this week is a bit of a worry going in.

I'd love that to happen OD. Problem is, where are the enforcers? Maybe we could bring Balls, Yeats, the Febey brothers, Keogh and Jakovich back for this one lol. Even throw Jacko in to line up on buddy lol

Agreed OD. Loyalty went out the window many decades ago both ways.

I like this RPFC. What precedent is there previously for a penalty for draft tampering anyway? Let's do it at take whatever rap comes you're saying. Everyone knows that GWS etc would be tampering/and f&^@ing with us and the system anyhow if they select Jack. We'd be just doing a little of the same. Go to court and attempt to get whatever penalty's placed on us overturned if needed if it comes to that. I'd happily contribute to a fund raiser towards the cost if needed.

Spot on TD. One rule for the new clubs, the interstate teams and big boys....another for the also rans. Pretty hard to get up off the bottom if you can't do a few sweetheart deals along the way and you get your No.1 pick stolen from under you after 2 years. It's a pitty the free agency arrangement is so restrictive.

Nah....it wasn't supporting anyone's point of view. I don't believe stats like that tell anywhere near the full story as to where the comparative lists at the 100+ end (or rookie end or whatever....covering all bases cause you're so anal) are rated on the field and their comparative quality in terms of the value they add to the teams. It's purely an indicator as to where our list is at (experience wise) versus another teams. Nor was i trying to trump Biff's comment. I figured he might have last year's stats in mind as he wasn't far off the mark in terms of how many 100+ gamers we had on the park on the fateful186 versus the cats that day. Nor was i pumping up WYL. He don't need any help there lol. Was just offering the stats up for them (or others) to look at if they wanted as i had them at hand. In hindsight i probably should have only posted the breakdown of games played instead of the whole thing. So point taken on the overkill. But you got the intention all wrong.....again. Just because i find stats interesting to look at, doesn't mean i place a massive amount of weight on them. As we all know, you can build a case to support almost any argument by selectively picking out stats. Even i do it sometimes. Doesn't mean that i'm right and it doesn't mean the stats are correct in supporting that argument. It's just something to talk about at the end of the day and vent on i guess. The only thing i do like to see with them when they're being used is accuracy, wherever possible anyway (yeh that's me being anal now lol...but i even correct myself or the stats themselves sometimes if i've find out posthumously that i've posted or quoted stats that are a fair way off). Unfortunately you've taken it as an insult or something for some reason. No problems. Each to there own mate.

I'm ok with Neeld's defensive game plan and i think it will hold us in good stead once the the players get it ...or Neeld goes out and gets the players that will hopefully get it lol. I just don't think it was necessary for him to start with a complete rebuild from the ground up and place so much emphasis on the defensive aspects he wants them to learn at the apparent expense of their attacking style of play and skill set. And yes, attack is one form of defense and an effective one. Score board pressure can have a pretty amazing impact at times. With a fairly inexperienced list i just think it was important to set the tone early with a few wins and get the boys believing in the coach and the coaching team as such. Give them a little light and a positive mind set to begin with....then they'd be all ears and open to pretty much anything! It's a sell job for Neeld as much as it is for the players in those early stages. If that meant sacrificing a little in terms of allowing the boys to continue their "attacking" game style and mind set at the expense of certain defensive aspects of their game in the short term, then so be it. Once a few early wins are under the belt and the place is humming a little, then start placing more effort and time into the defensive side piece by piece! In addition there's a "sell / marketing" side to the whole club. It's a business at the end of the day and a cheap early win or 2...or even 3....would have given the admin/marketing side some ammunition with which to go out and hammer the membership drive. And maybe get a few more of the 6,000, that apparently haven't signed from last year, to renew their memberships as well. I guess what i'm trying to say in short is, that there's different ways to skin a cat. The end result (defensively) would probably be the same or very similar after 2 or 3 years. Neeld would have gotten his way regardless here. But IMO we had a chance to implement a fast break at the outset using a more considered and calculated approach in order to get the Neeld era (and most importantly our membership $/numbers & potential sponsorship $) off to a more positive start from the get go. It's amazing what a few early wins do to the whole psyche of a club, the players and the supporters (read potential members).

At least one of you got it....and yeh...i'm always happy .... Cheers mate

Maybe this will help you get why i posted the stats to mull over....was never in support of any argument ....but even then you two (RR & Tricky dicky) probably still wont get it....HELLO....KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK....wakey wakey....anyone home???

Exactly. It's just a picture of where we're at in terms of the number of games these guys have behind them. It's not an indicator of quality or maturity on the field. What it does show however, whether we agree with it or not, is that the club has had enough faith in this player so far.....to put him on the field 100+ times. That's alot of faith. They must see something in them either presently or for their and our future if we keep playing them beyond 4 to 5 seasons.

No i'm just saying we had X numbers of Seniors (100+ games experience wise....that's 5 years in the system) versus them. The Cats had X number of players with 100+ games experience. Both of which should count for something. As to how much it counts for....i have no idea...and you wouldn't either. But they didn't get to 100+ games by playing like a complete donkey, regardless of which team they're in. I never said Neeld took over a list as good as Freemantles.....stop putting words into everyone's mouths. All i'm saying is he believed getting a few early (maybe even cheap) wins on the board was important to gain the confidence in the playing group with whatever plan or changes he was proposing or putting in place. And if you don't think "Belief" within any team playing group (and belief in their coach and his direction) is important...you're sadly mistaken. Always twisting peoples posts to turn something that isn't an argument into an argument. Missed your calling RR....should've been a politician. P.S. Frawley shouldn't have been included as a senior player (experience wise)....less than 100 games. My mistake.

I'm not trying to address any points with them. Was just confirming the numbers for Biff as he was under the impression we had only 3 100+ gamers. Was just addressing the pure numbers in terms of who had what (experience wise) on the ground. Just a context thing for the discussion between him and WYL. As to the quality of the lists and how they got there...that's a story book in itself i would think. I agree with the rest of your points with the exception that all our senior players are woeful. I wouldn't put Jones in the woeful basket. Nor Rivers, Frawley and Moloney on good days. The latter might have woeful days granted Ummm...your last point.... i only hope so. I'm thinking 18 months with the present "fielded" list, about half way through next year...and that's just to get this defensive style mastered. If we can bring in some decent ball users (inside & out/hand and foot), or improve our existing player's disposal skills, their ability to choose the correct options (eg., kicking to our player's advantage etc) and add some serious leg speed ... we might even start winning against a few of the decent teams at some stage later this year or hopefully from the start of the next. But i'm thinking middle of next season before we see a really substantial turn around versus clubs 6 and below anyway. And i'm not even confident on that at this point lol. I keep hearing the words of Ross Lyon in his interview with SEN when asked... "what was the key factor for you when you first took on the Freemantle list?" ... answer went something like..."to get some wins on the board early and fuel the BELIEF factor".

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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"

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