Undeeterred

How about when Watts went back, filled the hole and took the fist in the back of the head from Betts, whilst holding the mark?

As Wayne Carey pointed out on the radio, doing that took some courage, and that will develop over time in the backline and eventually he'll be able to take that to the forward line.

Damn straight. He takes contested marks like that quite a bit. I seem to remember him taking a one hander against the Dogs whilst being mauled (pardon the pun).

Won't be last.

Things will click before then and we'll snag a few.

As frustrated as you might be, that is completely and utterly ridiculous.

Bringing in the sub early always has an effect on the last quarter. This in part explains the exhausted efforts in the last.

Very underrated point...

Neeld didn't like that turnover...

Dan Nicholson getting heaps of it, which is good.

I know its late in the game and it is gone, but we are so EMBARASSINGLY bad.

Weak again Watts. At least smash a pack.

Yeah I was a bit surprised about Morton too. Really thought he was going ok, and certainly not the worst.

I thought Tom Scully, but having read it, definitely Collingwood. Not even close. Imagine being 0-10 and smashing them on Queen's Birthday. They would probably burn down the Southern Stand...

There's nothing wrong with your OP.

It just has been covered before a few times in other threads.

So maybe that's an explanation for the lack of replies?

It doesn't make it any less valid.

Fair cop Jose - I'll take back the dummy spit.

And Moonshadow - in all the teams I've played in over the years (albeit mainly basketball), the best ones were the ones where we had played together for 5 years. Reactions become completely instinctive. The teams where they switch you around every season are hopeless, it takes at least half the season for everybody to work out where the other guys are running to, and to stop all being in the same place at the same time.

Think there's something in that and, although I'm sure this has been covered already too, I think that's the crucial missing ingredient in our team at the moment.

You will find that you have not had any/many replies to this because you have broken many of the cardinal rules of this board.

Your piece

1. Thoroughly researched

2. Logical in approach

3. A well thought out and expressed opinion

4. Lack of negativity

5. Non-emotive

6. Not derogatory, demeaning, condescending to anybody

Please don't let the lack of feedback stop you putting up more posts like this, I for one thought it was a pleasant change and it highlights one the many issues people tend to overlook 'in the heat of the moment'

This will bump it up to the top of the board so hopefully you will get more replies, but be careful what you wish for

Thanks for the positive feedback...

I thought the reason the OP got no reply because it has been covered so many times before..?

You're right Jose. Now that I think about it, I probably am the only person here who has ever posted on a topic that's been posted on before. Good pick up mate.

I'm relatively new, and didn't read the 449 pages of previous topics before I posted. However, now that you've pointed out my error, I'll check them next time I think about writing something I think is interesting.

Sam Blease has played more than 2 games.

You're right, typo on that one. Sorry, I think it is 7 (but haven't looked again, so could be wrong again!)

It's important to remember that we have a group of guys in their early 20's who should have played 50+ games each, but have been stalled by a constant stream of injuries. This leaves a pretty big gap in our list experience-wise. Strauss, Blease, Tapscott, Gysberts and Jetta are the ones that come to mind immediately, Grimes and Bail as well. All have been very highly rated as juniors and have had nothing but bad luck since arriving with us, mostly with random injuries that have nothing to do with fitness or preparation. If these guys can get themselves back on the parkand play some sustained footy (Dare I say it, a full season or two?) we should see a drastic improvement, not only from them but from the team as a whole as the imbalance in experience evens out.

That would be right - I just started a thread on this and somebody else beat me to it!

One thing I've noticed recently is how many of our young players (whom lots of us often heap crap on) simply haven't been out on the park enough in their early years. Lots of them have spent significant amounts of time injured.

I think this is highly relevant in the development/recruitment debate. Are our players not developing because they simply aren't getting any games?

For example:

• Rohan Bail - 23 years, 25 games
  
• Sam Blease - 22 years, 2 games
  
• Lucas Cook - 20 years, 0 games
  
• Max Gawn - 20 years, 4 games
  
• Jack Grimes - 23 years, 39 games
  
• Jordy Gysberts - 21 years, 18 games
  
• Liam Jurrah - 23 years, 36 games
  
• James Strauss - 21 years, 11 games
  

I know some of them are very young, but if a few had 50 games under their belts, I think their development would be much greater. For example, I'm amazed that Jurrah has only played 36 games, it seems much more than that. A few of the above are real cornerstones of our future, and they just aren't getting any game time.

Even some of our older blokes seem not to have played all that many games relative to their time in the system (Sylvia - debuted 2004, 125 games, 17 per year; Rivers - debuted 2003, 136 games, 17 per year; Moloney - debuted 2003, 136 games, 17 per year; Jamar - debuted 2003, 117 games, 15 per year). Be interesting to see how the average games per year stacks up against other sides, but it seems odd that none of our leaders average more than about 75% of available games. Is that normal?

How boring. Who gives a rats bum what he thinks.

I'm optimistic. I think the SCG will suit our new game plan.

Well I was right at least, given that our game plan appears to be to get f'ing smashed at every opportunity.

PS ... should be 'elitist'.

Totally made my day.

What, I now have a Demonland warning point. Do the players get warning points?

Mr Admin, you have soured my night, lol.

What's a warning point? Does it mean I'm a good boy if I don't have one.

Really interesting thread.

Watching Dangerfield today, I'd almost put him in the top 1 or 2. He is absolutely sensational.

If we have a spare mil, we should be chucking it at him, and the compo pick(s) at Adelaide.

Um, no. Not even close.

Scarlett - I completely agree. They want him to be tougher, then play him loose in defence. Doesn't make any sense to me.

The other problem is that they play him in a different spot every week. I just don't understand why they don't pick a position, any position, and let him play there 10 weeks in a row...

Maybe give them a chance to have a run and build up some cohesion without making 4 or 5 changes every week?

Not sure - just putting it out there.

I'm optimistic. I think the SCG will suit our new game plan.

At risk of being labelled a heretic, we could always call their bluff and take a kid who is 'generally considered' to be better, with our pick 3, and make them take Viney with 1....

I really should have read the whole 7 pages before posting this....

A very good idea..........except for the fact that we suck 9 different types of balls at the moment and wouldn't win 8 games this season if there were 1,000 games left.

Gold.