But you lot with your 'it's only footy' must be having a laugh. Representing the MFC in the AFL is no trivial matter. Particularly if youe are captain of the side looking at 3 best and fairests on the trot. Footy is important. That's why you lot are on this site every day. Let's not pretend Nathan Jones is in the same boat as you cubicle warriors and your midlle management paper shuffling gigs

He could be a cult leader and miss 6 games to attend the births of his spawn and still win the B&F by the length of the Davidian compound.

Edit: Why didn't I go with Jonestown??

I think Jetta will come in and I don't think his inclusion creates any problems for the line-up considering he would have played last week with the aforementioned 6 other defenders, if not for gastro.

To me that indicates that he is being used as a shut down player in general, not just in the defensive half.

I think the fact that he was replaced by Toumpas supports this view.

Chip should come in for Dawes, obviously, to give us that extra leading forward while Gawn provides the deep option again.

I think Toumpas could come out, as he did some nice things, but didn't get enough of the ball for mine, and wasn't the defensive presence that Jetta provides. Give that defensive pressure is now our calling card, Jetta would have to come in.

I think Salem needs to be given another full game. JKH's first full game wasn't great, but he built from there. I think Salem should be managed the same way.

So for me, it's minimal change:

In: Jetta/Frawley

Out: Toumpas/Dawes (suspension)

well Dawes being out makes things difficult as Port has so many goalkicking options getting the right match-ups is important

Mcdonald - Westhoff

Garland - Wingard (been spending high % of game time deep forward and garlands our best defender on the midsized players)

Jetta - Monfries/Gray

Dunn/Frawley - Schulz

Not sure how confident I'd be with Dunn on Schulz which would allow Chip to go forward but I do see that's how we'll start and maybe they'll swing around and dunny'l go forward.

FB: Jetta - Dunn - Garland

HB: Howe - McDonald - Terlich

C: Grimes - N.Jones - Viney

HF: Watts - Frawley - Bail

FF: Pederson - Gawn - JKH

FOL: Jamar - Tyson - Vince

INT: Cross - M.Jones - Riley

SUB: Toumpas

IN: Frawley, Jetta

OUT: Dawes, Salem,

We are talking about his impact as a forward. That is where he will play probably 70% of his game after all. Our forwardline would have been too tall with Gawn, Dawes and Frawley and thats no disrespect to big Maxy. Dawes out now makes it a non discussion.

If that is so, why were we all so excited about the forward set up of Clark, Dawes and Hogan. Surely Gawn, Dawes and Frawley would not be all that different? In fact it would be a little smaller, and Frawley is more mobile than any of Dawes, Clark or hogan.

I can't see your logic.

In: Jetta/Frawley

Out: Toumpas/Dawes (suspension)

Pretty much right for me. Minimal changes, Jetta needs to come in for his defensive ability and Frawley does a straight swap for Dawes.

Pretty much right for me. Minimal changes, Jetta needs to come in for his defensive ability and Frawley does a straight swap for Dawes.

I'd keep the Toump and drop Salem. The assumption seems to be Frawley will be fit and if so of course straight in. If not it will be fascinating to see who they go with. It won't be Fitz. Maybe Pedo stays up forward and they bring Kent in for some half forward action (though he got a bit of a bake in in the VFL player review)

well Dawes being out makes things difficult as Port has so many goalkicking options getting the right match-ups is important

Mcdonald - Westhoff

Garland - Wingard (been spending high % of game time deep forward and garlands our best defender on the midsized players)

Jetta - Monfries/Gray

Dunn/Frawley - Schulz

Not sure how confident I'd be with Dunn on Schulz which would allow Chip to go forward but I do see that's how we'll start and maybe they'll swing around and dunny'l go forward.

FB: Jetta - Dunn - Garland

HB: Howe - McDonald - Terlich

C: Grimes - N.Jones - Viney

HF: Watts - Frawley - Bail

FF: Pederson - Gawn - JKH

FOL: Jamar - Tyson - Vince

INT: Cross - M.Jones - Riley

SUB: Toumpas

IN: Frawley, Jetta

OUT: Dawes, Salem,

I agree with these changes, but Toumpas to start the game. M Jones as sub to provide some run towards the end.

