Its pats on the back all round???? WTF?

Only players who really get a negative write up is Jurrah and Juice?

Link: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/115120/default.aspx

  Quote

Cale Morton: Cale was solid. He won an excellent contested ball early in the match, but unfortunately had a free kick paid against him. His work rate was good. A game to build on.

From Casey I bloody well hope.

  On 31/05/2011 at 00:39, DemonWA said:

Its pats on the back all round???? WTF?

Only players who really get a negative write up is Jurrah and Juice?

You really need to read between the lines.

That comment about morton sums up why we are pathetic! Basically reads to me; "Cale tried to do the right thing, but the umpires told him off so he went back in his shell which is ok with us; we accept mediocrity"

  On 31/05/2011 at 00:47, old55 said:

You really need to read between the lines.

i can read between the lines, but there is still too many positives being drawn IMO.

Reads across like a 5th grade reader book doesnt it !!

Johny had a good day but it rained, he got wet.

Sally played withthe other children but they wouldnt share the ball, Sally cried.

Billy forgot to tie his boot laces and feel over , everyone laughed at Billy, especially teh mean boys from the other side of town.

Tommy worked dilligently onhis sand castle but nobody wanted to build it with him. Tommy got annoyed and kicked it down.

Sammy forgot to turn up today.

Ding Ding

Play-time's over !!

  On 31/05/2011 at 00:47, old55 said:

You really need to read between the lines.

+1.

Anyone who expects we're going to hang the players out to dry on the MFC website has rocks in their head.

  On 31/05/2011 at 00:39, DemonWA said:

Its pats on the back all round???? WTF?

Only players who really get a negative write up is Jurrah and Juice?

No. In example:

  Quote

Matthew Warnock: The night didn’t turn out the way Matty would have liked. He made a few basic errors that the Blues capitalised on. We know he’ll bounce back next week.

Ricky Petterd: Ricky’s physicality was good. He tried hard to be an option for us, but he was ineffective on the night.

I honestly can't be bothered finding more.

  On 31/05/2011 at 00:59, Rogue said:

+1.

Anyone who expects we're going to hang the players out to dry on the MFC website has rocks in their head.

I'll agree, but to blast both Juice and LJ but not Morton is a bit weird.

  On 31/05/2011 at 01:00, Striker475 said:

I'll agree, but to blast both Juice and LJ but not Morton is a bit weird.

I would have thought a key stat for Morton was tackles which hasn't been his strength. in game where we didn't have the ball he laid none. zippo.

Nicholson came on and laid a few tackles.

I am still amazed Bailey cannot get Morton with elite running ability to get quite a few tackles into his game. he should be a right nuisance, impossible to get away from, but he doesn't tackle !!

He was ok on goodes so why not give him some defensive roles on good running players. this week perhaps Heppel as a defensive forward ??

  On 31/05/2011 at 00:39, DemonWA said:

Its pats on the back all round???? WTF?

Only players who really get a negative write up is Jurrah and Juice?

Link: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/115120/default.aspx

Geez mate, do you really expect players to be hung out to dry externally??? Is this something that you would value from the coaching group???

I'm sure the players would appreciate that. I am certain that behind closed doors diplomacy would go out the window.

  On 31/05/2011 at 02:38, 36DD said:

Geez mate, do you really expect players to be hung out to dry externally??? Is this something that you would value from the coaching group???

I'm sure the players would appreciate that. I am certain that behind closed doors diplomacy would go out the window.

Its getting very close nigh time they were !!

  On 31/05/2011 at 00:54, belzebub59 said:

...

It was hardly funny the last time you did that routine in rgard the comments on the MFC website. Well, whatever rocks your boat I guess.

  On 31/05/2011 at 02:40, belzebub59 said:

Its getting very close nigh time they were !!

Yeah that'll show'em.

  On 31/05/2011 at 02:43, Rhino Richards said:

It was hardly funny the last time you did that routine in rgard the comments on the MFC website. Well, whatever rocks your boat I guess.

