That again is implementation based on the factors of each game. Each coach has said that the playher picked as the sub will depend on the circumstances. It does not impact the methodology used.

Ok so who should the MFC selectors pick for next weeks game over at subi?...it could be crucial.

Excuse me??? Your name on here is Pig....is it not (a name you chose yourself?? Yes

plg, WYL. Pee-ell-gee.

Best misunderstanding ever

plg, WYL. Pee-ell-gee.

Best misunderstanding ever

Can be taken either way!! many online peeps use a capital I, sorry that's how i read it.

Better to laugh it off than go off ya banana PLG......sorry

Eh? I do believe 'why you little' (or wyl as people sometimes refer to him) was merely misreading your name, thinking that it read pIg31ni.

Also, there is in fact a little 'edit' button next to the 'reply' and 'quote' buttons - which is indeed int he bottom right.

So in short, you just jumped up and down and had a rant because someone gave you a friendly pointer to editing posts.

My respect is actually something that has to be lost, rather than earnt, if you take my meaning. I'm not sure your odd little 'Toastmasters' flourishes and liberal use of exclamation marks while patronising a long time poster is raising the tone of respect on this site very much.

Hmm...

I think my heckles were raised a bit then by the self-confirmation of your opinion that sarcasm is the 'wit of fools'. Cliche aside, there's a whole socio-linguistic history to the use of sarcasm, parody and absurdity as a psychological equaliser between 'establishment' and 'outsider' groups. I guess it's an appropriate weekend to note that the ANZAC enlisted soldiers had no end to their supply of sarcastic comments and blunt mockery, ready to respond to the pomposity and noblesse oblige attitudes of their British Officers.

Eh? I do believe 'why you little' (or wyl as people sometimes refer to him) was merely misreading your name, thinking that it read pIg31ni.

Also, there is in fact a little 'edit' button next to the 'reply' and 'quote' buttons - which is indeed int he bottom right.

So in short, you just jumped up and down and had a rant because someone gave you a friendly pointer to editing posts.

My respect is actually something that has to be lost, rather than earnt, if you take my meaning. I'm not sure your odd little 'Toastmasters' flourishes and liberal use of exclamation marks while patronising a long time poster is raising the tone of respect on this site very much.

Hmm...

I think my heckles were raised a bit then by the self-confirmation of your opinion that sarcasm is the 'wit of fools'. Cliche aside, there's a whole socio-linguistic history to the use of sarcasm, parody and absurdity as a psychological equaliser between 'establishment' and 'outsider' groups. I guess it's an appropriate weekend to note that the ANZAC enlisted soldiers had no end to their supply of sarcastic comments and blunt mockery, ready to respond to the pomposity and noblesse oblige attitudes of their British Officers.

and very well spoken, Little Goffy

Eh? I do believe 'why you little' (or wyl as people sometimes refer to him) was merely misreading your name, thinking that it read pIg31ni.

Also, there is in fact a little 'edit' button next to the 'reply' and 'quote' buttons - which is indeed int he bottom right.

So in short, you just jumped up and down and had a rant because someone gave you a friendly pointer to editing posts.

My respect is actually something that has to be lost, rather than earnt, if you take my meaning. I'm not sure your odd little 'Toastmasters' flourishes and liberal use of exclamation marks while patronising a long time poster is raising the tone of respect on this site very much.

Hmm...

I think my heckles were raised a bit then by the self-confirmation of your opinion that sarcasm is the 'wit of fools'. Cliche aside, there's a whole socio-linguistic history to the use of sarcasm, parody and absurdity as a psychological equaliser between 'establishment' and 'outsider' groups. I guess it's an appropriate weekend to note that the ANZAC enlisted soldiers had no end to their supply of sarcastic comments and blunt mockery, ready to respond to the pomposity and noblesse oblige attitudes of their British Officers.

Thanks LG, you are absolutely on the money, i thought i was doing plg a favour, so the reply did throw me a bit!

You are one of those that may have been writing posts for a long time and calling me "pig" does nothing to increase the respect for this site among fellow supporters of the club and anyone else who may like the site. You of all people one would think, should have more intelligence.. It was too late to edit. I will repeat as I said on a very early reply to a previous "established" Demonland Member.... Sarcasm, is and is well known, to be the "Wit of fools"" How true that is.. !!! Respect needs to be earned being a smart a..se doesn't earn it.. !! And I care little how much respect you have on Demonland.. It means little outside the site..!!!

Oh dear.

and very well spoken, Little Goffy

Yes.

And it's a funny one (sometimes not) because most of the humour that I have been seeing lately relating to Aussies under duress, and at their most stoic - ie. during wars fought in other lands - is sarcasm.

I know it's easy, and I know we use it too much - but some of the best Australian stories contain a fair dose of sarcasm.

Anyway, topic.

Dean was pretty at ease with himself, which is good. No-one wants to see a Mark Harvey of a couple of years ago, that was difficult TV...

Paul Roos is an obvious "leader of Men" Dean is a very nice guy... Agreed.. But RUthless ??? Not enough !! Please Dean... Prove me wrong.. I will be the first to embrace you and bow to you ...

Dean showed he was ruthless with the tanking. It took balls and was very ruthless. As he was with cutting some of the older deadwood around the club.

That said, he lost me when he named Watts as sub this week. I've been unsure about Dean and sat on the fence for a long time, but I don't think he has what it takes.

BTW Hannabal is psot on.

That said, he lost me when he named Watts as sub this week. I've been unsure about Dean and sat on the fence for a long time, but I don't think he has what it takes.

