Injury List - Round 6

[bornadog]

Tim Callan (ribs) - test
Adam Cooney (knee) - test
Jamason Daniels (quad) - test
Chris Ogle (glandular fever) - test
Paul O’Shea (hip) - indefinite
Jordan Roughead (shoulder) - test
Stephen Tiller (groin) - test
Tom Williams (foot) - test

[Sockeye Salmon]

Tim Callan (ribs) - test
Adam Cooney (knee) - test
Jamason Daniels (quad) - test
Chris Ogle (glandular fever) - test
Paul O’Shea (hip) - indefinite
Jordan Roughead (shoulder) - test
Stephen Tiller (groin) - test
Tom Williams (foot) - test

There plenty of information for you! Haven't told us a bloody thing!

[bornadog]

There plenty of information for you! Haven't told us a bloody thing!

What would you like to know? Thats all we are told by the media.

[GVGjr]

Tim Callan (ribs) - test
Adam Cooney (knee) - test
Jamason Daniels (quad) - test
Chris Ogle (glandular fever) - test
Paul O’Shea (hip) - indefinite
Jordan Roughead (shoulder) - test
Stephen Tiller (groin) - test
Tom Williams (foot) - test

I'm really hoping that Daniels and Roughead are back for Williamstown soon.
If Tiller is OK he will be in line for a return to replace Williams.

[bornadog]

I'm really hoping that Daniels and Roughead are back for Williamstown soon.
If Tiller is OK he will be in line for a return to replace Williams.

Do you think Everitt will come in for Williams?

[GVGjr]

Do you think Everitt will come in for Williams?

He would be right in the mix. The real question is does the coach think he can play on a KP forward.

[Mantis]

He would be right in the mix. The real question is does the coach think he can play on a KP forward.

Which KP forward would either of these 2 line-up on in the St.Kilda team (assuming Kosi doesn't play)?

[GVGjr]

Which KP forward would either of these 2 line-up on in the St.Kilda team (assuming Kosi doesn't play)?

My point wasn't over any particular match-up more it was that I don't believe Eade thinks Everitt is capable of playing on too many key forwards at all not even the 3rd talls.
With Hargrave and Morris normally watching the 3rd tall and the more midsized players now Everitt is find it more difficult to break into the side.

[Mantis]

My point wasn't over any particular match-up more it was that I don't believe Eade thinks Everitt is capable of playing on too many key forwards at all not even the 3rd talls.

With Hargrave and Morris normally watching the 3rd tall and the more midsized players now Everitt is find it more difficult to break into the side.

So what do we do with Everitt then? Should they try him on a wing?

[bornadog]

So what do we do with Everitt then? Should they try him on a wing?

Eventually will develop into a KPP, but he is still only 20 years old.

[GVGjr]

So what do we do with Everitt then? Should they try him on a wing?

I can see why he is being squeezed out despite his form but I'm not sure I agree with it.
a back line of

Gilbee - Lake - Morris
Hargrave - Williams - and Everitt

would appear to be too tall especially given that Everitt isn't an in and under player like Addison or a rugged Callan. With Williams out for a week or two I'd probably bite the bullet and move Morris onto the number 2 tall and Everitt onto the number 3 but I think Eade will go with Tiller.

I've mentioned before that we might need to look at moving Hargrave to a wing so that we can find a spot for Everitt.

[chef]

He would be right in the mix. The real question is does the coach think he can play on a KP forward.

Has he been tried as a KP forward for Willi? and how did he go?
If not why?

[Desipura]

I doubt it very much that Williams will be dropped. He is an athletic kpp (very rare in our lineup) who will learn more at senior level than playing on a muddy wind swept ground at VFL level.

[GVGjr]

I doubt it very much that Williams will be dropped. He is an athletic kpp (very rare in our lineup) who will learn more at senior level than playing on a muddy wind swept ground at VFL level.

You are aware that he will be missing this week or is this just a general statement?

[GVGjr]

Has he been tried as a KP forward for Willi? and how did he go?
If not why?

Meyer normally gets one key forward and Tiller or Wight on the other. Everitt normally plays on the midsized players. The other day we had a back line of Wight, Tiller, Everitt, Cloke and Meyer which is way too tall.

[Desipura]

You are aware that he will be missing this week or is this just a general statement?
Yes, just scrolling down the posts now. I was not totally incorrect in that he was not dropped! :D

[Sockeye Salmon]

What would you like to know? Thats all we are told by the media.

Sorry Bornadog, I wasn't having a crack at your post, I was commenting that the club have told us nothing.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I can see why he is being squeezed out despite his form but I'm not sure I agree with it.
a back line of

Gilbee - Lake - Morris
Hargrave - Williams - and Everitt

would appear to be too tall especially given that Everitt isn't an in and under player like Addison or a rugged Callan. With Williams out for a week or two I'd probably bite the bullet and move Morris onto the number 2 tall and Everitt onto the number 3 but I think Eade will go with Tiller.

I've mentioned before that we might need to look at moving Hargrave to a wing so that we can find a spot for Everitt.

How can a backline be too tall? Surely that's a good thing?

I can understand a tall backline being too slow but Lake is the only one of those 6 who isn't pretty quick. Most of those guys are quicker than half our midfield.

[GVGjr]

How can a backline be too tall? Surely that's a good thing?

I can understand a tall backline being too slow but Lake is the only one of those 6 who isn't pretty quick. Most of those guys are quicker than half our midfield.

More around the fact that you still need ground level players who can get in a make a contest. Gilbee's short but isn't really an in and under player like Addison or Callan. Everitt is more of an outside player as well. We are a bit lucky that Hargrave and Morris can match-up on a variety of players.

[Cyberdoggie]

I'm really hoping that Daniels and Roughead are back for Williamstown soon.
If Tiller is OK he will be in line for a return to replace Williams.

I spoke with Daniels at the rnd 1 game against Collingwood and he mentioned that he had a quad strain. He was walking ok at the time so I guess he should be nearly right to go if we are considering the strain to be a standard 4 week injury.

[Cyberdoggie]

So what do we do with Everitt then? Should they try him on a wing?

For me Everitt isn't the greatest defensive player, although the games i have seen him play this year he was a lot harder at the contest than he had been last year.

He has also lost his biggest asset which is his run and carry. His first year he took the ball and ran through the center of the ground. This has completely gone from his game.

Perhaps playing him on a wing or more attacking role might bring this back into his game?

[Cyberdoggie]

So is Welsh not injured now?

[Desipura]

I will say it once, I will say it a thousand times, we have an abundance of half back flankers ie Gilbee, Everitt, Hargreave. Addison can also play there at a pinch. Wood & Reid look like others that will start their careers there as well.

I still think Tiller needs to be played at full forward. He knows how to lead, the players just need to have some faith in him. Stephen has improved the defensive side of his game so chasing and tackling wont be a problem.
Two years ago he was trialled there briefly and I made mention at the time that he would lead be ignored, then lead again and be ignored.

He then lead to the opposite side of the goals to the kicker and was rewarded with a kick out in front of him.
I just hope they have played him down back to improve his defensive side, grooming him for a forward position.
At the moment, we have not trialled enough players to play full forward, Minson the only player who has been given ample opportunites with no success. A total of 2 goals out of 5 games is nothing to get excited about.
Having said that with Welsh on our list, I cannot see Stephen getting an opportunity any time soon.

[chef]

Meyer normally gets one key forward and Tiller or Wight on the other. Everitt normally plays on the midsized players. The other day we had a back line of Wight, Tiller, Everitt, Cloke and Meyer which is way too tall.

Sorry GVG i meant has Everitt been played as a Forward?

[Mofra]

I still think Tiller needs to be played at full forward. He knows how to lead, the players just need to have some faith in him. Stephen has improved the defensive side of his game so chasing and tackling wont be a problem.
Two years ago he was trialled there briefly and I made mention at the time that he would lead be ignored, then lead again and be ignored.

He then lead to the opposite side of the goals to the kicker and was rewarded with a kick out in front of him.
I just hope they have played him down back to improve his defensive side, grooming him for a forward position.
At the moment, we have not trialled enough players to play full forward, Minson the only player who has been given ample opportunites with no success. A total of 2 goals out of 5 games is nothing to get excited about.
IIRC Tiller was a goal a game forward for a bout 7 games to finish off 2006. That is better than a number of our forwards, he is tough over the ball and seems to follow the coaches instructions to the letter, which is why he has been picked over Everitt a couple of times this year.

[Rocket Science]

I still think Tiller needs to be played at full forward. He knows how to lead, the players just need to have some faith in him...Two years ago he was trialled there briefly and I made mention at the time that he would lead be ignored, then lead again and be ignored.

Shades of Jarrad Grant last Sunday.

[Mantis]

Shades of Jarrad Grant last Sunday.

So the questions to ponder is why this happens, a few options might be (some of these I raised in another thread):

1. No faith in the young player's. If I kick it to Grant and he stuffs up do I look bad? (Self preservation)

2. Young players leading to the wrong spots - Personally I don't think this is the case.

3. Kick to a well regarded team-mate who will give a contest even though they aren't in the best position. (Goes well with point 1)

I can't see how the young forwards are going to develop unless we start kicking the ball to them. They will make mistakes, but hopefully in the long run they learn from these and become better players for them.

[Sockeye Salmon]

So the questions to ponder is why this happens, a few options might be (some of these I raised in another thread):

1. No faith in the young player's. If I kick it to Grant and he stuffs up do I look bad? (Self preservation)

2. Young players leading to the wrong spots - Personally I don't think this is the case.

3. Kick to a well regarded team-mate who will give a contest even though they aren't in the best position. (Goes well with point 1)

I can't see how the young forwards are going to develop unless we start kicking the ball to them. They will make mistakes, but hopefully in the long run they learn from these and become better players for them.

4. Everything a young player does is good, everything that goes wrong is the fault of the senior players who must never be anything less than perfect.

[Rocket Science]

4. Everything a young player does is good, everything that goes wrong is the fault of the senior players who must never be anything less than perfect.

C'mon, that's mischevious, simplistic and not even close to the truth, either on the field or 'round these parts.

It's a weighty matter worthy of serious contemplation, and as Mantis suggests the reasons are many and varied.

Our blokes have seldom had the luxury of looking for a competent tall/key forward target when going forward so are unaccustomed and less conditioned to doing so...Whatever its merits I'd argue this has been fed in-part by the Minson-out-of-the-goalsquare experiment where when actively sought, if the big feller doesn't drag down the mark and crumbers aren't perfectly positioned (often) then the ball promtly rebounds back out. He's not the only culprit as contested marks up forward isn't our forte in general but I think this culminates in making our mids somewhat gunshy.

In Grant's case (or any new forward for that matter) I suspect there's also a bit of 'the young bloke's got to earn his stripes' factor...this has both an upside and an obvious downside.

[azabob]

IIRC Tiller was a goal a game forward for a bout 7 games to finish off 2006. That is better than a number of our forwards, he is tough over the ball and seems to follow the coaches instructions to the letter, which is why he has been picked over Everitt a couple of times this year.

Being a big Tiller fan I think he only played the last 2 games both at FF and it was 2007. And he did quite well kicking a few goals.
He should've played FF in 2008 but as Desipura said with Welsh on our list he is taking the Forward spot Tiller should have.

[Mofra]

Being a big Tiller fan I think he only played the last 2 games both at FF and it was 2007. And he did quite well kicking a few goals.
He should've played FF in 2008 but as Desipura said with Welsh on our list he is taking the Forward spot Tiller should have.
I would agree with Welsh taking his spot, but with Welsh injured is it beyond the realms of possibility to try him as a forward again? Grant doesn't look quite ready, no other younger type is standing up, and Tiller seems to at least show a truckload of ticker out on the field. We know he'd offer us defensive pressure in the F50 that we seem to be lacking.

[comrade]

In Grant's case (or any new forward for that matter) I suspect there's also a bit of 'the young bloke's got to earn his stripes' factor...this has both an upside and an obvious downside.

If that is a genuine reason then we'll never go anywhere. If a bloke is busting his butt to provide an option as a leading forward, use him, regardless of his age.

Brings back bad memories of the supposed waxing between Johnno and Bubba.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

If that is a genuine reason then we'll never go anywhere. If a bloke is busting his butt to provide an option as a leading forward, use him, regardless of his age.

Brings back bad memories of the supposed waxing between Johnno and Bubba.

I agree.

He shouldn't have to earn anything. If he leads, kick the ball to him. The only way he's going to improve is if he's involved in the game. Ignoring him helps nobody.

I was very frustrated that we overlooked Grant on almost every occasion. It frustrates me even more that a lot of posters are now saying Grant isn't ready because he didn't have any impact on the game. How could you possibly come to that conclusion? If you were at the game he did what he could. He lead, he chased VERY hard, he laid a couple of tackles - esp. in the first half. He was one of our few positives to half time in that he looked eager and was one of few applying defensive pressure. He missed an easy goal after taking a strong mark, but big deal - he's got to be played and he's got to be looked for.

