Preview Changes vs Adelaide (Sun 16th Aug)

[dogzrule]

Something does seem off about the whole situation. Particularly concerning considering other players who have had indiscretions have been able to return and play.

No mention of Hunter playing in the scratch match against Lions either, assume he isn’t coming back anytime soon

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

My theory on English;
Training restrictions mean he cant learn what he needs to learn by not playing senior footy, even still is rucking against Sweet or Trengove at training really going to prepare him for Gawn and Grundy? Playing a quarter in scratch match for a run wont either. He has a tank, he has the hands, he has the ground ball skills...He needs as many centre ruck contests against AFL ruckman as he can.

Yeah, he wont be as effective and yeah it might cost us right now, but I'd say they see it as short term loss for long term gain.

I think that's a fair point. You can certainly see the positive impact of playing English at AFL level when he wasn't quite ready, so the reasoning holds up as well.

I suppose the concern that arises from that is when we start actually throwing everything at winning, though. I don't think we're necessarily ready to really contend so I support giving guys like English consistent opportunities, but we seem to get younger year on year. There has to be a point where we commit to doing whatever we can to win, even if it means playing capable, young players in the VFL for prolonged periods of time.

 

[Next Waiting]

I think that's a fair point. You can certainly see the positive impact of playing English at AFL level when he wasn't quite ready, so the reasoning holds up as well.

I suppose the concern that arises from that is when we start actually throwing everything at winning, though. I don't think we're necessarily ready to really contend so I support giving guys like English consistent opportunities, but we seem to get younger year on year. There has to be a point where we commit to doing whatever we can to win, even if it means playing capable, young players in the VFL for prolonged periods of time.

Assuming that we aren't in this pandemic shitstorm beyond this season, I think you could reasonably argue that next year development is a lesser consideration.

I agree that English and Smith, one third of our on ball brigade, look shot to pieces physically and need a rest. English coz he's a giraffe and Smith coz he's young. Same result for different reasons but a third is material.

A couple of others in the squad look like a cup of cement wouldn't go amiss but generally speaking I think the younger bodies are struggling and there's enough of them to make a difference.

Latitude this year, less so next.

 

[Del165892]

Apparently Billy played a good game as a midfielder in the scratchy. Maybe give Bailey Smith a rest and give Gowers one last chance playing as a mid. He gives our midfield a different look and makes us a bit less predictable. He's pretty explosive off the mark and I could see him playing a Dangerfield type role.

 

[Next Waiting]

Apparently Billy played a good game as a midfielder in the scratchy. Maybe give Bailey Smith a rest and give Gowers one last chance playing as a mid. He gives our midfield a different look and makes us a bit less predictable. He's pretty explosive off the mark and I could see him playing a Dangerfield type role.

In the peripheral vision and awareness stakes, Billy makes Jongy look like Pendles. The only time I'd like to see Billy run through the middle of the ground is when they swap ends at qtr time. ...and even then he'd probably trip over

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I have to be honest, I'm a little bit surprised at how furious people are after that loss. There were some really yuck moments, sure, but I thought it was overall a step forward. We were beaten by a better team. The momentum ebbed and flowed, and the defining factor was that they were more fluid than us when they had the momentum. Too many times we gave the ball back and a number of times they created opportunities through sensational play that was difficult to defend. The lapses around the contest are frustrating but more indicative of how exhausted English is and how overworked our on-ballers are. I don't understand why we refuse to address this.

I would like to see Cav and/or Greene in but to be honest I feel that the team we put out on the park against Brisbane is sadly close to our best side. For that reason I would keep it simple.
Out: English (managed), Gardner (omitted)
In: Trengove, West/Cavarra

FB: Williams - Keath - Wood
HB: Daniel - Cordy - Johannisen
C: Lipinski - Bontempelli - Macrae
HF: Lloyd - Naughton - Vandermeer
FF: Wallis - Bruce - Dale
R: Trengove - Dunkley - Liberatore
I: West/Cavarra - McLean - Richards - Smith

I would drop Gardner and go smaller down back this week, but expect Bev to keep the faith with him given his presser. Smith and English should have been rested last week, they are both completely cooked. I would still rest English despite the eight-day break, but think Smith should be ok. McLean played an awful game and I wouldn't be surprised to see him out again, but I'd like to give him the opportunity to play through a game like that as he is rarely afforded that chance. Trengove is the logical replacement for English, while West/Cav will hopefully bring some pressure and pinch hit on-ball (though that's unlikely given we're allergic to playing anyone outside of our best four mids in this position).

