Did anyone think the loss of Byrnes hurt us last weeekend?

[rpfc 28,141]

Against superior opposition, Davey kicked 3 from the FP and if not a brain fade should have 4. He can't play up the ground regularly because he does not have the tank.

And its a self serving misnomer in the modern game where players cover both ends of the ground that because you play predominantly the small forward role that you have a cheap excuse for poor performance.

And when you find Byrnes scapegoated for our issues, tell us all because that definitely happened in this thread.

Byrnes, Rodan, and Gillies have all borne the brunt of people looking for easy answers to our issues.

You haven't noticed this?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Byrnes, Rodan, and Gillies have all borne the brunt of people looking for easy answers to our issues.

You haven't noticed this?

You're dreaming.

The common complaint is that they have added nothing to MFC this year

And they are correct.

[Little Richard 6,222]

You're dreaming.

The common complaint is that they have added nothing to MFC this year

And they are correct.

That is a fair argument for Gillies, but to say Byrnes and Rodan haven't been valuable at all is just stupid.

Byrnes has had two pretty good games and was instrumental in our only win. Other than this he provides winning experience, coming from one of the most successful sides of all time. If you see interviews with him he is clearly there to offer leadership and experience to the younger guys, same goes for Rodan.

Sure they haven't set the world on fire on the field but they are valuable to the club in other ways. Gillies... meh

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

For most of the year our small forwards have played alongside undersized or inappropriate choices for KPFs. With Dawes and eventually Clark, small forwards should have better opportunities.

That being said, Byrnes is an OK player and not a star. We've been using him in the midfield because at least he can kick with precision, but he's not got the strength to play that role regularly. Byrnes and Davey in the same side, however, might balance both the forward line and on-ball brigade.

In answer to the opening post, yes, he was definitely missed because he could spend a few minutes on ball, like Davey, and add goal kicking presence at the foot of Dawes the rest of the time. But it wouldn't have been enough for us to win the game.

[jazza 1,323]

You're dreaming.

The common complaint is that they have added nothing to MFC this year

And they are correct.

they were listed to take the heat off 18 yo boys who are meant to be developing in the ressies , this was required by the board and suggested by the so called experts who picked our coach, dont have another jw situation

dont think its long term , mainly list protection for 2013 and 2014

not saying its right, just giving an answer

[Harrisonrules 273]

concerning the culture issue. I believe more was lost culturally by what was done to clear the parish of what it didn't want than what the new influx of players was meant to address. Byrnes ridden etc will off little. As long term prospects Clark and daws will be good pederson gillies will be useless.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

That is a fair argument for Gillies, but to say Byrnes and Rodan haven't been valuable at all is just stupid.

Byrnes has had two pretty good games and was instrumental in our only win. Other than this he provides winning experience, coming from one of the most successful sides of all time. If you see interviews with him he is clearly there to offer leadership and experience to the younger guys, same goes for Rodan.

Sure they haven't set the world on fire on the field but they are valuable to the club in other ways. Gillies... meh

Byrnes was noticeable when we played the 16th and 18th teams but has not protected anyone when we have played stronger team.

It makes you wonder why we put a number of these mediocre "experienced" players on our list who give little onfield when we seemed so ready to jettison Rivers and Moloney. Another mystery.

[monoccular 17,362]

Still think his most dominant display was 5 goals in the intraclub.................

And which team was that against then? Oh - "the hardest team to play against" so he must have been in hot form then :-((

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

they were listed to take the heat off 18 yo boys who are meant to be developing in the ressies , this was required by the board and suggested by the so called experts who picked our coach, dont have another jw situation

dont think its long term , mainly list protection for 2013 and 2014

not saying its right, just giving an answer

I would have thought this has been required by the FD and approved by the Board. Understand what you are saying but it looks like a lemon idea to date on the field.

[Little Richard 6,222]

Byrnes was noticeable when we played the 16th and 18th teams but has not protected anyone when we have played stronger team.

It makes you wonder why we put a number of these mediocre "experienced" players on our list who give little onfield when we seemed so ready to jettison Rivers and Moloney. Another mystery.

Rhino, we didn't 'jettison' Rivers - he chose to go through FA to chase some success and fair enough. I'm sure Neeld would have loved to hold on to him as he played some of his best footy last year.

The reason we have mediocre experienced players is because we can't attract any good experienced players, it's pretty simple.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I think he's been better in the middle than up forward.

... he's not a specialist small forward, they are virtually non existent these days excepting Milne.

Byrnes was brought in to add maturity, strong character & games experience to our young list in areas we are weak in, the small mid/forward roles.

He is very important in ways many won't notice, re his positioning & his knowing of when to go & when not to. when he finds some confidence he show a bit more as well. especially when the side wins more footy.

[rpfc 28,141]

You're dreaming.

