Macca

Re the last 'incident' ... neither the crowd, commentators nor the viewers were sure if the North player had been tackled high or not. The commentators needed the replay facility for confirmation. So what possible chance do the umpires have? ... zero chance if we're looking for consistent outcomes. The sport doesn't have a replay facility for these types of incidents (hundreds of times per game) so we either put up with this sort of thing getting completely out of control or we try and knock it on the head. The umpires could start pinging players for staging/ducking but they'll miss plenty because it's another grey area of the sport that can never have consistent outcomes. The better way is to charge players retrospectively and rub them out.

The quickest way to fix the ducking and staging is to charge the offending players using video evidence ... asking the umpires to sort it all out when they've already got an impossible job to do is unrealistic. The AFL needs to act but they won't (at least not for now) ... they are poor custodians when being good custodians is their basic task/job. If there isn't a dollar in it for them, they either won't act or are super-slow to act. The latest controversy could easily be viewed as helping to maintain high interest (from the AFL's point of view) ... they'll act when these sort of things effects the viewer numbers (eg the rotations and how the high rotations led to numerous stoppages & congestion)

Are we still doing this? I might carry on regardless just to see how many votes that Gawn ends up with ... without any sort of bias of course Anyway, here's the last 2 games (for what it's worth) Round 11 (vs Hawks) 3 - Tyson 2 - Vince 1 - Smith (Haw) Round 12 (vs Pies) 3 - Gawn 2 - Vince 1 - Jones MFC Tally 12 - Gawn 8 - Viney 5 - Hogan 4 - Vince 3 - Jones, Tyson 2 - T-Mac, Watts, Stretch 1 - Harmes, Bugg Here are the coaches votes (just in) ... Melbourne v Collingwood 9 Max Gawn (Melb) 9 Bernie Vince (Melb) 6 Nathan Jones (Melb) 3 Tom McDonald (Melb) 2 Dean Kent (Melb) 1 Tomas Bugg (Melb)

We need to get on a roll and it has to start next game or at the very latest, against the Crows. If we win either of those games (or both) there is no reason why we can't string a number of wins together. Do that and we will be in the finals race by default. So, we'll have to win one of the next 2 games to have any chance. What's holding the team back is more match game experience, true belief & real confidence - if we can achieve the 2 latter aspects, that lack of experience will be less of a factor.

Yep, the Pens were too good when it counted and were worthy Stanley cup winners ... San Jose weren't disgraced but they couldn't get near it in the last period and a half today. It must be an awesome feeling lifting this historic trophy ... here's a bit about it's history. 22 Things You Might Not Know About the Stanley Cup .

6 - Gawn (just beat out Vince in an absolute dominant display) 5 - Vince (played a great game) 4 - Jones (another solid game from the skipper) 3 - T-Mac (he's getting back to his best form) 2 - Tyson (knocks up getting the ball and is now using it better) 1 - Bugg (blanketed Sidebottom who was rendered ineffective) Apologies to Kent, Hogan, Kennedy, Viney, Frost, Hunt, Petracca and a number of others.

It's always gratifying when a coach like Roos makes mention that we didn't have a poor player ... although we did have a number of standout players today. We've had quite a few games this season where it's been hard to find a non-contributor. We're playing as a team which is a rather obvious observation but to play as a team and have everyone contribute is easier said than done - we've now played quite well or very well in 9 out of our 12 games. And it could be argued that our best efforts have come against North & the Hawks. There's a lot of positives. The noticeable difference this season is how the players trust their teammates as a matter of course. We're overdoing the handballing a bit but as a means to an end, it's a good strategy. Eventually the ball will come out quicker and cleaner - in the meantime, we need to keep practicing what we're doing. A word for the backmen - apparently 9 goals were scored from our rebounds out of defence. Taking it 1 or 2 steps back, the ability of the whole team in not allowing the Pies to have effective forward forays probably led to our defence being so effective with our rebounding. Total team at work again. What that also indicates is that we're playing attacking footy from defence (which involves risk)

Gawn has been magnificent

Yep, it's an excellent double tomorrow ... hoping for a Sharks win in game 6 just so we can get a game 7 (which would be Thursday 10am AEST) San Jose are a real show too - they've just got to get it done tomorrow.

It's more so that I don't like conceding defeat rather than having an over-the-top optimistic view. Also, I did mention that we could have a record of 5 & 9 or 6 & 8 after the next 3 games. What is holding the team back from winning more games is our inexperience (and that's understandable) - previously it was our experienced players continually letting the team down - many or most of those experienced players are either gone or can't get a game. Roos has put the senior players on notice in terms of selection - but he's done it quietly and without fanfare. There are some experienced players that have lifted (Watts) but you only have to look at the make-up of the side for confirmation of which track we've gone down.

