Lessons in defeat

Peter Ryan, AFL Record writer: Legendary hockey coach Ric Charlesworth often says that as a coach he learns more from a loss than a win. What will Geelong coach Chris Scott learn after the Cats first loss of the season?

Nick Bowen, AFL Record writer: Scott would have learned that some sides might see playing keepings off as the key to taking the Cats' scalp. The Bombers played a short-kicking style reminiscent of the Hawks this year. It makes sense that if you can deny the Cats' prime movers the ball, then they can't do you any damage. Easier said than done. The Bombers' tactics on Matthew Scarlett also worked well. Andrew Welsh kept him very quiet before going off with a hammy.

Ben Collins, AFL Record writer: Just reinforcing what they already knew: that any drop off in intensity or mental approach - even if it's by just one per cent across the board - can result in defeat to teams they are expected to thrash. I reckon that was probably the key problem for the Cats - they expected to thrash the Bombers, therefore didn't pay them enough respect, and paid for it big time. Fix the attitude I reckon. This has been the challenge for coaches of good teams since day one - how do you keep a side 'up' each week, with emotions and motivations fluctuating? If the Cats were playing the Pies, Hawks or Blues, motivation wouldn't have been an issue.

Ryan: It just shows once again that regardless of system, the players' available still dictates performance. They missed the two Joels, Selwood and Corey, as well as Travis Varcoe, which hampered their ability to win then control the ball. Essendon had 411 touches and Geelong 298. The Cats conceded too many uncontested marks, which suggests a stronger work rate from Essendon. A lot is made of the clamp put on Matthew Scarlett but I think he just had an off night, as did Harry Taylor and Tom Lonergan. Scarlett will hit back hard in the next few weeks. This week the Eagles' tall timber will test Taylor and Lonergan but I think they will be up to it.

Tactical win

Bowen: What did Essendon do to mastermind the win? Do we underestimate or over-exaggerate the value of coaching intelligence?

Collins: Well let's come up with a quick list of masterstrokes Bomber might have influenced. Anything out of the ordinary?

Callum Twomey, AFL Record writer: On Friday at his weekly press conference, James Hird said Essendon viewed the game as "a very winnable" one. In hindsight, it wasn't just false confidence because it was clear on Saturday that the Bombers had some very specific plans to combat the Cats, of which Mark Thompson and Brendan McCartney surely played a significant role. In moving to defence, Michael Hurley not only shut down James Podsiadly, his absence from Essendon's forward line made it much more unpredictable (only two of Essendon's 18 goals came from tall targets). Peter might have a point that Scarlett had an off night, but using Andrew Welsh as a defensive forward was important - and it's about time Essendon reversed this tactic after opposition teams have used it on Dustin Fletcher in recent times - not least of all because it gave Welsh a concrete role he could play. Dragging Harry Taylor to deep in defence also limited his rebound and strength in the air. Mainly, though, Essendon picked a quicker and more balanced team than it has in the past month. However, picking the right team to match-up against the Cats would have come - at least in part - thanks to Thompson and McCartney's intimate knowledge of their former club.

Ryan: Coaches need the cattle to execute the tactics. They also need to have faith in their players to ask them to do certain things. And the players need to trust the coaches to keep doing them. That's why regardless of the result, Essendon's effort on Saturday night was so promising. It was three goals down and kept hitting loose targets. It retained possession and seemed to ask Geelong players to play tight by winning many uncontested marks. They disturbed the Cats' ability to mark opposition kicks. Great win, but even better was great teamwork. If confidence comes through actions, this game was a great fillip for belief.

Persevere with or drop?

Ryan: Essendon persevered with Paddy Ryder and it paid dividends on the weekend. Should North Melbourne persist with Lindsay Thomas given he has the jitters in front of goal?

Twomey: Gerard Healy was commentating the game for Fox Sports and said that he thought there was almost no point in persisting with Thomas given he was unable to fulfil his main role for the Kangaroos, which is kicking goals. It would be easy to drop Thomas back to the VFL to try and find some goalkicking form, but whether that would automatically happen or whether it would erode his confidence even more is the dilemma facing Brad Scott. The Ryder comparison is different, because Ryder's main issue was his effort, not his execution. Thomas is trying hard but just not getting the results.

Ryan: Coaches talk about gaining confidence through actions. He's obviously working hard on the track and kicking well. However he has kicked 17.28 this season. However, I reckon he has had about five 'should have been goals' kicks that he has missed badly, with one of them on the weekend. The rest have been snaps, right footers, or posters, that aren't as bad when you analyse each effort. I reckon persist because he has to overcome the anxiety and the only way to do that is in the ones. He is also very important to that forward line's structure with his tackling and chasing and crumbing.

