What the hell is going on here? Another player with a big question mark over his head develops knee soreness and can't play. I lived with chronic knee soreness for over 15 years and it never got in the way of playing football, soccer, boxing, skiing, surfing and just about everything else. Only when I gave these sports up and did only bike riding that it did go away.

Not wanting to open up old wounds......

I completely understand your argument of throwing him in the fire. But I was curious Bub if there was a timetable on that?

I mean if he gets dropped he is stung and must therefore fight to prove himself and to regain the place he rightfully lost due to his ongoing poor performances (not just one),

but if he remains in the side and is told to work it out while wearing the blue and red then what are his para-metres? Obviously it is to fight to keep his spot,

but what if that doesn't happen, do you drop him anyway, only it's a couple of weeks later?

And how if this hypothetical occurs has anyone benefited? He hasn't, we haven't and I guarantee you the team won't. So my argument is very simple.

Rules apply to all. You don't get a pass to keep playing with this team if you aren't fully committed to playing for this team.

And by that I mean everything - running, chasing, tackling and not shirking your time nor your responsibilities, leadership or otherwise.

Some players will always get longer to show that they want to be out there, and poor form is an ever fluctuating (and frustrating) thing, but after awhile and

especially after the abysmal attitude and commitment we witnessed from a senior player and leader there has to be a full stop to him being automatically rewarded with the jumper.

QueenC though this does indeed all seem moot now I will attempt to answer your question

I suppose it starts with what you really hope to achieve. My ultimate goal here would be to get Davey playing somewhere near his ability. I dont really expect to see that kid who mesmerised us all years ago on debut against Richmond..He seemed everywhere and menacing. Quick as a flash..and the rest is..as they say..history. Not always a happy one though.

My premise is to get him playing good footy(again) . As I see it in a very much glass half-full/half empty dilemma , we can seek to be rehabititative or punitive.

My first reaction was as many ...chest beating, stick thumping...send him down.. down...down.. !! lol But im not convinced that would really achieve the predescribed outcome. It might as a second resort.

So in the rehabilitative mode Id reverse your thougths above and suggest if you are to think wed delay punishment by postponing such discourse then youre also faced with postponing redirection by similar time delays.

When one stuffs up the best occasion to seek correction is straight away. i.e Son..that was utter cr@p now go back out and get cracking at playing properly. If you cant THEN youre going for a spell in the magoos.

I dont see it a all as rewarding him by allowing him to play ( if was to have ) but simply attempting to expedite and rebuilding confidence and desire rather than rushing to punish for punish sake. You can always do that.

.

There's 2 issues though B59;

* Form (the one you are making your decision on) - Will he get it back playing in the seniors? Maybe, maybe not. Will he get it back at Casey? Maybe, maybe not. If he were to go back to Casey, it would come with strict KPI's to ensure it's not an easy gallop. As I have said to you above, a boring 40 possies will not mean anything at Casey, but a hard earned 20 possies and achieving the strict KPI's, that's what the Coach will want to see.

* Leadership - the infamous incident of not going 100% at that mark is totally unacceptable. We slated Bennell when he did it and called for his omission, we should do double that with Davey. That passage of play cost us a goal, which hurt us not only on the scoreboard, but the fact that our kids need senior players to look up to, and if they see him doing somehting like that, it gives them less confidence. That error had effectively disrupted the team environment that we are trying to achieve, and he should be punished for it. Playing him in the 1's with your ideas is not an acceptable form of punishment, and even after your lengthy explaination, still makes no sense to me, and most others, as to how you think it is.

It's ok to have a different opinion, but when what you are proposing has absolutely no strong message to the playing group, that's when your thoughts will be questioned, especially considering the endless posts on here have us crying out for better leadership, and to lose the white collar attitude and replace it for a blue collar ethic. You opinion/punishment is as soft as the marking attempt that the bloke himself put in.

Luck for the majority, he's out for 2 weeks anyway, so we didn't have to face the potential of the Club making the same mistake as what you were proposing.

Just said on the website that he is out for 2 weeks with a knee injury!