Macca

The glaring issue for me (and it's been a glaring issue for a number of years) is the inability of our established or experienced players to perform to a satisfactory level when the heat is on. We can't expect to get a collective A grade output from Dawes, Watts, Pedersen, Howe, Garland, N Jones, Tyson, Vince, Lumumba & Dunn but we can expect a B grade level or a strong B (B+) Yesterday, as a collective, we got a C grade output (and that is being kind) As a team, we let ourselves down badly again. Where is the gut running, playing in front, spread, teamwork, 1%ers, disposal skills etc? Previously, it's been N Jones who has been able to stand apart on a consistent basis but he was basically on his own. This year, it's McDonald and also Salem who have put their hands up. We need a lot more from our core group of established or experienced players - focusing on kids or fringe/depth players is looking away from where the real issue is. I expected a number of our established players to improve and get better this season but in many cases, they've regressed. They need to lift.

Roos dropped 4 players and gave Watts the vest ... and we came out in the first half tonight and delivered an ordinary performance. Roos would have expected a lot better. Tonight was really disappointing - the future looks bright with the addition of our new young players but they need the leaders/experienced/established players to lead the way. Many here are wanting to drop JKH as if he's the reason we lost. He's the least of my concerns in terms of the overall team. .

That mentality has been with the team/club since '07/'08 The players who should be impacting the contest aren't ... they get enough touches to improve the stat sheet but these players rarely, if ever, play really well against the best sides (a few of our less experienced players like Salem & T-Mac did play very well tonight) They do enough to not stand out as being a candidate to be dropped but not enough to influence games. The 'ok' or 'alright' category. Our attack on the ball tonight was not up to scratch. It must be really frustrating for Roos. .

Not harsh at all - he did a couple of nice things but he should have come on and had a manic attack on the ball. He must know he is at the crossroads. Dawes was largely ineffective and Howe simply doesn't work hard enough. I didn't notice Garland much and Pedersen didn't do a lot .. the other 5 have a lot more to offer than their output at the moment (N Jones, Vince, Dunn, Tyson & Lumumba) As I said previously, we need a lot more from our experienced players than just 'ok' or 'alright'. By the way, I wasn't singling Jack out anyway - if I was, you might have a point. I named 10 players who aren't doing enough. Those here pointing the finger at the young players are looking in the wrong direction - our established and experienced players aren't doing nearly enough and they are not leading the way - Watts included. Besides all that, my original post was more a reflection on the form of those players for the whole year (so far) - not just tonight. More is expected and we're not getting it. .

Established or experienced players who had very little impact ... Dawes Watts Pedersen Howe Garland Other established or experienced players who are still down on their best and/or need to do more ... Dunn Vince N Jones Tyson Lumumba We need a greater impact from all 10 of the above players - we cannot hope to win games unless that happens. They should be leading the way and they aren't. The possession count by a few of the aforementioned 10 players was quite flattering. 'Ok' or 'Alright' doesn't cut it. The Swans were in cruise mode after half time.

On a brighter note ... Pies got smashed Tigers over-run and overrated Bombers are pretenders Hawks lost a game they would have won if Hodge & Lewis weren't rubbed out ... and hopefully the Blues lose (by a point)

Yep - he also looks to do something constructive when he gets it - Salem the same. A lot of players had dirty nights

A dozen players or more have had no impact. Trying to find 6 good players is a fruitless exercise ... Salem & T-Mac have done well. Our skills are deplorable

The above scenario has happened hundreds of other times for the past 30 years. Often a number of the better players from any given draft are scattered all over the place. It will happen again and again no matter how much we pay the recruiters. Expecting perfect results from a far from perfect system is unrealistic to say the least. Trying to project how good these draftees will be 3-5 years down the track is fraught with danger (as we've found out) .

9th might be a trifle ambitious for the Tigers - their next 4 ... vs Coll, @ Port, vs Ess, @ Freo.

So if people here don't rate Grimes why would they think he's got any trade value? Also, his new club would have to take up his current contract. Grimes stays but unless he improves, he's a depth player. It's darn near impossible to even have 32 "AFL ready" players on a list so there are advantages to having players with a fair bit of go in them as depth players ... if these players also offer up value in terms of experience, leadership and such like, all the better. We are in the process of building culture so I can definitely see the value in players like Grimes. Previously, our last 10 players (apart from rookies and draftees) haven't offered up very much at all. His biggest issue has always been that he gets knocked off the ball far too easily - and he's not suited to pin-pointing short passes. Certain players like Jack should be instructed to predominantly charge forward and kick the ball out in front of the forwards (who should be leading hard) .

We received a "grant" of 1.4 million in early 2013 and that's it (unless you can prove otherwise) By contrast, Port Adelaide received a grant of $14 million from 2011 onwards ... Grants increase Port rescue deal to $14 million ... many might read that as $1.4 million vs $14 million. The AFL possibly pointed PJ in our direction but there were and are plenty of other CEO's that can do as good a job. As for Roos, we could have gone down the track of appointing an experienced coach on previous occasions but instead chose the rookie path.

There are also a stack of draftees who need up to 3-5 years in the system before we see their best (and improvement can be expected thereafter) The examples are numerous ... T-Mac is a good example - he might end up being a B+ or even an A grade player but he only played 2 games in his first year (the last 2 games of 2011) "Nailing a draft pick" is not always about instant gratification ... the draft pick number attached to their name is often a poor guide too. Patience and top development is a key ingredient with any given draftee.