Funny how we can see the same thing and not have the same take on it. Not saying you are right or wrong but I thought it gave young Jack a bit of a rocket that he probably needed. He looked pretty hungry and eager to show he could play when he did get out there.

I think the concern with the watts sub thing is that he could have been dropped (or made sub) in order to give him a rocket any day, but we only play gold coast twice this year, and it was an opportunity for him to flourish (interestingly it was also a chance for him to fail).

Perhaps some of the strategy behind it was that given it was widely (in the media) considered his chance to dominate, depriving him of that for 3 quarters may have been the best rocket he could get?

Personally I thought he should've been given the run.

But on topic: thought it was generally a nothing much interview, gave nothing away really did he?

Funny how we can see the same thing and not have the same take on it. Not saying you are right or wrong but I thought it gave young Jack a bit of a rocket that he probably needed. He looked pretty hungry and eager to show he could play when he did get out there.

That's how i read it, so i suppose we just have to wait and see how it all turns out.

But on topic: thought it was generally a nothing much interview, gave nothing away really did he?

Standard light hearted Before the Game interview. So it was generally a nothing much interview.

I like the guy. I genuinely hope he succeeds

Any idea where my post went???

Dean showed he was ruthless with the tanking. It took balls and was very ruthless. As he was with cutting some of the older deadwood around the club.

That said, he lost me when he named Watts as sub this week. I've been unsure about Dean and sat on the fence for a long time, but I don't think he has what it takes.

BTW Hannabal is psot on.

So he is ruthless in getting us to where we are and it took balls and you are impressed with that, but he makes Watts a sub for a week and he has lost you?

I don't understand how you can question his coaching abilities over one decision which hasn't even been proven to be a bad one.

I was initially dumbfounded as to why Watts was named sub, but then I thought about it a bit. What if naming Watts a sub instead of starting him was a msg that full games/starting on the field isn't always a walk up proposition, perhaps it could ignight some kind of competition in the lad. What if they thought he could gain just as much from the lesson that not being an automatic selection brings- ie "You want a spot on an AFL field, well it's a competitive game, and position for that matter, so bring your "A" game.

Maybe smashing the AFL newbies wouldn't have been as confidence boosting as everyone thinks. Everyone (at that stage) thought they stinked anyway.

What if they thought as much confidence could be gained out of one quarter of play as apose to 4.

Who knows, there are many different aspects to footy. Give Bailey a chance to prove what he can do with this list instead of looking for any excuse to jump ship so soon.

I've never seen a Melbourne win a flag. I've seen a lot of hope and a lot of talk, but never seen a flag. So when members of this site (same 3 or 4 who shout down everyone) constantly shoot down posters for questioning the coaching, admin or playing group, I wonder where the blind faith comes from. I don't expext a flag tjis year, I don't even expect top eight.

I want to see something to get me excited. I want to see a plan coming together. I want to see a coach and think that i,m glad we have him.

I have seen nothing in Dean Bailey to show that he can coach. Is there any qestion that at the end of his contract if we don't sign him someone else will?

Talks a great game, but needs results

Give him a chance to give you those results.

I will admit I haven't been overly thrilled with all aspects of our game as of late, but everyone can see the work that has been put in to get us to base camp, now give our sherpa a chance to lead us up the mountain damn it.

Any idea where my post went???

No posts of yours have been deleted by mods. I assume you're not talking about post #61 in this thread?

I think I'll reserve judgement on the Watts as sub situation until I see how he reacts against the weagles. If he plays well in the west and continues good form afterwards it will look like a masterstroke by Bails. As much as last week was an opportunity for him to gain confidence it could have also gone the other way. If he had of stunk it up against the suns it could have destroyed what little confidence he has left and the media would've slammed him.

I think I'll reserve judgement on the Watts as sub situation until I see how he reacts against the weagles. If he plays well in the west and continues good form afterwards it will look like a masterstroke by Bails. As much as last week was an opportunity for him to gain confidence it could have also gone the other way. If he had of stunk it up against the suns it could have destroyed what little confidence he has left and the media would've slammed him.

You could be right.

You're assuming he will get the game on Thursday. But why shouldn't he?

It's pretty clear his being chosen as sub had nothing to do with the possible need to replace a certain kind of player, or someone under an injury cloud, or to give the team a lift at a certain point in the game, but was a tactic being used in his education. Therefore, since he came on at an arbitrary point chosen by the coach, in order to show what he could do, and since he did pretty well in that one quarter, it would seem completely illogical to drop him from the side this week. It would also seem illogical to make him sub again if he were deemed to have made the most of his chance. There's a small element in the WC game of there being a point to make in relation to his and Natanui's drafting order. Bailey's motive may be that this could prickle him into an impressive performance.

I have a theory on why Watts was made a sub against the suns might be wrong but anyway here it is, if Watts played and did not perform or dominate the media would then go to town on him placing more heat on him and the club, so by making him the sub and playing only one quarter all the media can say Watts should have started on the ground. As I say I might be wrong but gee it looks that way.

I have a theory on why Watts was made a sub against the suns might be wrong but anyway here it is, if Watts played and did not perform or dominate the media would then go to town on him placing more heat on him and the club, so by making him the sub and playing only one quarter all the media can say Watts should have started on the ground. As I say I might be wrong but gee it looks that way.

So our club is now making match committee decisions based on media speculation ?

So our club is now making match committee decisions based on media speculation ?

As I said it's my theory, and yes on this issue I think they did.

it could have destroyed what little confidence he has left

I've heard this touted a bit.

What's it based on?

Watts, to me, seems a very confident young man.

As I said it's my theory, and yes on this issue I think they did.

It's an ill-thought theory, which would make those leading our club lamentable lemmings.