As an aside, I have all but given up on Ed Richards. His game is developing in many ways and he has some clear strengths, but you simply cannot be a low-production, small outside mid that cannot hit a target in a paddock. He has given the ball straight back to the opposition on easy drives at least five times in the past two weeks and that's indefensible. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced we have a better option right now, but I'm certainly low on confidence that he ever becomes the player we need him to. My hope is that he's just exhausted.

I paused at this point. Why are Brisbane the “better team”?What would make US the better team? Why are we struggling? Is our list just not good enough? Is it the game plan or the team chemistry? Just when things start to click we get injuries and replacements are not up to it and we are back to square one.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

No mention of Hunter playing in the scratch match against Lions either, assume he isn’t coming back anytime soon

Did I read that his fiancée was coming up to the hub? Perhaps she has to quarantine so he is too.

 

[ummmbont]

Out Gardner in hunter
Easy

 

[Mattdougie]

Did I read that his fiancée was coming up to the hub? Perhaps she has to quarantine so he is too.

Not permitted to quarantine with family

 

[weltschmerz]

Apparently Billy played a good game as a midfielder in the scratchy. Maybe give Bailey Smith a rest and give Gowers one last chance playing as a mid. He gives our midfield a different look and makes us a bit less predictable. He's pretty explosive off the mark and I could see him playing a Dangerfield type role.

If we gave Smith a rest, I'd prefer to have West and McLean rotating through that role.

 

[Mattdougie]

Cordy Keath Wood
Williams Naughton JJ
VDM Libba Richards
McRae Bruce Dicko
West. English . Wallis
Sweet. Bont. Daniel
Dunkley. Smith Cavarra Young

 

[Pagnoccolo C]

Apparently Billy played a good game as a midfielder in the scratchy. Maybe give Bailey Smith a rest and give Gowers one last chance playing as a mid. He gives our midfield a different look and makes us a bit less predictable. He's pretty explosive off the mark and I could see him playing a Dangerfield type role.

Yeah, Gowers and Dangerfield are almost identical.

 

[True Dog]

Cordy Keath Wood
Williams Naughton JJ
VDM Libba Richards
McRae Bruce Dicko
West. English . Wallis
Sweet. Bont. Daniel
Dunkley. Smith Cavarra Young

Me likes it.......

 

[dogwatch]

I have to be honest, I'm a little bit surprised at how furious people are after that loss. There were some really yuck moments, sure, but I thought it was overall a step forward. We were beaten by a better team. The momentum ebbed and flowed, and the defining factor was that they were more fluid than us when they had the momentum. Too many times we gave the ball back and a number of times they created opportunities through sensational play that was difficult to defend. The lapses around the contest are frustrating but more indicative of how exhausted English is and how overworked our on-ballers are. I don't understand why we refuse to address this.

I would like to see Cav and/or Greene in but to be honest I feel that the team we put out on the park against Brisbane is sadly close to our best side. For that reason I would keep it simple.
Out: English (managed), Gardner (omitted)
In: Trengove, West/Cavarra

FB: Williams - Keath - Wood
HB: Daniel - Cordy - Johannisen
C: Lipinski - Bontempelli - Macrae
HF: Lloyd - Naughton - Vandermeer
FF: Wallis - Bruce - Dale
R: Trengove - Dunkley - Liberatore
I: West/Cavarra - McLean - Richards - Smith

I would drop Gardner and go smaller down back this week, but expect Bev to keep the faith with him given his presser. Smith and English should have been rested last week, they are both completely cooked. I would still rest English despite the eight-day break, but think Smith should be ok. McLean played an awful game and I wouldn't be surprised to see him out again, but I'd like to give him the opportunity to play through a game like that as he is rarely afforded that chance. Trengove is the logical replacement for English, while West/Cav will hopefully bring some pressure and pinch hit on-ball (though that's unlikely given we're allergic to playing anyone outside of our best four mids in this position).

