I guess what I’d like to see from the club (and this player review is a forum where it could be conveyed) is an indication of any sort of benchmark for what they expect from the players - a review. Most reviews are out of 10 marks or 5 stars; Pass or Fail..

I couldn’t care less about whether Petterd's "physicality was good" or if he "provided an option" what i'd like to know, is whether the player's performance was acceptable to the footy club. Did they get out of Ricky Petterd what they wanted as a minimum when they picked him to play last Friday? I doubt it? But at the moment we don’t know whether bringing physicality and presenting but being effective for one week is acceptable or unacceptable. That’s why I’d be happy with less words. Telling us "fun facts" like Morton winning one contest early on isn’t a review of the player.

So I’d even be happy with this;

Ricky Petterd: Ricky was ineffective. We know he is better than this, and he knows we must see an improved performance next week. 2 out of 5 Sherrins

That’s my opinion. You don’t have to agree with it! counter posting your opinion is unlikely to change it!

Go Dees!

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

Constructive criticism.

I thought it was an excellent reply by "High Tower".

You want people to put their opinion forward, and for their input to be considered and open to constructive criticism - ie discussion.

That's the whole point of telling someone they should put forward their view rather than just criticising - it means they've put their balls on the line too.

I guess what I’d like to see from the club (and this player review is a forum where it could be conveyed) is an indication of any sort of benchmark for what they expect from the players - a review. Most reviews are out of 10 marks or 5 stars; Pass or Fail..

I couldn’t care less about whether Petterd's "physicality was good" or if he "provided an option" what i'd like to know, is whether the player's performance was acceptable to the footy club. Did they get out of Ricky Petterd what they wanted as a minimum when they picked him to play last Friday? I doubt it? But at the moment we don’t know whether bringing physicality and presenting but being effective for one week is acceptable or unacceptable. That’s why I’d be happy with less words. Telling us "fun facts" like Morton winning one contest early on isn’t a review of the player.

So I’d even be happy with this;

Ricky Petterd: Ricky was ineffective. We know he is better than this, and he knows we must see an improved performance next week. 2 out of 5 Sherrins

That’s my opinion. You don’t have to agree with it! counter posting your opinion is unlikely to change it!

Go Dees!

It seems to me that you feel these reviews should be used to send a message to the player in question - Id be surprised if any of the players have read these mini-reviews of their game. Ever.

The coaching staff would provide them with much more in-depth personal feedback than what we are privy to.

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

Clearly you haven't been reading half the posts I make then.

Anyway, I don't think it's worth the effort at the moment for these reviews - quite often the 3-word-reviews on here sum up the performances far better than any MFC website review.

But more to the point, if you're going to slam some players openly (as they did with Juice and Jurrah) slam those that deserve it - i.e. Morton.

It seems to me that you feel these reviews should be used to send a message to the player in question

Not the case, i (and probably most fans) would just like to know if the coaches were happy or unhappy with a players performance/contribution (in black & white).

In the majority of the reviews they make a token nice comment before addressing an area for them to work on. In many cases this leaves a balanced "review" (half good, half bad). Does this mean they are giving the palyer a Pass mark (50%)? I doubt it. So why not indicate on a scale how they rated the players games? Atleast then we could get a clearer picture of what they expect from each player. This way we can also temper our own expectations? For me the perfect example is Jack Watts. We all know he is improving but what do the coaches expect from him? do they rate his recent form as fair, or very good? Are they thinking - this is the minimum we expect form you Jack, or well done Jack your playing good footy.

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

You seriously think I have bagged DemonWA ? And furthermore those who don't put in ? (If I do criticise player's it is usually warranted). I think I'm pretty fair and reasonable nonetheless, but I'll let more informed posters be the judge of that.

You need to address your interpretation of posts.

edit: incorrect poster ref. sorry striker475.

It's a fluff article put out by the club to keep the content of the site regularly updated, and the supporters engaged.

Good to debate it, but I wouldn't get too hung up on the comments...........the club can't come out to slam a player for their games, as much as sometimes we may like them to.

The Casey review had far more interest for me. Gave Gawn a big wrap. Tom McDonald as well. But hte really important one was this:

Troy Davis: Troy was a bit of a surprise packet. He came in for his first senior game and played well down back. Troy had 14 possessions and played on Zeph Skinner. He also spent some time on Mitch Hahn and Jarrad Grant. So that was exciting to see Troy play well.

I have high hopes for this kid. Obviously he's lost a fair chunk of the season through illness, but I think he may be a big part of our backline in a few years. Quality pickup for us.