Daytime temperatures for the next week I Alice range 27-29 degrees; nights in low teens. Great footy weather.

It is his choice. Wether he plays or doesn't, who's to judge?

Attendance at a birth is a very personal choice - it means a lot to some couples and some individuals and not to others.

Totally agree Steve re Jordie but also how you see them going with their selections.

On the player review it is amazingly critical of players. Blimey. Only three players didn't get a bake - Jordie, Barry and Westrupp (who was in the development league). Also the review of individual players is very specific about what they did wrong and what they need to do to be considered for senior selection (or in some cases get anywhere near the frame for a call up eg Blease and Strauss who by the sounds of it are miles away)

Players in the VFL can be under no illusions about what they have to do to play in the big show.

Link

As a result of this post, i read the appraisals of the Casey players. I must say i am very pleased. Having a senior corporate background, one of frustrations of senior management is that often appraisals are not realistic in what they tell staff. Often they prefer to tell then what they think they want to hear. This helps neither the company, nor the individual. These feedbacks told it the way it was. None of these players could be under any illusion about what is required. Very Roos culture i would have thought, and a primary reason why we have improved so much.

Well done (yet again) to the Roos/Jackson regime.

As a result of this post, i read the appraisals of the Casey players. I must say i am very pleased. Having a senior corporate background, one of frustrations of senior management is that often appraisals are not realistic in what they tell staff. Often they prefer to tell then what they think they want to hear. This helps neither the company, nor the individual. These feedbacks told it the way it was. None of these players could be under any illusion about what is required. Very Roos culture i would have thought, and a primary reason why we have improved so much.

Well done (yet again) to the Roos/Jackson regime.

agree 1000% .. there is no sugar coating whatsoever in that review, which is exactly the way it should be

As a result of this post, i read the appraisals of the Casey players. I must say i am very pleased. Having a senior corporate background, one of frustrations of senior management is that often appraisals are not realistic in what they tell staff. Often they prefer to tell then what they think they want to hear. This helps neither the company, nor the individual. These feedbacks told it the way it was. None of these players could be under any illusion about what is required. Very Roos culture i would have thought, and a primary reason why we have improved so much.

Well done (yet again) to the Roos/Jackson regime.

I'm not sure how comfortable I would be as a player with (one of) the coach(es) posting his feedback in such a public fashion, but I agree with you in principle.

As a supporter I find Allison's reports greatly insightful.

agree 1000% .. there is no sugar coating whatsoever in that review, which is exactly the way it should be

I agree, though its an interesting approach to make them so public. One assumes though the private reviews are a bit more 'robust'

As a result of this post, i read the appraisals of the Casey players. I must say i am very pleased. Having a senior corporate background, one of frustrations of senior management is that often appraisals are not realistic in what they tell staff. Often they prefer to tell then what they think they want to hear. This helps neither the company, nor the individual. These feedbacks told it the way it was. None of these players could be under any illusion about what is required. Very Roos culture i would have thought, and a primary reason why we have improved so much.

Well done (yet again) to the Roos/Jackson regime.

It's in stark contrast to the fluffy reviews of the past which have basically said nothing at all.

I'm not sure how comfortable I would be as a player with (one of) the coach(es) posting his feedback in such a public fashion, but I agree with you in principle.

As a supporter I find Allison's reports greatly insightful.

The disconnect here is that this type of feedback is only for the fringe players that find themselves in the VFL.

If they are going to continue to be as honest with these as the one I just read - they should do them for the AFL as well.

It doesn't sit comfortably with me that we are publicly appraising fringe players and not senior players.

As a result of this post, i read the appraisals of the Casey players. I must say i am very pleased. Having a senior corporate background, one of frustrations of senior management is that often appraisals are not realistic in what they tell staff. Often they prefer to tell then what they think they want to hear. This helps neither the company, nor the individual. These feedbacks told it the way it was. None of these players could be under any illusion about what is required. Very Roos culture i would have thought, and a primary reason why we have improved so much.