I think it's alarming that whenever we try out new forwards, they aren't given any service whatsoever. Instead of giving Grant/Skipper/Tiller a chance (among a few others) we've constantly used the old system of passing to a player you know/think will give a good contest.

IMO we don't share the ball around enough. We don't use all our options, instead we seem to only mainly go through a couple of avenues. Morris handballing to Gilbee in no mans land and then Gilbee getting run down by Fevola for an eventual Carlton goal is a testament to this. They give the ball to Gilbee/Griff/Cooney/Johnson no matter what, but then there's younger players that are only occasionally given that opportunity to impress. Both Gilbee & Griff haven't been as damaging with their foot skills either so perhaps this is why.

[Sedat]

I was very frustrated that we overlooked Grant on almost every occasion. It frustrates me even more that a lot of posters are now saying Grant isn't ready because he didn't have any impact on the game. How could you possibly come to that conclusion? If you were at the game he did what he could. He lead, he chased VERY hard, he laid a couple of tackles - esp. in the first half. He was one of our few positives to half time in that he looked eager and was one of few applying defensive pressure. He missed an easy goal after taking a strong mark, but big deal - he's got to be played and he's got to be looked for.
Agree with everything you posted except the bolded part. It is a big deal, especially for someone with designs on a long-term KP forward role - he has a horrible kicking technique that needs some serious remedial work to get to an acceptable AFL level. He has fantastic pace off the mark, appears to have a strong appetite for the defensive side, and he can clunk them as well as anybody at his age, but he really needs to get the set shot routine sorted so that he stands a better than 50-50 chance of kicking the goals that need to be kicked.

[Mofra]

I was very frustrated that we overlooked Grant on almost every occasion. It frustrates me even more that a lot of posters are now saying Grant isn't ready because he didn't have any impact on the game. How could you possibly come to that conclusion? If you were at the game he did what he could. He lead, he chased VERY hard, he laid a couple of tackles - esp. in the first half. He was one of our few positives to half time in that he looked eager and was one of few applying defensive pressure. He missed an easy goal after taking a strong mark, but big deal - he's got to be played and he's got to be looked for.
Agree with most of what you said, however I don't think we could say Grant did everything he could. I know he lacks a bit of fitness when compared to other forwards, but his leads were often 1 lead only, not multiple from a single play which top line forwards often do (Riewoldt is the master of this, possibly his multiple leads are his best asset).

I also noticed in the last quarter he gave a handball off, and stopped running. As a forward, being behind they play isn't going to help - you need to keep running to either provide a handball receive option, or at least force the defensive zone to spread to at least cover you. I mentioned at the time he'll learn from that as I'm sure it would be highlighted on his game tape.

Am I disappointed his leads weren't honoured? Yes. Will I put all the blame on other players? No. I do like to think Jarrad would have learnt more on Sunday than he has in the past 18 months, as there seems a couple of areas of his game that are easily fixable, and as such he will make it as an AFL footballer with just a bit of tweaking (real sticky hands). How good he gets though is up to him.

[azabob]

I would agree with Welsh taking his spot, but with Welsh injured is it beyond the realms of possibility to try him as a forward again? Grant doesn't look quite ready, no other younger type is standing up, and Tiller seems to at least show a truckload of ticker out on the field. We know he'd offer us defensive pressure in the F50 that we seem to be lacking.

I totally agree I think Tiller should be told you are playing Forward for the next 5-7 games, show us what you have got.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Agree with everything you posted except the bolded part. It is a big deal, especially for someone with designs on a long-term KP forward role - he has a horrible kicking technique that needs some serious remedial work to get to an acceptable AFL level. He has fantastic pace off the mark, appears to have a strong appetite for the defensive side, and he can clunk them as well as anybody at his age, but he really needs to get the set shot routine sorted so that he stands a better than 50-50 chance of kicking the goals that need to be kicked.

I didn't mean big deal in terms of it being a non issue. I was referring to the fact that the players appeared to completely ignore any and every lead he made and that if it's because they think he'll miss the goal/make a mistake/make them look bad, then that's a really serious problem.

No doubt Grant needs to dramatically improve his kicking - it's well below par.


Agree with most of what you said, however I don't think we could say Grant did everything he could. I know he lacks a bit of fitness when compared to other forwards, but his leads were often 1 lead only, not multiple from a single play which top line forwards often do (Riewoldt is the master of this, possibly his multiple leads are his best asset).

Being it his first game I thought he did reasonably well. I lost him a bit in the second half, perhaps due to the lack of fitness, but most things he did in the first half told me he has everything to be a great KPF.

If we picked up on where players don't run after handballs etc. you'd find that almost the entire side does it aside from Cross, Boyd, Cooney and a couple of others. Griffen is still miles behind as far as this is concerned and players like Gia/Hahn have been flat footed most of this year too.

Certainly more to work on for Grant and more to learn but I was happy with his performance. I hope he actually gets a chance to prove himself though. I'd like to see him play deeper and lead hard to around the 50-60m mark and be used. Not ignored, or not have him lead up the ground and stay around the traffic where he's not going to be effective.

[Sockeye Salmon]

C'mon, that's mischevious, simplistic and not even close to the truth, either on the field or 'round these parts.

It's a weighty matter worthy of serious contemplation, and as Mantis suggests the reasons are many and varied.

Our blokes have seldom had the luxury of looking for a competent tall/key forward target when going forward so are unaccustomed and less conditioned to doing so...Whatever its merits I'd argue this has been fed in-part by the Minson-out-of-the-goalsquare experiment where when actively sought, if the big feller doesn't drag down the mark and crumbers aren't perfectly positioned (often) then the ball promtly rebounds back out. He's not the only culprit as contested marks up forward isn't our forte in general but I think this culminates in making our mids somewhat gunshy.

In Grant's case (or any new forward for that matter) I suspect there's also a bit of 'the young bloke's got to earn his stripes' factor...this has both an upside and an obvious downside.

We looked up from midfield desperate for someone to give it to and ...
... no I can't kick it to him, it's only Grant. FFS.

If he presented, got his angles right and got seperation on his opponent he would have been given the ball. He didn't.

First gamers get a very easy ride from supporters. If he's out there he gets judged on merit and the fact is he took 1 mark.

[Rocket Science]

As to his meagre stats, it's worth noting Grant received just 66% game time on Sunday...the lowest amongst the whole squad.

I'm not interested in making excuses for Grant or lionizing him, the kid had an average debut for which the responsibility is his...for me this discussion is more about the attitude and modus operandi of our mids, regardless of who we plonk up forward, and how that might affect our expected transition from the makeshift, mid-sized attacks we're all familiar with to a more conventional, but less familiar tall-oriented one over the next couple of years.

Not suggesting anyone's avoiding going to Grant personally, but that we avoid going to anyone not wearing #6 unless they're considered an absolute monty to retain possession, which as we've seen can be frustrating as buggery and unproductive in the extreme.

I know she's a different game these days but I always thought one of the luxuries of having talls to kick to means they're capable of a contested mark from 50-50 situations, and while Grant's no behemoth and likely never will be, his mits look top shelf and even at this early stage can win a contest in the air.

[Mantis]

We looked up from midfield desperate for someone to give it to and ...
... no I can't kick it to him, it's only Grant. FFS.

If he presented, got his angles right and got seperation on his opponent he would have been given the ball. He didn't.

First gamers get a very easy ride from supporters. If he's out there he gets judged on merit and the fact is he took 1 mark.

One particular bit of play stays in my mind from last Sundays game.

In the 2nd quarter Griffen had a free/ took a mark about 80m from goal. Grant made a very good lead from about 10m inside the 50m arc and had 2 or 3 metres separation on his opponent very quickly. By the time he was 20m away he was 4 or 5 metres in front of his opponent. Griffen for some reason refused to kick it to Grant and instead bombed it to the 'hot spot' 30m from goal ( when exactly was the last time we took a mark there?) to a large pack, the ball spilled and Carlton cleared the area.

Here was the perfect opportunity to get Grant into the play, but you could almost see Griffen's mind ticking over as he saw it was Grant on the lead and thought better of passing it to him.

[bornadog]

One particular bit of play stays in my mind from last Sundays game.

In the 2nd quarter Griffen had a free/ took a mark about 80m from goal. Grant made a very good lead from about 10m inside the 50m arc and had 2 or 3 metres separation on his opponent very quickly. By the time he was 20m away he was 4 or 5 metres in front of his opponent. Griffen for some reason refused to kick it to Grant and instead bombed it to the 'hot spot' 30m from goal ( when exactly was the last time we took a mark there?) to a large pack, the ball spilled and Carlton cleared the area.