Bowen: Putting Lindsay's goalkicking yips to one side, he provides something that no one else in North's forward line can - intense defensive pressure. His pressure has been noticeably up this year and is vital to North forcing turnovers in their forward half. Until Matt Campbell can return to form and fitness, no one else on North's list seems able to provide this kind of pressure. Having said that, I think it's time to send Thomas off to the sports psych. Brad Scott has said he drills set shot after set shot at training, but he clearly flinches when in the same position on game day. He's as jittery as Bernhard Langer used to be over a three-foot putt. Pity footy doesn't have an equivalent of the broomstick putter.

Collins: Apart from 2008 when he kicked 32.14, Thomas has been barely a 50/50 shot anyway. Thomas is still averaging three shots a game, but I think you just have to hope he turns it around. Perfect practice makes perfect.

Kick the goal

Ryan: What causes players to handball when they mark 10m out directly in front? We saw Dale Thomas do it the week before when he missed a handball to Chris Dawes, then on Friday night it was Liam Jones to Jarrad Grant, then on Saturday night, David Hille to Kyle Reimers. Such actions push coaches into early graves.

Mark Macgugan, afl.com.au: I think it's because they know it means Dermie will call them selfish on SEN. If you've got a "Joe the Goose" handball on you've got to give it or face the great man's wrath.

Collins: Small point - Thomas was about 25m out and Hille about 20m. It has to come down to a lack of confidence, especially in the instance of Thomas, who had missed four earlier shots he'd normally have drilled.

Bowen: Simple. They don't want to take the shot. Dale Thomas is not in Lindsay Thomas territory with his goalkicking but he doesn't seem confident with set shots.

Ryan: The great thing about 'Daisy' Thomas is he always wants the ball in his hands. It's an important attribute that champs have. That's why you'd never worry about him missing the odd one here and there.

Twomey: I don't think there is anything more frustrating in footy than seeing this happen and it backfiring. I think it's a mixture of being unselfish and passing on the responsibility to somebody else. Hille's decision to offload the ball wasn't terrible, but his delivery was too early because Reimers was behind him when he first got the ball. I'm in Kevin Bartlett's camp on this one, though. 'Hungry' would never have handballed in that situation because he backed himself to kick the goal when it had to be kicked.

Bowen: Agree, Cal. People are quick to condemn 'Boomer' Harvey for being selfish, but at least he wants to take the responsibility for kicking goals.

Ryan: That Hille, Reimers' effort summed up the game for me. Essendon just had a crack and took risks and covered for each other and at times looked wobbly but it came off. That series of handballs that led to Jake Melsham's sealer was brilliant teamwork, a young team told to go for it. The effect of external dialogue and inner voices on footballer's actions is interesting. That is one of the toughest parts of the game - removing your mind of all distraction and just playing on instinct. Then, when you play on instinct, as these handballs appear to be, you risk big mistakes. I loved James Hird and Rodney Eade's reaction. Spoke for all of us I reckon. The good thing is the sign it sends, one of trust and teamwork.

Collins: Surely whether you have a shot yourself or hand it off comes down to decision-making and percentage play: just do the right thing for that particular circumstance.

Ryan: 'The right thing' is sometimes only obvious in hindsight. Adrenalin pumping, crowd roaring and nerves jangling. Still, I agree. Take the kick.

High marks, high benchmarks

Ryan: Melbourne's Ricky Petterd put in another contender for mark of the year on Friday night. Who would win your vote for mark of the year at this stage of the season and why: Andrew Krakouer, Nic Naitanui or Petterd?

Macgugan: Andrew Walker took a decent grab in round five, too. I'd throw him in the mix. But I reckon Nic Nat might just have it at the minute. Think he got up the highest.

Collins: I'd say Petterd's screamer is probably third behind the other two, which were taken in slightly bigger packs from memory. Can't split Nic Nat and Krak though.

Twomey: I liked Naitanui's more. To me, it seemed that inch more clean than Petterd's, perhaps because Petterd almost lost it on the way down. Both were brilliant, though, and Etihad Stadium is proving to be a haven for some of the big marks of the last decade, including Goddard's last year.

Ryan: He appeared up higher because he's taller. There's some weird logic for you. All equal in brilliance but Naitanui wins because he has the perfect four- syllable surname that just makes a speccy from him sound better. The call of Jesaulenko, Bosustow (is that three?) just adds a bit more than Waaaaalllllkkkkerrr.

Bowen: Naitanui. The big man has the best vertical leap in the game and used it to full effect against the Blues. It was the perfect exclamation mark on a great day for the Coasters.

Collins: Cal, it's funny you mention Goddard's mark at Etihad because I reckon most people have probably forgotten it after his mark in the drawn Grand Final.