Well done (yet again) to the Roos/Jackson regime.

The disconnect here is that this type of feedback is only for the fringe players that find themselves in the VFL.

If they are going to continue to be as honest with these as the one I just read - they should do them for the AFL as well.

It doesn't sit comfortably with me that we are publicly appraising fringe players and not senior players.

Nor me. I'm really uncomfortable about public appraisals. In relation to Dees2014's comment, I would expect that as a 'senior manager', he/she would be able to train their subordinates to realistically appraise their staff. The responsibility for his/her subordinates' performance ultimately rests with Dees2014. As a former colleague of mine once said (and as Paul Roos is proving), there's no such thing as bad players, just bad coaches.

man, this game is so far away, i'm taking a break and gonna worry about it next week.

We will win

Nor me. I'm really uncomfortable about public appraisals. In relation to Dees2014's comment, I would expect that as a 'senior manager', he/she would be able to train their subordinates to realistically appraise their staff. The responsibility for his/her subordinates' performance ultimately rests with Dees2014. As a former colleague of mine once said (and as Paul Roos is proving), there's no such thing as bad players, just bad coaches.

I agree it is management's job to ensure processes are followed in respect to how a performance management system is handled, but if you are running an international business with several thousand people in it you have to rely on your middle management to get the job done, and that is where mostly the "sugar coating" takes place. What pleased me about these reports is that what is clearly being practiced in the senior team now also seems to be practiced in the subordinate team as well. There has been plenty of criticism of Casey on here that they somehow are divorced from the MFC and do not buy in to the Roos gameplan and how he wants the club to be run. Well this is proof that at least in this aspect of performance management that the Roos formula is very much being folllowed.

As far as publishing criticism is concerned, I think it is fair enough in this instance as it is information for supporters and sponsors. This thread is an example of the way supporters constantly speculate about team selections. It gives specific information on which this debate can be based, and clarifies very clearly why people are no getting promotion to the firsts. It also I think is good for those players because the supporters then know what they are supposed to be working on, and when they get it right they then become all the more credible.

I was there for the conception of my three( I think)

That was enough for me and it should be for Nathan.

I agree with these changes, but Toumpas to start the game. M Jones as sub to provide some run towards the end.

Or, just have him provide run ALL game, as he has every game this year.

The VFL review this week doesn't mince words! Very critical of many players. By the way what is defensive transition?

The VFL review this week doesn't mince words! Very critical of many players. By the way what is defensive transition?

I see it as running back to get numbers in the backline and block space making it as difficult as possible for the opposition to get the ball forward cleanly, running forward to attack but then getting on your bike and getting back to help out the defence.

I think many here have very skewed views on what should be a priority in life in respect to Jones attending the birth of his firstborn. Nathan Jones' football career will take up just a small part of his life. His family will always be there, and the birth of each child is a once in a lifetime occasion.

Jones should be putting the most important things in his life first when it comes to events like this. I support the club, and am a paid up member, but I'd want all of our players to feel free to miss a game for the birth of their child. The birth of a child is more important than a game of football. Can you imagine if there were complications during the birth......how do you think he'd feel if he chose to be playing football as opposed to be by the side of his wife.

And Jones' first child isn't due until JULY!!!! So lets' move on shall we.

very skewed views

definition of 'very skewed' = 'views that are not the same as mine'

The reviews are very honest and I like it. What is the point on telling the players one thing (the honest appraisal) and then publically saying all is well and they're doing great? I doubt the player is going to make it long term if they get all precious about public, honest appraisals, especially if it identical to what they are being told privately.

They don't need to do it publically for the seniors because nearly all the supporters get to see the game themselves, although maybe it would be insightful to see how the actual coaches view things.

The weekly appraisals the AFL over for the seconds (for want of a better word these days) are notoriously fluffy and dishonest. Everyone who reads them thinks their team is chock full of super talented kids who are all tearing it up in the lower leagues and every player is really close to senior selection. I am glad we are no longer doing it that way.