Yeah that'll show'em.

because you re so wise there RR..oh so wise.. You throw up a load of dross dont you mate.. Hardly ever dare put an opinion that might be in the least contraversial or even particulalry original.

Why do you bother ..really. Hardly ever ADD to any debate,,, you just sit there and take pot shots dont you..its tiring.

Live a little ...actually come up with something.. Idare you..

What OUGHT the club do ??

lets see you create somethig for us to consider, instead of continually pouring scorn on all..

None of us expect players to be hung out to dry. But if they go to the trouble of publishing (and that means for public display and comment) they should be more honest. No, we don't want stuff like "Newton is a [censored] and we are sorry we kept him on our list" even though that's what many of us think. Those honest appraisals are for internal review and conversation.

But to sum up Morton's game like that, or Bennell's, or in particular Petterd's "physicality was good" - give us a break, we are not total fools. These benign, empty, superficial and often highly inaccurate summations of a players performance are like handing out counterfeit cash: empty and meaningless. They should not be published.

If they are designed to give the howling masses some crumbs - they fail. They incite speculation. Devoted fans get really angry because there is a consensus that we who attended the game and saw a very different performance than the "official player review." Being fed this nonsense really gets under our skins because it has been produced for the sake of saying something - not to really review players.

I would rather them say "our reviews happen internally" and give us nothing, as hard as that would be to handle, than recieve that rubbish on the website.

.

  On 31/05/2011 at 03:01, Maldonboy38 said:

I would rather them say "our reviews happen internally" and give us nothing, as hard as that would be to handle, than recieve that rubbish on the website.

Apparently there's an ability to not receive 'that rubbish'.

Im happiest about Tom McDonald's Casey review. Very promising stuff, could be a gem from a pretty late pick.

  On 31/05/2011 at 03:08, rhaz said:

Im happiest about Tom McDonald's Casey review. Very promising stuff, could be a gem from a pretty late pick.

Has received glowing reports since he arrived. Sounds like he will take a while but if he develops into a good tall it is a bonus we sorely need.

The use of the word "physicality" throughout the review is quite amusing given how little of it was shown.

  On 31/05/2011 at 03:01, Maldonboy38 said:

None of us expect players to be hung out to dry. But if they go to the trouble of publishing (and that means for public display and comment) they should be more honest. No, we don't want stuff like "Newton is a [censored] and we are sorry we kept him on our list" even though that's what many of us think. Those honest appraisals are for internal review and conversation.

But to sum up Morton's game like that, or Bennell's, or in particular Petterd's "physicality was good" - give us a break, we are not total fools. These benign, empty, superficial and often highly inaccurate summations of a players performance are like handing out counterfeit cash: empty and meaningless. They should not be published.

If they are designed to give the howling masses some crumbs - they fail. They incite speculation. Devoted fans get really angry because there is a consensus that we who attended the game and saw a very different performance than the "official player review." Being fed this nonsense really gets under our skins because it has been produced for the sake of saying something - not to really review players.

I would rather them say "our reviews happen internally" and give us nothing, as hard as that would be to handle, than recieve that rubbish on the website.

Fair comment. The review is rubbish. It's about time we faced up to reality - we are currently p..poor and need a major lift, change in attitude, game plan - something that allows us to be taken seriously

.

For those of you who have trouble reading between the lines, I'll give it a bit of window dressing for you - most likely the way you would like it....Just so you know the real descriptions from the MFC website remain, my translations are in bold:

Matthew Bate: Matthew worked really hard and ran to some really good spots, but wasn’t used enough. He had 17 possessions and had four scoring involvements. Matthew tried hard, presented occassionally but relatively ineffective and had little influence.

Jamie Bennell: Jamie did a really good job on Jeff Garlett. Although Garlett ended up kicking two goals, Jamie stuck to his task all night. One of Garlett’s goals came late in the final quarter. We thought Jamie did his job for us on a dangerous small forward in Garlett.

