Interesting to see the negative side of this discussion go from "flat track bully" and "not a leaders toenail" (direct quotes there) to now saying things like "we're just saying he's not flawless" etc etc...

I don't think anyone has said Beamer is perfect, but the people continually harping on his deficincies and even pulling out stats to try and prove their point (incorrectly mind you) are just managing to highlight the real reason Melbourne Football Club seems so heartless and gutless to the rest of the league, it's supporters (or a vocal percentage of them anyways).

And don't give me this "saticsfaction" carp, of course no one is satisfied, of course everyone wants success, but nit picking faults in such a gutsy player for our club is helping how? Personally, I think some of you aren't "satisified" without something to complain about and you delight in doing just that.

You can't argue that the Club does not see Beamer as a leader. That's what started this 'debate'. Are you saying he is a leader?

If there is no or little room for improvement in the B&F winner and demoted VC of the club that finished 13th in 2011 then the next 50 years will be really depressing.

You can't argue that the Club does not see Beamer as a leader. That's what started this 'debate'. Are you saying he is a leader?

Aside from the fact you are trying to redirect this argument to suit your needs, and your post has nothing to do with my point, I will say this...

Why can't I argue that? Because he's not in the leadership group this year? Is Green still a leader? Rivers? Davey? Of course they are, if you think someone isn't a leader at a club purely based on the fact they're not in the leadership group then you musn't understand football clubs.

If there is no or little room for improvement in the B&F winner and demoted VC of the club that finished 13th in 2011 then the next 50 years will be really depressing.

Where did anyone say that? Seriously, read before posting people.

rpfc "Love to see the posts that show a 'lack of respect' just so they can be properly and directly torn apart rather than just loosely mentioned as lacking respect."

stuie has already mentioned them. "flat track bully" "not a leaders toenail" plus "he just aint that smart" "the guy goes missing when you need him the most"

Rhino Richards "There is a yawning gap of difference of discussing the strengths and weakness of a player and personal abuse (walk down the street advise people as they pass that they are fat, ugly, smell...etc because they are such upfront straight shooters). Re read, re think and try again."

Agree Rhino, and there certainly is valid discussion re strengths and weaknesses with differing opinions which is understandable. However, if someone says "you just aint that smart" most people would take it to mean "you are dumb" You could soften "ugly" in the same way by saying "he just aint that attractive" but few would doubt what you mean in either instance.

I love reading the different opinions from fellow supporters on this site as they can be thought provoking and make you see things in a different light. What annoys me though are personal attacks made by people who would not have the courage to say it to the players face. I'm not just speaking about this thread or Beamer in particular, this happened to be the thread I was reading when I made my orginal post and I could not be bothered creating a new thread. I sure if I trawled posts re Cale Morton I would find examples of abuse that Cale would find more offensive than ugly or smell.

Interesting to see the negative side of this discussion go from "flat track bully" and "not a leaders toenail" (direct quotes there) to now saying things like "we're just saying he's not flawless" etc etc...

I don't think anyone has said Beamer is perfect, but the people continually harping on his deficincies and even pulling out stats to try and prove their point (incorrectly mind you) are just managing to highlight the real reason Melbourne Football Club seems so heartless and gutless to the rest of the league, it's supporters (or a vocal percentage of them anyways).

And don't give me this "saticsfaction" carp, of course no one is satisfied, of course everyone wants success, but nit picking faults in such a gutsy player for our club is helping how? Personally, I think some of you aren't "satisified" without something to complain about and you delight in doing just that.

I see the opposite that MFC supporters have never been critical enough of our players. In most eyes they are better than what they are and any criticism is harshly met. There is nothing wrong with criticism as long as it has some substance and does not become abuse. To be clear I dont see calling someone a flat track bully as abuse. If anything I wish we had more players who consistently ripped apart sides that we are better than. I wish Colin Sylvia was a flat track bully like Moloney as well. However I also wish that Moloney would improve the delta between those games and the rest. That is about recognising where he can improve not about criticising what he already does well.

Seriously, read before posting people.

Here, here.

rpfc "Love to see the posts that show a 'lack of respect' just so they can be properly and directly torn apart rather than just loosely mentioned as lacking respect."

stuie has already mentioned them. "flat track bully" "not a leaders toenail" plus "he just aint that smart" "the guy goes missing when you need him the most"

I never said these exaggerations didn't exist - I simply wanted Stuie and Co. to isolate those views they see as disrespectful so they can address those comments that, I believe, have merit:

1. Moloney's worst games and best games are a mile apart.

2. In losses he averaged 10 possessions less than in wins.

3. The guy is flawed. As a consistent footy player and a leader. The guy is flawed.

4. He is our best player, a near elite clearance player, and can be a top 20 mid in 2012 with consistent application and performance.

