Yeah dee-luded, but Ali ended up landing a knock-out blow with that tactic. Where's ours?

leucopogon, Ali went through, I don't know, how many Rounds & yeas, & how many practicse sesions in his quest to get to the match & the win.

For me all this emphasis on hard bodies, defensive game plans and head over the ball. Is far too simplistic. To reduce our game to a few components is futile. It is a dynamic game with hundreds of components. Our midfield has hard bodies, but lacks speed. The defensive game plan is not adequate. Defense is one thing, a defensive game plan is another. We have a defensive game plan which robs us of potent attack. Defence is merely a mind set that prepares for a potent attack. Attack develops momentum way beyond even leg speed for it is a collective magnification of the individuals. The opposite of all out attack without defence similarly comes unstuck. Hard bodies with inadequate skills is both boring and ineffective. Our demonland mantra has become far too narrow. It is a multiplex dynamic activity and we have not respected many of the other components necessary.

This is a great post HR

I am relying on the coaches to explain the complexities to the players, utilise the components that the players come with, enhance the skills that they need and select them for the game plan for the opponent that day.

I am hoping that the practice matches have been to continue the recognition and definition process.

I have said on other threads That I hope Neeld is not a one trick pony as the complexity of the game has to have more than 1 structure and I believe that the players are smart enough to comprehend more than one strategy.

I See that we are rebuilding but hope we do not become again transfixed with the rebuild at the expense of success

I am still optimistic

Go Dees

I'll bite, as I said in the post Port match thread: we're in another rebuild/reboot. I can't see Neeld tolerating the list clogging team of pea hearts that have been assembled in the Daniher/Bailey era so I expect they'll be cleared out progressively from the end of this season onwards. Maybe free agency will be good for us if it means we can get in ready mades easier. I'm beginning to think we were sold a bill of goods with our most recent bottoming out/rebuild using high draft picks strategy. There's just too much that can go (and has gone) wrong.

Expecting bottom 2 or 3 this year.

Yep, agree we're a bottom 4 team. Outside of Trengove and Grimes, not much for two years on the bottom, out draft selections appear very poor. Watts a half-forward at best. Morton weak. Blease and Gysbetts poor.

You can see Neeld's opinion. He canned our recruiter.

I don't see the talent on the list -let alone desire- to be top 4. Midfield too weak for a start. Only Jones has my respect from NAB cup form. So Neeld will need to rebuild. I expect some serious moves at the trade table in coming years. People ranking us above Richmond need a serious rethink.

At least our coach is clear-eyed. That's the good news. Bad news is that we as supporters are likely to endure more lean times.

Yep, agree we're a bottom 4 team. Outside of Trengove and Grimes, not much for two years on the bottom, out draft selections appear very poor. Watts a half-forward at best. Morton weak. Blease and Gysbetts poor.

You can see Neeld's opinion. He canned our recruiter.

Blease broke his leg horrifically and only debuted late last year. Give the kid a chance. Gysberts has received 2 rising star nominations, not bad for a 190cm pencil. Give him a chance too!!

and Prendergast left, he wasn't fired.

Edited March 17, 201213 yr by rhaz

Blease and Gysbetts poor.

Blease has played all of 4 games, and Gysberts (that's one "t" there BTW) two injury-interrupted seasons.

Save your comments till they've had 4 or 5 pre-seasons under their belts, and have played 80 - 100 games.

You 2 need to get your facts straight . You need to brush up on your history please .

It wasn't the rank and file member that voted for the merger . It was Ian Ridley and his 12 person committee with their 3,500 proxy votes that got the vote through . Plus they then booked a small venue where many couldn't get in to vote . 80 - 90% of the people at the Dallas Brooks Hall that night were against the merger .

I can understand people wanting to vent this morning but for goodness sakes it was a practice match .

Cheers

What are proxy votes? Just some random vote Ridley pulled out his bum? Is that what you are implying? or Where proxy votes the will of the membership that could not attend? Maybe your post suggests more your view of history but not the actual outcome of the vote.

But I do agree ... I can understand people wanting to vent this morning but for goodness sakes it was a practice match .

Edited March 17, 201213 yr by Dr Who

but I do agree ... I can understand people wanting to vent this morning but for goodness sakes it was a practice match .

ah is that what it was? well it sure wasn't a footy match B)

Blease broke his leg horrifically and only debuted late last year. Give the kid a chance. Gysberts has received 2 rising star nominations, not bad for a 190cm pencil. Give him a chance too!!

and Prendergast left, he wasn't fired.

And hired by One of the AFL's power Clubs!

