Last July we lost by 186 to the Cats. I think the loss to the Swans was worse.

Vs Cats;

Played at Skilled

Cats on a roll of outstanding free-scoring but accountable footy

Cats were on their way to another flag

We were always going to be belted... it was only the scale that inspired awe

Their list was truly top shelf Johnson, Selwood, Corey, Enright, Mooney, Ottens, Varcoe, Bartel, Scarlett, Kelly, Chapman, Milburn, Ling

Even following the game we were still one game out of the eight

vs Swans

Played at SCG

Swans are only just......I don't expect them to be contenders come finals

Swans missing Goodes and coming off a 2 game losing streak (including a loss to the Tigers)

Best players ; Roberts Thompson, Hannebury, Kennedy, O'keefe and Jack

last time the met we drew

Not a high scoring team at the best of times... disciplined yes but brilliant? not like the Cats.

Now don't get me wrong, 186 was gut wrenching and a low point to my lifetime as a Dees supporter

BUT

I think 101 v Swans was worse..... Sad isn't it

Edited May 19, 201213 yr by Retrospective

101 not even close to worse. We tried yesterday for the most part. IMO if we played that game against Syd 10 times, we lose by 10 goals average. Everything flowed beautifully for Syd yesterday. 186 was a whole different kettle of fish.

Edited May 19, 201213 yr by Choko

I cant recall the club being so low, as of right now!

101 not even close to worse. We tried yesterday for the most part. IMO if we played that game against Syd 10 times, we lose by 10 goals average. Everything flowed beautifully for Syd yesterday. 186 was a whole different kettle of fish.

Really..... I think that makes me feel worse (and there was not a whole lot lower I could go)

The fact is if we played that game against Sydney 10 times we'd be down 1000points on aggregate

Really?

No chance.

It was bloody horrible, but 186 was something else.

Clearly yesterday the players were over-correcting for when we have 3 blokes tackle the 1 man and the ball spills out to a free player.

Instead every player looked to man up the players on the outside of a contest, and on many occasions no one took account for the man with the footy in his hands.

Embarrassing, but it was a case of the players still adjusting to the defensive gameplan.

Yes, we are that bad and that far behind.

This should not be news to anyone.

Um, no. Not even close.

So not worth watching the replay? Glad I didn't get up at 2:40am to watch it!

Which would you prefer, a kick to the ribs or a punch in the head?

Both shocking, demoralising losses. Who cares?

Really?

No chance.

It was bloody horrible, but 186 was something else.

Clearly yesterday the players were over-correcting for when we have 3 blokes tackle the 1 man and the ball spills out to a free player.

Instead every player looked to man up the players on the outside of a contest, and on many occasions no one took account for the man with the footy in his hands.

Really.....yesterday was an over correction? well I'm glad we've cleared that up

So not worth watching the replay? Glad I didn't get up at 2:40am to watch it!

Good move - it was quite painful.

Really.....yesterday was an over correction? well I'm glad we've cleared that up

As much as Jose and I have agreed to disagree, he's right.

Watch the game closely and you'll see much of that.

I'm sure you've noticed how players are so fixated with the contested ball that they ALL get involved, allowing space for the opposition (and free players)

These things will take several weeks to get right.

They need to learn to stop playing like tackers and get smarter.

I think yesterday could have been worse if the Swans had tried.

What I can see from the outside is a coach watching his players time and time again make decisions that arent sticking to the structures.

Since the Daniher days there has been a problem with the Demons in terms of no plan B - no structure to fall back to minimise damage once we've lost the game. Daniher would often stick to the same match ups and game plan even when we were getting smashed. Similarly Bailey seems the most experimental with player placements when we were tanking. its hard for Neeld to just walk in and get players to get it.

These things will take several weeks to get right.

They need to learn to stop playing like tackers and get smarter.

When do those several weeks start JR... its round nine.

I can definitely agree that they need to stop playing like tackers and the required improvement in smarts include the FD

When do those several weeks start JR... its round nine.

I can definitely agree that they need to stop playing like tackers and the required improvement in smarts include the FD

I seriously think that this will take most of the year.

I just listened to Neil Craig on the Sunday Footy Show and reading between the lines, they know they might be 0-15 or 0-17.

He spoke about 'combative' spirit of Nathan Jones, the learning curve of Jeremy Howe (17 games?) and the leadership qualities of our Jacks.

Further, Mark Neeld has had one of the toughest initiations and he (Neeld) is as determined as ever to help this club succeed.

Please think about the low base we're starting from.

Its a team built for one dimensional attacking footy with no accountability. Essendon seemed to have turned this kind of set up around quickly but unfortunately at the Demons it doesnt appear its going to be an easy change. But we have no choice now.

neeld has a firm view of where the club needs to be and he needs full license for better or for worse (can it get any worse) to make the hard decisions to make it happen.

