Macca

Not sure the sceptics are saying we don't need leaders ... it's more that why do these leaders need "official" status apart from the top 2 or 3 who might have official status ... I'd like to see us have a capt, vice capt and a deputy vice and ... all the other players can aspire to those 3 positions - that system has worked perfectly fine in all sorts of sports for a long time. All players can show leadership and/or lead by example ... even the 18 year old's. Who's to say that Petracca and/or Brayshaw can't step into that sort role right from the get-go. We've had all sorts of leadership groups for the last 8 years and it's done us no good at all. For 4 years from 2008-2011 we often had a total of 7 or 8 players in the leadership group yet many of our players wouldn't go near a contest and we were correctly adjudged to be playing "bruise free" football for those 4 years ... in that instance, it could be argued that the leadership group failed miserably. In my opinion, Joel Selwood didn't become the leader he is because of the culture at Geelong or because of the leadership group they had when he first went there as an 18 year old - he's a natural ... pure and simple. Geelong actually needed him to help show the way - not the other way around. The other thing about these leadership groups is how the personel within these groups can change dramatically from year to year ... all based seemingly on the win/loss record. In other words, leadership groups are great when you're winning but if you're losing a lot, the club is deemed to have picked the "wrong" leaders. Having said all that, we are going to have a leadership group so lets hope all these "leaders" can help us win a lot more games ... if not, will their places in the side be safe and will they get the gig again next year?

And not everything is written in stone either, Wunders ... we do need a 3rd forward fit and firing .. in fact we need 3 tall forwards fit and firing (if we play a 3rd tall forward) Some players can play tall and some talls can't take a mark to save themselves. I'm expecting the unexpected with regards to our forward line - the only "absolutes" are Hogan (if fit), Garlett (if in form) and Dawes. Other candidates are Pedersen, Watts, Gawn, JKH, Salem, Kent, Toumpas, Howe, Fitzpatrick and maybe even Petracca, Vandenberg, Neal-Bullen, Brayshaw or Oscar McDonald could spend some time forward - we do need to create a functioning forward line. it should be remembered that we can always promote a rookie if we want to ... it should also be remembered our forward line was largely dysfunctional in 2014. We've got a number of options as compared to previous seasons but not a lot of those options can be relied upon as yet.

Yeah, Liverpool have been disappointing - Balotelli just hasn't delivered (and he had to, to a certain extent, because of the loss of Suarez) It's not all his fault though - you're just not firing as a team. Even my Hammers are an outside chance for Europe (although top 10 is a more realistic finish) It's Man City or Chelsea for the title - Arsenal lost again overnight and Man Utd don't look strong enough.

Chelsea beaten! The title race is on.

I'm not much of a fan of leadership groups so whether Grimes is in the leadership group or not is neither here nor there for me. What does matter is if he, along with a number of others that have been on the list for some time, can start to play some really good footy - week in, week out. Whilst any player is on our list I wish them well. They are all capable - however, a coach can only do so much. The rest is up to the player. I don't like ruling a line through any player as I believe that even the best player can improve. Dunn is a great example of that - he's finally starting to produce after being virtually written off by many fans ... Jetta is another. Our biggest issue remains our kicking to position ... you can't have too many players in the team who can't consistently hit a target - the best teams often don't even carry one player who is deficient in that area.

The same principles should always apply when it comes to 18 year old draftees that come to the club. Time, development and patience. They all need to show something though and nearly all of our draftees in the last 3 years have done so (Toumpas included) ... Hogan, Salem, Kent, Viney & JKH all look to have bright futures but again, we can't expect too much, too soon - it just doesn't work that way (especially with the contested nature of modern footy) In reality, a player doesn't start to hit his straps until he's played about 70 games and by that time, he's at least 22 years old. And that's not the end of it either - a player would be expected to get better and better after those initial 70 games. The gap between under 18 TAC footy and AFL footy is bigger than it's ever been - it's taken quite a leap just in the last 10 years.

