ignition.

The only thing letting down Gawn at the moment are his set shots (the blatant obvious). Watching his two misses on the AFL website it's quite clear he runs out to the right on his approach, which causes him to kick across his body to the left. If he keeps it all straight, it should be an easy fix.

It's not just the backline, but the whole structure or rather lack of. Far too often our entire team, plus theirs, congested themselves down a wing (~1/6th of the ground). We had no one in the forward 50, no one out wide, just all down a wing. So the ball was regularly kicked to a 50/50 contest and if it went to ground we were under pressure. Hawks just spread and as they have for years under Clarkson used the short and mid range kicks to hit targets and open the game up. Our movement is typically to a contest, under pressure, and inefficient.

The hype surrounding Lever last year was rife. It was at a similar level to pre-Toumpas. Was it the right move to target him? Yes, I think so as he showed some impressive traits. But as many of us argued, we paid far too much during trade week. Unfortunately now his wage also looks to be far too much. I'm not going to sit back and bash him. I think he can succeed here based on what I've seen him do at Adelaide. I just hope to not see extravagant levels of hype again in the not too distant future. However, history has a tendency to repeat itself.

6 - Hogan (How is a full forward, our second highest possession getter?) 5 - O.Mc (Worked Roughy well) 4 - Kent (His early game gets him here) 3 - Oliver (Good, but definitely can be better). 2 - Fritsch (Didn't get a lot, but didn't stop having a crack at the hard stuff). 1 - Neil-Bullen (One of the few to not stop running, covered a lot of ground). That was a hard one.

YEP, he's nothing but a liability. He'll never be a premiership quality forward, let alone midfielder. He's only supported when the team plays well around him. He just plods along.

Goodwin - Outclassed by Clarkson Tyson - Was hardly seen

Yet again a complete inability to spread. When we have it there are 36 players in 1/6th of the ground, so it's kicked to a contest time and time again. This game plan is utterly inefficient and useless.

I think I was at the end of the third quarter just after the non-paid Fritsch mark commentators Jono Brown said "it's really not the umpires day", whereas Eddie said "I better not say anything, in case I same something" (along those lines anyway). Roosy was also frustrated, but he of course was biased. I felt the umpires screwed us over severely. It seemed to ease up in the final 10 min when the game was no longer in the balance.

Convince the wife you'll spend quality time with the boy at the MCG. I'm sure she'll be fine at the rock climbing centre by herself. Also it may make your conversations that little bit more diverse

I've been meaning to write this since the weekend as I had previously given the game plan a bit of a bashing. I must say, the first half and especially first quarter was sensational to watch. It was good to see the team spread and subsequently use the ball well off the back of their highly contested style. I hope we see that more often. It was also refreshing to hear Roosy mentioned how Goodwin had put an emphasis on it after reviewing their last game (after speaking to him).

Why did we fail to make the finals last season? Many attribute it to the last round loss to Collingwood, and/or the poor performance against Brisbane the week prior. I also recall three narrow losses near the start of the season that were faulted at selection, such as the naming’s JKH and a premature Weideman. We’ve also argued the regular overuse of the handball, as well as single quarter fadeouts. I guess there’s no right or wrong answer and it’s in the past. However, it was clear we all wanted improvements in these areas, so the question is now, have they been made? Let’s start with selection. Many of us were gobsmacked with the naming’s of Wagner and Maynard over Brayshaw and Tyson. Additional, some of us questioned the omission of Frost when facing the well-built Hawkins and Taylor. Consequently, Wagner’s first half was atrocious, where on three separate occasions he made foolish errors, including a missed tackle, a failed pick-up, and arguably a failed spoil, which cost us goals. His second half was better, although, I still consider him a liability. Next were our tall backs. On too many occasions O.McDonald got man-handled by Hawkins. Granted, he and Lever did a good job curbing his influence, although, things may have been different if Taylor didn’t go off early. Thus, I still can’t fathom the omission of Frost. Additionally, did we or did we not target Lever for his innate ability to leave his man to spoil or intercept a mark for a defensive rebound (we saw very little of this yesterday)? If so, why is Lever playing as the second tall? At Adelaide he played as the third behind Talia and Keath/Hartigan so he could do what he does best. The coaching panel have and tendency to create non-beneficial miss-matches (before and during game day). I hope the basic concepts of opposition analysis and player selection improve by next week. Now the game plan. Time and time again we’re reminded we’re to play a contested brand of football. That’s great, but what about the other half of non-contested football and efficient transitions from one end of the ground to the other? Yesterday, we won the contested possession and tackling pressure counts, yet Geelong destroyed us on the spread where they continually hit one-another lace out on the chest. Conversely, we continually, instead of overusing the handball like last year, opted to flood an end or side and bomb it to a contest (out of fifty, down the wing, inside fifty). How do we expect to make a tilt for finals if we can’t spread and hit lead up targets by foot (this was also an issue last year)? We’ve got that very large MCG to call our own, and yet we don’t use it appropriately. Instead every goal is made difficult. If given the space we’ll see far more from the less contested players such as Hunt, Melksham, Hannan, and Garlett. Dare I say it will be interesting to watch Watts with more space at Port Adelaide. If what we saw yesterday was the game plan it is far too one-dimensional, far too inefficient and tiring, and needs to be supplemented. If not I expect more single quarter fadeouts and subsequent losses. What are your thoughts and arguments? For me these need to improve above all else as I genuinely believe we have a list that on its day can beat any other to a flag.