I had no issue at all with his debut year - in fact, he did better than expectations IMO.

Quite right Redleg A good example of that is Collingwood in 2006 - they received 9 prime time free-to-air games in that season after having a 5/17 record in 2005 (they also tanked in 2005 - lost their last 8 games after achieving 5 wins by round 14 of that season) Carlton are receiving a similar deal this season after being a largely dismal outfit last year.

Garland is playing a lot better and Viney had stepped it up before being injured. Jetta was doing 'ok' but the expectation should be that the experienced players should all get better - not drop off by 10-15% (or worse) The focus can tend to go towards the young players because of expectations but in all reality, we won't win games unless all our established players are firing.

As well as those 5 players, Cross, Jamar, Howe & Dunn have all been down on last year's form. Not by a great deal it must be said but to have at least 9 players needing to play better is 5-7 too many. Too much focus is placed on the fringe players or draftees when it's the leaders and the more experienced players who need to show the way. My expectations on these players is far greater than the players who have played less than 30-40 games (or the depth players)

Eddie does what is best for his club and who could blame him? I fully expect him to be unfair to others, selfish, arrogant, money-hungry, ambitious etc etc. That's just how things work and I'd expect our chairman to act in a similar way if we were in the same strong position. From an ethics and moral standpoint it's a trifle unpalatable but the AFL is big business now and in a lot of ways it's every man for himself. The AFL on the other hand needs to have an attitude that embraces all - as custodians of the game they need to look after the welfare of all the clubs - unfortunately they're not very good at that. Their primary interest is making money as well as garnering as many sets of eyes as possible. They mistakenly think that by doing that it helps all the clubs but they are effectively creating a large gap between the haves and the have not's. Their business model squeezes out the smaller operations. The fixture reflects that - it's designed to help the larger supported clubs. Extra millions of dollars go to the bigger clubs every year at the expense of the smaller clubs (Dogs, Saints, North and us) Over time, that model is creating larger and larger gaps ... and that model didn't start recently either - we've had 10-15+ years of it (so far)

The Giro d'italia kicks off on Saturday night ... looks like SBS & SBS HD are covering every day of this Grand Tour - from about 10.30pm - 11.00pm (Cable Eurosport HD & Eurosport SD are also covering every day) Contador is even money favourite but our own Richie Porte is a firm short priced 2nd favourite and he might be a real show with the might of the Sky team behind him. Richie Porte confirmed as Team Sky’s leader in Giro d’Italia

It's his 3rd year and 20th game ... he'll get more than one more chance Wyl. Nearly every ex footballer worth his salt will tell you that a player needs 60-70 games before they have firmly established themselves in the big time. Tom McDonald has always shown something but he's only now really starting to hit his straps - he's played 65 games. If Toumpas can snag 15-18 possessions with a half decent DE rate he will have done well in terms of re-starting his career - others who are established in the side and the other leaders need to show the way. We have a number of players in the side who need to hit their best form. Let's also remember he's the 21st or 22nd player picked in the side. People here need to calm down a tad and show a degree of patience ... I understand that our patience has been tested previously but we can't lose sight of how things are normally done with draftees. Having said all that, I'm hoping that Toumpas can be established in the side at least by year's end. Edit: grammar

Michie was a tad unlucky as he did very well the week before - might have been worth another go as the sub but those are the breaks. Roos has certainly sent a message - Jamar may be rested though and this gives him a chance to look at Spencer. We needed to give our back-up ruckmen some chances at some stage so why not now? Against these top sides I don't see any problem with a bit of experimentation so the promotion of Stretch and Toumpas gives both those lads an opportunity. The whole McKenzie decision is a bit of a head scratcher but as 'titan' said, it might have just been an initial mistake at the selection table - or as someone else indicated, the original plan might have just gone astray. A little tough on Grimes too but Roos is obviously looking for an impact from our depth players ... other depth players who get their chance in the future will need to take their chances by the looks of it. All the best to Stretch for his debut.

Just another point re Lucas Cook - what if the 2010 draft had looked like this? ... 12 - Tom McDonald 33 - Jeremy Howe 50 - Troy Davis 53 - Lucas Cook 81 - Jordie McKenzie (promoted rookie) 96 - Jake Spencer (promoted rookie) We'd almost certainly wear the late picks and be very happy with the first 2 picks (especially the first pick) Spin

So who gets through to the conference finals? ... it's sort of looking like the Blackhawks/Ducks & Capitals/Lightning but the Rangers might overhaul Washington. Montreal will need to get a hurry on too.

Wanting a player to be better than he can be is one thing but basing that thinking on a top end draft pick number is just silly (unless one has an unwavering belief in our current drafting system) Often these same people will claim the draft is a lottery when someone like T-Mac is snared with a late pick You can't have it both ways

My argument on drafting also is firmly pointed at the totally unnecessary lashing out at the club, the recruiters and the players involved. If it doesn't work out for Toumpas that lashing out will be pointed in his direction (almost by default) It's happened to TJ, McLean, Sylvia, Watts, Morton & Trengove. Not nearly enough people here will blame the system