The result against Sydney is far worse . Put the margin aside for a moment .

186 could have viewed as a day where everything went wrong but at least it was the catalyst for change (right or wrong)

Yesterday was an even lower point . We've had the change since 186 but the team seem to have the same attitude on the field . Disinterest . That brings on a feeling of hopelessness and despair . And this time around nobody seems to have the answers .

101 is far worse . The board need to bring everyone together and nut this thing out . Now . And everyone at the club needs to have a good look in the mirror , including the board of directors .

As much as Jose and I have agreed to disagree, he's right.

Watch the game closely and you'll see much of that.

I'm sure you've noticed how players are so fixated with the contested ball that they ALL get involved, allowing space for the opposition (and free players)

These things will take several weeks to get right.

They need to learn to stop playing like tackers and get smarter.

You know I like to disagree with you, but you've got it.

Our players have had a difficult time adjusting to the new interpretation of the rules, where if the ball spills out, correct disposal or not, it is deemed "play on."

We seem to always be a few steps behind adjusting to things like this, and high tackling (22-3 free kick count against WC).

Always behind the 8 ball, but the fact we are young gives us hope.

The result against Sydney is far worse . Put the margin aside for a moment .

186 could have viewed as a day where everything went wrong but at least it was the catalyst for change (right or wrong)

Yesterday was an even lower point . We've had the change since 186 but the team seem to have the same attitude on the field . Disinterest . That brings on a feeling of hopelessness and despair . And this time around nobody seems to have the answers .

101 is far worse . The board need to bring everyone together and nut this thing out . Now . And everyone at the club needs to have a good look in the mirror , including the board of directors .

I think this just shows a clear misunderstanding of what was happening on the field.

I think you should try to understand the game more, rather than resorting to making assumptions of the emotional state of the players.

Edited May 20, 201213 yr by José Mourinho

I think this just shows a clear misunderstanding of what was happening on the field.

I think you should try to understand the game more, rather than resorting to making assumptions of the emotional state of the players.

I think the assumptions about the emotional state of the players come from the fact that NO ONE can understand why this is happening on the field. What is there to understand about either performance other than dismal stats? Why are so many players on our list consistently found wanting not only on form but on basic intent, attack, effort and one percenters?

The difference is a new coaching panel. But the problems are persisting suggesting that what is happening on the field isnt a translation of the changes being pushed by the new coaching regime.

Edited May 20, 201213 yr by Norm Smith's Curse

I think this just shows a clear misunderstanding of what was happening on the field.

I think you should try to understand the game more, rather than resorting to making assumptions of the emotional state of the players.

Our problems run far deeper than just what is happening on the field . I can see what is happening on the field - it's plain to see .

I'm talking about the bigger picture . Our club is not just the players who represent us on the field .

If you don't want to look at the bigger picture then it's pointless having any sort of discussion .

As much as Jose and I have agreed to disagree, he's right.

Watch the game closely and you'll see much of that.

I'm sure you've noticed how players are so fixated with the contested ball that they ALL get involved, allowing space for the opposition (and free players)

These things will take several weeks to get right.

They need to learn to stop playing like tackers and get smarter.

Well, I was at the game and what I noticed was that many of our players away from the contest were just ambling around, not manning up and as a result once they got free of a contest, the Swans players almost always always found a loose target because our players were playing completely unaccountable football and allowing their man far to much space. When we had the ball it was simply a case of kick and hope.

I actually made a similar observation to that of the OP in the post match discussion (I think it was) in saying that although I was out of the country when 186 happened, I imagined it must have been very similar...numbers mean little, but the performance was the most insipid I can recall seeing in a long long time. I got more enjoyment watching the AusKickers going around.

I don't think 101 is worse than 186 as a single game, but in the context of what has changed and the summation of the season so far it feels like we have reached a similar point as far as the season goes.

After 186 we were 1 game out of the eight!

At the moment we are one game away from recording a win

At the moment we are one game away from recording a win

This raises the question. How long is a moment or what kind of moment should we be discussing?

• Moment (mathematics), used in probability theory and statistics
  
• Moment (physics), several related concepts, including:
  
• Angular momentum or moment of momentum, the rotational analog of momentum
  
• Electric dipole moment, a measurement of the charge difference and direction between two or more charges
  
• Magnetic moment, a measure of the strength of a magnetic source
  
• Moment of inertia, a measure of an object's resistance to changes in its rotation rate
  
• Torque or moment, the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis
  
• Bending moment, a moment that results in the bending of a structural element
  
• First moment of area, a property of an object related to its resistance to shear stress
  
• Second moment of area, a property of an object related to its resistance to bending and deflection
  
• Polar moment of inertia, a property of an object related to its resistance to torsion
  
• Image moments, statistical properties of an image
  
• Seismic moment, quantity used to measure the size of an earthquake
  
• 
  

[edit]

Edited May 20, 201213 yr by Jackie