What are proxy votes? Just some random vote Ridley pulled out his bum? Is that what you are implying? or Where proxy votes the will of the membership that could not attend? Maybe your post suggests more your view of history but not the actual outcome of the vote.

But I do agree ... I can understand people wanting to vent this morning but for goodness sakes it was a practice match .

Proxy Vote, could be easily construed as a Donkey vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote

Oh I should put on the record I actually voted No Merger.

But we all know all elections you loose are always "rigged" - LMAO

But I can also recall walking away saying to myself how disinterested I was with our membership ... thats weak, and stand for nothing. And let me say nothing has changed.

ah is that what it was? well it sure wasn't a footy match B)

I didn't actually go. I'm somewhat reliant of the eyes of a Port supporter who clearly understands more about football than many around here.

Proxy Vote, could be easily construed as a Donkey vote.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Donkey_vote

Proxy votes could also be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting

But as I said above. All elections that we lose are rigged.

What are proxy votes? Just some random vote Ridley pulled out his bum? Is that what you are implying? or Where proxy votes the will of the membership that could not attend? Maybe your post suggests more your view of history but not the actual outcome of the vote.

But I do agree ... I can understand people wanting to vent this morning but for goodness sakes it was a practice match .

Each Committee member was allowed between 200 - 350 proxy votes . There were 12 committee members . These votes could be gathered in the lead up time to that "Infamous meeting" . Given the fact that all the committee members and Ian Ridley were pro merger then it stands to reason that all the proxy votes would have been pro merger .

The anti merger group had no such advantage . It was a stitch up . The pro merger group couldn't lose - especially if as suspected that they'd planted another 700 -1000 people at that meeting .

Ridley didn't pull the proxy votes out of his bum at all . He used his constitutional advantage . That's my truth anyway .

Hope this clears things up for you and cheers .

Proxy votes could also be http://en.wikipedia....ki/Proxy_voting

But as I said above. All elections that we lose are rigged.

HaHaHa, my vague recollection of what was happening, a memory of Ian Ridley saying thru the press that the club has been thru every avenue, looking to stand alone, but alas, we can't. The members should vote FOR the merger.

Here we are:

We're learning a new game plan which will take it's time, it is another language to how we played last year. We have a brand new young leadership group who are learning how to lead a team but I have no doubt they will be fantastic soon enough. The first two games of the Nab cup that we played were a joke. No side could have played well in those conditions. The second was an encouraging win and showed how well the gameplan would work when the team got it right, we essentially beat Collingwood at their own game in that round. The next week showed that because the players are so new to this game plan they haven't yet worked out how to react to an advanced, tight, lean gameplan with a very skilled group of players performing it. I haven't seen this weeks game so I can't really comment but Port have been pretty sharp this pre-season, they're not the same team they were last year. Other things to note is that Collingwood, Carlton and Geelong have all had pretty average Nab Cup performances.

Rome wasn't built in a day,

Each Committee member was allowed between 200 - 350 proxy votes . There were 12 committee members . These votes could be gathered in the lead up time to that "Infamous meeting" . Given the fact that all the committee members and Ian Ridley were pro merger then it stands to reason that all the proxy votes would have been pro merger .

The anti merger group had no such advantage . It was a stitch up . The pro merger group couldn't lose - especially if as suspected that they'd planted another 700 -1000 people at that meeting .

Ridley didn't pull the proxy votes out of his bum at all . He used his constitutional advantage . That's my truth anyway .

Hope this clears things up for you and cheers .

Thanks Macca. The facts that tell the story.

I shall never forget that night.

I thought we were gone.

Each Committee member was allowed between 200 - 350 proxy votes . There were 12 committee members . These votes could be gathered in the lead up time to that "Infamous meeting" . Given the fact that all the committee members and Ian Ridley were pro merger then it stands to reason that all the proxy votes would have been pro merger .

The anti merger group had no such advantage . It was a stitch up . The pro merger group couldn't lose - especially if as suspected that they'd planted another 700 -1000 people at that meeting .

Ridley didn't pull the proxy votes out of his bum at all . He used his constitutional advantage . That's my truth anyway .

Hope this clears things up for you and cheers .

Each Committee member was allowed between 200 - 350 proxy votes . There were 12 committee members . These votes could be gathered in the lead up time to that "Infamous meeting" . Given the fact that all the committee members and Ian Ridley were pro merger then it stands to reason that all the proxy votes would have been pro merger .

The anti merger group had no such advantage . It was a stitch up . The pro merger group couldn't lose - especially if as suspected that they'd planted another 700 -1000 people at that meeting .

