I agree with the sentiment of the thread, IF you are taking it to the appropriate end.

I don't agree if people think 'niggling' is a tough act...

Be tough at the footy, the bloke with the footy, and bloke trying to keep you from the footy.

Edited March 26, 201213 yr by rpfc

Your spot on 'scoop junior', and that is one of the Main reasons we lost to the hawks in 1988. They came back at us hard, after we all but took them out in the '87 Prelim.

We have never been a truly rugged club in the sense as th Hawks have been since Kennedy - Jeans...

It's time we got over our kindness on the park & want blood.

We can keep the kindness for our Off Field issues and benefits. No more choir boys in the Red 'n' Blue.

Passion!!!

Er, no. We lost that one because Hawthorn had a team chock full of talent and we had a sprinkling of stars mixed with battlers. That we got into the GF was fantastic, but we were never likely to win it (same in 2000, too).

Think of Tom Hawkins, built like Tarzan but played mainly like Jane until last years finals.

It takes a long time for some boys to become men and that can be ok. Send them back to Casey and get them to do it there - if you look at someone like Morton he can be pretty tough at Casey because he knows he's unlikely to get serious hurt, but then he comes back to AFL and starts looking soft. So you send him back and keep working on it.

Obviously drafting the right types is optimal, but sometimes you take talent and teach them. That's where having a core group of strong and tough players builds the culture. Neeld knows that, which is why he took Couch, Magner, Sellar and Tynan in the draft (and probably Taggert as well).

What we don't ever want to see is Aaron Davey in the peak of his career just avoiding physical contact or Brad Green going backwards in the fact that he'll try to chest mark everything these days as he has no power to run through the ball and mark out in front. Or Moloney stuck in the middle of the ground as Trengove and Scully are chasing midfielders and pushing back to help the defence.

Geelong have won 3 of the past 5 flags - they are hard and do dominate their opponents but they aren't brutal. I'd say the same for Collingwood in 2010. Hawthorn's "unsociable footy" is the only recent example of overt aggression and that was pretty tame by 80s standards. Matthew Scarlett dominates his opponents but he doesn't do it by beating them up.

Geelong have won 3 of the past 5 flags - they are hard and do dominate their opponents but they aren't brutal. I'd say the same for Collingwood in 2010. Hawthorn's "unsociable footy" is the only recent example of overt aggression and that was pretty tame by 80s standards. Matthew Scarlett dominates his opponents but he doesn't do it by beating them up.

I dont think beating someone up is hard and brutal. Letting them know you are always there (which he sure does ) is more tough n brutal. Scarlett isn't a good example for this, he is as ruthless as any footballer out there. He will go straight through you, break your back and not lose a wink of sleep over it. I would love all MFC to be as ruthless and 'brutal' as him.

Courtney_Fish:

You are entitled to your opinion. But I wouldn't be too quick to write off Dermie's view. Not only has he won 5 flags but he is very insightful and astute. I'll back his view on this.

Longsuffering:

The game has changed, but the basics of footy still remain the same. It always has been and still is a tough and brutal game and it needs to be played that way.

Old:

It's not about beating someone up. I'm not calling for that at all. As I said previously, "I'm not calling for thuggery and behind the play stuff, but rather an uncompromising attack on the ball and a willingness and desire to hit hard and hurt the opposition when they have it. And not to let the opposition dominate us."

I agree that Geelong are different to Hawthorn – Hawthorn niggle more and do more off the ball stuff.

But Geelong hit hard, make no mistake. They are a ruthless team. They clearly meet the above criteria - an uncompromising attack on the ball, a willingness and desire to hit hard and hurt the opposition when they have it, and not to be dominated by the opposition.

Aussie Rules is arguably the most brutal contact sport in the world. Flint hard teams win premierships. Premiership teams nearly always have great leadership groups. It takes years to develop a premiership team/club.

Mark Neeld will sort the wheat from the chaff. He wants uncompromising footballers that win contested footy and put their head over the ball. He'll give opportunities to players like Tynan, Magner, and Couch for this very reason. But he won't sacrifice skill for grunt. He will love Jack Viney because Viney enjoys hurting people. I want my team to hurt and intimidate its opposition.

One day Scoop and I may see it.

Old:

It's not about beating someone up. I'm not calling for that at all. As I said previously, "I'm not calling for thuggery and behind the play stuff, but rather an uncompromising attack on the ball and a willingness and desire to hit hard and hurt the opposition when they have it. And not to let the opposition dominate us."

I agree that Geelong are different to Hawthorn – Hawthorn niggle more and do more off the ball stuff.

But Geelong hit hard, make no mistake. They are a ruthless team. They clearly meet the above criteria - an uncompromising attack on the ball, a willingness and desire to hit hard and hurt the opposition when they have it, and not to be dominated by the opposition.

Yes agree with all that Scoop - I think Geelong and Collingwood have shown that you can be hard, ruthless and uncompromising without the Sheedy malicious bullsh1t.

So don't say we didn't learn our lesson and seek out hard bodied players - it's just not true. The fact that our drafting was poor and we had some poor luck with Thompson are more the case.