A few months ago I hoped he'd turn out to be like Brian Lake.

Now I'm not so sure about that appraisal...

The Casey review had far more interest for me. Gave Gawn a big wrap. Tom McDonald as well. But hte really important one was this:

I have high hopes for this kid. Obviously he's lost a fair chunk of the season through illness, but I think he may be a big part of our backline in a few years. Quality pickup for us.

I'll say. I said as much in the Casey v Willi thread having attended the game at "avalon". He has the size and build for the game, and to me looks a player for us down back. I hate predicting at the best of times, but I'll go out on a limb with no hesitation and say we'll all be happy with this kid Davis.

PS. I hope I haven't mozzed him.

I thought Carlton ran into open space all night. Melbourne didn't spread hard enough...very interesting how certain midfielders are being told they need to spread.ie., beamer, gysberts.

Not sure melbourne is even fit? we are lacking attacking run from our midfielders. Blues didn't even play that well...but they managed to run hard all night.

bombers went through a well publisced grueling preseason...they are fit.

Are Melbourne players fit enough?

Not the case, i (and probably most fans) would just like to know if the coaches were happy or unhappy with a players performance/contribution (in black & white).

In the majority of the reviews they make a token nice comment before addressing an area for them to work on. In many cases this leaves a balanced "review" (half good, half bad). Does this mean they are giving the palyer a Pass mark (50%)? I doubt it. So why not indicate on a scale how they rated the players games? Atleast then we could get a clearer picture of what they expect from each player. This way we can also temper our own expectations? For me the perfect example is Jack Watts. We all know he is improving but what do the coaches expect from him? do they rate his recent form as fair, or very good? Are they thinking - this is the minimum we expect form you Jack, or well done Jack your playing good footy.

I get something out of the reviews as they are and am pleased to have them.

It's a fluff article put out by the club to keep the content of the site regularly updated, and the supporters engaged.

Good to debate it, but I wouldn't get too hung up on the comments...........the club can't come out to slam a player for their games, as much as sometimes we may like them to.

you'd think that it would be implied but some people on this forum well lets leave it at that

would not surprise me if the Burgatron writes it all

It's a fluff article put out by the club to keep the content of the site regularly updated, and the supporters engaged.

Good to debate it, but I wouldn't get too hung up on the comments...........

Totally agree with you. But if there is a more suitable place to vent my frustrations with such trivial demons related issues other than Demonland let me know?!

The only thing more pointless than the player review is the chat regarding team selection with Matt. Seriously you'd get more juicy info regarding selections on here.... but thats another story!

Totally agree with you. But if there is a more suitable place to vent my frustrations with such trivial demons related issues other than Demonland let me know?!

The only thing more pointless than the player review is the chat regarding team selection with Matt. Seriously you'd get more juicy info regarding selections on here.... but thats another story!

I reckon the ol Burgatron has been a good get for the Dees, content on the website has greatly improved, I reckon its a tuff gig to come up with enuff stories and "fluff" pieces to keep us all interested, some may miss the mark. I am thankful however, a decade ago we would have been lucky to get a quarterly demon newspaper, we've come a long way.

So for me no dramas with the player reports, particularly the Casey ones as you get an idea of who is coming through. If you understand the rationale behind it, I fail to see how the write ups could attract criticism.

If you understand the rationale behind it, I fail to see how the write ups could attract criticism.

Frustration with on field performances!

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"

no it doesnt, he has been labelled soft - in that situation Cale went as hard as he could and copped a most undeserved free, what are you bagging him for?

no it doesnt, he has been labelled soft - in that situation Cale went as hard as he could and copped a most undeserved free, what are you bagging him for?

Im bagging the write up for praising one single instance where Morton showed comitment to the contest as some sort of match defining moment for him. If the coaches expect this stuff from him then whats the big deal?

I get something out of the reviews as they are and am pleased to have them.

+1

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.

HAHA brilliant B)

These reviews are fodder for lightweight fans who can't form their own opinion on a game of footy. Take them with a big grain of salt, preferably followed by a shot of Tequila.

HAHA brilliant B)

These reviews are fodder for lightweight fans who can't form their own opinion on a game of footy. Take them with a big grain of salt, preferably followed by a shot of Tequila.

I disagree, no salt needed, just an ability to comprehend subtle messages.

And anyone who concludes that the club feels their mission is accomplished with Morton is failing miserably on the comprehension front.

I disagree, no salt needed

Can I still have the Tequila?

Can I still have the Tequila?

Hehe, go for it

Played like a sack of potatoes except for Stef Martin. He is having a red hot crack and we're proud of him.