I'm right behind you Shiek.

No, literally I am right behind you.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

Is that a gun in your pocket...?

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb

The game against the tigers was the deathnell for our season.Its fine to look at stats and more stats but the fact is the players confidence was shot.You could see games during the following 11 weeks where we would have periods of non competitive footy.Frenchs loss cannot be underestimated,but when the opposition got a run on we collectively went to water.Kouta Campo and Stevens were poor defensively and nobody could stem the flow by saying I am not taking this shit.That was the most disappointing aspect of our season.Our so called senior midfielders allowing their opposition to run riot.
I also advocate that some players could be tried in different possies.Only Campo and Whitnall were experimented with out of necessity.2004 was a strange year.10 wins and the wizard win in 2005 masked many of our deficincies.Our percentage in 2004 was shit probably a more true indication of where a club is at as opposed to a win loss record.

Opposition here is anyone playing Carlton.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

Listen here 'Athorn', your reply is of the same quality as the amount of playing ability your namesake had - ZILCH !!

Who needs friggin' stats to work out we have no decent key position players ?? Here's a hint, take a pair of binoculars to the game next time, if you miss it then, go see an optometrist.

Bloody hell, Teague gets played on someone like Tredrea and gives away 6 inches in height plus the differential in body weight. Thornton isn't quite tall enough but is still thrown around like a rag doll and Livingston is purely undersized for a key position player. Put these guys onto a flank or a pocket and all of a sudden they are going to blitz.

Up the other end, Deluca has the height but struggles to hold a mark and Whitnall, whilst at least being serviceable in that role was then moved into defence as the loose player. DeLuca should be tried out of the square with Fevola playinmg off a half-forward flank, at least you know that Fevola isn't going to have difficulty kicking the distance.

Man o man, if you think that we are going to win a premiership without having genuine key position players then you are serioulsy deluded.

_________________
GROUND ZERO + DRAFTING YOUTH = SUSTAINED SUCCESS

Fev is fine at F. F. DeLuca (or carlos eventually?) shouold be played at CHF and if he can't mark it (usually can't) should he taught to bang it down or do that earl spalding whack towards goal. With Fish and Whits that's not a bad set up - yes another tall strong pack marking forward would be heaven BUT
so would three Judds, two Jezzas and a partrdige in a pear @#$%&! tree. And even so our back line would still be crap. Teague is short and slow. T-Bird may, only may, hold down a post. Who else we got?

So yes sheik the beak, the spine can be improved but the whole friggin backline needs to be shape-shifted! Lets try some stuff, like Russell Waite Walker as a Hbackline. If it doesn't work we lose - heck nothing new there, but if, if it worked shit run out of defense, some agro too and speed.

Toss simmo in the back pocket - could be a ripper running BP. Or Carlos at CHB, @#$%&! I think we should try some things with this defense, but things that ivolve height and speed and run and attack.

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Our defense has never been the same since the day SOS retired.

Our forward line is pretty good.
Our midfield is slowly coming together with the potential to be very good what with all the younger lads coming through the ranks.
Our backline is by far the worst in the league.

Here's hoping Hartlett, Carlos and another draftee are the building blocks of a future rock solid backline.

_________________
Writer for SuperCoach Paige www.scpaige.com.au
Twitter - @johnfeeney24

I'm only an armchair expert .....

...but my understanding of the top KPP's is that Dowler is one dimensional ...the others just seem to have ?'s hanging over them...like they havn't been shaped yet into a particular mould where as Dowler is just a forward and he may not have the potential that the others do...thats all I meant really....I could very well be wrong.

Some of you guys who have actually seen them can always correct me....I just read the stats and reviews and stuff....

_________________
The problem will be made. for the solution to be sold, to your face before your eyes, tolerance is now the new danger

WC could've got one...they aren't high in the KPP stakes.

Anyway, our forward KPP are far better then the ones down back. Fish can take a contested mark....Waite is on the way...Fev is a ripper...when up forward Whits is a good contested mark ....but start heading down back and I start to panic....

Maybe it is the back half of the spine that is the most obvious Sheik?

Ok we are shit shit shit all over the park...but when I look down back I see nothing...no one to rely on ...a slow undersized FB...a slow Teague with poor disposal...the only shining light I had was Carrots and he was moved to the middle...it is just such an obvious deficiency....

_________________
The problem will be made. for the solution to be sold, to your face before your eyes, tolerance is now the new danger

Which in both cases remains far superior to your little theory. This post is about some stats that say something about 2005. You come on and rant about a theory that you have that was probably formed in the 1980's when the SST was true and applicable to all games of aussie rules.

Wake up Sheik, the game has changed. Best football played in 2005 was the Bulldogs rounds 16-21 or so, without any key position forwards, and with only Harris and grant as key defenders. They have, plus WCE and Sydney, phenomenal midfield strength and skill and this lead them to win games over those with a great centre half forward.

Theory without stats is nothing but a theory, so i suggest you leave your little opinions off to the side in opinion posts whilst others try and think about the game, OK?

_________________
Formerly: Ackland the Wonderkid / Army the Wonderkid / quivering mess / molsey / Tony Lynn Fan Club

Well said Keogh.

In my mind 2005 can be broken up into thirds - 1) Rounds 1-6 where we were competitive against average teams, 2) where we really struggled, losing big to good teams and losing small to poor teams( with a good competitive patch against Adelaide and Sydney mid-season where we stuck with them) and 3) Finishing the season with some runs and high scores. Dannyboy talked about this third phase.

