Herald Sun reports Gysberts to be shown the door...Neeld has gone mad!!!

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

I preferred Tuckerbag myself. A talking paper bag whilst pulling a cone was always amusing...

Gold! made my afternoon WYL

[DemonDan... 77]

I preferred Tuckerbag myself. A talking paper bag whilst pulling a cone was always amusing...

That's priceless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5_zuzC9K2I

lol @ everyone..

[jnrmac 20,058]

Just read Neeld denying Cook and gysberts are being shown the door. Interesting,,,,,

http://www.news.com.au/sport/williamstown-bolstered-by-western-bulldogs-again-to-snuff-out-scorpions/story-fnect155-1226468177722

Edited September 9, 2012 by jnrmac

[dpositive 1,665]

Worked in TV since the 80's when TV was flying.

"Where do you get it" was also Singleton..

Saw a little bit of Shaft on TV last night Directed by John Singleton was wondering if it was the same singleton

especially with Toni Collette in the cast???

[nutbean 8,838]

Yeah, fair enough. I'll tell that to Nathan Fyfe who came into footy a stick figure. He's younger than Gysberts.

I see your fyfe and raise you a Matthew Lappin

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Saw a little bit of Shaft on TV last night Directed by John Singleton was wondering if it was the same singleton

especially with Toni Collette in the cast???

Not sure Mate, but it could be...will do a little research.

[hardtack 10,537]

Saw a little bit of Shaft on TV last night Directed by John Singleton was wondering if it was the same singleton

especially with Toni Collette in the cast???

Definitely not the same...our John Singleton (aka Singo) is the entrepeneur (read, [censored]) who brought us such advertising highlights as "Where do you get it???" and the wonderful Delilah. Doubt he could manage a film longer than 2 minutes and filmed in super 8 (at a stretch).

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Not sure Mate, but it could be...will do a little research.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005436/

Different JS...THe original 1971 Shaft was a good film, is the latter up to par?

Edited September 10, 2012 by why you little

[dee-luded 2,959]

Does anyone else remember those old Ken Bruce TV commercials?

Mark Neeld Has Gone Mad..

Mark Neeld Has Gone Mad..

MARK NEELD HAS GONE COMPLETELY MAD!!

And I thought that was about Cam Bruce? Going Hawk!

[dee-luded 2,959]

Out the door they go-

Some of them hardly used.

Others reconditioned.

Melbourne needs a cleanup.

Neeld is cleaning out the old & in with the new.

Some furniture is up for grabs at an Auction house maybe near you J*B? heres some stuff from the MFC 50's collection > [media=]

[Dee_Flower 53]

And I thought that was about Cam Bruce? Going Hawk!

Saw a supporter at the G once, Punt Road end, doing a really funny "Cam Bruce has gone mad ... Cam Bruce has gone mad..."

[Deeoldfart 8,016]

Slow, unfit, average to poor kick, no hurt factor. He's good in close, but there's no one elite trait he possesses to become an AFL dominant mid.

Yet you call him a "massive talent". LOL

.........................

I agree Ben, "massive talent" = massive over-statement in this case. None-the-less I think Gys has potential to be a regular 'best 22' in our team, but certainly not a star. I've heard from a solid source, that he's not regarded as an 'instinctive' footballer, and that young mids are generally expected to be a fair bit further up the learning curve than he is at this stage of his career. Perhaps his poor run with injuries has had an impact in this area. One year contract to see if he can become a regular, or trade? ...... I'm ambivalent, but I guess it depends on what we can get in return.

[beelzebub 23,347]

Or is it possibly a case that theres been a consitency running through a lot of our previous drafting...i.e They thought they saw something, but were wrong. ??

AN absolute consistency about much of our so called 'development" up to recent times is that it seems ( to this humble observer ) to take 2-3 years more than leading clubs to bring on the 'potential' of draftees

Seems to me more than a handful of our players just dont have footy smarts, something Id be wanting as a given in order to play AFL level footy.

Also seems our predescessor recruiting had a knack for selecting players that didnt seem to have elite work ethics. So many lobbed and seemed to think their "abilities" alone might get them a gig, as opposed to "youve been drafted, lucky you, now thre REAL work starts".

What is this "BUYING IN " reaaly about if not understanding that you have to work your lilly white butt ( or whatever hue it may be..lol ) off and listen to the coach (s) and do what they say, not what you intepret.

Its not like this kid has only been around 5 mins, nor that hes been starved of opportunities

So this leaves me thinking the only reason(s) are,Gys doesnt really have the ticker for it, or hes just not that good.

[binman 42,896]

What is this "BUYING IN " reaaly about if not understanding that you have to work your lilly white butt ( or whatever hue it may be..lol ) off and listen to the coach (s) and do what they say, not what you intepret.

Spot on. To commit to the sort of training loads the top teams (an wannabe top teams) apparently have to undertake takes, i would assume, compete buy in in order to push through the barriers. A player who doesn't get it or doesn't accept the vision is more likely to quit when the going gets really tough and not really put in the hard yards. Certainly that player is more likely not to take on board direction from coaching and fitness staff.

There was an interesting post recently about 50% of players coming back from their break not having done the work they were told to do. Doing that work, even if you think its rubbish (or perhaps especially) is buy in.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Or is it possibly a case that theres been a consitency running through a lot of our previous drafting...i.e They thought they saw something, but were wrong. ??

