YOU'RE KIDDING ME RIGHT??????

[jnrmac 20,088]

Yep we are doing great.

Our I50s are the lowest in the comp. Even lower than GWS. Our avg losing margin is nearly twice GWS.

Keep Dreaming. And don't bother regurgitating your stuff from your self-proclaimed "post of the century".

I think you'll find I argued with you vociferously that we needed to demand better accountability form our players and you were firmly in the camp of giving them game time and things will be sweet.

How did that work out for you?

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Yep we are doing great.

Our I50s are the lowest in the comp. Even lower than GWS. Our avg losing margin is nearly twice GWS.

Keep Dreaming. And don't bother regurgitating your stuff from your self-proclaimed "post of the century".

I think you'll find I argued with you vociferously that we needed to demand better accountability form our players and you were firmly in the camp of giving them game time and things will be sweet.

How did that work out for you?

your assessment of anything is clearly irrational and clouded by your need to cry and whinge, you've just made a fool of yourself and proved this with your average games comment. 3 goals from JBrown is nothing huh and we lost by 3 goals. Numbers dont tell the story even though rodan and davey have played 341 games. You have ignored this rebuttal and you have ignored me pointing out that we have hardly moved an inch from 6 years ago in terms of the maturity of our players. When somebody completely ignores a solid response to their comment it is clear they have no friggin idea what they are talking about. Obviously you are not interested in facts but rather painting the club in the worst light possible because for some reason that makes you feel better, maybe you werent hugged enough as a child, maybe it is a response to repressed sexuality issues, i am not sure, this is not my field, you should take this up with your psychoanalyst, but I digress...

I never said we were going well. Obviously we are not. However yesterday was better than 3 weeks ago. I have chosen this day to actually speak up to the plethora of SLBCs roaming the boards at the movement, making things up in attempt to make everyone feel worse than the situation warrants. I won't have a go at you if you don't post absolute garbage like the post I responded to. Simple.

[Little Richard 6,262]

your assessment of anything is clearly irrational and clouded by your need to cry and whinge, you've just made a fool of yourself and proved this with your average games comment. 3 goals from JBrown is nothing huh and we lost by 3 goals. Numbers dont tell the story even though rodan and davey have played 341 games. You have ignored this rebuttal and you have ignored me pointing out that we have hardly moved an inch from 6 years ago in terms of the maturity of our players. When somebody completely ignores a solid response to their comment it is clear they have no friggin idea what they are talking about. Obviously you are not interested in facts but rather painting the club in the worst light possible because for some reason that makes you feel better, maybe you werent hugged enough as a child, maybe it is a response to repressed sexuality issues, i am not sure, this is not my field, you should take this up with your psychoanalyst, but I digress...

I never said we were going well. Obviously we are not. However yesterday was better than 3 weeks ago. I have chosen this day to actually speak up to the plethora of SLBCs roaming the boards at the movement, making things up in attempt to make everyone feel worse than the situation warrants. I won't have a go at you if you don't post absolute garbage like the post I responded to. Simple.

Clearly you are more interested in personally attacking posters than coming up with new points

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Clearly you are more interested in personally attacking posters than coming up with new points

except the two that I came up with that he completely ignored

and what's your contribution django other than to comment on comments

at least have the knackers to try and put something in, don't just stand behind the guy that is being all negative because you feel like being negative

comment commentators, the ultimate jellyfish

[Little Richard 6,262]

except the two that I came up with that he completely ignored

and what's your contribution django other than to comment on comments

at least have the knackers to try and put something in, don't just stand behind the guy that is being all negative because you feel like being negative

comment commentators, the ultimate jellyfish

Actually go back a few pages and you'll see I contributed quite a bit. And in fact the last point I made in response to you was ignored, which according to your own learned opinion means 'it is clear they have no friggin idea what they are talking about'.

[P-man 13,366]

I won't have a go at you if you don't post absolute garbage like the post I responded to. Simple.

When somebody completely ignores a solid response to their comment it is clear they have no friggin idea what they are talking about. Obviously you are not interested in facts but rather painting the club in the worst light possible because for some reason that makes you feel better, maybe you werent hugged enough as a child, maybe it is a response to repressed sexuality issues, i am not sure, this is not my field, you should take this up with your psychoanalyst, but I digress...

Might be time to start practising what you preach there C&B. The above post falls squarely into the category of "absolute garbage".