As an aside, I have all but given up on Ed Richards. His game is developing in many ways and he has some clear strengths, but you simply cannot be a low-production, small outside mid that cannot hit a target in a paddock. He has given the ball straight back to the opposition on easy drives at least five times in the past two weeks and that's indefensible. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced we have a better option right now, but I'm certainly low on confidence that he ever becomes the player we need him to. My hope is that he's just exhausted.

After the Brisbane game we've seen a lot of angst with at least 3 Bevo-under-the-microscope threads getting a good workout - either new ones or revived ones.

The other thread to get a massive workout has been the trades thread. It zipped forward about 6 pages over a 10 hour period from mid-morning today. That's a post every four minutes. It shows we don't just want drastic action on the coaching front but also on the playing list.

Maybe all that's understandable after three successive losses - they bring to the surface a lot of the concerns that have been simmering away for a while.

However we need to take our bearings. Yes we have structural and tactical problems that need addressing (and discussing) but this is far from a full-blown crisis (end of 2014 - now THAT was a crisis!):

• Those sides that beat us are sitting 1, 2 and 6 on the ladder
• In only one of those wins were we badly beaten
• Tim English will make it as a footballer in one role or another, he's just running on an empty tank right now
• Smith has not been quite right since his concussion - it could be an effect of that or just cumulative fatigue. He has a lot more to offer.
• Naughton, Dale and maybe Dunkley looked underdone - we got very little return out of the first two and not a lot out of Dunkley. They'll all be better for the run
• We don't really know how much to take away from this crazy season anyway - hubs, fixturing, slippery conditions, etc.
• Bontempelli is playing below his best for whatever reason. He's been good but not playing the way we know he can.
• While Weightman has been a little bit underwhelming so far (for a first round pick) we have found an unexpected keeper in Vandermeer
• Wallis has finally sussed out how to play the medium forward role and he's 27. Most of his teammates who are finding their way are much younger
• Williams has become a lock in the side, a very reliable and consistent player. A year ago the majority view expressed was to delist him.

My point is that things can turn around quickly and players can suddenly find their groove over a few weeks or an off-season.

We should be challenging for the top 4 but we're not. It's clear we still have a few important holes on the list (speed, small forward, key defender and maybe ruck) but we do have the foundation for a good side.

I stick by my claims that we lack leadership and we are too one-dimensional and not agile enough in our coaching. That may hold us back a bit this year. A couple of "shouldabeen" wins could be the difference between 5th and 13th after Round 17.

I think we will get back on a winning sequence this week, especially after being labelled soft in the media. The world won't be such an ugly place if we can beat Adelaide by 30+ points.

But if we do happen to lose to them ...

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Injury list
Fergus Greene (hand) – test
Josh Schache (groin) – test
Hayden Crozier (toe) – 1-2 weeks
Taylor Duryea (quad) – 1-3 weeks
Lin Jong (ankle) – 2-4 weeks
Matt Suckling (ankle) – 2-4 weeks

 

[True Dog]

But if we do happen to lose to them ...

You know what's going to happen right? You've followed this team for way too long to know how this plays out DW haha.... it's like it's our birth right to lose these types of games, God I love this club

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I paused at this point. Why are Brisbane the “better team”?What would make US the better team? Why are we struggling? Is our list just not good enough? Is it the game plan or the team chemistry? Just when things start to click we get injuries and replacements are not up to it and we are back to square one.

These are good questions and questions that we should constantly be asking.

Brisbane are the better team for all of the reasons that you have highlighted. They were a year older than us on average (25 yr 9 mths vs. 24 yr 10 mths), with almost 20 games more experience (99.3 vs. 82.2). This is despite having a younger list overall, which shows that more of their mature players are playing their best footy and in their best team, as opposed to us (e.g. Hunter, Suckling, Trengove, Gowers, Duryea, Dickson, Jong, Croz all not in the side for various reasons). Their players in the key 26+ age bracket are simply better than ours, e.g. Neale, Zorko, Birchall, Rich, etc, and this is hard - but not impossible - to overcome.

