whoa.......the reason we have never had this insight before, is we don't need it, a lot of the posters on here have watched football for a long time and can pick a player who is not up to AFL standard,

I try not to bag players out of hand but even to me Newton has no bottle, he needs to throw himself into it, he probably has more skill than Miller but not the grunt,

if we could mix both we might get a decent forward, I like Miller though and we need him in the team, he will be a good foil for Watts who in the couple of things I have seen him in, at least attacks the game,

the coaching staff probably see Newton do things at training and can see the potential, but when the heat of the game comes along he wilts...........anyone who has played competitive sport knows that's what it means you have to compete.you do not have to have a degree in trick cycling to know that........as I have previously stated not being of giant stature I had to compensate with my competitiveness.........a broken ankle, wrist, shoulder, two knee operations, cracked ribs, and sundry other injuries show that at least I was in there.........on Sunday Newton left the field without a hair out of place.

to quote a good friend of mine...

Trains like tarzan, plays like jane!

Hardness at the ball is all I ask. Create the contest - Ala Miller and most would be happy. You don't have to be fancy just do the hard work even if there is no chance of getting the ball. hit packs hard, put your body on the line, make a tacke, chase hard, lay a bump or shepard etc etc. Then worry about kicking goals.

The issue with juice from where I sit seems to be if it is not dished up on a silver platter (lace out on the chest) he becomes a liability. Surely this is something that can easily be addressed off field. Or is he just seen as a stop gap filler until others come through by the club and time is not being spent? I really wonder how much time has been spent by the coaching staff with juice v say watts/jurrah this year? It would be very interesting to know. I for one hope that he is not dropped for the game v geelong on sun even if robbo is fit. We might as well play him until watts and/or jurrah are ready for regular snr football. Who knows we might get something out of him or something for him from QC17 if he starts playing a better brand of footy.

to quote a good friend of mine...

Trains like tarzan, plays like jane!

Hardness at the ball is all I ask. Create the contest - Ala Miller and most would be happy. You don't have to be fancy just do the hard work even if there is no chance of getting the ball. hit packs hard, put your body on the line, make a tacke, chase hard, lay a bump or shepard etc etc. Then worry about kicking goals.

The issue with juice from where I sit seems to be if it is not dished up on a silver platter (lace out on the chest) he becomes a liability. Surely this is something that can easily be addressed off field. Or is he just seen as a stop gap filler until others come through by the club and time is not being spent? I really wonder how much time has been spent by the coaching staff with juice v say watts/jurrah this year? It would be very interesting to know. I for one hope that he is not dropped for the game v geelong on sun even if robbo is fit. We might as well play him until watts and/or jurrah are ready for regular snr football. Who knows we might get something out of him or something for him from QC17 if he starts playing a better brand of footy.

an intersting thought (amongst a few there )

I have the feeling that there are a handful of players.. Newton being just one that are being viewed in a step up or sayonara baby context. There's this almightily important draft looming come seasons end and we'll need space. Logic suggests youd only keep those that either have shown the requisite to stay or at least enough to persist with. Those that falter at this hurdle will undoubtedly be wished well in their futures as they leave.

In this light he's probably in the midst of a 'live' test..wonder if he realises it ??

Well I liked it Danegerous Demon and I'm not going to get all girly over some spelling mistakes. I'd be interested to read your take on Sylvia.

Well I liked it Danegerous Demon and I'm not going to get all girly over some spelling mistakes. I'd be interested to read your take on Sylvia.

Pfff....look at his name DANGEROUS DEMONS, sounds like something I would think of when i was 8.

Well I liked it Danegerous Demon and I'm not going to get all girly over some spelling mistakes. I'd be interested to read your take on Sylvia.

Maaaate, "Girly"? Fair suck of the sav. Not sure if you are ascribing some Freudian theory on to some of us. Or should that be Jung.......or Gestalt even?

Maaaate, "Girly"? Fair suck of the sav. Not sure if you are ascribing some Freudian theory on to some of us. Or should that be Jung.......or Gestalt even?

and in English?