Think you missed my point - what about the players that actually played in the 2000 GF? Yze, White, Johnstone etc.

Obviously you include yourself in those with short memories, as in 2000 we had a guy named Anthony Ingerson at CHB and another guy named David Schwarz at CHF - you may have heard of them? Clint Biz played 20 games in 2000... for Geelong. He came to the club in 2002.

Hmm a bit embarrassing! Thanks for picking that up

One day Scoop and I may see it.

One day scoop and you what.

This is not about you. Don't try and make it about you.

Aussie Rules is arguably the most brutal contact sport in the world. Flint hard teams win premierships. Premiership teams nearly always have great leadership groups. It takes years to develop a premiership team/club.

Mark Neeld will sort the wheat from the chaff. He wants uncompromising footballers that win contested footy and put their head over the ball. He'll give opportunities to players like Tynan, Magner, and Couch for this very reason. But he won't sacrifice skill for grunt. He will love Jack Viney because Viney enjoys hurting people. I want my team to hurt and intimidate its opposition.

One day Scoop and I may see it.

I think professional ice hockey has it covered. But I take your point.

That's all well and good as long as you realise that the MRP may not agree with your point of view and you don't mind playing the odd fortnight or so without your hard at it players. Tough is good, reckless is foolhardy.

Doesn't have to be reckless.

Being an antagonist is not something you can get suspended for.

It's all about mindset.

Doesn't have to be reckless.

Being an antagonist is not something you can get suspended for.

The word used in the title and opening post was, I believe, "brutal"... I have no problem with antagonistic, but no matter which way you look at it, "brutal" is not exactly flavour of the month at the MRP.

I've said it before - you've got to want to COMPETE.

Stynes had it, Lyon had it, Wilson had it, Ricky Jackson had it, Lovett had it...........

There is a tribute day to Jimmy all day today on fox footy - they are replaying all day, games he played in and I caught a game this morning ( and taped the rest) - 1994 - Melbourne v Collingwood - we won by a couple of points.

The skills of both teams is pretty ordinary (Buckley got plenty of the ball and butchered it every time).

What you couldnt help but notice is the hardness and intensity at the ball ( and some push and shove when required). I know it was a different time but Darren Kowall who I remember as not the bravest would rate up there today with Nat Jones. Much harder, uncompromising football. Very little coralling - see the ball, make the contest. Obst, Dyson, Viney - hard hard men. Both Febey's went at the ball like men possessed.

P.S. Stop diving Brad Plain - it's pathetic.

There is a tribute day to Jimmy all day today on fox footy - they are replaying all day, games he played in and I caught a game this morning ( and taped the rest) - 1994 - Melbourne v Collingwood - we won by a couple of points.

The skills of both teams is pretty ordinary (Buckley got plenty of the ball and butchered it every time).

What you couldnt help but notice is the hardness and intensity at the ball ( and some push and shove when required). I know it was a different time but Darren Kowall who I remember as not the bravest would rate up there today with Nat Jones. Much harder, uncompromising football. Very little coralling - see the ball, make the contest. Obst, Dyson, Viney - hard hard men. Both Febey's went at the ball like men possessed.

P.S. Stop diving Brad Plain - it's pathetic.

Exactly! In relation to modern footballers, look at someone like Josh Caddy - he came on in the 2nd half against us last year and his intensity was obvious......Kennedy from the Swans and a couple of West Coast boys (Gaff?) they go hard...........

I'm not sure this can be coached.

One more and I'll shut up.....Luke Hodge.

Intimidating, uncompromising, hard.....but not brutal.

He attacks the ball hard and if a player gets in his way, so be it.

Notice, though, that he will help up the last player to get up after a contest....regardless if it's the opposition.

I'm not sure this can be coached.

I think it can be because as a coach less than full commitment should not be accepted. If a player does not want to be "part of a team that is the hardest to play against" then Casey it is for you !

Hard and smart. As stated there are many ways to hurt your opponent the worst is probably to be suspended. Laying that tackle and exhausting yourself that you must be rested the next game could be a strategic positive. Preparing for the game and the season is what a smart hard team will do. Peaking is as important as performing.

I think theres a lot more to this than we have identified its a great topic.

I think it can be because as a coach less than full commitment should not be accepted. If a player does not want to be "part of a team that is the hardest to play against" then Casey it is for you !

Then what happens? Still no intensity? Next step?

Then what happens? Still no intensity? Next step?

De-listing it is for you!

De-listing it is for you!

Wow! There could be a massive turnover of our playing list in 2 years.....

Wow! There could be a massive turnover of our playing list in 2 years.....

I know that a lot of my next statement should be taken in context of maturity and hardneing of the body but think of one Daisy Thomas - went from his first couple of years of outside, give it to me, try for a speccy showpony to one of the hardest at it footballers going.

We have seen our team play at various stages under Bailey hard frenetic footy- unfortunately all too rarely. Think of us vs Collingwood 2010 both games as the benchmark we need to play with week in and week out.