Macca

Jamar may go on for another year regardless ... he's not the worst and in fact, he played very well last week. Lowered his colours yesterday but many of us thought that might happen against Mumford - it's a pity our midfield didn't step it up to counter what happened in the ruck. As a collective, we were outplayed. Next week we encounter Jacobs and another decent midfield on their patch. It's going to be quite a challenge but I don't mind that. Comfort zones are not what this team needs.

You're mostly right but I put Spencer ahead of Gawn mainly because he can at least use his height better in the ruck (none of them are much chop around the ground) Fitzy to the backline (for Casey) is a good move for his sake and he might surprise (as a backman) King is very young. It should always be remembered that a ruckman nearly always needs to be the main man - opportunity is everything. For that reason, I don't like to rule a line through a back-up ruckman. Same as I won't necessarily rule a line through an older 'good player' because they can sometimes or often have a 2nd wind and ... I often won't rule a line through a young player unless the match committee does. Other players that have been in the system for 4-5+ years - different story. There's plenty of them playing in the 2's for us right now. The solution is that we might be able to trade for a decent ruckman who isn't getting an opportunity elsewhere. Edit: added more to the Fitzy evaluation

Dawes for Frost made more sense but then who 2nd rucks? Or Frost to the backline and drop one of the back 6? (I'm talking about the selected team for yesterday - next week is another story) There's a few reasons why we lost badly in the end ... the main reason was the clearances/midfield/Mumford. Our forward line can't be expected to function well if we can't get the ball in there enough times with quickness and efficiently. The backline ended up being under siege like we've seen before. They used the ball better when they had it too. Jones & Tyson had 4 clearances between them when we ordinarily could have expected 12-14 clearances from them out of the 86 total clearances. Give us 10 more clearances and 10 less for them and the count is 46-40 in our favour (instead of 50-36 in their favour) With those numbers we see a different type of outcome (not necessarily a win for us) Edit: Mumford is a great example of how much influence an A grade ruckman can have - Jamar wasn't disgraced either - he just met his match yesterday (and some) .

I wasn't one to place scorn on Dawes as many others are even though I wouldn't have necessarily selected him. I'd rather blame the selectors for picking an extra tall forward when we didn't need one. Our first quarter and a bit when at one one stage we led the clearances 13-4 was terrific so we can at least say we're capable of better ... Jones & Tyson had awful days and if both had played well, the result could have been far different. We're reliant on them to play well and both are normally good enough to deliver - 4 clearances between them when they were in there all day was a telling blow. They need help though so we need Vince, Cross, Viney, Brayshaw, Lumumba, Toumpas, Salem, Newton & vandenBerg (4 x Clr yesterday) to play their part. It's a trial and error thing with those that I've mentioned. We can't just give up on them - give them an opportunity I say. Our clearance work and midfield remains our greatest concern all the same - adding 2 classy inside/outside midfielders would change things dramatically ... easier said than done of course. It's a concern that it's Adelaide in Adelaide next week but maybe we need a really stern test straight away to sort out the men from the boys. Let's see how we bounce back against a very good team away from home.

I reckon Roos picked Dawes because he believes he was best 22 for this particular game (as of last Thursday night) I also believe that "best 22" is a changeable dynamic. For instance, Roos may or may not believe Dawes is best 22 next week. He might also have that opinion with up to a dozen different players currently in our 22 (let's face it, there's not too many consistent top performers there) The problem we've had and we've got is our 2nd ruck - at the moment it's Frost but Frost is probably more suited to the backline than as a forward. But 2nd rucks normally play forward which creates an issue for Dawes because Watts and Hogan are already being used in the forward line. 4 talls and 2 smaller forwards as opposed to 3/3 or even 2/4. I didn't have Dawes in my side for this week purely because I didn't think we needed another tall forward (not because I can't see Dawes' value) Sometimes you just have to sit out. I reckon Roos went in trying to exploit our advantage in height - it didn't work. GWS in fact exploited the lack of depth we had with our mids. We rolled the dice and lost out.