However at AFL level his is what we psychologists call a "social loafer". A social loafer is someone who does not contribute to a group task when there is a common goals attainable at the end of it. By this I mean he only puts in for his own gain, rather than applying himself to the whole goals of the team. Truthfully I feel that rival AFL teams have done their homewrok on Micheal and I feel that when he is in the forward 50 they block his space to lead into and disallow the potential for him to fly. Now his ideals of what is perfect are construrued and he becomes angry. it is a little like taking a lolly away from a young child. If they cant have it, and have it easily, there is no piint having it at all. Somrtimes being in the limeloght is what people strive for.

Notwithstanding the cognitive and psychological aspects which I don't really know about, I beleive this is one of the best sumamtions of Newton I have read to date. In my post in a different thread I echoed a similar sentiment where he roams around the forward line without really earning his pay cheque. Even if some of the others have a down day, they are still part of the group process and earn their keep simply by making contests and trying for the team. It sounds harsh but when Newton is on the ground I feel like we have a team of 17 out there plus one extra doing his own thing. "Social Loafer" sounds like a generic term but seems quite applicable here. The part where I am not so much convinced is why he is this type of player. Is it arrogance, lack of confidence, lack of smarts, sense of alienation, or is it just the old fashioned reason that he simply doesn't put in? If you take any of these factors into account it means that unless he kicks a goal or two then he isn't really relevant to any aspects of team process so when he misses them from 5 - 10 meters out I am struggling to come up with a reason why he gets a game (regardless of injuries).

whoa..yourself good buddy.. anyone is entitled to post a view.. someone die and make you the thought police ??..probably not

Maybe the original post was too long for your liking..too detailed..whatever.. not all carry your view..

vive le difference !! qui !!

Thank you very much mate my thoughts exactly

Hi,

Firstup appologies if I construed your invitation to join another site enscripted with the great mans name as a threat. It had been ardous day at work and I have been burning the candle at both ends of late. All thoughts on Micheal have to be as simplistic as possible for I feel that he is limited in both intellect and general resoning ability on the football field. By this I mean I have observed at select intervals, particulary during the previous two weeks, that unfortunatly he lacks what is commonly referred to as " Footy smarts".

We in the profession howeveer call this "apptitude".Micheals demenour and posture on the field have been the point of great fansination for me over a long period. Amid the furor during the Daniher era of his non inclusion in the team spreading across forums sites and through chats between supprters at the gound I held firm on my beliefs. These are that in my observation he seems to be very immature. There is a direct corraltion between the games that Micheal plays well in, and the games that Melbourne wins. This is determained a lot by the quality of supply going into the forward line. It has been reported quite visciforously within certain sectors of the club that Micheals attitude problems and not abating. This cements my assumptions of his body language and lack of effort on these occaions that he is in simple terms " A hugly overated intantile dummy spitter".

I hear you argue has he ever played well? my answer to that is that I think what Micheal thinks is playing well and what actually constitutes a satisfactory game at AFL level are two totally differnt paridigms. His inclination to adopt the spectacular in perfernce for the menial taks on the football field is obvious, not only to me, but also the supporter in the outer. However I think his feelings covertly are the driving force behind the Micheal Newton who plays at Casey and the Newton at AFL level. I think he was superior athelitcally to most at TAC cup level therefore his application at this level nees to be less to succeed that what it is currently in the AFL. He operated in a comfort zone at Sandringham, and now he is doing at Casey.His comfort zone is where he has to work at a minimal level for maximum output. For example run to the wing, take a screamer, get the crowd yelling and then starts the next passage of play.

However at AFL level his is what we psychologists call a "social loafer". A social loafer is someone who does not contribute to a group task when there is a common goals attainable at the end of it. By this I mean he only puts in for his own gain, rather than applying himself to the whole goals of the team. Truthfully I feel that rival AFL teams have done their homewrok on Micheal and I feel that when he is in the forward 50 they block his space to lead into and disallow the potential for him to fly. Now his ideals of what is perfect are construrued and he becomes angry. it is a little like taking a lolly away from a young child. If they cant have it, and have it easily, there is no piint having it at all. Somrtimes being in the limeloght is what people strive for.