You've made your stance more than clear. But perhaps you should stick to facts when shooting down the opinions of others who dare speak ill of the way this club is heading, rather than reverting to these petty, childish, personal attacks. Alternatively, stick to the insults, but get off your damn high horse.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

your assessment of anything is clearly irrational and clouded by your need to cry and whinge, you've just made a fool of yourself and proved this with your average games comment. 3 goals from JBrown is nothing huh and we lost by 3 goals. Numbers dont tell the story even though rodan and davey have played 341 games. You have ignored this rebuttal and you have ignored me pointing out that we have hardly moved an inch from 6 years ago in terms of the maturity of our players. When somebody completely ignores a solid response to their comment it is clear they have no friggin idea what they are talking about. Obviously you are not interested in facts but rather painting the club in the worst light possible because for some reason that makes you feel better, maybe you werent hugged enough as a child, maybe it is a response to repressed sexuality issues, i am not sure, this is not my field, you should take this up with your psychoanalyst, but I digress...

I never said we were going well. Obviously we are not. However yesterday was better than 3 weeks ago. I have chosen this day to actually speak up to the plethora of SLBCs roaming the boards at the movement, making things up in attempt to make everyone feel worse than the situation warrants. I won't have a go at you if you don't post absolute garbage like the post I responded to. Simple.

We have a massive problem at the club and if you can't understand, or see that you are delusional; what you are doing is trying to defend your past position, which was clearly wrong then and still is now.

We are going backwards and all those players you expected to come on have either gone, or are clearly not up to it and should go.

It's not about getting games in to players, it's about the ability of the players you want to get games in to.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Ah no it's not at all. A scoring shot is much different to an inside 50.

is this the large contribution you are referring to? Massive.

if some cretin wants to take brisbane's behinds, and amplify the margin we lost by, I will ask said cretin 'why stop there?' why not just count brisbane a goal with every time they went inside 50. If you are going to use dumb logic you might as well double down

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

so do any of you jellyfish heroes want to go in and bat for junior? my complaint was that with his comment on average games* he represented a lot of posters who are blatantly twisting facts to present the situation is a worse light than it really is.

this is the third time i have raised it and it has not been acknowledged

*specifically that JBrown should be removed from the average games equation, despite 19 possessions and 3 goals, without any acknowledgement that 2 of our lowest contributors have over 340 games and are far better candidates to be removed from the equation than JBrown

[[email protected] 101]

MN and players should be filthy for not winning. They had a sniff and went missing for 10 or so when it mattered.

5 goal loss is not a positive. 37-24 scoring shots is not a positive.

Losing to an udermanned, bottom 6 proposition like Brisbane is not a positive.

[Little Richard 6,262]

is this the large contribution you are referring to? Massive.

if some cretin wants to take brisbane's behinds, and amplify the margin we lost by, I will ask said cretin 'why stop there?' why not just count brisbane a goal with every time they went inside 50. If you are going to use dumb logic you might as well double down

No it's not, keep going.

An inside 50 doesn't show that we were soundly beaten in a passage of play as a scoring shot does. I'm not saying that every scoring shot should be considered a goal but the score line isn't always indicitive of the performance put in.

[Sir Why You Little 37,042]

Brisbane 37 Shots MFC 24

We were dam lucky to be within 28 points of a team that was undermanned & had 6 Teenagers rotating through it.

Sorry C & B i don't see many positives...after 6 years of list management the team is getting worse.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

a team that was undermanned & had 6 Teenagers rotating through it.

this is the only thing I am rallying against, this weird propensity for exaggeration

we were also undermanned

its been established that the age/games of the 2 sides was very close

so that sentence does not need to be added to your comment your make your point

normally when somebody is a supporter of something their bias leans IN FAVOUR of it, here at demonland it is the other way round

and with the scoring shots i have already pointed out many times, again to almost zero rebuttal, that

a)of the 20 behinds only a small number were actually 'easy' shots on goal. Why should all the others, taken from tough angles/long distance/under pressure/rushed etc be counted against us?

b)what about the Terlich free, the Byrnes turnover gifts that were given, don't these balance it out a bit?

c)how many 'easy' goals did we also cough up

d)wasn't brissy's kicking in the second half actually really good?

e)brissy's season average is 11-16 so these numbers are not even out of character from their regular performances

at the end of the day goals are more important than behinds and we kicked three less without Clark or Dawes

I know i seem to be labouring a point, but it is an important point. One thing we don't need at the club right now is own supporters going out of their way to exaggerate how bad we are.