Well, the Magpies sell 18 game memberships and premium memberships which seems to include reserve seating for their away fixtures at the MCG... plus, there's 'other' reserve seating sales in that Western stand for away games at the MCG too (for Collingwood at least) It would amount to a great deal of money in terms of total revenue but when divided up, the money derived from the revenue obtained from that Western stand could be much the same for home and away games. It probably amounts to more than 500k per game (when everything is factored in) but it could be a lot more. We just assume that the home team makes all the money at the MCG but it's different for the Pies at least. These 4 Collingwood membership packages includes all the Collingwood games at the MCG (home & away) It's a little cloudy but I'm fairly sure these memberships includes a reserved seat for their away fixtures at the MCG. The membership packages cost between $756 & $999 (and they sell a stack of them) ,

Yeah, but they were doing it far too easily at the centre bounce downs and at the stoppages ... Jones had a shocker and Tyson was ineffectual Jamar & Frost had 35 hit-outs between them as against Mumford's 38. Mumfords hit-outs were more effective but our midfield was woeful, all the same. Clearances ... Jamar 6, vandenBerg 4, various others 2 or 3 For them ... Shiel 9, Ward 8, Mumford 5, Griffen 5, Coniglio 4, Treloar 4 Our clearance numbers and contested footy has been an issue since the Daniher days. A top midfielder will rove to the opposition ruckman if that opposition ruckman is on top. Jones is usually capable of doing that but he had an off day - no one else put their hand up.

We started well and played some terrific footy to get 5 goals ahead. Then it all went pear shaped. It's quite baffling to try and work out why too ... you'd think the team would want to go in for the kill but we did the opposite. We were too top heavy as it turned out and their midfield ended up having a field day. Our lack of purpose, effort & leadership was alarming. The other concern was changing our centre clearance personnel. It was obvious that Jones & Tyson were having very little impact out of the middle but they were both persevered with. They just wanted it more and our heads dropped far too quickly. At one stage we were up 13-4 in the clearances and the figure ended up being 50-36 in their favour. Many here thought it was our strongest team but it always looked to me that we were 1 or 2 mids short (so much so that I thought we might have to rotate our talls through the interchange) The positive is that we did play very well in the first quarter and a bit (we have previously seen the team not turn up at all) Reality check today.

Not a good quarter but we're still nearly 5 goals up ... (they won the clearances 13-8 in that quarter) We kick the first couple after half time and it's over.

We're getting a fair bit of clean disposal whilst being tackled ... sometimes the numbers don't tell the true story. The other numbers in our favour do tell a story (especially the clearances) What stands out is our teamwork and attack on the ball (amongst other positives) Our disposal skills have improved dramatically (without having the need to wax the ball in the backline) We need to put them away by half time.

Bit like when you're watching the Rams

Footy is now a physical (often violent) version of "keepings off" so winning any clearance can result in a scoring opportunity, Contested footy numbers are also a great pointer and so is uncontested footy. Hit-outs to advantage or even just nullifying a high performing opposition ruckman is vital too. I was never much of a stats person but I am now (to a degree) Some stats are meaningless and how do we measure quality of possession and/or creativity and vision?

Quietly confident again this week ... our forward line looks dangerous all of a sudden and that's because of the Watts factor IMO. Him being used as the 3rd or even the 4th forward in a floating role can result in him kicking 3 or 4 goals. If GWS concentrate their efforts on Watts, that can in turn free up Hogan, Dawes, Frost or even vandenBerg. (our small forwards obviously need to contribute as well) Midfield and backline needs to stand up to a large degree for it all to come together ... we lost the clearances (stoppages 26-18 in the GCS favour) by a margin of 9 last week and still won reasonably comfortably ... we can't expect to do that every week and win games.