The common complaint is that they have added nothing to MFC this year

And they are correct.

Byrnes was noticeable when we played the 16th and 18th teams but has not protected anyone when we have played stronger team.

It makes you wonder why we put a number of these mediocre "experienced" players on our list who give little onfield when we seemed so ready to jettison Rivers and Moloney. Another mystery.

No, they are not correct.

I have little idea of what they have provided inhouse but Byrnes should not have to fight through the mud slung at all the 'duds' we got in the off season.

Byrnes was 'noticeable' because we are a bad team playing other bad teams. He is a forward pocket and while you say that is an excuse it isn't. Playing forward pocket is the a most thankless task - commonly asked to operate in space the size of a phonebooth and contribute with minimal touches of the footy. Sometimes simply helping to keep the ball in the forward line through pressure and tackling is all a forward pocket can do.

We have a great many players who have contributed 'nothing' but the time spent talking about these new players is out of balance to their importance to our form. A back up tall defender, a small forward, and a rotational 'leadership guy' were never going to solve our issues and yet we waste so much energy deriding them.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Against superior opposition, Davey kicked 3 from the FP and if not a brain fade should have 4. He can't play up the ground regularly because he does not have the tank.

And its a self serving misnomer in the modern game where players cover both ends of the ground that because you play predominantly the small forward role that you have a cheap excuse for poor performance.

And when you find Byrnes scapegoated for our issues, tell us all because that definitely happened in this thread.

...... the master of vexatious, negativity, & Hindsight... the only time you post your comments to enlighten is after the event.. or to spout some derogatory comment.

& last year, what were your thoughts of Davey? what was it you said?

did you think he was finished? or did you think he would find form? and would He have found his mojo, if Byrnes wasn't on our list?

... & Jetta, he's 180cm's, & is more a small utility, than a small forward. & he'll learn Plenty from the 175cm Byrnes, who'll help improve Nev.

[hardtack 10,444]

I would have thought this has been required by the FD and approved by the Board. Understand what you are saying but it looks like a lemon idea to date on the field.

Earlier you mention us "jettisoning" Moloney and Rivers... what do you think they would have offered us this year over and above what Byrne et al are offering? Apart from the fact that they jumped rather than being jettisoned as you put it, Rivers would more than likely have been gone with a dud knee and Moloney would have been giving us more of what he gave us in 2012. At least Byrne and Rodan are giving some guidance to the younger players even if they are not prolific in their onfield contributions.

Edited May 21, 2013 by hardtack

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

No, they are not correct.

I have little idea of what they have provided inhouse but Byrnes should not have to fight through the mud slung at all the 'duds' we got in the off season.

Byrnes was 'noticeable' because we are a bad team playing other bad teams. He is a forward pocket and while you say that is an excuse it isn't. Playing forward pocket is the a most thankless task - commonly asked to operate in space the size of a phonebooth and contribute with minimal touches of the footy. Sometimes simply helping to keep the ball in the forward line through pressure and tackling is all a forward pocket can do.

We have a great many players who have contributed 'nothing' but the time spent talking about these new players is out of balance to their importance to our form. A back up tall defender, a small forward, and a rotational 'leadership guy' were never going to solve our issues and yet we waste so much energy deriding them.

A forward line of Clark Kent and phonebooth would be awesome.

[hardtack 10,444]

A forward line of Clark Kent and phonebooth would be awesome.

Well, when Toumpas returns, we could have a forward line of Clark Kent and Jimmy

[Redleg 40,559]

Well, when Toumpas returns, we could have a forward line of Clark Kent and Jimmy

If only we had players named Lane and White.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

No, they are not correct.

I have little idea of what they have provided inhouse but Byrnes should not have to fight through the mud slung at all the 'duds' we got in the off season.

Byrnes was 'noticeable' because we are a bad team playing other bad teams. He is a forward pocket and while you say that is an excuse it isn't. Playing forward pocket is the a most thankless task - commonly asked to operate in space the size of a phonebooth and contribute with minimal touches of the footy. Sometimes simply helping to keep the ball in the forward line through pressure and tackling is all a forward pocket can do.

We have a great many players who have contributed 'nothing' but the time spent talking about these new players is out of balance to their importance to our form. A back up tall defender, a small forward, and a rotational 'leadership guy' were never going to solve our issues and yet we waste so much energy deriding them.

The discussion about Byrnes and others is not whether they are duds but they have contributed little on the ground. The comment about Byrnes thus far is he seems to operate when there is less pressure on him but disappears when it's tough against top and mid level teams. Is not a good look for senior player who apparently is providing on field leadership and experience. As you point out we have had enough disappointing players without adding others like Byrnes, Rodan and Gillies to the long list.

And it's indeed fair and reasonable that they be subject to scrutiny as new recruits and particularly as they are seasoned and/or mature age footballers. And always if you don't like reading these reports....

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Earlier you mention us "jettisoning" Moloney and Rivers... what do you think they would have offered us this year over and above what Byrne et al are offering? Apart from the fact that they jumped rather than being jettisoned as you put it, Rivers would more than likely have been gone with a dud knee and Moloney would have been giving us more of what he gave us in 2012. At least Byrne and Rodan are giving some guidance to the younger players even if they are not prolific in their onfield contributions.

Your guessing what Rodan and Byrnes offered off the field and I hope you are right. On the field it's negligible. I responded to weak excuse that they provide cover for younger players given we have so few experienced players. But this consequence is partially of our own doing but icing Moloney ( it's done to death on another thread) and not convincing Rivers to stay. We have tried to cover this by getting a couple of seasoned players who are obviously fine individuals but are fading AFL players who struggle at the top level. And we have collect 4 such players with dubious returns thus far.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,959]

Byrnes has had a couple of strong games against low opposition, a couple of mid range games and a couple of shockers. He is not there to protect the youngsters. He is there to support the youngsters and lead by his work rate on the ground and on the track. He has looked better up the field but will look improved as a crumber when he is at the feet of two true talls in Clark and Dawes. He is clearly in our best 21at present and will be until the likes of Kent, Blease, Jetta, Toumpas etc can consistently outperform him or players like Bail, Nicolson improve their disposal.

Edited May 21, 2013 by big_red_fire_engine

[old dee 23,592]

If only we had players named Lane and White.

That may not be their names Redleg but we sure have quite a few that play like them

Edited May 21, 2013 by old dee

[hardtack 10,444]

Your guessing what Rodan and Byrnes offered off the field and I hope you are right. On the field it's negligible. I responded to weak excuse that they provide cover for younger players given we have so few experienced players. But this consequence is partially of our own doing but icing Moloney ( it's done to death on another thread) and not convincing Rivers to stay. We have tried to cover this by getting a couple of seasoned players who are obviously fine individuals but are fading AFL players who struggle at the top level. And we have collect 4 such players with dubious returns thus far.

So far (and this has probably already been done to death as well), we have picked up Clark, Dawes, Terlich, M Jones, Hogan and a number of others who will be big contributors in years to come. There were only so many players that Neeld could pick up in the time he has been with the MFC and so far I believe he has done well with what we could afford. He took Clark, Hogan and Dawes because because they were available and were needed; if he hadn't taken them when he did, we would not have another chance.

This year I am confident he will be going all out to address our midfield (and possibly another back) and I am sure he will manage to get a couple of highly regarded mids. This is a major rebuild, and if it is to be effective, he has to get the best possible available players he can with whatever funds are available... and so far this is exactly what he has done. With what Rodan, Pedersen, Barry etc, cost us, we could not have got any other top line players, but we did get a wealth of experience in Rodan and Byrnes (who I think has not been bad value), so I believe he has not failed in that area.

As for Moloney, yes it has been done to death and the two schools of thought will never agree... Rivers I think was going anyway, whatever efforts we made to keep him. He is reaching the twilight of his career and he was desperate to play finals footy... I doubt anyone could seriously say that he could have seen much finals action with the MFC in the time he has left in the game. It would have been nice to keep him, but we didn't and as it turns out, we may have inadvertently dodged a bullet where his knee is concerned; sadly for him.

[bing181 9,176]

This year I am confident he will be going all out to address our midfield (and possibly another back) and I am sure he will manage to get a couple of highly regarded mids.

Agree with your post, but I don't know that we should hold our breath. We'll obviously have to wait till the end of the year, but not so sure how many will be available that fit that description.

[rpfc 28,141]

The discussion about Byrnes and others is not whether they are duds but they have contributed little on the ground. The comment about Byrnes thus far is he seems to operate when there is less pressure on him but disappears when it's tough against top and mid level teams. Is not a good look for senior player who apparently is providing on field leadership and experience. As you point out we have had enough disappointing players without adding others like Byrnes, Rodan and Gillies to the long list.

And it's indeed fair and reasonable that they be subject to scrutiny as new recruits and particularly as they are seasoned and/or mature age footballers. And always if you don't like reading these reports....

I don't take much notice of the match reports on here...

I am alluding to the lumping of Byrnes and Rodan and Gillies into some outward failure of recruitment under Neeld. Dawes was in this milleu up until he started playing.

It is not fair to any of those individuals, to Neeld, and, especially, to the 28 year old small forward we got for very little in the summer.

He has not set the forward line alight but he has been a solid player for the opportunities he has been given.

Edited May 21, 2013 by rpfc

[angrydee 842]

At least he can kick to a target and hit it most times..

There aren't many in the team who can.

Edited May 21, 2013 by angrydee