You may be right - if a player can't kick to position then he's making it easy for the selectors to make an easy decision. And as you indicated AD, Roos will be smart enough to adapt to what he's got as his disposal (both in what talent a player has to offer and that players playing style) 'Do what you do - do well' is most apt when it comes to sport ... I'm a great believer in it. Roos' ultimate style is tempo footy - the Swans under him knew how & when to lock it down and they knew when to attack with speed and efficiency. With more talent at his disposal (hopefully) we should see a greater emphasis on attack - the forward line looks a lot better (on paper) so at least the midfield and our defence can look down the ground with a lot more confidence We really need a fit Hogan and our 3rd tall forward to step it up (Watts? Pedersen? maybe Gawn?) Dawes is really better suited as the 3rd forward but he'll have to play a needed role as the no.2. Probably as the lead up forward and/or as a decoy. What's this thread about again?

I'd like to see Grimes used in a way that best suits Grimes ... the short hit up, sideways, backwards, boundary hugging style just doesn't suit him. If that's how he used in the future then he may not last. I'm almost certain that Lumumba will be told to play his "natural game" and he's new to the club ... a good coach won't ask a player to play a style that has very little chance of working for that player - it's not 'one size fits all' despite what some people might think. I believe a players strengths should be brought out by the coach whilst not neglecting to work on that players weaknesses. Some players are more accurate with their kicking over longer distances - usually it's the other way around but not always. The problem for Grimes is that from what we've seen so far, Roos likes to share the ball around in the backline ... and then switch the play or hold on to the ball etc etc etc ... Jack just isn't ideally suited to that style.

You're probably right but there's nearly always a twist in December in the NFL ... one upset loss can change everything for any of those 7 aforementioned teams. It's almost certain that a team will miss due to the tiebreak rules only. In 2008 the Pats missed the playoffs after finishing 11/5 ... there's an outside chance that might happen again in the NFC. What a way to miss ... Denver & New England the only teams to miss the playoffs with an 11/5 record

I agree - Jack needs to improve his field kicking and decision making but so do many others. As mentioned previously, he tends to make some mistakes when he has too much time to think about it ... or, if he tries to pinpoint a pass sideways, on an angle or alongside the boundary) He's a no-nonsense type being asked to play a style that doesn't ordinarily suit him. Lumumba is a straight ahead player as well but, his coaches have allowed him to play that style ... Lumumba is an "80 metre" player and Grimes can play in a similar way. As for the leadership group ... I'd prefer to view things differently ... every player on the list has an opportunity to display leadership and lead by example - Even the new draftees ... they don't necessarily need to be led by the hand.

Grimes is at his best when he's in that straight-ahead, no-nonsense mode. He's also more suited to corridor footy rather than the boundary hugging stuff ... I'd put McDonald in the same sort of category. Garland is another. Roos has had a year to look at these type of players and I'm hopeful he'll find the right role for them.

I'd agree with you but we'd need to broaden the argument to include nearly all the clubs ... in fact, a number of clubs are doing quite a deal better than us (Carlton & Hawthorn?) It's estimated that 1 poker machine turns a profit of $80 a day ... doesn't sound like much but if one multiplies that $80 x 365 days x 300 machines then it adds up to quite a tidy figure. Me - I wouldn't go near one and would prefer if we didn't have them at all - Australia wide. But then people would just go online wouldn't they? Ya can't win and in the end, clubs will make the best of the situation.

Without our pokies venues we'd be in all sorts of trouble ... however, those venues are posting better profits as time goes on and we're not about to lose them in a hurry. In effect, we're being subsidised by pokies but so are most of the other clubs ... I believe only North Melbourne of the Victorian clubs don't have a pokies venue (they do very well financially, all things considered) If we become a much better team on the field our revenues in a number of areas are almost certain to improve - specifically ... Gate receipts Merchandise Membership & Annual Reserved Seating Marketing/Corporate sponsorship & general fundraising Foundation heroes

I was comparing the Lions bottom line with our bottom line. Whilst we're sitting at just over 3 million in the black it has been reported that they are 12 million in the red - that's a significant difference ... all clubs have debts but it's how those debts are serviced which is most important.

The Cowboys won well in the end - Murray was immense. I suppose that puts them right back into contention So ... we've got the following teams fighting for 5 spots in the NFC (the other spot goes to the winner of the NFC South) Green Bay 9/3 Philadelphia 9/3 Arizona 9/3 Dallas 9/4 Detroit 8/4 Seattle 8/4 San Francisco 7/5 The 49ers can make it but they're going to have to make it to 11/5 you'd reckon.

