Macca

I agree ... rather than have to swing things around too much Schache for Gawn makes more sense. Ruck forward with some time in the middle with Grundy in the middle (and back) to help out But I can't say I know a lot about Schache as a ruck/forward but others here could enlighten We don't want to burden Grundy with too much to do week in week out. Anyway, if Schache plays that allows us to use T-Mac in a fashion where he can work up the ground leaving space for a non double-teamed Brown to lead into. Worked in round 1 But again, I'm not sure that Schache can do well enough to play the role we might need him for. Worth a try though as Grundy can't do it all on his own and T-Mac's rucking is questionable (not effective)

The DE stat is often overrated and sometimes underrated. And often a poor guide. To be honest, it's a confusing stat especially when looking at the output of Petracca last week. He was dominant yet his DE percentage indicated otherwise The eye test is more pertinent and even that's subjective Brayshaw went at 63% last night and had 27 possessions. Sure, he was a bit wasteful as Oliver was but many of our players just didn't get enough of the ball and were largely invisible. That's a much bigger concern We had at least 12 players who underperformed in terms of actual possessions. Didn't get near it

And losing Gawn effects our structure in the forward line and elsewhere. We're now down one very tall target in the forward line which means we'll need Brown, McDonald & Fritsch to work a lot harder ... and there will be no real relief for Grundy as a consequence of losing Gawn Grundy did an admirable job solo last night but can he do that for an indefinite period on his own? The original plan was for the rucking, forward play and the following around the ground to be shared. Helping out by occasionally playing as a loose man in defence might be a stretch for Grundy if he has to ruck all night. So our structural defence is effected as well. A few headaches for the MC until Gawn returns (which is hopefully sooner rather than later) Losing Gawn is a big loss as he's arguably our most influential player. Many would say unarguably. He's certainly our most versatile player in terms of being able to play anywhere on the ground

Much has been noted about our midfielders delivery forward and losing the clearances (and rightly so) but most of our forwards failed to create a contest for most of the night so the Lions won the ball in our forward line all night in an uncontested way Our forwards played from behind and failed to create separation and offer themselves up as suitable targets And lace out passes forward can only happen if the forwards are creating multiple options ... and that didn't happen either. We failed on all fronts with our forward 50 entries We just about matched them on the amount of inside 50 entries (54 to 59) but that's where it all started & finished By contrast, the Lions forwards worked so much harder and their delivery forward was so much better The scoreboard flattered us and we'll need to play a hell of a lot better to challenge Sydney

Agree with a lot you've said there but GWS lack soul and real passion from an overall perspective. They are like Leipzig in the German league although because of the RedBull $Billions they play Champions league I also made mention of FD, Board, Coaching, Finances & Recruiting but did it in reverse. So it's not just about having a top list ... that's the end result And the top clubs for years have been retaining top players for less money* thus off-setting the salary cap restrictions. Can we do the same? My thinking is that if we lose good players who might be fringe (top list related) we can replace those types with draftees that cost a lot less money *Numerous mentions have been made in that area (less money for top players)

As a supporter I like to speculate in a positive way whenever possible as I don't feel that I actually influence anything anyway In other words, the club isn't taking any notice of me!! I'm just a number I'm a great believer in pure talent and having plenty of that type of player ... get that done and it's a sure sign that everything else is working well (Board, FD, Coaching, Recruiting, Finances etc etc)

I'm not hanging on to the past Ernest, I just made a reference to it Besides which, that beacon light is always there in terms of what not to do

In the current climate the club might have got advice that they had little chance on appeal

The Doggies are a definite top 8 contender maybe even top 6. I wouldn't be writing them off

Well we've now got about 30 bona-fide AFL standard players* and we've just dispatched a rival contender (Doggies) with 4 gun players out ... so we should be ok! 🙂 Competition for spots is at a premium and there's nothing wrong with competition within the ranks Good players are playing for their spot It's getting to a point where motivation is key ... and we look nice and hungry, Steve *A far cry from the dark days

If it's about the money (as it was with Jackson) then the club will come to the party this time You can upgrade from Jackson to Grundy but I'm not sure you can even replace a unique talent such as Kozzie And why shouldn't any player angle for the cash? It's often a once in a lifetime opportunity and if we're all honest, we'd do the same

Did the club say it was a fair penalty? I must have missed that memo And as much as people were concerned about the brain-fade, Kozzie has taken his game to a new level by the looks of it with a greater edge to his game And I welcome that as the stars work to a different agenda. He's possibly going to cross the line occasionally with that mindset But for the most part, he can be a difference-maker

Time will tell IRW

I'm leaning towards him staying but it will cost the club a bundle. But Friday night he was electric Often players who get reported go quiet (and he must have known he was going to get cited) but Kozzie just kept going and was extremely influential A dynamic player and clubs always find the money when they want to for such a player Jackson wasn't worth the dollars (especially as compared to what Freo were guaranteeing) so the club made an executive decision So the common sense decision is to pay him a bundle much as what we've done for at least 6 other players

Cripps getting off was embarrassing and the stigma will stay forever ... top player and it's not his fault he was let off But an undeserving Brownlow winner ... the AFL buckled and were weak And so what if Demon supporters want Kozzie to stay. What do want us to do? Open the door for him? He's a gun and a matchwinner and we cannot afford to lose him

I reckon we need a conspiracy theory thread with a monthly winner 'Demonland's Conspiracy Theory of the Month' goes to ... You're in with a chance DS but not all conspiracy theories are bunkum so I won't rule out your theory #sinistermotives

You make a whole bunch of good points especially with the vagueness of the 'Potential to cause harm' bit. Impossible to correctly measure so get set for more inconsistent outcomes re suspensions

Shock jock (someone has to do it)

There lies the issue that so many here have highlighted Many can accept the 2 week penalty (myself included) but it's a joke that Buddy only gets 1 week

6 Kozzie 5 Gawn 4 Lever 3 Petracca 2 Oliver 1 McVee ( or at least 10 others)

Wasn't it a free throw at the stumps? You may well be right with regards to the media circus @Wells 11 in an above post also made a pertinent point about possibly consulting Kozzie

Haven't you seen enough evidence? And it's happened again already this season (Buddy) The MRO has been a standing joke for years as has the weak-kneed penalties handed out to the name players by the various tribunals (for decades) Not that any of this talk is going to make a skerrick of difference anyway ... expect more of the same ongoing

I knew what you meant

That's a very good point (less driving force without an anchored foot) ... so the action still 'looks' bad but optics can always be questioned, dc Smith not being on the move at any sort of pace is also a factor as well as Kozzie's stature I've read about the Roger Dean/Barassi incident late in '63 incident where 'Video evidence' was not allowed to be presented to the tribunal The widely held belief back then was that Barassi didn't connect when he swung at Dean but Dean staged as if hit. Barassi got 4 weeks and missed the finals (we lost a prelim final to Hawthorn by 9 points in '63) This time around Kozzie has connected (sorta kinda) yet not only did Smith not accentuate the contact, he's come out of it unscathed So looking ahead, does every bump that causes minimal contact or incidental contact to the head incur at least a 2 week penalty? If so, we're on the road to a non-contact sport

If we get a good run with injuries once Fritsch, Viney, Salem & May return, selection meetings could go long into the night! Have we got at least 28-30 to pick from? Not sure how the MC's operate these days but back in the day, the teams might have been picked on Tuesday's and then finalised on Thursday's I suspect the make-up of the team is probably done by Monday night's these days (players with niggles pencilled in)