Both Weideman & Hulett will probably get game time this season ... maybe sooner rather than later. Dawes stays for now but he'll need to impress ... and there's always injuries to consider. Pedersen's immediate future isn't assured now with Watts being able to pinch hit in the ruck. Much will depend on our next 3 games ... 1 win or less would almost certainly rule us out of finals you'd reckon (we'd be 5 & 9 or 6 & 8) ... if that happened it would allow the MC to blood either or both players without undue risk to the team's overall future. It's what all teams often do as a matter of course (tanking aside) For what it's worth I reckon we're a chance in all 3 games (vs Coll, @ Syd & vs Adel) but that's with my hopeful supporter hat on. Win 2 or all 3 and we will continue to pursue a finals spot. Despite the above, I reckon we've been picking a side (all year) with a view to next season anyway. At the start of the season not many (or any) of us could envisage a team consistently containing or often containing Hunt, Harmes, Wagner, Oscar, Petracca, Frost, Bugg, Kennedy, Oliver & Stretch (and Trengove) ... maybe half of those players but all? Another relative new player in Brayshaw would be playing if fit too. White is another with claims.

Long term or even short term (depending on fitness) both Brayshaw and Trengove could both play in the forward line (or as high half forward types) in order for us to end up having some more complete footballers where we need them. Petracca is another who looks to be a good tackler and chaser and he could be used as a forward as well (or as an alternative to Brayshaw or Trengove) Asking for all (or most) of our current forwards to all have a defensive mindset on a constant basis is a big ask. The best teams have got forwards who can hold the ball in their forward lines (as we found out with the Hawks) and we need to aim at having those same sort of standards. Hogan & Watts both have low tackle counts and if Dawes can't take marks it's imperative that he is strong in other areas of his game. Kent & Harmes are sometimes average and often below average when it comes to defensive skills. Garlett is there to kick the occasional 3 or 4 goals and he is sometimes good defensively. The mix adds up to a mediocre defensive mindset. The lack of forward line pressure is a weakness in our game which can be exploited by the better teams ... and that weakness is now more apparent as we've improved and progressed in other areas of our game. Looking back, it's probably been a weakness in most of our losses this season. Our midfielders helping out employing a forward press is needed on a constant basis too. The above players I've mentioned are only examples as we may have other alternatives who can fill a need in the forward line ... vandenBerg is another player who could be used up forward on a rotating basis - when firing he has a decent defensive mindset. Kennedy is another with claims. Low tackling numbers and not chasing is often related to other areas of a players defensive game (from a deficiency point of view)

Our midfield was also under pressure with a lot of their possessions which partly explains the lack of efficiency ... the rest of it I see as such (presuming we're playing against a decent side) Lack of forward line pressure creates easier pathways for an opposition defence The opposition's defence therefore will have easier transitions to their own forward line (via the midfield of course) This in turn creates undue pressure on our own defence Our own defence then has a far more difficult pathway towards our forward line (again, via the midfield or as is so often the case with haphazard forward forays starting from an under siege defence, via the boundary line) In turn our forward 50 entries become haphazard and without clean uninterrupted pathways. Fix the first part and everything else becomes a much easier task.

The whole forward line has to take the blame - Hogan, Watts & Dawes weren't great at holding the ball in either - 1 tackle between all 3 players. The Hawks were able to set-up their forward forays in a much cleaner fashion (for the most part) And we don't really need the stats to confirm what we see. It's the main reason why we lost the game Adam ... we won in the ruck, in the midfield, in clearances and our defence was reasonable. You are right in saying that our midfield players were the ones who locked the ball in the forward line (again, for the most part) We overdid the handballing but that was related to our lack of forward line pressure - all things on the footy field have a connection. It wasn't a great day for the big blokes but the big blokes can still get to numerous contests and create pressure. Watts did however play a decent game and the other parts of his game were more than acceptable.

The alternatives to O-Mac just aren't there so the argument to play him at Casey is largely futile anyway (unless Frost really comes on) Dunn keeps getting overlooked and if they were going to play him they would have done so by now ... Pedersen is not really a KPD either. Lumumba & Garland are better suited to smaller forwards. Frost is already in the side and as a KPD, he is unproven ... and there is no one else. Frost might push Oscar out but probably not right now - we need to see a bit more of Frost and I reckon that's how the MC will see things as well. Those opposed to Oscar playing right now are better off embracing the idea and seeing where it all takes us. It looks fairly obvious that the MC are going to keep playing him - judge him down the track when we've got a much bigger sample size (60-70 games is a decent benchmark unless a player is obviously not good enough to reach that number of games) Anyway, we may well chase a KPD (or other experienced talented players) in the off-season but that's for next year ... for the here & now, we're doing what we're doing with an eye to the future. I see it as exciting times and am enjoying seeing a number of our our new players trying to forge a path for themselves. Oscar was decent yesterday without being great but I reckon he is tracking quite nicely for someone who has only played 6 games. My argument is for opportunity rather than thinking Oscar is going to be some sort of world-beater. We drafted him knowing that we were going to give him a chance to prove himself - as night follows day, that's what we're doing.

Great boxer and a real showman ... in pure sporting terms he was as big as they get. Still have vivid memories of the 2 Frazier fights & the Foreman fight ... especially the rumble in the jungle. Saw him in person at the MCG when he went around the ground in an open top car ... might have been the '97 GF or one of those GF's in the mid to late 90's. RIP to a true champion. He really was the greatest. Here's some highlights of the 'Thriller in Manila' ...