Michael Evans: Michael worked hard. He wasn’t as effective as last round and found his second game a lot tougher. His physicality was good and he tackled well. Found this game a step up in intensity from last week, handled himself ok in the clinches, worked hard but little influence.

James Frawley: James finished with 19 disposals and had an equal team-high six rebounds. He uncharacteristically fumbled at times but fought the game out. Not his best game by James' standards, but was under the pump. An unusual error or two

Brad Green: Brad had an even game, without being outstanding. His physicality was good and he finished the game with seven tackles. Had seven tackles.

Jordan Gysberts: Jordie was solid inside and worked really hard outside. He needs to keep focusing on his spread away from stoppages and his defensive game. Needs to be better defensively and work hard the other way and understand his set tasks better. Otherwise battled away

Neville Jetta: Nev’s physicality was good again. He had six tackles. Nev must continue to work on his involvement in the game and his use of the ball. Nev needs to involve himself more by increasing his workrate.

Liam Jurrah: Liam’s not working hard enough or involving himself in the game at the moment. He kicked 1.2 from three shots and had nine possessions but is capable of so much more. Liam needs to do things more when he hasn't got the ball, he needs to pressure, tackle, harrass, spoil....all those little things to help the team create turnovers and create more scoring opportunities for not only himself, but the team.

Joel Macdonald: Joel had a solid game. He took some very good intercept marks and ran straight at the ball throughout the match. He continually pressured the opposition and finished with a team-high 23 disposals. One of the better players and more experienced players. Doesn't really deviate when going for the ball. Which is what we need from everyone.

Addam Maric: Addam was in and out of the game. The defensive side of his game requires more focus. He needs to continue to take the game on when he has the ball. He needs to improve what he does with or without the ball or he is out.

Stefan Martin: Steffy really contested hard in the ruck. He won the tap outs with a career-best 40 to Shaun Hampson’s 34. His spread is was good and we need to use Stef more around the ground. Did ok in the ruck, presented well by spreading despite teammates not using him enough. We should extract more out of him

Jordie McKenzie: Jordie was solid. His attack on the ball was excellent, as was his work rate. He led the way with nine tackles. It was a typical, tenacious McKenzie game. Thank god he is back.

Brent Moloney: Beamer’s physicality was very good, as was his direction and leadership. He must continue to focus on his spread away from stoppages and his ball use. Needs to improve his decisiveness and execution with the ball and work harder after stoppages. ie.stop running on the spot.

Cale Morton: Cale was solid. He won an excellent contested ball early in the match, but unfortunately had a free kick paid against him. His work rate was good. A game to build on. He won a contested ball, let's pop the champagne !...but wait, the umpire blew it against him so it was to no avail, which incidentally was a shocking decision that should be brought to Geischen's attention immediately if it hasn't already. We're hoping Cale can build on this game and make it two contested possessions against Essendon.

Michael Newton: Juice didn’t make the most of his opportunities and made a few basic errors that Carlton capitalised on. Casey bound.

Daniel Nicholson: For the time that he was on the ground, Nico really tried to involve himself in the game. He had seven possessions and four tackles. It was good for him to get a taste at the highest level. Actually upstaged his many of his teammates on his limited debut.

Nathan Jones: We had to use Jonesy in defence, where he was solid. He won plenty of the ball and must continue to work on getting the most out of his disposals. Needs to assess his execution and limit the amount of clangers.

Ricky Petterd: Ricky’s physicality was good. He tried hard to be an option for us, but he was ineffective on the night. Non-influential game, must work harder to present.

Jared Rivers: Jared was solid down back, given the number of times the ball was in the back half. He had four spoils one-on-one and switched the ball very well. Was under the pump all night and stood tall for us.