Besides all that rjay, the rest of the commission are highly unlikely to give Carlton only a couple of prime time games whilst Fitzpatrick is supposedly "out of the room" Ch7 are looking for as many sets of eyes as possible and the commission are always going to give them what they want ... during the Daniher years we never received enough prime time exposure despite playing finals in 6 out of 9 years. Back then, we probably didn't care as much for various reasons - nowadays, it's a different matter. Supporter numbers rules, then success on the field and whether that team is a Victorian team or not (when it comes to the amount of prime time games that a team might receive) In a nutshell, prime time exposure is geared towards the big Victorian sides. That in turn creates a bigger gap between the have's and the have not's. Also, it's a non issue in the wider footy community so don't expect anything to change. Related to that observation is that Collingwood make a great deal of money from their away fixtures at the MCG.(including the QB clash) They've got that whole Western stand to exploit for all their games at the MCG (premium and 18 games memberships, reserved seating, merchandise sales and probably food & beverage sales etc etc) Eddie would welcome "everyone wants to play against Collingwood" (the Victorian sides) as that would probably mean at least 1 less interstate trip (where, in real terms, they're not making any money) As a conservative estimate, the Pies would probably still make at least 500k from their away games at the MCG but it's probably more like a million (per game) And we're supposed to be grateful for receiving one blockbuster home fixture a season?

BarnDee nailed it last week (here) with his 26 point predicted victory .

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic rjay but just on the commission, when was the last time we had some representation there? The Blues list reminds me of some of our lists from the recent past - not much top end talent and a whole bunch of C & D graders ... they are in for a painful year - 6 wins max.

Mike Fitzpatrick

'Akum' suggested on the changes thread that we might rotate our talls through the interchange ... Hogan, Frost, Dawes, Watts & Jamar could all be rotated (perhaps a 4-6 minute spell depending on who it is) Jamar might only need 5 minutes bench time 2 or 3 times in the game and he could also spend some time forward - not sure how that would all work in with the midfield rotations (which would be down to 2 interchange unless we decided to go with all 5 talls on the field for blocks of time as well) The idea has merit ... rotating the roles of our tall forwards keeps the opposition on their toes and can create confusion and mis-matches. I've long felt that Roos likes his talls to play as utilities and/or be more versatile (Pedersen was used this way last season and was reasonably effective) Of course Roos himself was a gun utility. vandenBerg could be added to the aforementioned other 5 as he looks like he can play tall to good effect. .

We do tend to under rate ruckmen sometimes ... If a team doesn't have a good one, that team can get towelled up (e.g Richmond against us last year when Maric was out) Jamar smashed Hampson which subsequently created a decent advantage our way in the clearances. Mark is another player who has responded to Roos' coaching.

It's probably crossed Roos' mind to go down that path but I'm not sure we have the impact player (available) to play the role of the super sub. The idea has merit though. At issue is that all our good players need to start off and because we lack quality with our depth, it ends up being one of the young blokes. It's hard to get to 30 first choice 'starting 22' players and right now, we're a fair way off that number. It would be ideal if we were strong enough to use Vince, vandenBerg or someone like Newton as a super sub. That would also mean that we'd have quite a strong side. We may only be a year away, all the same.

At least 1 more off-season old dee ... more likely 2 off-seasons (to push for top 4)

Fair enough ... again, I highly doubt Roos would.

I wouldn't and I highly doubt whether Roos would either old dee ... do you need some names? Fitzy? Terlich? McKenzie? Grimes? Edit: Grimes is one player who I'd like to see work his way back into the seniors

If Dawes and Vince weren't available, would you drop Toumpas? If so, who comes in?

For what it's worth, I have him out for Vince but that is not the point I'm making. What the selectors actually do is anyone's guess. Too many here want to drop a player in a hasty/lashing out way when in reality, it never actually happens that way at any level of sport. Well, it shouldn't happen that way. Dropping a player should always become a mechanism for improving a player. Dropping a player should not be specifically designed to punish - that stuff rarely, if ever, works. 3 practice games (which Roos used for specific purposes) and 27 minutes last Saturday is nowhere near enough of a sample size.