Brisbane also have a much more balanced list, with talent dispersed across every line. They have talent everywhere - Hipwood and Cameron up forward, Neale and Zorko in the midfield, Andrews and Rich down back, McCluggage and Birchall on the outside, most of which are are All Australian contenders (and one of which is almost a Brownlow certainty at this stage). They have really solid roleplayers who are rarely beaten - Gardiner, McInerney, Robinson, Ellis-Yolmen, etc. They have all of the attributes in the exact spots you want them: speed and skill on the outside, grunt and ball-winning nous on the inside, a defensively outstanding ruck, dangerous forward options, reliable defenders and lots of drive out of the back half. We are still developing our speed and skill on the outside, have great grunt and ball-winning nous (offset by conceding the ruck contests), an inconsistent and underdeveloped ruckman who is still working on his defensive game, inconsistent forwards who aren't helped by our structure, mostly reliable defenders, and drive out of the back half that has been completely halted by opposition teams.

Re: the game plan, I don't know the answer to this because personnel and game style overlap so considerably in their contribution. For example, a bad player can make the game plan/structure look diabolical, and a bad structure can make a good player look shocking. Without detailed understanding of our structure and game plan, it is impossible to know whether they are shocking, or whether they are not being pulled off. I think it's fair to say, however, that we have not managed to innovate and tailor our game plan to our personnel as well as we did in 2015/16. Brisbane have done this excellently. Additionally, we either win or lose big, which I believe is a sign that if a team breaks down our structure, we have nothing. I also think it's fair to say that the fact that forwards who have performed well in other teams, either before or after their tenure with us, have struggled in our lineup (e.g. Bruce so far, Dahlhaus, Stringer, etc), tells us that we could be doing something a bit better in that part of the ground.

Overall, I think we are capable of playing very good footy, but also very poor footy. I think we played reasonably well against Brisbane and many of the flaws were a sign of where we are at as opposed to things not going right.

So with respect to your question, "What would make US the better team?" there are several things that need to happen, in my opinion:

• Continued development. A cop-out response, but unquestionably a factor. Skills, fitness, strength, maturity, game knowledge all come with time and experience and we need to capitalise on that. The development of players like Naughton, Vandermeer, Smith, Lipinski, and all of the others that played against Brisbane will hopefully give us a boost.
• Injection of more experience. Keath was a great move, and Bruce despite lean form is an important acquisition, and we need to continue along this line. Whether it's through trade or through getting players back in good form, we need the reliability and leadership that maturity brings.
• More consistency around the ball. A two-part process:
  • More rotation of our midfielders. Round 11 stats aren't out yet but in round 10 we yet again used five players on-ball for the entire game. Port used seven through there. Macrae and Bont both attended 14 centre bounces - Port's top three only attended 12. We have the stock there to rotate this and it is madness that we refuse to do so.
  • A ruck solution. Our mids are pretty good at sharking hitouts and getting the ball back but they can't do it for four quarters. We need to either get English's defensive stuff up to scratch or he needs to start winning hitouts. Or we need another solution.
• Definition of our best 22. We need stability. We need to build chemistry. Our selection is a revolving door because we don't have an established best 25ish players that hold their own at AFL level. This needs to come through targeted recruitment and development.
• Continued addition of attributes that we need, where we need them. Class. Speed. Overhead marking. Defensive nous. Goal kicking. These are all attributes that Brisbane has more of than we do. Some of our players just aren't offering enough.
• Innovation. We need to continue to develop our structures and game plan to allow our best players to thrive. Too many have been shut down - Bont, Bruce, JJ, Lloyd, Dale, and McLean for example are all playing below what they're capable of. We need to give them the best opportunity to thrive. Part of this will come with more support, but part of it is undoubtedly coaching. We can do more here - we need to figure out a way to generate space in our forward line consistently, find a way to stop teams from short-chipping their way to goal, and identify how we can score if our run is chopped off.
  • As an aside, it's difficult to assess assistants. Most of the criticism posted here is hearsay - we don't know if Bev is surrounded by yes men, we don't know if he's never challenged, we don't know if he doesn't listen, we don't know if his assistants have no new ideas. I don't know if we need new assistants. That said, having seen the impact that bringing in fresh blood can have (e.g. Richmond, St Kilda), it may be worth a try. I would like some experience in the coaching group, ideally.

There are more, but there's a summary of what I believe is the answer to your question.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Doubt it happens but I wouldn’t hate having Schache come in for Bruce

 

[Dogsman16]

Doubt it happens but I wouldn’t hate having Schache come in for Bruce

Schache has groin issues. Don't think he will be back for some time.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Schache has groin issues. Don't think he will be back for some time.

The injury list updated yesterday to have him as a test for this week. I doubt he'll be ready, but the club said he's recovered quicker than expected

 

[The Inbetweener]

Schache has groin issues. Don't think he will be back for some time.

He’s listed as a Test and the quote said he’s improved a lot quicker than they thought, so fingers crossed

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

These are good questions and questions that we should constantly be asking.

Brisbane are the better team for all of the reasons that you have highlighted. They were a year older than us on average (25 yr 9 mths vs. 24 yr 10 mths), with almost 20 games more experience (99.3 vs. 82.2). This is despite having a younger list overall, which shows that more of their mature players are playing their best footy and in their best team, as opposed to us (e.g. Hunter, Suckling, Trengove, Gowers, Duryea, Dickson, Jong, Croz all not in the side for various reasons). Their players in the key 26+ age bracket are simply better than ours, e.g. Neale, Zorko, Birchall, Rich, etc, and this is hard - but not impossible - to overcome.

Brisbane also have a much more balanced list, with talent dispersed across every line. They have talent everywhere - Hipwood and Cameron up forward, Neale and Zorko in the midfield, Andrews and Rich down back, McCluggage and Birchall on the outside, most of which are are All Australian contenders (and one of which is almost a Brownlow certainty at this stage). They have really solid roleplayers who are rarely beaten - Gardiner, McInerney, Robinson, Ellis-Yolmen, etc. They have all of the attributes in the exact spots you want them: speed and skill on the outside, grunt and ball-winning nous on the inside, a defensively outstanding ruck, dangerous forward options, reliable defenders and lots of drive out of the back half. We are still developing our speed and skill on the outside, have great grunt and ball-winning nous (offset by conceding the ruck contests), an inconsistent and underdeveloped ruckman who is still working on his defensive game, inconsistent forwards who aren't helped by our structure, mostly reliable defenders, and drive out of the back half that has been completely halted by opposition teams.

Re: the game plan, I don't know the answer to this because personnel and game style overlap so considerably in their contribution. For example, a bad player can make the game plan/structure look diabolical, and a bad structure can make a good player look shocking. Without detailed understanding of our structure and game plan, it is impossible to know whether they are shocking, or whether they are not being pulled off. I think it's fair to say, however, that we have not managed to innovate and tailor our game plan to our personnel as well as we did in 2015/16. Brisbane have done this excellently. Additionally, we either win or lose big, which I believe is a sign that if a team breaks down our structure, we have nothing. I also think it's fair to say that the fact that forwards who have performed well in other teams, either before or after their tenure with us, have struggled in our lineup (e.g. Bruce so far, Dahlhaus, Stringer, etc), tells us that we could be doing something a bit better in that part of the ground.

Overall, I think we are capable of playing very good footy, but also very poor footy. I think we played reasonably well against Brisbane and many of the flaws were a sign of where we are at as opposed to things not going right.

So with respect to your question, "What would make US the better team?" there are several things that need to happen, in my opinion:

• Continued development. A cop-out response, but unquestionably a factor. Skills, fitness, strength, maturity, game knowledge all come with time and experience and we need to capitalise on that. The development of players like Naughton, Vandermeer, Smith, Lipinski, and all of the others that played against Brisbane will hopefully give us a boost.
• Injection of more experience. Keath was a great move, and Bruce despite lean form is an important acquisition, and we need to continue along this line. Whether it's through trade or through getting players back in good form, we need the reliability and leadership that maturity brings.
• More consistency around the ball. A two-part process:
  • More rotation of our midfielders. Round 11 stats aren't out yet but in round 10 we yet again used five players on-ball for the entire game. Port used seven through there. Macrae and Bont both attended 14 centre bounces - Port's top three only attended 12. We have the stock there to rotate this and it is madness that we refuse to do so.
  • A ruck solution. Our mids are pretty good at sharking hitouts and getting the ball back but they can't do it for four quarters. We need to either get English's defensive stuff up to scratch or he needs to start winning hitouts. Or we need another solution.
• Definition of our best 22. We need stability. We need to build chemistry. Our selection is a revolving door because we don't have an established best 25ish players that hold their own at AFL level. This needs to come through targeted recruitment and development.
• Continued addition of attributes that we need, where we need them. Class. Speed. Overhead marking. Defensive nous. Goal kicking. These are all attributes that Brisbane has more of than we do. Some of our players just aren't offering enough.
• Innovation. We need to continue to develop our structures and game plan to allow our best players to thrive. Too many have been shut down - Bont, Bruce, JJ, Lloyd, Dale, and McLean for example are all playing below what they're capable of. We need to give them the best opportunity to thrive. Part of this will come with more support, but part of it is undoubtedly coaching. We can do more here - we need to figure out a way to generate space in our forward line consistently, find a way to stop teams from short-chipping their way to goal, and identify how we can score if our run is chopped off.
  • As an aside, it's difficult to assess assistants. Most of the criticism posted here is hearsay - we don't know if Bev is surrounded by yes men, we don't know if he's never challenged, we don't know if he doesn't listen, we don't know if his assistants have no new ideas. I don't know if we need new assistants. That said, having seen the impact that bringing in fresh blood can have (e.g. Richmond, St Kilda), it may be worth a try. I would like some experience in the coaching group, ideally.

There are more, but there's a summary of what I believe is the answer to your question.

Thanks! Very informative.

Another question, how hungry are our players for success? I identify Wallis as the most emotional team member, going by body language. He busts his gut, but who else does? Ok, from appearances Bont, Macrae, Crozier, VDM, Daniel are (to me) the most overtly committed; others may well be but some give the appearance of "hope if I get a touch I don't stuff up". Confidence is not so much low, but very erratic, in themselves and each other. Is that a fair observation?

 

[dogwatch]

You know what's going to happen right? You've followed this team for way too long to know how this plays out DW haha.... it's like it's our birth right to lose these types of games, God I love this club

For just this week I'm going to tip us.

Matt Lloyd called us "soft" last night. If that doesn't fire us up then we might as well pack up for the year.

It does of course raise a follow-up question ... if we can be fired up by a media pundit calling us soft why can't we be fired up every week? Or even most weeks?

 

[dogwatch]

These are good questions and questions that we should constantly be asking.

Brisbane are the better team for all of the reasons that you have highlighted. They were a year older than us on average (25 yr 9 mths vs. 24 yr 10 mths), with almost 20 games more experience (99.3 vs. 82.2). This is despite having a younger list overall, which shows that more of their mature players are playing their best footy and in their best team, as opposed to us (e.g. Hunter, Suckling, Trengove, Gowers, Duryea, Dickson, Jong, Croz all not in the side for various reasons). Their players in the key 26+ age bracket are simply better than ours, e.g. Neale, Zorko, Birchall, Rich, etc, and this is hard - but not impossible - to overcome.

Brisbane also have a much more balanced list, with talent dispersed across every line. They have talent everywhere - Hipwood and Cameron up forward, Neale and Zorko in the midfield, Andrews and Rich down back, McCluggage and Birchall on the outside, most of which are are All Australian contenders (and one of which is almost a Brownlow certainty at this stage). They have really solid roleplayers who are rarely beaten - Gardiner, McInerney, Robinson, Ellis-Yolmen, etc. They have all of the attributes in the exact spots you want them: speed and skill on the outside, grunt and ball-winning nous on the inside, a defensively outstanding ruck, dangerous forward options, reliable defenders and lots of drive out of the back half. We are still developing our speed and skill on the outside, have great grunt and ball-winning nous (offset by conceding the ruck contests), an inconsistent and underdeveloped ruckman who is still working on his defensive game, inconsistent forwards who aren't helped by our structure, mostly reliable defenders, and drive out of the back half that has been completely halted by opposition teams.

