Bombay Airconditioning

- so the main concern is Roos gameplan doesn't focus on attack. - yet a thread was started last week about Goodwin being behind our push for greater attack. - next year Goodwin starts to take on extra responsibilities as he prepares to become senior coach. What a bloody concept. Garlett Hogan JKH Howe Dawes Watts That line up could prove dangerous but needs everyone fit. Can Watts handle one of the top 2 opposition defenders? We need Dawes to play like he did against Adelaide last year every week. Is Howe's best position up forward? We keep forgetting this is Hogans first year. How would we look without Garlett? Just curious, are the people doubting Roos the same people that said how we now have so much depth three weeks ago?

For those against the Roos/Goodwin succession plan, who would you rather have? Realistically who's available? If your going to criticise at least offer up an alternative.

- Last year we won four games but led in the last qtr in another 6-7 including twice against Port. - Roos inherited a rabble, to suggest his heart is not in it is crap, if that were the case why did he sign for the third year? Having Goodwin on board gives us stability, something we haven't had in years. There will be a smooth transition between coaches rather then another one being sacked and the players not knowing who's going to coach them next. Can Goodwin coach? Who bloody knows, Hinkley was overlooked by several clubs before getting the gig at Port. I have more confidence now that McCartney is on board as I see him and Goodwin as more of a team then head coach/assistant. - Without Roos there's a fair chance we wouldn't have recruited everyone that we have over the last two years. - No doubt a large part Roos job description was to build the culture of the club from the ground up something that was always going to take a couple of years, I don't think we will see the full benefit of Roos work for a couple of years. - With regards to the game plan you can only work with what you've got, many people on here continue to overrate the list. It was only a couple of weeks ago that many posters on here were ranting about our new found depth. What depth? Let's look at our forward line - Hogan - effectively his first year. Dawes - take away the leadership aspect and his bone crunching tackles and he's not bringing much to the table, then you can argue about the delivery into the forward line but to be fair he does drop some simple marks. Watts - this is meant to be his brake out year. Here's bloody hoping. Howe - for mine must play up forward. We now other options in defence plus if the other three are playing he could prove to be a difficult matchup for the opposition. Garlett - we only just got him. JKH - second year player who looks the goods. Kent - third year player who looks the goods. We can't count any of last years draftees as depth. Add Howe, Vince, JKH ,(may of missed one) to the team and remove the dead wood and that's all we've got. We can't afford any injuries because our depth is non existent.

Kieran Foran announced a few days later he's off to Parramatta. That's the equivalent of us losing Jones and Tyson. I think we're already there aren't we? Star players not signing, only difference is they haven't announced a destination. From memory the last big name player to put a hold on talks before signing was Travis Cloke.

With which betting agency? Sportsbet had us at $1.48 - doggies $2.08

I understand the seriousness of drugs in society but I find this one quite amusing.

Obviously the message isn't getting through. If true big example needs to to be set.

A myth or a mess?

We're doing our best to compete with the NRL.

S$$T just got real. If true very interesting times ahead. Anyone seen Gill?

All good, anyone listening to SEN. Western Bulldogs in betting scandal backing themselves to lose. Story broken by the Herald Sun just as It was about to say which game my radio dropped outt I'm assuming last week.

Us a few years ago.

Huddo - Frawleys disposal really stands out in this Hawthorn lineup.

I think he will to, needs to look at Jones game and how he became more effective. Aggression is great, knowing when to use it is better.

Do they remind you of anyone?

I appreciate that, I'm still waiting to see what Gill brings to the table. Right now he needs to sort out the mess that is "drugs in AFL". 1+ million a year to do what exactly.I'm aware CEO'S that generate large turn over for their company take home big dollars but right now he needs to step up.

Players like Scully/Davis/Mumford/Shaw/Griffen? I don't think it was lack of trying. Everyone including us thought Scully was destined to be the next Judd.They had a wish of players they targeted including Buddy, look how that went.

So could we save money by slashing the salary of Gill?

Salem, Newton, Frost.

It could be any player, everyone has a bad game or even a run of bad games. But if that run of games turns into a season or longer or it's the same mistakes made over and over its time for them to be dropped. The exception at the moment is probably Dawes for lack of other options. In Garlands case we have Frost who is up and about, Grimes can make way for Salem. If Nathan Jones form was to drop away all year and he became a liability he can go too and rediscover his touch. I don't care who it is. We need to set high standards. I remember when the Hawks sat out Sewell and the Swans Okeefe, many on thought, hey we could do with a player like that. That what successful clubs do, they make the tough calls.

I can see where Buck's is coming from but 5-6 elite players also helps. Hawks/Cats/Swans and Freo all have 5-6 elite players. Yes Geelongs are getting on. Didn't Hawks have 8-9 AA this year or last? (Can't remember but my mate assures me they did). We have Nate Jones, Tyson has the potential to become elite but I wouldn't say he is there yet. H....you could make a case but you get my point. With regards to bottom six, I posted today in the "starting 22 round 1" thread about moving battlers on the list on in favour of young players with potential.

Yes and no, could it be another year or two into some of our younger players?

What suits my argument.....My argument is that there needs to be a time line on how long out of form players are given, if his stellar season was last year fair enough but it wasn't. The "one good season in four" a blatant lie? The line was used jokingly but as other posters have pointed out his form is debatable. As for your conversation with your work colleage....."bias towards the most recent season".....well that is his most recent form, how far back do we look? You could mount a case that he's been solid without being great just as you could mount a case that he can join his mate Jack Grimes in the VFL until they can display the kind of form on a consistent basis that warrants selection in an AFL team. Part of the reason we've been crap for so long is we hang on for too long, no ones made the tough calls. Garland is 26 and a professional sportsman so drop him, explain to him why he's been dropped and what areas he needs to work on. If the talent is there he will fight his way back, but as previously mentioned his best may not be good enough. Time will tell.

Sylvia is the perfect example, (ok he had a handful of good games as opposed to s great year) but the point being we held onto him and continued to play him in the hope that eventually one day he would deliver, upon being traded to a good side he found out what was actually required. Garland isn't a champion of the game or our team so he should be awarded no favours, at 26 he still could recapture the form we know he is capable of but until then......

And what one good season a few years ago warrants automatic selection? As already mentioned we now have other options, he needs to be dropped to go back and regain some form, even then depending on how others are going he may struggle to get back into the side.