Ryan: That Goddard mark in the Grand Final still causes Collingwood supporters to wake in fright.

Twomey: That one was pretty good too, Benny. Begs the question why marks in the finals don't count in the mark of the year award.

Collins: Finals can never be included in mark of the year because only a select group of teams play finals. There has to be equal opportunity for everyone. Although big finals marks are usually the ones that are remembered.

Bowen: Don't forget Aaron Edward's hanger against Hawthorn in the 2007 semi-finals wasn't eligible that year. An absolute cracker that one.

Ryan: Goddard's won't ever be forgotten but if the Saints had got up and won it would have been as famous as Leo Barry's mark.

Twomey: I was sitting next to you Pete in the top level at the 'G above Goddard's mark and I almost leapt over the railing. You weren't quite as excited.

Ryan: I must admit I did not appreciate its brilliance at the time. I think I might have slumped. Great to see Goddard back firing on the weekend by the way.

Collins: When Goddard took that mark and kicked that goal, I thought St Kilda would win the flag. It seemed a defining moment that only happens when you win.

Judd, Ablett and GWS

Ryan: Chris Judd and Gary Ablett turned it on again on the weekend, both excelling at their second club. If GWS was hypothetically free to pick just one player that could do the job those two have done at their new clubs who would be the player you would choose and why?

Collins: Pendlebury, although already signed up by the Pies, is of a similar ilk and age bracket to be an ideal Judd/Ablett-esque target for a new franchise: a leader, hard ball winner, great skills, hard trainer...

Twomey: Joel Selwood for me. At 23, he's the perfect age to go to the Giants and be named skipper immediately, like the other two have at their respective clubs. Wins his own ball and is as tough as nails. Would be the ultimate choice for the Giants, and also has the marketing ability to match Judd and Ablett.

Ryan: Goddard would be the man for me. Such a big presence, can play anywhere and can change a game on his own. Just turned 26.

Bowen: If you look at Judd and Ablett, for all their tricks they're essentially contested ball-winners. GWS don't want to spend the vast majority of their salary cap on an outside rider who doesn't go in and get his own pill. When he's surrounded by kids it will be too easy for opposition sides to shut him down. For that reason, Scott Pendlebury would be the main man. Mind you, if Marc Murphy and Joel Selwood weren't already signed up they'd do quite nicely as well.

Macgugan: Selwood and Pendlebury, good choices. Both give you that mixture of toughness, leadership and brilliance that's served Gaz and Judd so well around young teammates. But if you're looking for someone to convert the GWS locals to footy, you need a pure excitement machine. Buddy, Nic Nat, Dale Thomas or Cyril.

Ryan: Or Meatloaf to return for the season opener.

Bowen: You took the words right out of my mouth.

The race for the eight

Ryan: The race for the final eight is hotting up with Fremantle sixth on 32 points to Richmond 12th on 22 points all theoretically a chance to make the eight. Essendon is in eighth with 26 points. St Kilda's won four of its last six, has a game in hand and is just game and percentage out of the eight. Which teams will fill those last three spots in the eight?

Collins: Does it matter who makes the eight? They're probably only going to make up the numbers anyway. They'll be cannon-fodder in September.

Bowen: Sydney Swans, Fremantle and North Melbourne. Despite their loss to the Crows, the Swans normally take care of the sides they have to beat. Freo's home ground advantage should be enough especially if big Sandilands can get back sooner rather than later. It's a toss up between North and Essendon, but I think the Roos' gentler draw should get them over the line. It's all academic anyway, because none of these sides will worry the big boys.

Macgugan: They're all fighting for the privilege of getting belted by either West Coast or Hawthorn in week one of the finals. I don't mind the Bulldogs to sneak in.

Twomey: Any of them could only make an impact in the finals if they happened to luck out with the draw and play their first final at home, say if Hawthorn fell out of the top four into fifth and Essendon, North Melbourne or the Bulldogs finished eighth. But there's a few 'ifs' in that equation.

Collins: Those three sides will be like a fifth bowling option in Australia's great Test side of years past to follow McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne. They won't get a look in after the big boys take care of business.

Ryan: Fremantle will get in and Sydney needs to win the ones it should win. I'm warming to St Kilda and I'm not sure Hawthorn or the Eagles would love playing them week one because they play a physically demanding game. They have the game to win pressure contests. Their good players are starting to play well and younger players are emerging, Ben McEvoy, Jack Steven and David Armitage are complementing Nick Riewoldt, Sam Fisher and Stephen Milne. Their draw is okay with that round 22 game against the Sydney Swans at ANZ shaping as a season determining game. Still long way to go and ebbs and flows guaranteed.

The views in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs