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.

Fans can't see Brett Allison's honest assessment of the AFL players. That's what we are talking about here.

And there is no 'maybe' about it - it would be insightful to read the coaches feedback - but unless they are going to release the honest feedback for all listed players it is unfair to publicly harangue fringe players in isolation.

It's part of the relationships they are trying to build where they can be honest about flaws and such

Fans can't see Brett Allison's honest assessment of the AFL players. That's what we are talking about here.

And there is no 'maybe' about it - it would be insightful to read the coaches feedback - but unless they are going to release the honest feedback for all listed players it is unfair to publicly harangue fringe players in isolation.

I don't think they should show frank assessments of the AFL players, it may be an advantage to opposition sides if they knew too much inside info. VFL no such problem.

I don't think they should show frank assessments of the AFL players, it may be an advantage to opposition sides if they knew too much inside info. VFL no such problem.

That's probably the core of it, mandee. In general, the more information that can be released to club members and other supporters, the better - we are key stakeholders. We should be given information unless there are good reasons for withholding it - mostly considerations of privacy and tactics. I expect the club management knew about Mitch's illness for some time before it became public, but it was rightly withheld.

I don't think they should show frank assessments of the AFL players, it may be an advantage to opposition sides if they knew too much inside info. VFL no such problem.

Seriously? Those appraisals are simply comments on the workrate and decision making of the players - nothing to do with the tactics used.

I think you are looking for reasons why we can't have an honest AFL equivalent reviews of players. Maybe the AFLPA forbid it? I don't know but I would love to know because it is an interesting vehicle to entrench the various standards we have for certain players; if you are good enough you escape a public appraisal of your performance from the coaching staff. If you happen to find yourself in the reserves - no such luck.

The reason might be no more than there is no perceived demand for coaches reports for senior games. Very few supporters see the reserves play and there is relatively very little media coverage, so the clubs have decided to communicate as honestly as they see fit about how those players in the seconds are going.

If enough supporters want and ask to see coaches appraisals of the seniors maybe they will get it. I'd say most supporters are currently happy watching the game and reading and watching the media coverage in the days following. Maybe it could become a members only perk?

The AFLPA would represent all players and I doubt they would forbid it for the seniors but allow it for the reserves.

Seriously? Those appraisals are simply comments on the workrate and decision making of the players - nothing to do with the tactics used.

I think you are looking for reasons why we can't have an honest AFL equivalent reviews of players. Maybe the AFLPA forbid it? I don't know but I would love to know because it is an interesting vehicle to entrench the various standards we have for certain players; if you are good enough you escape a public appraisal of your performance from the coaching staff. If you happen to find yourself in the reserves - no such luck.

I couldn't agree more that what is good for the Casey players is good for the senior players. There should not be two sets of rules for the same category of player. Where I differ is that the "frankness" of the assessment should remain in house for all.

Rather than say Michael Evans defensive transition was "His defensive transition was non-existent and he just went away from the team things" it could easily have been reworded to say "dropped off" in the second half. Same message, much less publicly critical. If the club want to inform members that the Casey players failed to defend in accordance with team rules then make a general statement without identifying an individual. If someone like Jordie doesn't deserve that sort of critique then make a positive comment about Jordie, not individually harsh comments about other players.

Seriously? Those appraisals are simply comments on the workrate and decision making of the players - nothing to do with the tactics used.

I think you are looking for reasons why we can't have an honest AFL equivalent reviews of players. Maybe the AFLPA forbid it? I don't know but I would love to know because it is an interesting vehicle to entrench the various standards we have for certain players; if you are good enough you escape a public appraisal of your performance from the coaching staff. If you happen to find yourself in the reserves - no such luck.

From Dean Kents review,

He was an influential player on the ground, but his laziness with his ball use really hurt the team at times. Defensively, it’s also an area, he can really tidy up too, like finding a man quickly when the opposition has the ball.