Here was the perfect opportunity to get Grant into the play, but you could almost see Griffen's mind ticking over as he saw it was Grant on the lead and thought better of passing it to him.

Most likely didn't see him. I can't believe players don't pass it to someone in a better position on purpose.

[Mantis]

Most likely didn't see him. I can't believe players don't pass it to someone in a better position on purpose.

He saw him, I have no doubt it.

Griffen has a habit of not passing the ball off to a player just 20 or 25m away as he much prefers to use his long kicking to send the ball 50 or 55m our way. At times he has to learn to find the short target such that we hold possession and re-assess.

[aker39]

Mantis,

You are making some big assumptions based on what you saw on the TV. The TV is not going to show whether there was an opposition player who filled the whole, or an opposition player that Griff thought may cut off the pass.

[Mantis]

Mantis,

You are making some big assumptions based on what you saw on the TV. The TV is not going to show whether there was an opposition player who filled the whole, or an opposition player that Griff thought may cut off the pass.

In this particular piece of play you see the following in quick succession:

1. Griffen take possesion and in the distance you can see Grant offer a lead.

2. A front on close up view of Griffen. You can see him lower his eyes to look at the player coming towards him (you can't see who the player is in this shot) and then raise his eyes to look further afield.

3. A shot from behind Griffen to where the ball is travelling. In the foreground you can see Grant some 15m away and still a few metres in front of his opponent. There was no Carlton player in the hole.

I am not trying to hang Griff out to dry, just giving an example of when Grant was denied the opportunity to gather the ball when he had made a lead that should have been honoured.

[bornadog]

Cooney, Aker back for 'true test'
By Jason Phelan
2:26 PM Thu 30 April, 2009


BROWNLOW Medallists Adam Cooney and Jason Akermanis will make welcome returns for the Western Bulldogs against St Kilda this week – a match coach Rodney Eade forecasts as a true test.

Speaking from Whitten Oval, Eade said the undefeated Saints had struck a strong balance between watertight defence and free-flowing attack.

"You need to win the contested ball and you need to win the ball and do something with it," he said on Thursday.

"You need to be able to maintain the pressure and hang in the contest. I think it is going to be one of those games that is ... low scoring and is just going to be a real fight."

Cooney, who will complete a full week of training, has been cleared to play after knee surgery a fortnight ago, while Akermanis has served a one-match suspension.

Though key defender Tom Williams sent a scare through the camp when he hobbled to the bench with a foot injury in last week's loss to Carlton, Eade confirmed it was not a serious injury but there was some doubt over his availability.

"He hurt the plantar fascia in his foot, but it's not as bad as we first thought," he said.

"There's a bit of bruising and swelling there and we thought on Monday he'd be no chance, but it looks like he's … better than 50-50. He's a reasonable chance of playing."

Forward Scott Welsh, on the comeback trail from a back injury, is unlikely to play this week despite a good showing in the VFL.

However, Eade was confident the forwards he had at his disposal could get the job done.

"I get asked every week about a tall forward and I keep saying that we haven't got one," he replied when asked if he needed an injection of height in attack.

"We haven't got (Jonathan) Brown or (Nick) Riewoldt or whoever so I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

"We'd love to have one but we haven't, so at times we've got to manufacture goals and most of the time we've been able to do that with a smaller forward line."

After two trips to Perth inside the first month of the season, the Dogs looked sluggish against the Blues but Eade said his players had been given every opportunity to freshen up for the clash.

"I think as a club we haven't used the travel as an excuse," he said.

"Maybe it might be over those weeks when it was all about recovery that we haven't touched the balls as much as we have in the past … but I think skill level has as much to do with concentration.

"Maybe mentally we just haven't been there as far as finishing off the work [is concerned]."

With three wins to start the season, the Dogs are in danger of losing three in a row but Eade has not found it necessary to call any crisis meetings.

"I think the group with the leadership they are showing are taking a fair bit of responsibility," he said.

"They've had a fair bit of discussion as a group, so really as a coach I haven't had to say a lot to them. I think they've been able to challenge each other.

"I think overall they've maintained their belief in themselves and you see that in the way they’ve trained this week. The place is reasonably buoyant."