More than happy for people to take this post and dissect it, rather than brush my, and a few others, concerns aside because someone exaggerated on an internet forum...

If there is no or little room for improvement in the B&F winner and demoted VC of the club that finished 13th in 2011 then the next 50 years will be really depressing.

Exactly Trident. What's wrong with demanding improvement ?

RP,

Thanks for the invitation.

Here, here.

I never said these exaggerations didn't exist - I simply wanted Stuie and Co. to isolate those views they see as disrespectful so they can address those comments that, I believe, have merit:

1. Moloney's worst games and best games are a mile apart.

2. In losses he averaged 10 possessions less than in wins.

3. The guy is flawed. As a consistent footy player and a leader. The guy is flawed.

4. He is our best player, a near elite clearance player, and can be a top 20 mid in 2012 with consistent application and performance.

More than happy for people to take this post and dissect it, rather than brush my, and a few others, concerns aside because someone exaggerated on an internet forum...

First the Math/ stats...This is just carp analysis.

1. MFC worst and best games are further apart than Moloney's....

2. In losses the club averages less possessions than when we win.

And in other breaking news.....in 100% of games losing teams score less than winning teams so what!

Next the humanist

3. arent we all flawed? as humans and supporters. aren't we all flawed? (just thought I should follow the same format)

Are the current members of the LG perfect?

and finally consensus

4. Sure hope so

Exactly Trident. What's wrong with demanding improvement ?

It's great to demand improvement H_T but all players attempt to improve every year. I just don't like the demeaning of players by supporters that sit in the stands or on a web site and continue to bag our best and fairest player for 2011. Beamer is not the only one who's stats went down playing the better sides and all players have their own particular faults. They have coaches to tell them their faults and ways to rectify them.

RP,

Thanks for the invitation.

First the Math/ stats...This is just carp analysis.

1. MFC worst and best games are further apart than Moloney's....

No doubt. But what a message to send to the boys if BM, the Bluey winner, stood up and said "my best games and my worst games are miles apart in application and consistency of effort, I reckon a few of us have the same problem"

2. In losses the club averages less possessions than when we win.

And in other breaking news.....in 100% of games losing teams score less than winning teams so what!

I should have mentioned 10 less possessions, not every team sees a 33% drop in losses...

Nathan Jones' possession count remains steady in losses and wins.

Next the humanist

3. arent we all flawed? as humans and supporters. aren't we all flawed? (just thought I should follow the same format)

Are the current members of the LG perfect?

Yes, we are flawed. But we take the criticism and decide whether it is constructive or on the mark or off base and react accordingly.

Sometimes, even when we are good at something we wish to improve so that we can become better. But you won't improve unless you realise what you need to improve on.

and finally consensus

4. Sure hope so

And, finally, great. We all hope he can improve. But improvement is born out of critique. It doesn't have to be the critiques of others, although sometimes it takes that, it can be your own critique and concerns.

Beamer will be getting that criticism from himself or his coaches and we all hope he can take that constructive criticism and improve.

Do you mean you think Moloney should model himself on Jones? drop his tackles per game, his contested possessions, clearances and B&F and Brownlow votes but have less variation between games?

Haven't seen any sign that Moloney can't take criticism ....could argue the opposite in fact.

Do you mean you think Moloney should model himself on Jones? drop his tackles per game, his contested possessions, clearances and B&F and Brownlow votes but have less variation between games?

Haven't seen any sign that Moloney can't take criticism ....could argue the opposite in fact.

Jones is consistent. He is not as good as Moloney but that wasn't my point.

And I am wondering where I said that Moloney couldn't take criticism, I argued the opposite in fact.

Seriously, this isn't ground breaking stuff.

Moloney is good, is inconsistent, should be better, the end.

Here, here.

Where, where? :D

This quote from Bartram today kinda sums it up for me:

Bartram says the players support Neeld's approach and recognise that its only intent is to make the team, and each player within it, perform as well as possible.

"His standards are pretty high. He's a ruthless guy, which I think for our group is exactly what we need.

"We're not an overly experienced group but we are very eager to learn and try new things."

Bartram has no problem with lifting the standards. He says if you can't accept all forms of feedback these days as an AFL player than you are probably in the wrong business.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/128976/default.aspx'

This quote from Bartram today kinda sums it up for me:

Bartram has no problem with lifting the standards. He says if you can't accept all forms of feedback these days as an AFL player than you are probably in the wrong business.

Yes, that sums it up nicely for me too.