A great philosopher Jeremy Bethan once said that people strive toward the pleasure principle. This is they strive for pleasure and only pleasure is the greatest attainable amout.Theortetically this says to others bugger you im working toward fullfilling my own needs in precedenc to yours. You may also notice that when he is stationary in the forwrd 50 some teams will have a player go to him, bumping into him, hastling him and saying a lot of not so nice phrases to him. I overheard some of it in the pocket on Sunday as a matter of fact. This cements my assumption that other teams feel the key to conquering him is to get inside his head and that they feel cognitivly he is a little fragile.

Unfortunatly as you may well know in life generally being fragile means being a little vulnerable in a some areas. If a psychologist can pinpoint those areas, and highlight them to an opposition coach then the job is half done with those of low intellect and emotiponal intelligance such as Micheal.

To sum up I know I will attact considerable critisism after other posters read this incrimentally, probably critiqing my spelling because they have nothing better to occupy themselves with. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it, and after all you asked for it. I find it liberating to have another person on this site who actually houses some active neaurotranimtter activity and isa able to think critcally in some capacity. So thankyou for your insight and request for my thoughts.

Kind regards

Danegerous Demon

Dangerous Demon congratulations on your thread - although a little bit over cooked - I like your insight on what you see as Isaac's considerable barriers and solution to get the optimum out of him. As opposed to calling for him to be delisted - as anyone can say.

In similar vain - Geelong showed potential for a long time - they started to be great team after each player did an honest (not sugar coated one little bit) appraisal of their colleagues and Coach. Players like Ablett and Mooney got a reality check and saw it as a chance for self improvement and win the respect of their team mates instead of cruising. Others like S Johnson (who reminds me a lot of Sylvia and Newton in terms of IQ), still didn't understand what it all meant. So after another off field incident. He was treated like the child he was, and given a punitive punishment that would hurt him the most. He was subsequently banished (by the leadership group) from training with the seniors for a long time to modify his attitude and behaviour. The results from GFC speak for themselves - maybe its time for similar hometruths at MFC - from President down.

Pfff....look at his name DANGEROUS DEMONS, sounds like something I would think of when i was 8.

. . . As opposed to the insightful name digga. It's a shame we don't all have your wit when it comes to names.

Pfff....look at his name DANGEROUS DEMONS, sounds like something I would think of when i was 8.

That's unbelievably rude. You should be ashamed at yourself for insulting someone based on his username. As Chook said, it's not like your's is super-cool.

I congratulate DD on posting his views. It's a shame people like you Digga do not possess the intellect required to comprehend it.

Oh dear, now I've stooped as low as you have.

During the second quarter on Sunday last Mr Newton had the opportunity to lead into space during a stoppage on the forward flank Olympic stand side

He lead directly to the space for about 4-5 steps but his opponent foiled him, he turned back, took a couple of steps back toward goal, turned around and tried to lead again to the same space but his opponent foiled him again. No further effort, or change of tactic, was made from memory.

I am very sure Newtons opponent was aware of the space that Newton led into and was able to shut him down quickly - twice

If we contrast this to someone like Robbo who prior to leading into a very obvious hole would fake a lead in the other direction, time his opponents catchup, then take off into the desired direction thus leaving his wrong footed opponent behind enough to take a mark, half a meter space gained or less is all that is required

Based on watching Newton a fair bit I feel that this example is reflective of they way in which he leads, there is no cunning, he doesn't have a bag of tricks

I believe that there is value to the Melbourne football club if this gaping deficiency in his game was rectified

To make the greatest improvement, one should identify and work on the biggest opportunity (sometimes called a loss or deficiency)

If you collected data about Newton and analysed the lost opportunities I firmly believe his method of leading would be the first thing to work on, his kicking would be second

He has the ability to contribute much more the success of the club. Maybe the coaches should bear some responsibility for this?