The Cats' downfall has begun

I agree. Although our backline is looking shaky. Lonegran and enright are nowhere near their peak. Enright s turnovers were shocking against the blues and lons is leaking goals. It was pointed out 1/3 of the team had under 50 games exp. So we must expect inconsistent performances. The cats are clearly off the mark. They were smashed by 3 good sides. But they know how to rack up the wins. No point peaking in june. Plenty of upside here. 8 and 3 and playing ordinary go figure. ..

Gene, the question is "what should the rules be?" Just imagine in a grand final where a player who starts on the ground or interchange bench but who is suspect with regard to fitness or endurance, at some stage due to an incident develops "suspect concussion" as claimed by their team. The sub is activated for 20 minutes and then the player makes a miraculous recovery and returns to the ground. There are certain "impact" players who would benefit greatly from this and we are already seeing a number of subs selected on this basis. This would give a team the possibility of having and using two impact players in a game. We are relying on the honesty of clubs not to exploit this and unfortunately past experience tells us that the rules are exploited to the maximum. If a player is suspected of having concussion then they should just return to the interchange bench and be assessed.

if a player comes off for concussion, the rule states the sub can be activated for up to 20 minutes while concussion testing takes place, at the end of the 20 minutes the sub must come off or the change becomes permanent for the rest of the game. Carlton broke no rules.

Was the substitute used when Dale Thomas was tested for concussion in Friday's game between Geelong and Carlton? He certainly seemed to benefit from his time off the ground, did Carlton get an unfair advantage by using the sub without limiting their rotations? Never mind the umpire's mistake late in the game, was the rule exploited?

Yes, there have been some worrying signs for Geelong recently but I wouldn't write them off completely for this season just yet. You'd rather have down period mid year then at the business end of the year. They may have been lucky, in the end, to beat Carlton but it's still four points in the bank and sometimes a team has to win ugly. Port were hardly impressive against an injury depleted Hawthorn (reverse the injury situation and Hawks would have won by 10-15 goals) and followed that up with an even less impressive performance against Melbourne, but nobody is writing Port off as genuine premiership contenders. Even if they don't win the premiership this year, Geelong (like Collingwood) are well placed with a young group of players that can take the next step in the next two or three seasons. As a Collingwood supporter, I'm very happy with where Collingwood are at and the potential they have, and Geelong supporters would be equally happy. I'd much rather be a Geelong or Collingwood supporter, with hope for not only this year but also for the next few years, than a Bulldogs, Tigers or Blues supporter who really have very little to look forward.

Some good points in the article, both re stats and bounce-back factor. But which particular players are in decline? Possibly Enright, but Mackie, Johnson, Kelly, Bartel and Lonergan have at least one more good year left in each of them. The only thing stopping them from getting back to their best is attitude, and they're well known for having a 'rest' mid season. And why not have a rest, when you're in the top 4 and it's a long season before the finals. Their midfield is as good as any, and may well peak at just the right time if Motlop and Christenson also fire towards the end of the season. Only thing stopping them from making top 4 in 2014 and 2015 is an injury to Tom Hawkins. Then you can write this article again in 2016.

I hope Cats make top 4 beat Hawks and then play Freo(cos we suck against Hawks almost as badly as Hawks suck against Cats).

This is blatant copycat journalism, this is basically the same article as what appeared in the age a couple of days ago. How many other teams do we write off in may/june that are positioned for the top 4? this is more of a case of others wanting them to drop.

Geelong are trying to rebuild there list while still staying at the top end. I think there doing a great job in trying to rebuild without dipping down the ladder,unlike Sydney who seem to think they have to always be top four for the league to be a success and get the help to do so,Geelong are doing it on there own and still winning. Dont make the mistake of writing them off just yet.

Yeah once again - to 6th perhaps then 1-2 years back to the top 4. They could drop but is there much point in suggesting one when oh so many times we have been wrong.

Recruiting of talent through draft...most of the Swans players. Everyone else needs to suck it up and realise Swans have some of best development team in the comp. Look at Buddy, clearly, his accuracy has been up and his team play are up since joining the Swans. Tippett is better as a result of the move to the Swans also. Then, you have a look at the likes if Kieran Jack, Josh Kennedy Ted Richards, Heath Grundy and others - we developed those kids, some of them discards. Those 4 are now in our best each and every week. 2 of our best backs, Grundy and Richards, were forwards before coming to us. Dan Hannebery is another we have made into one of the best midfielders in the comp. Rhys Shaw, another discard and he is one of the leading men out of the back. Malceski at pick 64 in the draft - now one of the best men leading out of defence in the competition. Franklin and Tippett are power forwards, something the Swans have a long history of - Bob Pratt, Tony Lockett and Barry Hall to name but three. We even tried with D. Bradshaw. Perhaps before people start judging, they should have a look at some of the Swans players development and progress, where they have come from and their history before judging based on 2 players that we are cheats and scoundrels.

'For starters, the Cats of old – and I use that term instead of the ‘old Cats’, a phrase more apt to a handful of the current team – would have never whimpered to a 20-goal defeat as the team did in Sydney. That is regardless of injuries, absentees, or any other extenuating circumstances.' You do realise as a so called 'expert' that the Cats have one of the youngest lists don't you?

I seem to remember Tim Lane writing the cats off in 2009, and David King writing them off in 2011. Need I say more.

Nothing. But if people can't see why development academies, COLA etc have been necessary and essential for GWS/Sydney, then they're absurdly short-sighted. If you don't take measures like this, expansion clubs will fail and you'll end up with a league that's only relevant in select pockets of the country, like the NRL.

Being a fanatical Geelong fan, I myself am scared of the way they have been playing. I thought they would have flogged Carlton after the Sydney debacle. Nothing against Carlton, but as mentioned the Geelong of old would have done that. Im not willing to write them off just yet, but have a lot of doubts that they can override the top teams, but only time will tell.

I'm with you there Schmick - and it's all relative - the Cats' decline may not be like that suffered by other clubs.

Good to hear from you Gene, a few of us were getting worried for you. I think form lines are very difficult to pick this year, short turn arounds seem to be having bigger effects, various teams are playing above or below themselves in patches of a few games and it can be bad luck for a team if they have a couple of games against opponents playing out of their skins. A couple of weeks ago you put forward the idea of an emergency sub to replace a player who has gone off with suspected concussion, I couldn't see the sense of it at the time but after watching the Geelong-Carlton game I can see your point. Unfortunately if there is a loop-hole in the rules, a coach will likely attempt to exploit it. If a player is short on fitness or endurance and an opportunity is there to sub them off with suspected concussion, then that option will likely be taken. One could be excused for thinking that actually happened during that game.

Goal accuracy is more complicated than one might think at first glance, it may have more to do with where the shots on goal are taken from on the ground rather than a fall away in the accuracy of forwards. Nevertheless, accuracy can have a big psychological effect early in the game -- this might be just bad luck or an indicator of lack of confidence.

Which part of Bosk's comment is untrue?

That little whine sounded much like chris scott's voice.