The following by no means paints the full picture EH but they are real figures ... Revenue from the 2013 Annual Report (page 22) 3,311,071 ... Gate Receipts (needs to increase substantially and would do if we received a better fixture & if we win a lot more games 10,846,244 ... Distributions from the AFL (will increase incrementally) 723,068 ... Merchandise (a poor result but again, it's "wins" related) 5,100,106 ... Membership & Annual Reserved Seating (win more games and this figure jumps) 6,368,135 ... Marketing/corporate sponsorship & general fundraising (win more games and this figure jumps) 462,141 ... Foundation heroes /debt demolition fundraising (previously, we've had a lot more income from this area but it can't necessarily be relied on unless ... we win more games) 1,329,141 ... other revenue 11,291,234 ... Social & Gaming Revenue (the other "biggie" and from all accounts, will only get bigger) 1,450,000 ... AFL financial assistance package (A one-off payment to help assist in paying out some contracts) There's huge scope for improving our revenues ... what we mainly need to do for that to happen is to win a lot more games - we are well set up to take advantage of an improved on-field showing. To be in the black to the tune of 3 million plus after 8 years of mainly poor results is an outstanding result. We could be talking about a far different result right now ... as a comparison, the Lions are apparently 12 million in the red. Port can't turn a profit and the Saints are losing big amounts as well.

... and besides that Demoneyes ... don't you watch grass grow all the time? you play a lot of golf - yeah?

ha ha ya know, reading the annual report is a lot easier than one might think DE Let's face it ... people here spend hundreds of hours reading thousands of posts - and many of those posts weren't worth reading were they? Including a number of mine - this one as well ...

I won't be doing anything like that - are you joking? I might post up the link to the annual report so people like yourself can read it for yourself. Will that do?

Putting aside the profit for this year, the fact that we're in the black at all is a minor miracle (all things considered) We're well set up for the future if we can start having winning seasons. We'd have ongoing debts like every other club but those debts are generally accounted for with our revenue streams and cash flow ... our 2 pokies venues being 2 of our main contributors with regards to that revenue. The 1.4 million grant that we received from the AFL during the 2013 season probably wasn't needed in all reality ... the fact that GWS & GCS are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars on an ongoing basis makes our 1.4 million grant look like chicken feed. Those who believe that we're on a drip feed from the AFL are delusional... we're standing on our own 2 feet and have done for our entire existence. The perception doesn't match the reality of the situation. People here may like to read our annual report when it's released. It's an easier document to read than one might think (if you know what parts of it are the most important)

Miranda Sings on 'Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee'

San Francisco Houston Indianapolis

Friday 12.30pm Dallas 8/4 at Chicago 5/7 (ESPN) Monday 5.00am - 11.30am RedZone (ESPN) 5.00am Pittsburgh 7/5 at Cincinnati 8/3/1 (7mate) 8.25am Seattle 8/4 at Philadelphia 9/3 (7mate) 12.30pm New England 9/3 at San Diego 8/4 (7mate & ESPN) Tuesday 12.30pm Atlanta 5/7 at Green Bay 9/3 (ESPN) All the week 14 games & BS Report I'll post up the 'Elo' ratings & playoff chances link when it's available

I'll post up the TV games tomorrow night but Friday's game is Dallas @ Chicago. The early game on Monday (7mate) is the Steelers @ Cinci and ... the late game on 7mate is the big one ... Seattle @ Philadelphia. SNF is the Pats @ San Diego whilst MNF is Atlanta @ Green Bay

Yep, the playoffs virtually start this week ... to add further to your points, titan ... Dallas have to win given their schedule (@ Chicago) Pittsburgh lose and they're possibly out (at Cinci) Same for Baltimore or Miami who play each other Cleveland almost certainly need to win vs Indi Houston win at the Jags and they keep their slim hopes alive (they'd need to win out you'd reckon) Buffalo will need to win at Denver given they also have to play the Packers KC also have to win at Arizona but the Cards lose this game and they could endanger their whole playoff chances (given their schedule) Seattle @ Philadelphia has all sorts of implications New England can't afford to lose at San Diego and the Chargers can't afford to lose either San Francisco should win comfortably at Oakland but they'll almost certainly need to win out and get to 11 wins Mad Monday ... NFL style!