AN absolute consistency about much of our so called 'development" up to recent times is that it seems ( to this humble observer ) to take 2-3 years more than leading clubs to bring on the 'potential' of draftees

Seems to me more than a handful of our players just dont have footy smarts, something Id be wanting as a given in order to play AFL level footy.

Also seems our predescessor recruiting had a knack for selecting players that didnt seem to have elite work ethics. So many lobbed and seemed to think their "abilities" alone might get them a gig, as opposed to "youve been drafted, lucky you, now thre REAL work starts".

What is this "BUYING IN " reaaly about if not understanding that you have to work your lilly white butt ( or whatever hue it may be..lol ) off and listen to the coach (s) and do what they say, not what you intepret.

Its not like this kid has only been around 5 mins, nor that hes been starved of opportunities

So this leaves me thinking the only reason(s) are,Gys doesnt really have the ticker for it, or hes just not that good.

I wonder if young recruits when arriving at an AFL club, maybe with minds like sponges, mopping up everything they see & hear, from Pearls to CaCa.

Edited September 10, 2012 by dee-luded

[felixdacat 459]

There was an interesting post recently about 50% of players coming back from their break not having done the work they were told to do. Doing that work, even if you think its rubbish (or perhaps especially) is buy in.

It will be interesting to see if this pre-season those who didn't last year will do so this year. Neeld, Craig and Misson will surely separate the wheat from the chaff. What Gysberts ends up being will be up to him.

[beelzebub 23,347]

Spot on. To commit to the sort of training loads the top teams (an wannabe top teams) apparently have to undertake takes, i would assume, compete buy in in order to push through the barriers. A player who doesn't get it or doesn't accept the vision is more likely to quit when the going gets really tough and not really put in the hard yards. Certainly that player is more likely not to take on board direction from coaching and fitness staff.

There was an interesting post recently about 50% of players coming back from their break not having done the work they were told to do. Doing that work, even if you think its rubbish (or perhaps especially) is buy in.

yep.. There can be no sort-of, kind-of , in the maiin , Buying in. You buy in or you dont.

[beelzebub 23,347]

It will be interesting to see if this pre-season those who didn't last year will do so this year. Neeld, Craig and Misson will surely separate the wheat from the chaff. What Gysberts ends up being will be up to him.

So wtf has he been doing all bloody year ? contemplating buying in ? thinking about giving it his all ( and more )

Weve finished a mighty 16th. The lowest of any established team. And heres a lad supposedly gushing with talent and ability and he cant convince the selctors to give him much of a trot when we delved deep into the bottom of our barrel week in week out >

What gives.

Keep in mind these same said selctors [censored] Moloney off to the magoos becuase he wouldnt do what was asked of him, Watts was dropped till he "got it', Brad rejuvenated himslef in teh ressies till he came good also.

There was a path that was open to all to take. Some did , some didnt.

In the end this is all about the player as the opportunites and pathways were the same for one and all. The criteria you had to pass in order to play was the same for one and all.

FdeD im not having issues with yourself just the notion that its now that they are sifting. Theyve been sifitng all year. They KNOW whos wheat, whos chaff.

Not a lot of wheat by the way

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

I would expct 100% "buy in" when a signature is put to paper.

Otherwise leave.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

I would expct 100% "buy in" when a signature is put to paper.

Otherwise leave.

Some players may think they have bought in but then realise that completing a pre season isn't enough. Hopefully Nathan jones can show them what is really required to play at the top level.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Some players may think they have bought in but then realise that completing a pre season isn't enough. Hopefully Nathan jones can show them what is really required to play at the top level.

Yes Sure. Because Moloney couldn't be bothered.

[dee-luded 2,959]

So wtf has he been doing all bloody year ? contemplating buying in ? thinking about giving it his all ( and more )

Weve finished a mighty 16th. The lowest of any established team. And heres a lad supposedly gushing with talent and ability and he cant convince the selctors to give him much of a trot when we delved deep into the bottom of our barrel week in week out >

What gives.

Keep in mind these same said selctors [censored] Moloney off to the magoos becuase he wouldnt do what was asked of him, Watts was dropped till he "got it', Brad rejuvenated himslef in teh ressies till he came good also.

There was a path that was open to all to take. Some did , some didnt.

In the end this is all about the player as the opportunites and pathways were the same for one and all. The criteria you had to pass in order to play was the same for one and all.

FdeD im not having issues with yourself just the notion that its now that they are sifting. Theyve been sifitng all year. They KNOW whos wheat, whos chaff.

Not a lot of wheat by the way

Oats my man, Oats!

We don't need wheat, we want Oats, some starch, To put some starch in the famous Jumper. And a bit of fibre, to make them more regular combatants.

Lets see, who needs the Oats? Watts, Bennell if he here for 2013 Breaky, Garlo could do with some, Infact the more I think, the more I reckon they all need a change of diet.

[Biffen 12,943]

Definitely not the same...our John Singleton (aka Singo) is the entrepeneur (read, [censored]) who brought us such advertising highlights as "Where do you get it???" and the wonderful Delilah. Doubt he could manage a film longer than 2 minutes and filmed in super 8 (at a stretch).

Not to mention the campaigns that kept Hawke and Keating in office .

and too many Group One races to count . (More Joyous is one of his ponies).

Edited September 10, 2012 by Biffen

[Hiram Cowfreak 78]

Nothing wrong with having a Hong Kong or two in front of the Telly.

I also enjoyed the musings of the Tuckerbag-what a talent.

I would be happy to give pick 4 for that bag

[beelzebub 23,347]

Let it be Oats then ...... and they can all Quaker when confronted with what lays ahead !!