[Sir Why You Little 37,042]

this is the only thing I am rallying against, this weird propensity for exaggeration

we were also undermanned

its been established that the age/games of the 2 sides was very close

so that sentence does not need to be added to your comment your make your point

normally when somebody is a supporter of something their bias leans IN FAVOUR of it, here at demonland it is the other way round

and with the scoring shots i have already pointed out many times, again to almost zero rebuttal, that

a)of the 20 behinds only a small number were actually 'easy' shots on goal. Why should all the others, taken from tough angles/long distance/under pressure/rushed etc be counted against us?

b)what about the Terlich free, the Byrnes turnover gifts that were given, don't these balance it out a bit?

c)how many 'easy' goals did we also cough up

d)wasn't brissy's kicking in the second half actually really good?

e)brissy's season average is 11-16 so these numbers are not even out of character from their regular performances

at the end of the day goals are more important than behinds and we kicked three less without Clark or Dawes

I know i seem to be labouring a point, but it is an important point. One thing we don't need at the club right now is own supporters going out of their way to exaggerate how bad we are.

You are arguing a case, which is fine if you want to.

I am just puting up the bare facts which to me are very damming.

17.20 is peppering the goal face.

6 Teenagers should have been brushed aside by the MFC, even without Clark & Dawes. They weren't.

This club is very sick right now, it hasn't been well since before Jimma left us.

I still believe if Jimma was fit and still President now we would be September bound for a serious crack by now. But enough of that

We are what we are. Yesterday we were thrashed by a sympathetic scoreboard.

[Undeeterred 3,124]

Wow.

I actually believe you must be having a lend, that or your mildly retardly.

Hate to break it to you, but if you're going to call someone retarded, it's best to use the word 'retarded' not a made up word that makes you sound more stupid than him.

Best just not to call people retarded, perhaps.

[stuie 7,374]

Why are you so fixated on disposals?

Again, no one is saying Clark + Dawes = we win. But having them makes our job easier. In the end, despite the lower number of inside 50s, we kicked three less goals. Three. We didn't score from all our inside 50s, so, using logic (you still with me?), from those we didn't score from, having Clark and Dawes would have helped.

See how that works?

Again - having Clark/Dawes does not mean we automatically win.

Seriously, you can't be that silly.

Brisbane kicked poorly for goal, and missed A LOT of easy shots.

You need to have the ball to kick goals, they had it 118 more times than us.

We got smashed in clearances.

Now, given Clark and Dawes wouldn't make them miss more shots, and given they don't play in the midfield, I really don't understand how you can think they would have made a difference to the result when it's in the MIDFIELD where we were beaten.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

WYL and stuie you have AGAIN blatently ignored the argument being put forward and simply re-quoted your original position without validating it further in any way whatsoever

[bing181 9,240]

Losing to an udermanned, bottom 6 proposition like Brisbane is not a positive.

Some here should get into politics, the way they can spin and twist things.

No-one said losing was a positive. In fact, no-one said anything was a positive. Neeld was asked about any signs of IMPROVEMENT, and the response he gave (losing by less than 5 goals and kicking 14 goals on the road) was technically correct.

I would have also said that even being reasonably competitive and in the match into the final quarter was an improvement over the total train wreck of the first couple of rounds.

[sue 9,107]

Since I have to watch most games on TV it is not easy to have a firm opinion on what is wrong. But it seems to me that as soon as things go a bit bad on the scoreboard we just don't get any centre clearances (or other ones) with the inevitable result that the defence is under seige both physically and mentally. This makes the defence look worse than it really is and destroys their confidence. The forward line would be fine if the ball just got there more often. The problem is in the midfield as most people are saying. I can't see that the coach is the problem - it's the midfield cattle.

[Grand New Flag 3,227]

We are the unfortunate laughing stock of the league. What has become the most embarrassing aspect is the maintenance of confidence from our board in our coach. Board: you are all from business royalty. None of you would accept this level of incompetence in your own business. It is time you stood up and ended this nightmare. Simply the idea of the post bailey coach was right, however everyone can see you made the wrong appointment. Please get I over your egos and I immediately fire Neeld . This is the best thing you can do for our club.

[stuie 7,374]

WYL and stuie you have AGAIN blatently ignored the argument being put forward and simply re-quoted your original position without validating it further in any way whatsoever

I don't know how much more simply it can be put til you comprehend it.

We were smashed in the midfield. That is why we lost. Dawes and Clark play in the forward line. They would not have won the game for us.

Also, we lost by 28 points. 3 goals = 18 points. Exactly how dumb are you?

