dont think i proposed that .

how was your weekend

the fishing is good on here today

so 21 months is not unreasonable

but let this post stand long enough and the statistic family will come out of the woodwork in droves with more figures than you can shake a stick at

21 months is very unreasonable when the team is actually going backwards. And your criticism of those who dare to challenge Neeld's performance does imply that you consider our current situation is unique, as you continue to defend the indefensible.

Glad to see Rivers leave?

Cheeeze

Absolutely. Was an inbetween player - not big enough to take a big forward, to slow to play a small forward, was always that 3rd defender.

I rate onfield body language quite highly in a developing team, and the fact that Rivers was part of the leadership group and clearly waved the white flag 1/2 way through a game against Collingwood told me alot about who he plays for (himself).

Not only that, we have 2 or 3 other players that can play the role he plays/played.

Now that I've stated my reasons, how about you state your reasons why we should've kept him?

I thought he was good, beat Reiwold, did his job. Difference of opinion.

JR got that goal on the 3/4 time siren, which basically slammed our door shut, because Frawley gave up chasing and expected his teammate to do it.

JR had a shot with seconds to go in the match from 45m out, and Frawley stood the mark and didn't raise a finger.

When we are relying on teh senior players to lead the way for our developing/inexperienced players, this poor attitude should not go unnoticed.

To make it easier, go to the AFL website, press "replay match" under our game, click on "behinds" so that you can select the last point of the match. I'd imagine you would be as pi$$ed off as me when you see what I'm talking about.

21 months is very unreasonable when the team is actually going backwards. And your criticism of those who dare to challenge Neeld's performance does imply that you consider our current situation is unique, as you continue to defend the indefensible.

i only challenge rubbery figures and white flaggers, that dont come up with anything other than negative schoolboy under 12 krap

and stop using big words starting with U

Absolutely. Was an inbetween player - not big enough to take a big forward, to slow to play a small forward, was always that 3rd defender.

I rate onfield body language quite highly in a developing team, and the fact that Rivers was part of the leadership group and clearly waved the white flag 1/2 way through a game against Collingwood told me alot about who he plays for (himself).

Not only that, we have 2 or 3 other players that can play the role he plays/played.

Now that I've stated my reasons, how about you state your reasons why we should've kept him?

...

And how many games was this after Neeld started playing him as a forward (where he had never played in his whole career)? Neeld all but killed off Rivers' chances of finishing his career with us long before the season finished.

But of course, Neeld's judgment on Rivers was so much better than Geelong's - what would they know??? I'm sure they couldn't believe their luck when they got Rivers & gave us Gillies. Easy to see who's done best out of that deal.

And we not only lost Rivers as a player - we burned yet another on-field leader.

Sorry i havent read any threads here, so am shooting from the hip in trying to be positive but a li'l pessimistic at the same time- I was standing amongst [censored] richmond [censored] (as usual) yesterday and by the end of the game I can honestly say that I was quite proud of the boys considering the same mulletheads actually thought we were alright and there was good signs ahead (they mustve been [censored]) pre next week comment is- can we possibly back up a ballsy performance and not lose by 600 pts against freo....

havew we gone backwards or made difficult decisions like etting retiring off Green, and removing two bad eggs Rivers and Maloney - perhaps they would have won us three more games against bottom sides - big deal - that is not moving forwards.

21 months is very unreasonable when the team is actually going backwards. And your criticism of those who dare to challenge Neeld's performance does imply that you consider our current situation is unique, as you continue to defend the indefensible.

BTW, I think besides Chris Dawes, we have had a pretty full list to pick from.

You can't be serious:

Tom McD - top 3 B&F last year, missed a slab of pre-season, out again with shoulder, struggling and struggled in the few games he played

Mitch Clark - no need to comment. Played a couple of games, but not match fit, nor foot fit. (that's a technical term). Need him probably more than anyone.

Grimes - must have been near the top in the B&F this year. Mister reliable.

Sylvia - we all know the story, but has been good the last couple of weeks

Byrnes - Good previous few weeks (excluding GC, like most of the team)

Watts - showed something against the Lions, could have been more than useful with a few more games under his belt.

Viney - see Watts, one of the few shining lights against GC, his best game so far, and becoming an essential part of our mids.

That's 7 players, but not any 7 players, it's 3 or 4 of our (few) best players, plus 3 or 4 "first-picked". And it's not as if we have half a dozen guys with 100 games under their belts running round in the two's. Those 7 players get replaced by fringe players, depth players, "not quite up to it (yet)" players.

havew we gone backwards or made difficult decisions like etting retiring off Green, and removing two bad eggs Rivers and Maloney - perhaps they would have won us three more games against bottom sides - big deal - that is not moving forwards.

Regardless, we still have gone backwards.

i only challenge rubbery figures and white flaggers, that dont come up with anything other than negative schoolboy under 12 krap

and stop using big words starting with U

Que?

havew we gone backwards or made difficult decisions like etting retiring off Green, and removing two bad eggs Rivers and Maloney - perhaps they would have won us three more games against bottom sides - big deal - that is not moving forwards.

we have gone backwards so fast it's scary, we move on Rivers, Green and Moloney and our biggest issue is we have no on field experience... i mean come on!

if we had even one of those three now we would be significantly better off.

Neeld recently agreed to a 3 year deal for Jordie. Total incompetance in his decision-making so far.

A 3 year deal means he'll be at the club for three years, not that he'll be getting a game every week for three years. From what I know of Jordie McKenzie, he's the kind of person you need around a footy club. Good decision, IMO.

You can't be serious:

Tom McD - top 3 B&F last year, missed a slab of pre-season, out again with shoulder, struggling and struggled in the few games he played

Mitch Clark - no need to comment. Played a couple of games, but not match fit, nor foot fit. (that's a technical term). Need him probably more than anyone.

Grimes - must have been near the top in the B&F this year. Mister reliable.

Sylvia - we all know the story, but has been good the last couple of weeks

Byrnes - Good previous few weeks (excluding GC, like most of the team)

Watts - showed something against the Lions, could have been more than useful with a few more games under his belt.

Viney - see Watts, one of the few shining lights against GC, his best game so far, and becoming an essential part of our mids.

That's 7 players, but not any 7 players, it's 3 or 4 of our (few) best players, plus 3 or 4 "first-picked". And it's not as if we have half a dozen guys with 100 games under their belts running round in the two's. Those 7 players get replaced by fringe players, depth players, "not quite up to it (yet)" players.

And for a team like us, ripping that core out hurts far more than for most other clubs.

The impact of those seven players can't be understated.

what a crock... http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-21/dees-fined-for-runners-stance