Re: the game plan, I don't know the answer to this because personnel and game style overlap so considerably in their contribution. For example, a bad player can make the game plan/structure look diabolical, and a bad structure can make a good player look shocking. Without detailed understanding of our structure and game plan, it is impossible to know whether they are shocking, or whether they are not being pulled off. I think it's fair to say, however, that we have not managed to innovate and tailor our game plan to our personnel as well as we did in 2015/16. Brisbane have done this excellently. Additionally, we either win or lose big, which I believe is a sign that if a team breaks down our structure, we have nothing. I also think it's fair to say that the fact that forwards who have performed well in other teams, either before or after their tenure with us, have struggled in our lineup (e.g. Bruce so far, Dahlhaus, Stringer, etc), tells us that we could be doing something a bit better in that part of the ground.

Overall, I think we are capable of playing very good footy, but also very poor footy. I think we played reasonably well against Brisbane and many of the flaws were a sign of where we are at as opposed to things not going right.

So with respect to your question, "What would make US the better team?" there are several things that need to happen, in my opinion:

• Continued development. A cop-out response, but unquestionably a factor. Skills, fitness, strength, maturity, game knowledge all come with time and experience and we need to capitalise on that. The development of players like Naughton, Vandermeer, Smith, Lipinski, and all of the others that played against Brisbane will hopefully give us a boost.
• Injection of more experience. Keath was a great move, and Bruce despite lean form is an important acquisition, and we need to continue along this line. Whether it's through trade or through getting players back in good form, we need the reliability and leadership that maturity brings.
• More consistency around the ball. A two-part process:
  • More rotation of our midfielders. Round 11 stats aren't out yet but in round 10 we yet again used five players on-ball for the entire game. Port used seven through there. Macrae and Bont both attended 14 centre bounces - Port's top three only attended 12. We have the stock there to rotate this and it is madness that we refuse to do so.
  • A ruck solution. Our mids are pretty good at sharking hitouts and getting the ball back but they can't do it for four quarters. We need to either get English's defensive stuff up to scratch or he needs to start winning hitouts. Or we need another solution.
• Definition of our best 22. We need stability. We need to build chemistry. Our selection is a revolving door because we don't have an established best 25ish players that hold their own at AFL level. This needs to come through targeted recruitment and development.
• Continued addition of attributes that we need, where we need them. Class. Speed. Overhead marking. Defensive nous. Goal kicking. These are all attributes that Brisbane has more of than we do. Some of our players just aren't offering enough.
• Innovation. We need to continue to develop our structures and game plan to allow our best players to thrive. Too many have been shut down - Bont, Bruce, JJ, Lloyd, Dale, and McLean for example are all playing below what they're capable of. We need to give them the best opportunity to thrive. Part of this will come with more support, but part of it is undoubtedly coaching. We can do more here - we need to figure out a way to generate space in our forward line consistently, find a way to stop teams from short-chipping their way to goal, and identify how we can score if our run is chopped off.
  • As an aside, it's difficult to assess assistants. Most of the criticism posted here is hearsay - we don't know if Bev is surrounded by yes men, we don't know if he's never challenged, we don't know if he doesn't listen, we don't know if his assistants have no new ideas. I don't know if we need new assistants. That said, having seen the impact that bringing in fresh blood can have (e.g. Richmond, St Kilda), it may be worth a try. I would like some experience in the coaching group, ideally.

There are more, but there's a summary of what I believe is the answer to your question.

Great post. Balanced and thoughtful. Agree with most of it.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Thanks! Very informative.

Another question, how hungry are our players for success? I identify Wallis as the most emotional team member, going by body language. He busts his gut, but who else does? Ok, from appearances Bont, Macrae, Crozier, VDM, Daniel are (to me) the most overtly committed; others may well be but some give the appearance of "hope if I get a touch I don't stuff up". Confidence is not so much low, but very erratic, in themselves and each other. Is that a fair observation?

I would argue Keath is in that group. Gets visibly frustrated by mistakes (without being obnoxious about it), always directing players and just seems so emotionally invested in the outcome of games. Probably the only other player who I've never seen put his head down or give up