Agreed and well said.

In hindsight there have been a lot of draftees I wish the club had taken, but I don't see Weideman as a mistake. As others have said, on draft night Weideman was deemed the potential steal of the draft. That year he endured injury-induced setback after setback, but when he played he was spectacular. For example, he convincingly beat the number one defender of his cohort, Aaron Francis (went pick #6), when they went head-to-head. He also was one of the best on ground players when he played a half of football against a VFL side. Finally, he had premiership captain next to his name from the year prior. Yes, Curnow looked sensational last night, and yes, I would like him at the Dees. But at the time of the draft he had just been arrested for drink driving and subsequently refusing to perform a breath test. He came across as a bad-boy, a meat-head, whatever you want to call him. The club obviously questioned his ability to commit to being a full-time professional athlete. Yes, we chose the "nice guy" who had, and still has, great potential. Sure, we could have selected the "mongrel", however, based on the facts available at the time that "mongrel" may potentially damage the culture of the club or have off-field issues such as Dayle Garlett or Jake Stringer.

Let's hope the best thing to come from Jack Watts was Pick 31 of the 2017 draft, which we used to select Bayley Fritsch.

Am I the only one concerned that we picked a bloke the drinks a lot and goes out partying with Jaime Elliot? On a serious note, a great pick up and a credit to everyone involved at Casey.

Rapped for him. He is a top bloke and deserves it.

I think that's a relatively fair assessment. Although, I believe that Viney, Oliver, Lever, and Gawn can take their games to a new level again. They are at a point, however, which is probably more dependent on how the team around them performs as to how much further they develop. Likewise, the development of the others will be catalysed if the team as a whole, including the game plan or execution of it, improves.

I'm glad you a thread on him (after I seeing him pop up in another yesterday). He certainly has the talent and I have no doubt he can perform at the AFL level. I'd be happy to see the club draft him with our first pick (if available). With our new indigenous program led by Matthew "Wrecker" Wheelan, plus the likes of Jetta and Garlett at the club, I'd easily back the club's ability to facilitate his transition from both Perth and into the AFL.

Not yet on the MFC site, here's a little highlights package.

I suspect we'll have to upgrade our pick no. 29 today so that we can confidently acquire Fritsch. I'm concerned the Bulldogs will snatch him up with no. 28. Supposedly they were shattered to miss out on Hannan last year (from their VFL team). I doubt they would target Fritsch to spite us, but I'm sure they are at least interested and predict we'll use one of our second round picks on him.

A fantastic acquisition for pick #66. He was genuinely impressive the day I saw him play against us. I hope he makes the most of this opportunity and continues to excel with us at home.

Yep agreed. If Mahoney an Co. fold on this one it will be infuriating. I believe Balic has the potential to be a very good player. However, based on his track record there is no need to jump the gun. It would take away from the original concept of targeting him (maximising the success of late picks).

I'm not arguing that a club can not build a team using late picks and development. But on that note look lets look at the premiers: Cotchin #2, Martin #3, Riewoldt #13, Rance #18, Ellis #15, Caddy #7, Rioli #15 (all first round picks). I'm arguing about currency. We have no Leverage, excuse the pun, to draft or trade a "star" in next years super-draft. I'll repeat that I'm thrilled we got Lever. But Mahoney & co. could and should have played it better.

Where they were selected is irrelevant. We could name just as many or more "star" players that were drafted early. One way or another, draft picks are currency. Early picks effectively offer a higher probability of selecting a star (particularly in next years darft) or used are used to directly trade a star (like Lever). I'm thrilled we acquired Lever. My qualm, however, is that Mahoney & co. rushed it and paid overs. They could have played it much better.

Paid overs. Well done MFC on bending over again. They went all in at first. Our first offer should have been the final offer. Isn't next years draft rated as another or near-superdraft? No wonder Adelaide were adamant on getting our first round pick. STUPID!