[Sir Why You Little 37,042]

WYL and stuie you have AGAIN blatently ignored the argument being put forward and simply re-quoted your original position without validating it further in any way whatsoever

i didn't put up an arguement. Just the bare facts.

There is no arguement.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

I don't know how much more simply it can be put til you comprehend it.

We were smashed in the midfield. That is why we lost. Dawes and Clark play in the forward line. They would not have won the game for us.

Also, we lost by 28 points. 3 goals = 18 points. Exactly how dumb are you?

yeah so now i'll just comment on something completely peripheral to the discussion in order to distract from the fact i have no rebuttal

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

i didn't put up an arguement. Just the bare facts.

There is no arguement.

and i'll just backpedal straight out the back door

well played fellas

actually, i'm not going to let you slimy jellyfish wriggle out of it: here it is AGAIN, let's see if you can go 5 times without addressing it

so do any of you jellyfish heroes want to go in and bat for junior? my complaint was that with his comment on average games* he represented a lot of posters who are blatantly twisting facts to present the situation is a worse light than it really is.

this is the third time i have raised it and it has not been acknowledged

*specifically that JBrown should be removed from the average games equation, despite 19 possessions and 3 goals, without any acknowledgement that 2 of our lowest contributors have over 340 games and are far better candidates to be removed from the equation than JBrown

and with the scoring shots i have already pointed out many times, again to almost zero rebuttal, that

a)of the 20 behinds only a small number were actually 'easy' shots on goal. Why should all the others, taken from tough angles/long distance/under pressure/rushed etc be counted against us?

b)what about the Terlich free, the Byrnes turnover gifts that were given, don't these balance it out a bit?

c)how many 'easy' goals did we also cough up

d)wasn't brissy's kicking in the second half actually really good?

e)brissy's season average is 11-16 so these numbers are not even out of character from their regular performances

at the end of the day goals are more important than behinds and we kicked three less without Clark or Dawes

Edited April 29, 2013 by Curry & Beer

[stuie 7,374]

and i'll just backpedal straight out the back door

well played fellas

actually, i'm not going to let you slimy jellyfish wriggle out of it: here it is AGAIN, let's see if you can go 5 times without addressing it

so do any of you jellyfish heroes want to go in and bat for junior? my complaint was that with his comment on average games* he represented a lot of posters who are blatantly twisting facts to present the situation is a worse light than it really is.

this is the third time i have raised it and it has not been acknowledged

*specifically that JBrown should be removed from the average games equation, despite 19 possessions and 3 goals, without any acknowledgement that 2 of our lowest contributors have over 340 games and are far better candidates to be removed from the equation than JBrown

and with the scoring shots i have already pointed out many times, again to almost zero rebuttal, that

a)of the 20 behinds only a small number were actually 'easy' shots on goal. Why should all the others, taken from tough angles/long distance/under pressure/rushed etc be counted against us?

b)what about the Terlich free, the Byrnes turnover gifts that were given, don't these balance it out a bit?

c)how many 'easy' goals did we also cough up

d)wasn't brissy's kicking in the second half actually really good?

e)brissy's season average is 11-16 so these numbers are not even out of character from their regular performances

at the end of the day goals are more important than behinds and we kicked three less without Clark or Dawes

Firstly, if you have arguments with a certain poster take it up with them, it's no one elses responsibility to step in. I've not said anything about average games.

Brisbane missed easy shots, and we kicked 3 goals in junk time when the Lions had stopped, so the margin was flattering to us. If you don't understand this then you have no idea about football. None.

You yourself said there was around 5 shots they should have kicked.

tell me how many of those 20 behinds were red-hot clangers, i'll give you 5 at most

Wouldn't bother arguing about free kicks, we got a pretty good run there yesterday.

By your own account, Brisbane kicked a higher score than average, what does that tell you?

Now, if you want to talk about not answering things, then answer what I have said to you countless times here:

What difference would Clark and Dawes make when we were smashed in the midfield? 118 less possessions, and a third less clearances. If you can't get it to your forwards, and get it to them well, then it doesn't matter who is there.

EVERYONE but you recognizes that the midfield is where our problems are.

Again, you keep saying we lost by 3 goals, but 28 points is closer to 5 than 3, and if we use your conservative measure of adding the 5 more goals they should have kicked then the loss was closer to a 10 goal loss, which IF YOU WATCHED THE GAME you would realize was more reflective of the game.

Edited April 29, 2013 by stuie