Colin Sylvia: Col’s physicality was excellent again and he worked really hard in-and-under. He finished with a team-high 12 contested possessions, so he led the way in that area. He continues to have a solid season. Leads the way in contesting for the ball and imposes himself at contests continuously a-la like his season to date...another area could do with a little more work..working harder the other way.

Matthew Warnock: The night didn’t turn out the way Matty would have liked. He made a few basic errors that the Blues capitalised on. We know he’ll bounce back next week. Nightmare of the night, should of marked on chest, made numerous errors, costly. Subbed accordingly.

Jack Watts: Jack was used as a spare early and performed his role well. He continues to involve himself in the contest and is improving each game. He has begun to put together some good form. Gave him set task much to media and supporters angst...it's called development people.

We can all read between the lines. We are all also capable of reviewing the players performance ourselves. Do they think we don’t watch the games? Maldonboy38 summed it up for me; If they’re not going to at least be honest in their review why bother?

Also to those who are saying the website cant hang player out to dry, I agree. But being honest and fair is different than "hanging them out to dry". At the moment its all rose coloured glasses IMO.

An example;

MFC site

Ricky Petterd: Ricky’s physicality was good. He tried hard to be an option for us, but he was ineffective on the night

what i'd be happy seeing;

Ricky Petterd: Ricky was ineffective. We know he is better than this, and he knows we must see an improved performacne next week.

or

MFC site

Neville Jetta: Nev’s physicality was good again. He had six tackles. Nev must continue to work on his involvement in the game and his use of the ball

what i'd be happy seeing;

Neville Jetta: We love Nev's tackling and pressure but he must bring more to games than this alone.

  On 31/05/2011 at 04:09, DemonWA said:

An example;

MFC site

Ricky Petterd: Ricky’s physicality was good. He tried hard to be an option for us, but he was ineffective on the night

what i'd be happy seeing;

Ricky Petterd: Ricky was ineffective. We know he is better than this, and he knows we must see an improved performacne next week.

The MFC website has told me more to be honest. It tells me his physicality was good and that he provided an option, but overall he was ineffective.

You tell me that he was ineffective. That's pretty much it apart from hoping for better.

  Quote

or

MFC site

Neville Jetta: Nev’s physicality was good again. He had six tackles. Nev must continue to work on his involvement in the game and his use of the ball

what i'd be happy seeing;

Neville Jetta: We love Nev's tackling and pressure but he must bring more to games than this alone.

Again, the MFC website tells me much more in it's review of Jetta, than yours.

ie:

MFC SITE

• Physicality was good
  
• 6 tackles
  
• Work on involvement
  
• Work on better use of ball
  

DEMONWA REVIEW

• Love Nev's tackling
  
• Love Nev's pressure
  
• Must bring more
  

See what I mean ?

  On 31/05/2011 at 00:48, DemonWA said:

That comment about morton sums up why we are pathetic! Basically reads to me; "Cale tried to do the right thing, but the umpires told him off so he went back in his shell which is ok with us; we accept mediocrity"

Agreed. That review is a joke.

  On 31/05/2011 at 00:40, Striker475 said:

From Casey I bloody well hope.

Youre sounding like a broken record. Just because you have it in for him, the rest of us don't have to put up with your prejudices all the time. Say something insightful

  On 31/05/2011 at 04:17, High Tower said:

The MFC website has told me more to be honest. It tells me his physicality was good and that he provided an option, but overall he was ineffective.

You tell me that he was ineffective. That's pretty much it apart from hoping for better.

Again, the MFC website tells me much more in it's review of Jetta, than yours.

ie:

MFC SITE

• Physicality was good
  
• 6 tackles
  
• Work on involvement
  
• Work on better use of ball
  

DEMONWA REVIEW

• Love Nev's tackling
  
• Love Nev's pressure
  
• Must bring more
  

See what I mean ?

You bag people for not putting in, then bag those who do. You need to sought out what you really think. At this stage its not overly enlightened