Hannabal

A few things: Well coached teams don't have 19 scores kicked against them in a quarter and nor do they have 63 points kicked in succession. Senior players have been lambasted for their performance. If it's reasonable to suggest that a coach is lauded for his team's good performances then it goes without saying that he partly carries the can for inept ones. Do ya follow ?

A lamentable post from a shallow thinking supporter. Kicking out is now one of the hardest things to do in footy, especially when your own teammates are stagnant. The fact that Tapscott has been given the honour since his first game in the AFL is testament to his ability and how he's regarded at the club. His kicking, general decision making, marking and courage has already been a revelation. No player is immune form turnovers the way the game is now played.

I'm happy for the coach to keep his composure, but I am pleased that Stynes said what he did. I don't think that the blowtorch from the back page of the city's leading paper can do any harm to the players or the coaching staff under the circumstances. Let's see how they respond.

Rhino and Snoopy have both posted excellent views and analysis over the last day or so and much of what they say succinctly explains why our expectations should be tempered. Their statistical facts are compelling. But I don't lose sight of the fact that footy isn't played on a whiteboard with a calculator in hand. I'm sick of aplogising for soft and lazy performances from senior players. I'm sick of watching players that don't like getting their hands dirty. I'm sick of a coach that incessantly talks of "winning more quarters". I'm sick of the fact that we have more inside 50's against us than any other team and have less forward 50 entries than any other team. I'm sick of a coach that has no strategy that is capable of stopping momentum. I'm sick of a team that loses its structure so badly in the face of a 'run on' that the tactics employed help keep the ball in the opposition's forward 50. I appreciate that games of footy are won in the midfield, always have been and always will, and that we have no midfield stars, but I don't appreciate players that have no appetite for the contest. The reality is that our team looks like one of the worst drilled teams in the AFL. It's one thing to focus more on player development than gameday strategy, as per Todd Viney's recent article, because we're mindful of our youthful list, but what sort of player development is gained from humiliating team performances ? With the advent of zones, presses, run and spread, and the guarding of space it seems to have escaped Bailey that the best teams still value 'man on man' footy. The defensive aspect of our play is pitiful. The reality is that until Scully, Trengove, McKenzie, and Gysbert have 60-80 games under their belt we're going to have days where we really struggle against the better teams. No ground breaking news there. But there's struggling and there's being inept/uncompetitive. I can accept the former, but not the latter. It's Bailey's 4th year and there's still no irrefutable evidence that he can counter the opposition's gameplan. Gerard Healy raised valid concerns about Bailey's coaching in a recent article.

I haven't seen the replay and won't be watching it, but he pulled out of a contest. You know those moments where you instantaneously look at the person you're at the footy with and at the same moment they look at you ? It was one of those. Unfortunately you don't win finals with too may players like Davey, Bennell, Watts, Dunn and Jurrah. One or two you can cope with, but we have too many.

Green - Going past him Jones - Lack of talent Bartram - Tries hard Watts - Get some mongrel Bennell - Soft Frawley - Rusty Trengove - Went missing Sylvia - Needs help Dunn - Silly looking fellow Petterd - Disappointing Grimes - One to forget Garland - Did his job Moloney - Lack of talent Jurrah - Soft showpony Rivers - Surprisingly played well Martin - Ok - bores me Tapscott - Love the bloke Davey - A Davey game Jetta - Yeah nah Maric - Bye bye Jamar - Battled on Bail - Fast but limited I received an SMS from a fellow supporter that perfectly summed up the day: "Fears confirmed. Too many with no stomach for it and another batch not good enough". My Brothers take on proceedings was a close second: "they dogged it".

Your (sic) so yesterday mate. Fit in and get with the times.

Even bothering to argue about MacDonald or Rivers in the line-up is like complaining about brokerly or pumpkin on your plate. You hate both, but one is slightly more palatable than the other. In other words, who cares ?

I think we'll win. They would have gained much from the last quarter and a half against the Swans. There's a strong rumour that Sewell is out, Burgoyne isn't great defensively, Bateman isn't the player he was, their backline is slow and Hodge will be underdone if he plays. They've obviously had the wood on us for a long time, but I reckon that the wheel is turning. Half way through the last quarter we were right in it last year and I'm confident we'll win against popular views on Sunday. They rightly go in as favourites. I tipped Sydney last week.

I watched it and the only inference I gleaned, albeit a small one, was that he'd stay with Melbourne. He spoke of the CBA and that he was sure he'd sign at the end of the year, which is when Dunstall made his quip about GWS and all Lynch could do at Dunstall's throw away line was smile. You read it one way and me the other.

Not "some people", it was me. It was apt. But I never asked for him to be traded. Do a search if you like.

I never wrote Garland off. My Brother once said that he was the worst player he'd seen since Chris Woodman. We were flogged in round 1 by Hawthorn about 4 years ago by roughly 100 points when he said it in a somewhat emotional state, but thankfully I was at Eildon and missed the match.

People seem to read what they want to read and not what's said. Thankfully there are those like yourself that actually read the words. I had really high hopes for Watts to become a bona fide star of the competition because I haven't seen one at Melbourne since Flower and those that are familiar with my postings over the last 8.5 years would know that I've lamented our lack of star factor for a very long time. Even the club acknowledged that we needed to recruit stars in an article a year or so ago. I think Watts has the hallmarks of a very good player, but I don't see X factor star written all over him. He'll have the odd game where he'll kick 6 or 7 goals and my post will be bumped by those of shallow thought, but it needn't be. Plenty of very good players have great games, but it's a star I crave and I doubt he'll transition into one. Kernahan was a star at 21. Carey was a star at 21 and so was Brereton. Locket was a star at 18. Lloyd kicked 63 goals as a 19 year old. Riewoldt was a star at 21. It's easy to forget that Paul Salmon was a star at 19 kicking 63 goals from 13 games before he did his knee and was never quite the same again. I actually think that 2012 will be a far better year for Watts when he's put on another 5 kilos - which he needs. So to clarify, I'm not "writing" him off and I still think he'll be a very good player, but having watched footy for a long time I'll be very surprised if Watts turns into a superstar of the competition. Maybe my definition of superstar differs from others. But if he significantly contributes to a flag I won't care if he's a star or not.

That's great, but I've seen enough to know that he'll never be a star of the competition and that's very disappointing - especially for a number 1 draft pick.

You're incorect. * Kane Lucas was listed in the 18 and started as the sub. * EDIT: I believe that you're right in that the sub must come from the I/C bench. Where the confusion lies is that the I/C bench isn't listed until 90 minutes before the match. Kane Lucas was listed in the starting 18 in the paper, but he was part of the bench in the final side and ultimately the sub. While Tapscott is listed in the 18 in the newspaper it doesn'tmean that he'll be in the 18 90 minutes before the match, hence he could be the sub.

Good. 13/16. We still need 3.

Terrific, but I'm not really interested. My point was that I hate it when others proffer what people should do with their gains. It's nobody elses business.

You may be right, but Martin's athletic ability isn't matched bu his footy brain. Goodes will turn him inside out and make him look silly. I'd give Garland first crack. He has pace, is great at spoiling without infringing and would be far better at coralling Goodes to the boundary through superior backline experience. Also, Goodes will play relatively deep, he won't be roaming around the ground as some have stated - not early anyway. This preseason, in the absence of Bradshaw, he's been playing closer to goal. I know that there's a height issue, but Garland has long arms and has played and done well on the likes of Franklin.

Your comments are becoming more inane. How can you think that someone won't make it if you've never seen them play ?

Like what ? If he receives it, which I doubt, I hope he puts it in his back pocket - where it belongs.

Of course those that are named on the bench may not resemble the actual bench that is named 90 minutes before the game.

Done.

Start one yourself. I'll join and I'd be suprised if you can't fill it in the next two hours - subject to the DT site not crashing.

Thanks for the advice. I decided to log out and log back in again and low and behold D4 was back. I was having trouble logging in this morning and from memory when I eventually got on it said "Done, but with errors".

I'm only in two leagues. Yesterday my two league squares both said 16/16, but this morning my first box says 16/16 and my second league through to my 5th say "join". I've scrolled along, but there's no sign of D4.