In 1) we lost to the Roos (5th), Collingwood (15th) in a game we should have won, Freo away (10th) and only just beat Essendon* and the Hawks. Rounds 1-6 we looked competitive but didn't know how good these teams were that we were playing.

In 2), roughly rounds 7-17, the Richmond loss started a horror run of 11 losses, including 4 10 goal thrashings. Some matchups looked horrible (Teague), the midfield was crunched, and we lost miserably at times. Honourable stretch in losses to Melbourne (rd 9, 18 points, flattering margin), Adelaide (rd 10), Sydney (25 points, huge game by Whitnall, shocker by Fevola, if only we had someone to take Hall).

In 3), the win over Richmond commenced a strong spell of high scoring running football, a phase in which Whitnall was back the whole time. perhaps our miserable loss to Hawthorn in Round 17 started this, perhaps Pagan just tried all out to win, who knows.

In fact, in 2005, we only scored wins against the teams that ultimately came 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th, with 2 points against the team that came 8th. Sure, we played well against Port but they were down at the time.

In 2004 we nailed 4 wins against top 8 teams - Geelong, Melbourne, WCE and Essendon*. No such luck in 2005.

Over 2005 it is interesting to see who came in and who was moved out of the midfield. To my memory:

In: Carrazzo (back pocket), Bentick (Bullants), Simpson (wing), Walker (at times, wing - HFF)
Out: Camporeale (half back), Johnson (Bullants), McGrath (back pocket)

I think its clear that a number of moves were tried by Pagan, that those who say nothing was done are a little off the mark. Consider the weagles and how many midfield moves they've had to make - probably 1 or 2 a game, just start Cousins, Fletcher and Judd in the middle... On a list of 44 or so players and only so many midfielders, I think he's probably tried all & sundry. Hooray for the upcoming draft.

Hooray!

_________________
The problem will be made. for the solution to be sold, to your face before your eyes, tolerance is now the new danger

And we got some of those teams on off days - the Cats and Eagles games were big wins at Optus when they didn't turn up. Especially the Eagles, what a day, what a debut, what a way to dramatically increase everyone's expectations only to find them impossible over the next year or so.

_________________
Formerly: Ackland the Wonderkid / Army the Wonderkid / quivering mess / molsey / Tony Lynn Fan Club

If you needs stats to tell you that a big man will always beat a smaller man then you are certainly way off with the pixies.



So the Bulldogs are bereft of tall players along the spine and the Swans won the premiership with a team full of pygmies ?? Pass me the bong mate, I want to look at footy through your squinty bloodshot eyes too !!

Hey, here's a thought, now that you have debunked the swans plans, maybe they'll trade Barry Hall, Adam Goodes & Lewis Roberts-Thomson to us as they won't need them any more ??

And if your opinion/theory/waffle/absolute twaddle is right, then we should be premiers every year, we have no-one down the spine and obviously don't need them.



And as for replying with an opinion that my opinion isn't worth two knobs of goats poop, well that beats the hell out of me ??

_________________
GROUND ZERO + DRAFTING YOUTH = SUSTAINED SUCCESS

We can't be hoping that the opposition 'don't turn up' to pinch our wins, we have to be bigger, bolder and better completely across every line. Just because Port have kept going with Chad Cornes at CHB doesn't mean that we should follow suit. He is 191cm and seems to do okay so if we could find a CHB who was 196cm, then that player would hopefully do better than 'okay' wouldn't he ??

How anyone can accept that we play undersized players on guys like Tredrea, Richardson & Neitz just defies logic. Sure we can get away with it at times but the odds are that they will win out more times than they wil lose.

Furthermore, just because the other teams persist with undersized players in the key posts doesnt' mean that we should either. To get a competitive advantage we need to do things differently, not just follow the pack.

_________________
GROUND ZERO + DRAFTING YOUTH = SUSTAINED SUCCESS

Aah, you must be a big Peter Street fan then? A big man will not always beat a smaller man. Other things come in to it - pace, skill, positioning, footy smarts.

Good statement of fact there to make yourself look smart! Good John Howard technique. Of course we cant rely on them not turning up, God I hoped for it every game in 2005!

I was just commenting that some of our wins in 2004 were when others weren't switched on, thats all.

Continue on with your merry way at the pulpit though.

_________________
Formerly: Ackland the Wonderkid / Army the Wonderkid / quivering mess / molsey / Tony Lynn Fan Club

Sheiky now, temper, temper, this is a discussion not a political rally, calm, breathe deeply, nod wisely and discuss, as for the goat poop, surely you should have used camel crap?

Big beats a small - good to see the old Richards arguments still operate.

Course one could ask is having 8 forwards and no backmen better than 3 fowards and 5 good backmen, but hey, talls away!

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Oh paalllleaasee, do I have to spell everything out for you, of course the player has to have those factors in his skill set otherwise he wouldn't be playing in the AFL. I take that as a given and shouldn't have to spoon-feed you the bleeding obvious.

Peter Street ....... oh my gawd, how did he ever get drafted ? Well he'd outmark Eddie Betts & David Rodan though.

_________________
GROUND ZERO + DRAFTING YOUTH = SUSTAINED SUCCESS