I never said these exaggerations didn't exist - I simply wanted Stuie and Co. to isolate those views they see as disrespectful so they can address those comments that, I believe, have merit:

1. Moloney's worst games and best games are a mile apart.

2. In losses he averaged 10 possessions less than in wins.

3. The guy is flawed. As a consistent footy player and a leader. The guy is flawed.

4. He is our best player, a near elite clearance player, and can be a top 20 mid in 2012 with consistent application and performance.

More than happy for people to take this post and dissect it, rather than brush my, and a few others, concerns aside because someone exaggerated on an internet forum...

My comments were general rather than specific as I do not have an issue with any individual posters, just think that some get carried away with their opinions and how they articulate them.

If I was to disect your points specifically, I would say that I agree with 1,2 & 4 whilst understanding that individual performances can be influenced by team performance when it comes to supply, blocking, defensive efforst and time in possession. On point 3 I do not know if he is flawed (particularly as a leader) and would agree with Neeld when he says you need to be in the inner sanctum to truly understand a club/player. However I am curious as to what changed your opinion of Beamers leadership from your first post in this thread to now?

Had a great 2011 against poor teams.

Obviously a leader.

Hope he can have a consistent 2012 against all teams.

First year Beamer has managed to get a full season under his belt, more than a bit harsh to knock him on consistency I'd say.

He has played 61of the past 66 games. Consistency of selection and fitness is not the issue. Consistency of performance is.

He has played 61of the past 66 games. Consistency of selection and fitness is not the issue. Consistency of performance is.

We could possibly say that about a lot of players on our list . I'd venture to say that we've got quite a few that can't string 4 quarters together . Forget about multiple games .

Moloney is the least of our worries IMO . Is Brent another WYSIWYG player ? Expectations for Brent are a tad high , by a few , in all reality . Sure , he can get better , but by how much ? As much as Watts and Trengove ?

In some ways I see Moloney as close to his maximum output . And that's not meant as a criticism . As a comparison , I reckon Colin Sylvia is a fair way off his maximum .

To be honest , just about the whole team were terrible in most of our losses last season . That's the real issue .

Cheers

Firstly, this is the Brett Moloney thread when I last looked and I think its fair to discuss his game.

Secondly, the issue as advised ad nauseam by other posters is the extent of the difference of his best and worst and not the fact that he like everyone has poor performances. And typically his worst seems to come against the better sides. If he is WYSIWYG and this is his maximum output then as the midfield mature and improves his title as best midfielder will be challenged. I am not sure why Sylvia is necessarily different to Moloney. Both may well be at maximum output.

My comments were general rather than specific as I do not have an issue with any individual posters, just think that some get carried away with their opinions and how they articulate them.

If I was to disect your points specifically, I would say that I agree with 1,2 & 4 whilst understanding that individual performances can be influenced by team performance when it comes to supply, blocking, defensive efforst and time in possession. On point 3 I do not know if he is flawed (particularly as a leader) and would agree with Neeld when he says you need to be in the inner sanctum to truly understand a club/player. However I am curious as to what changed your opinion of Beamers leadership from your first post in this thread to now?

I thought the bittersweet mention of "obviously a leader" after the line "good 2011 against poor teams" would be consistent with my view.

The guy is a leader.

But his glaring inconsistency tarnishes that leadership. You can't implore others to do or follow when you can't get there yourself.

I thought the bittersweet mention of "obviously a leader" after the line "good 2011 against poor teams" would be consistent with my view.

The guy is a leader.

But his glaring inconsistency tarnishes that leadership. You can't implore others to do or follow when you can't get there yourself.

somehow this notion is totally lost on those which glazed and blinkered biews.

Neeld has made a lot of the idea that all his impressions are soley on thebasis of what he has seen and experienced fromthe moment he stepped into the role at Melb. . Only a fool would not also seek counsel of those you could expect to be balanced in their views as to what anyone did or didnt do previously aswell.

At various times onthese boards weve all enthused about one bloke or another. Not too long ago it would have been expected that the likes of Rivers, Green , Davey Moloney be amoongst those enrtrusted to lead this beloved team. Not one of them in the leadership group. Now theres a Statement.

....... I am not sure why Sylvia is necessarily different to Moloney. Both may well be at maximum output.

Im sure editing to show only this doesnt affect its context.

This idea had crossed my mind also. What if much of their glaring inconsistencies is derived from the fact that they simply havent the next step within them. That next step being able to produce their best at a greater than 33-50% of the time ?

Its a fair observation there RR, what if both HAVE reached their Zenith !!

4 quarters ?? some are struggling with 2-3

If both Moloney and Sylvia are close to their "maximum" outputs it would be for different reasons IMO .

The former because he may not have that much improvement in him ( not a criticism ) and the latter for reasons well documented .

Quite a few have said that this is "make or break" year for Col . I haven't seen people say the same about Brent .

Sometimes you arrive at the same point from different paths .

Cheers