It's all positve

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,251]

Hey, Tingay lover. Not quoting anyone pet. Quotations marks are often (ok, sometimes) used to denote irony.

[rpfc 28,542]

If you don't like what you saw yesterday, what did you think of the last few years?

God strike me, we are turning the screw to being relevant again and people want to blow up the place because Watts hugged a tackle and Dawes/Frawley kicked terribly.

You go watch tomorrow's game but don't for a second think that we aren't better than we have been: Roos promised us some progress and a defined game plan by Rd 5 and I have seen it.

If people want to keep their warm bitter blindness they can, and they can go watch someone else.

Sick and tired of these jumping expectations of posters. Have a coherent, consistent opinion.

[Little Goffy 14,583]

It's currently not positive, but it can be as early as 2015. Yes, sadly my fellow supporters, it's another year over for the demons. Paul Roos, some who would truely think he answeres to 'masih', needs time. Its in my personal opinion Roos should execute a mass killing by October. The following names should be thoes who suvive this exodus: Hogan, N. Jones, Salam, Watts, Toumpass, Dawes, Viney, Trengove, Tyson, McKenzie, Dunn, Cross, Garland, Michie, Vince, JKH, McDonald, Grimes, Gawn, Howe, Fitzpatrick, M.Jones and thoes drafted in 2013.

Simple as that. Trade players with any wealth:

J.Frawley - 1st Round pick

S.Blease - 4th Round pick?

L. Tapscott - pick in 4th round?

Finish 16?

Pick 3: Best midfielder (inside, tough)

Pick in 1-20 (Frawley): Forward backup for Dawes and Hogan

Pick 27ish: Key Defender to replace Frawley's loss

Pick 45ish: Key midfielder

Pick 63ish: Best available

Pick 70ish (Blease): Best available

Pick 70ish (Tapscott): Best available

Is that you, Barry Prendergast?

[Adam The God 30,287]

There's no disgrace in being beaten by a few goals from a well polished, highly professional outfit, with a great history that is the Suns. Your thoughts.

The Suns were themselves hopeless. We went missing for large patches of the game.

It's time to stamp out this attitude of 'there's no disgrace in being beaten'. Other clubs don't accept this and neither should we.

The way a large number of our players went about it today was not up to AFL standard. Certainly not in the intensity stakes. Alright, so they've got arguably the greatest player of all time, but this was a team that was more inexperienced than us. It's not like we had a spirited, close loss to Hawthorn. Gold Coast played poorly, are younger and generally struggle for forwards, let alone backs. They have a terrific, young midfield, but this was on our home track. Inexcusable not to bring 100% to the contest. We quite clearly didn't. This was reflected in the number of tackles and ineffective tackles we 'attempted'.

[Little Goffy 14,583]

I finishes the game with mixed feelings, aware that we have definitely improved since last year (well, duh), aware that we were looking like a much more effective team... but also aware that there were still critical lapses - marks not quite held, handballs and kicks just that little bit (fatally) too loose, and still player who fade in and out of contests or who just don't quite automatically make the efforts required.

But there was a thought that occurred to me after the game. 'This isn't forever'. A lot of times in the last couple of years, it felt like 'this is us, yep, bring on the draft, this is all that's going on for us this year and it is miserable'.

I never imagined that the ultimate football cliche would be such a comfort, but I caught myself thinking 'well, that's today's game, let's reload and see how we go, see what can improve next week, it can be a different effort and a different result any given week'.

Who would've thought being able to say 'I'm looking at this one week at a time' would feel like an achievement?

[Adam The God 30,287]

If you don't like what you saw yesterday, what did you think of the last few years?

God strike me, we are turning the screw to being relevant again and people want to blow up the place because Watts hugged a tackle and Dawes/Frawley kicked terribly.

You go watch tomorrow's game but don't for a second think that we aren't better than we have been: Roos promised us some progress and a defined game plan by Rd 5 and I have seen it.

If people want to keep their warm bitter blindness they can, and they can go watch someone else.

Sick and tired of these jumping expectations of posters. Have a coherent, consistent opinion.

We've clearly made progress on what Neeld delivered us. But, that was the lowest base to come off in the history of the game. Our 2013 side was the worst I've seen in my life time and one of the worst coached too. That said, people have a right to be cheesed off at the lack of intensity from our team. I said before the game that I expect us to be firmly entrenched in the bottom four this year. Talk of finals is ludicrous rubbish, but that doesn't change the fact that today's performance was extremely ordinary.

[Guest]

Was I disappointed? No doubt.
Was I surprised? Not at all.
I remember last week telling all and sundry that we needed to temper expectations and see things for what they were.

Thank you tonatopia with your thread about how we (supporters) should be aiming for finals to drive this point home.

Let's be blunt. We are still a developing team. We are trying and there is more structure this year but turnovers and lack of football smarts kill us. Roos was right. It's round 5 and we definitely know how the team plays. It's heartening to see that but right now, the cattle isn't on the park. Despite all the talk of how great things were last round against the Blues, there is a lot to do on the playing front. There will be trades and delistings and we need to accept that right now.
For the next couple of years, we will need to hang tough. I didn't leave the G today feeling sick to my stomach (like I did in the corresponding fixture last year) and that can only be a good thing. We ARE improving. Besides the Eagles, no one has really carved us up. By this stage last year, every game was a mauling.
Besides this, I must say.... Jack Watts needs to drink a mug of concrete. That YouTube video was a snippet of what he is doing. There was another instance when I saw Gary Ablett charge though the corridor of the 'G and Jack Watts attempted to lay a tackle on him. The ease with which Gazza brushed him off was ridiculous. I saw Jack Viney attempt something similar and while he kind of looked silly, in the end, he was admirable in his effort. He laid his tackle and while Ablett continued to almost piggy back him along, Viney never gave up and never let go. This came from a nineteen year old kid. Jack is 23 year old man who is 196 centimetres and 95 kilos.
Last point... Football is meant to be entertainment. Whilst I was disappointed my horse didn't win, at least I could say I left and felt I got my money's worth. That is a huge improvement on last year's abomination posing as a football match vs. the Gold Coast.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[dee-luded 2,959]

I really think that video is a bit unfair and a disgrace from us supporters.

He was really bad today, Watts, but that passage of play isn't that bad and it would have happened to 15 others today.

At least he laid a tackle today! We had 5 players notch up a big fat 0 in the T column. People give it to Watts partly because he deserves it, but partly because they're biased. He was not the only player today to play poorly, so why is he the only one to get shamed on YouTube?

disagree some players didn't score a tackle (viney) amongst them , but there's more to defending than just tackling. tacking is a must, but so is intensity when we don't have the ball, & when you've just been stripped of it. "chase", is one word that comes to mind.

Watts has been poor at it all season, & needs to be the next to learn the message @ VFL level... he's not an Untouchable you know.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Yes. But all that gets thrown down the bog with a 2nd Quarter that was put in today.

Watch it again.

There is no excuse for the majority of the side to be in that mindset.

Chance to win 2 in a row thrown away in 30 minutes of standing around.

That is the reality

It looked to me that we tired in the latter parts of quarters against the Suns. particularly the 2nd Qtr. but late in the 3rd as well.

]I need to watch the replay as I couldn't watch much of it just yet.

[furious d 470]

Need I say more about Jack Watts?

You don't even need to press play to see that is a free kick. The Suns player has both arms around Jack and the ball in 5 metres away. Jack was ordinary today but that clip is posted by a moron who knows nothing about football. It is illegal to tackle a player who hasn't taken possession of the ball, poor from the umps, not Jack.

Wish he'd get a long term injury

...

I wish you would get a holiday from this site for such a disgraceful comment, mods please ban this scumbag.

Because he comes with a higher expectation being a higher draft pick. Like it or not, high draft picks are supposed to have at least good football skills and smarts. I don't see this with Watts but we had the opportunity to trade him and we didn't.

That video showed Jacks smarts, he did the right thing and if he wasn't illegally tackled he would have turned his man inside out and been running toward goal. I'm not saying Watts played well or has met expectations I'm merely pointing out that that video is the wrong 5 seconds to illustrate Watts' failings. How that isn't holding the man but Abletts free in the last was I'll never know.

[Mad_Melbourne 877]

disagree some players didn't score a tackle (viney) amongst them , but there's more to defending than just tackling. tacking is a must, but so is intensity when we don't have the ball, & when you've just been stripped of it. "chase", is one word that comes to mind.

Watts has been poor at it all season, & needs to be the next to learn the message @ VFL level... he's not an Untouchable you know.

I don't know if I agree as much with him not chasing, I felt like he did make several hard chases, whilst not laying the tackle he did pressure the opponent. Was his output as great today as usual no, but he is still one of our only players that looks to make things happen with ball in hand and that is why he is important

[45HG 1,553]

Our first 12 games last year lead to 11 losses.

The margins were 79, 148, 94, 28, 61, 60, 34, 90, 95, 83, 35.

We've lost 3 games this year by margins smaller than every single one of those save for one (28).

If you can't see improvement and greater positives in this team at the moment then I reckon the rocks in your head have rocks in their head.

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

Hey, Tingay lover. Not quoting anyone pet. Quotations marks are often (ok, sometimes) used to denote irony.

i am well aware, and it is TSFKA thank-you. I am talking about your use of italics, which can relate to a quote, or an excerpt from an article in modern grammar, but traditionally not so. Here is your post in question from yesterday:

The "skills" exhibited by Melbourne players was shocking. Continual handballing to players under pressure, poor kicking and dropped marks. GC's skills were much better.

Watts' "tackling" was pitiful.

I also thought that the forward line was way too top heavy.

I'm normally not a fan of Pederson, but I thought he was far from our worst today. Bail was invisible.

As we are living in modern times i assumed this was what you were using it for, particularly as you have used italics throughout three entire sentences and then not for the rest of the post. The confused D'lander (me) assumed you must have taken it from an outside source, hence why i asked you "who ya' quoting…" as i wished to know where it came from.

I am now aware that this was not the case and you are either just a [censored], or accidentally clicked the 'italic button'

For future reference here is a run down on how/why to use italics correctly and thanks for the lesson on inverted comma's, i look forward to passing your wisdom onto my students when i return to school tomorrow:

Definition:

A style of typeface in which letters are slanted to the right. This is printed in italics.

As shown below, italics are most commonly used for the titles of works that stand by themselves, such as the names of books and magazines.

Etymology: From the Latin, "Italy"

Guidelines for Using Italics:

1. As a general rule, italicize the titles of complete works:
   • books: Catch-22, by Joseph Heller
   • magazines and journals: Time
   • newspapers: The Times
   • plays: A Raisin in the Sun, by Lorraine Hansberry
   • movies: The Godfather
   • television programs: Doctor Who
   • works of art: Nighthawks, by Edward Hopper
   • albums and CDs: OK Computer, by Radiohead
   The titles of comparatively short works--songs, poems, short stories, essays, and episodes of TV programs--should be enclosed in quotation marks.
4. As a general rule, italicize the names of aircraft, ships, and trains; foreign words used in an English sentence; and words and letters discussed as words and letters:
   • "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise."

     (title sequence of the original Star Trek TV series)

   • From 1925 to 1953, a passenger train named the Orange Blossom Special brought vacationers to sunny Florida from New York.
   • "There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable and nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers."

     (Phillip Franklin, Vice President of White Star Line)

   • "Come kiss me, and say goodbye like a man. No, not good-bye, au revoir."

     (William Graham, "Chats With Jane Clermont" 1893)

   • "Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the."

     (Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman)

5. As a general rule, use italics to emphasize words and phrases:

   "I don't even like old cars. I mean they don't even interest me. I'd rather have a goddam horse. A horse is at least human, for God's sake."

   (J. D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye)

   "Italics rarely fail to insult the reader's intelligence. More often than not they tell us to emphasize a word or phrase that we would emphasize automatically in any natural reading of the sentence."

   (Paul Robinson, "The Philosophy of Punctuation." Opera, Sex, and Other Vital Matters. Univ. of Chicago Press, 2002)

Edited April 21, 2014 by The Song Formerly Known As

[Guest]

Our first 12 games last year lead to 11 losses.

The margins were 79, 148, 94, 28, 61, 60, 34, 90, 95, 83, 35.

We've lost 3 games this year by margins smaller than every single one of those save for one (28).

If you can't see improvement and greater positives in this team at the moment then I reckon the rocks in your head have rocks in their head.

An 8 point loss? A 17 point loss? A win against a team that wasn't packed with a buttload of kids (though admittedly down on it's luck)?

Last year we would have been celebrating a new golden era if that happened!

[DemonOX 8,791]

i am well aware, and it is TSFKA thank-you. I am talking about your use of italics, which can relate to a quote, or an excerpt from an article in modern grammar, but traditionally not so. Here is your post in question from yesterday:

As we are living in modern times i assumed this was what you were using it for, particularly as you have used italics throughout three entire sentences and then not for the rest of the post. The confused D'lander (me) assumed you must have taken it from an outside source, hence why i asked you "who ya' quoting…" as i wished to know where it came from.

I am now aware that this was not the case and you are either just a [censored], or accidentally clicked the 'italic button'

For future reference here is a run down on how/why to use italics correctly and thanks for the lesson on inverted comma's, i look forward to passing your wisdom onto my students when i return to school tomorrow:

Definition:

A style of typeface in which letters are slanted to the right. This is printed in italics.

As shown below, italics are most commonly used for the titles of works that stand by themselves, such as the names of books and magazines.

Etymology: From the Latin, "Italy"

Guidelines for Using Italics:

• As a general rule, italicize the titles of complete works:
  • books: Catch-22, by Joseph Heller
  • magazines and journals: Time
  • newspapers: The Times
  • plays: A Raisin in the Sun, by Lorraine Hansberry
  • movies: The Godfather
  • television programs: Doctor Who
  • works of art: Nighthawks, by Edward Hopper
  • albums and CDs: OK Computer, by Radiohead
  The titles of comparatively short works--songs, poems, short stories, essays, and episodes of TV programs--should be enclosed in quotation marks.
• As a general rule, italicize the names of aircraft, ships, and trains; foreign words used in an English sentence; and words and letters discussed as words and letters:
  • "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise."

    (title sequence of the original Star Trek TV series)

  • From 1925 to 1953, a passenger train named the Orange Blossom Special brought vacationers to sunny Florida from New York.
  • "There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable and nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers."

    (Phillip Franklin, Vice President of White Star Line)

  • "Come kiss me, and say goodbye like a man. No, not good-bye, au revoir."

    (William Graham, "Chats With Jane Clermont" 1893)

  • "Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the."

    (Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman)

• As a general rule, use italics to emphasize words and phrases:

  "I don't even like old cars. I mean they don't even interest me. I'd rather have a goddam horse. A horse is at least human, for God's sake."

  (J. D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye)

  "Italics rarely fail to insult the reader's intelligence. More often than not they tell us to emphasize a word or phrase that we would emphasize automatically in any natural reading of the sentence."

  (Paul Robinson, "The Philosophy of Punctuation." Opera, Sex, and Other Vital Matters. Univ. of Chicago Press, 2002)

Dude u got a lot of time in your hands, nice detail in the post though.

Don't worry about it if some posters like to think they Major in englesh.

Who really cares we all know where u were coming from and some just like to be a smarty panties in their response.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Dude u got a lot of time in your hands, nice detail in the post though.

Don't worry about it if some posters like to think they Major in englesh.

Who really cares we all know where u were coming from and some just like to be a smarty panties in their response.

Brilliant.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

There seems to be very little 'middle ground' with our supporters here - they are either bagging us out or finding plenty of positives, and then they clash and bang their heads against a wall trying to get the other side to see their point of view.

We are somewhere in the middle of both as a team at the moment though. We still have clear deficiencies and we still turn the ball over too much, however, Roos has stuck to his promises already - he said we would know exactly how he wants us to play by Round 5 and he has done that. He has made us a better side and, more importantly, we are actually staying in games rather than being out of them by half time. Some of our players are already showing some genuine improvement across the board (yes, save for a few!) and once we gel better and gain some confidence then some more wins will come.

It's a bright future ahead, finally, but it's still going to take patience and a little bit of luck to get there.

[DemonOX 8,791]

Brilliant.

That was deliberate bloody spell check nearly fixed it.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

You think the players have attitude issues, yet you refuse to acknowledge positives when they're staring you in the face.

Classic.

Not at all. But after watching the 2nd Q the players must realize that a golden opportunity was lost.

They should have won. But instead are 1-4

[ICU2 Jerry Jerry 257]

We won 3 of the 4 quarters

sitting 9th for total quarters won this year is a massive improvement

Edited April 21, 2014 by ICU2 Jerry Jerry

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Not at all. But after watching the 2nd Q the players must realize that a golden opportunity was lost.

They should have won. But instead are 1-4

Right. So we had a golden opportunity to win. We even 'should' have won.

That's two positives right there. In previous years we only 'should' have won when we actually won, and even then we were lucky.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,400]

Nathan Jones needs to be the highest paid player at our club.

We also simply must keep Frawley.

pay him the $800, front end it , I was originally against it but with what's happened with Clark retiring and many others either not trying or not good enough I say pay him. Viney, Tyson and co are still very young there won't be putting their hands up for big money for a couple of years.

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

pay him the $800, front end it , I was originally against it but with what's happened with Clark retiring and many others either not trying or not good enough I say pay him. Viney, Tyson and co are still very young there won't be putting their hands up for big money for a couple of years.

Jones needs to be paid what he is worth.

Never complains, never throws tantrums for more money, or dangles himself out to other clubs to put pressure on the MFC to sign a deal he wants. Just gets on with it and appreciates playing professional footy. Already now, a legend of the club and we still have the joy of watching him do his thing for at least another 5 years!

Frawley, i don't mind paying him $700k plus, i like him as a forward and he will get better.

Edited April 21, 2014 by The Song Formerly Known As

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

Right. So we had a golden opportunity to win. We even 'should' have won.

That's two positives right there. In previous years we only 'should' have won when we actually won, and even then we were lucky.

But it didn't happen.

Sure we have improved since the Neeld debacle but those two years should be wiped from earths history.

What i am saying is the lazy and insipid way the team played in the 2nd Q negated any positive for the rest of the game.

The 2nd Q was "Neeldesque"

We lost by 8 points. Big deal.

A 4 quarter effort should have been a 4-5 goal victory.

So i do not consider the game a positive.

If i work an 8 hour day but completely stuff up for 2 hours when i am aware of accepted procedure is that a positive day for the company?

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,400]

You were starting to loose me with your first reply, but I get where you are coming from with the second and agree. It wasn't McDonalds best game yesterday but when Garland comes back along with Dunn and Georgio we have the makings of a good back six. I Read that Toumpas was playing back flank for Casey. We need some class off half back. When Hogan debuts hopefully alongside both Chip and Dawes we still have out three talls up forward. Still a chance to rattle some teams in the second half of the year.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Al's Demons