Jack hasn't lost the ability to create space for himself nor has his ability in reading the play waned ... his effort to beat 2 hawks whilst incapacitating McEvoy at the same time was the play of the day in my eyes. Footy smarts should never be underestimated and there was a reason why he was such a top junior. He's like a new recruit and is still quite young ... to get back is an achievement in itself and if he remains fit he'll be a real asset ... so, where do we best utilise his talents? A defensive half forward? A link player who can set up other players into goal scoring opportunities? I've always liked Jack's look-away handpass or kick whilst taking contact from an opposition player. Tyson often does it to good effect as well and it's a classy move to have for a footballer.

The Sharks just have to win game 3 to have any chance in the series ... as it stands, they probably need to win the next 2 because if they are down 3-1, it's almost certainly all over. The Pens have just got it done in a professional way so far ... winning the first 2 games at home sets things up perfectly.

I like that idea ... tighten up one area helps alleviate a problem with another. Why the AFL (Rules committee & Umpires board) have allowed the players to incorrectly dispose of the ball is baffling. I see numerous throws (or what I'd term a throw) in every game but the umpires have been told to let it go. 'Continuous play' comes at the cost of blatant indiscretions ... there has to be a better way. We blame the umps but they are acting under instruction. What's Luke Ball doing? - the same as Geischen and Campbell before him as far as I can make out. Very little. But I'm 100% with you (and others) on the ducking but the high contact issue is from an overall perspective, a much broader issue. The dropping of the knees and body is difficult to see in real time. Your fix with regards to the incorrect disposal could definitely help but the staging will go on. They need to find a way of knocking it on the head (no pun intended ) I've never been one to blame the umpires - the fish rots at the head. I reckon the AFL are happy for the masses to blame the end result on those making the end result decisions. Takes the heat off themselves of course.

If you're talking about any given incident like the one you highlighted rjay, you make a decent point. But what about from an overall perspective? - like every high tackle in every game of the season. The ducking can be seen (but not always) and then there's the dropping of the knees/body and the shrugging of the arms in an upward motion ... and all that can be done at once. Players are also backing into tackles whilst lowering their bodies. It's a rules of the game issue and it needs to be addressed so the umpires can have a clear pathway on how to deal with it all. Clarkson today was not necessarily pointing the finger in the direction of the umpires ... he probably should have been more specific and named the people on the rules committee (do we know who they are?) and the umpires boss (Luke Ball) Also, he made mention of the concussion issue and how the players are using the greater recognition of concussions as a vehicle to draw high contact. Make no mistake, this issue is not going away in a hurry ... unless the AFL takes affirmative action. I'd prefer if they acted now rather than at the end of the season. It's a 'now' problem and it will probably get worse as the season goes on.

The "fix" is easier said than done with regards to the contentious "Around the neck' decision ... at least people are now starting to finally realise that it's not necessarily an umpiring issue, it's more of a rules of the game issue. My fix is to not pay around the neck at all unless it's a blatant high tackling issue with intent ... incidental contact should just be play on. I've always felt that way and I'm not at all surprised that the ruling is finally being exploited by the players. Another fix is to cite players to the tribunal who "stage" for the high contact ... but first of all, the staging bit needs to be outlawed. The real issue is we don't have a replay* facility and what we can see in hindsight. In real time, it's very difficult to know exactly what has happened with regards to the high contact ... as for a consistent outcome, good luck with all that. It's a bit like flooding in that sense ... why did it take so long for someone to think of doing it? (flooding) *I'm not advocating a replay facility as the game goes for long enough as it is.

I thought the difference between the 2 sides was their ability to hold the ball in their forward line and our inability to do the same ... our midfield, ruck work and clearance rate was more than decent and our backline was serviceable when considering how young and inexperienced our backline players are (as a group) We could do with another defensive forward who can kick goals but we probably need 2 forwards who fight hard to keep the ball in ... the last quarter exemplified the advantage that the Hawks had in that area. So often in the last quarter and a half our forward forays were haphazard without a lot of uninterrupted passages of play ... and we went too wide with those forays as well. They on the other hand moved the ball so much better from their defence. Our defence was under siege (somewhat) in the first quarter and in the last quarter and a half.

Can't fault the effort & endeavour

The backline being under siege doesn't necessarily mean the backmen should be blamed. Up until the last 10-15 minutes our overall midfield has been poor in terms of retaining possession and turning over the ball ... and our forward line was not holding the ball in either. It's all about team defence these days bub. And in the last 15 minutes, that's what we've been displaying. 1 point in front as I type this.

We can't experiment? All teams experiment, all the time. And it's being going on forever. Forget what happened from '07 - '13 bub - we had a team of people in charge who lacked experience. Their focus on first round draft picks and the draft pick "number' was flawed. The blueprint ultimately failed - spectacularly. This time around we're recruiting from all over and in so many different ways - the only thing we haven't done is go after free agents but I expect the club to go down that path too. It's true that we need a number of talented experienced players and free agency will allow the club to do that. We might be able to trade for experienced talent too. In a nutshell, if we had a much better list of experienced talented players, a lot of these youngsters would be biding their time.