Ridley didn't pull the proxy votes out of his bum at all . He used his constitutional advantage . That's my truth anyway .

Hope this clears things up for you and cheers .

Your "inference" is not uncommon and is born in most important sentence in your reply "That's my truth anyway." Your "inference" is very insulting - that Ian Ridley & the committee made up "proxy votes" to suit their view point. But as I say its not un-common. Its clear what side of the debate you where on.

I on the other hand accept the vote and will not question the integrity of a MFC legend. Although I did not agree with them.

So I also hope that clears things up for you cheers

Thanks Macca. The facts that tell the story.

I shall never forget that night.

I thought we were gone.

They are not the "facts"- As he clearly states. Its his view of the truth. He has past his clearly biased opinion off as "facts".

Here we are:

We're learning a new game plan which will take it's time, it is another language to how we played last year. We have a brand new young leadership group who are learning how to lead a team but I have no doubt they will be fantastic soon enough. The first two games of the Nab cup that we played were a joke. No side could have played well in those conditions. The second was an encouraging win and showed how well the gameplan would work when the team got it right, we essentially beat Collingwood at their own game in that round. The next week showed that because the players are so new to this game plan they haven't yet worked out how to react to an advanced, tight, lean gameplan with a very skilled group of players performing it. I haven't seen this weeks game so I can't really comment but Port have been pretty sharp this pre-season, they're not the same team they were last year. Other things to note is that Collingwood, Carlton and Geelong have all had pretty average Nab Cup performances.

Rome wasn't built in a day,

I agree, & there is NO priority Pick to enhance they're rebuild. Plus with free agency coming in, some will be looking over yonder Ports list.

Your "inference" is not uncommon and is born in most important sentence in your reply "That's my truth anyway." Your "inference" is very insulting - that Ian Ridley & the committee made up "proxy votes" to suit their view point. But as I say its not un-common. Its clear what side of the debate you where on.

I on the other hand accept the vote and will not question the integrity of a MFC legend. Although I did not agree with them.

So I also hope that clears things up for you cheers

The reason I put the "That's my truth anyway" bit in , is because it's an opinion . It's not factual . I don't know anyone who knows the actual facts .

I put the "That's my truth" comment in deliberately . I didn't have to . Some might see it as a sign of weakness or even see it as contradictory . I like to balance out my own points of view . If I simply wanted to "win" an argument I would never do such a thing .

Ian Ridley was an absolute legend of the Club but he did want the Club to merge with Hawthorn . He wasn't perfect in my eyes . I do find it difficult to condemn him by the way .

Well one things for sure , you and I were both anti-merger .

Cheers

They are not the "facts"- As he clearly states. Its his view of the truth. He has past his clearly biased opinion off as "facts".

Dr. The proxy votes existed. It is not just Macca' view. I spoke to Brian Dixon on the phone about them 2-3 days before the count. He knew what we members were up against.

They are not the "facts"- As he clearly states. Its his view of the truth. He has past his clearly biased opinion off as "facts".

Wyl is correct . The proxy votes were real . How many - we don't know . But .........it can be assumed to be between 2400 and 4200 . I rounded it off at 3500 . The reason not many know about it is because of various reasons .

One of the main reasons is that so many people didn't or don't know about the proxy vote system .

Welcome to Demonland !

Cheers

Dr. The proxy votes existed. It is not just Macca' view. I spoke to Brian Dixon on the phone about them 2-3 days before the count. He knew what we members were up against.

Remind me what side of the vote Brian was on? Ah Yes! As I said - all elections you lose are always rigged, you can even question the integrity of the opposition.

Proxy votes are an intention of how people would have voted if they attended. Again common for some of the losers to question the validity of those proxies.

So although I agreed with Brian regarding the future of the MFC. I did not like the obvious fallout after his "claims".

"MFC - Where are we honestly at"

off topic trying to trace the mental frailties of our supporter base to the failed merger of 1996

Crikey.

Wyl is correct . The proxy votes were real . How many - we don't know . But .........it can be assumed to be between 2400 and 4200 . I rounded it off at 3500 . The reason not many know about it is because of various reasons .

One of the main reasons is that so many people didn't or don't know about the proxy vote system .

Welcome to Demonland !

Cheers

No he is not. He has made up allegations that you also made that IR & the committe made up proxy votes or as I colloquially put "pulled out his bum". Your allegations are merely that - unsubstantiated allegations from a clearly biased point of view. You also do understand the online defamation laws - ironically tested in court by Joe Gutnick.