Opposition player "Being a bit lazy aren't we Kenty! Coaches don't think you hurt opposition teams Kent. Don't forget to find a man Kent. You know you'll get dropped if you don't find a man Kenty. They're watching you and you just stuffed up, back to the ressies Kent"

From Dean Kents review,

He was an influential player on the ground, but his laziness with his ball use really hurt the team at times. Defensively, it’s also an area, he can really tidy up too, like finding a man quickly when the opposition has the ball.

Opposition player "Being a bit lazy aren't we Kenty! Coaches don't think you hurt opposition teams Kent. Don't forget to find a man Kent. You know you'll get dropped if you don't find a man Kenty. They're watching you and you just stuffed up, back to the ressies Kent"

Good, I hope that happens. Might change the habits of a lazy player, don't you think?

My team for Port

B: Jetta Mcdonald Garland

HB: Howe Dunn Grimes

C: Vince Viney Cross

HF: Watts Gawn JKH

F: Pederson Frawley Bail

Foll: Jamar, N Jones, Tyson

INT: Matt Jones, Riley, Terlich

Sub: Salem

Demonland never ceases to amaze me. Last year people were complaining that the reviews of VFL players was too soft, this year the reviews are too critical. Great entertainment though.

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

Senior players are appraised publicly by all and sundry through being exposed to all and sundry via match day, TV, replays, reviews etc. etc. (… think back to Roos's 3/4 time spray to Watts and Howe)

Casey players are, for the most part, under no public scrutiny at all. As such, I see Allison's feedback as information for fans who are interested.

I also feel that Allison's feedback is responsible and constructive - for every criticism, there's a positive and a note of encouragement. As it should be and would be in any professional environment.

Re Jones/baby:

That some here think that Nathan should be out kicking a ball around while his wife is in labour just beggars belief.

I wouldn't change anything, except the forced change. Frawley in for Dawes. The rest of the team should remain the same.

Demonland never ceases to amaze me. Last year people were complaining that the reviews of VFL players was too soft, this year the reviews are too critical. Great entertainment though.

Not the same people. People have differing views - funny, that.

Re Jones/baby:

That some here think that Nathan should be out kicking a ball around while his wife is in labour just beggars belief.

I don't think he should be .

I expect him to.

If I was playing for Australia in Cricket or MFC in footy ,I would leave it to the midwives .

The softness of this modern generation makes me puke- and then eat it- and then puke - and then eat it.Just because I can.

I don't think he should be .

I expect him to.

If I was playing for Australia in Cricket or MFC in footy ,I would leave it to the midwives .

The softness of this modern generation makes me puke- and then eat it- and then puke - and then eat it.Just because I can.

This thread does not require your views on recycling Biffen! Stay on topic please!

I'm sure you missed a few of the births of your neighbours children in Romsey ,when you really should have been there.

I'm sure you missed a few of the births of your neighbours children in Romsey ,when you really should have been there.

I was there at the important moments.

Not the same people. People have differing views - funny, that.

Sorry Nasher wasn't suggesting that it was the same people. Just how entertaining Demonland can be, we'll worth the subscription fees. Hours of fun.

I couldn't agree more that what is good for the Casey players is good for the senior players. There should not be two sets of rules for the same category of player. Where I differ is that the "frankness" of the assessment should remain in house for all.

Rather than say Michael Evans defensive transition was "His defensive transition was non-existent and he just went away from the team things" it could easily have been reworded to say "dropped off" in the second half. Same message, much less publicly critical. If the club want to inform members that the Casey players failed to defend in accordance with team rules then make a general statement without identifying an individual. If someone like Jordie doesn't deserve that sort of critique then make a positive comment about Jordie, not individually harsh comments about other players.

Keeping it in house is preferable to what it is now.

I am fine with the comments I read about the fringe players - they have work to do. Great. Knew that.

What is so hard about having some similar vague sentences about those 22 lucky enough to play AFL?

Maybe it will help fans understand why players lose their spot, or how a few continue to keep their spot despite the desire for Land to see them dropped. Being critiqued in the paper is not the same as the head of development critiquing you and we all know that. To equate the two is disingenuous.

My basic principle - if it good enough for a fringe player, it's good enough for every player.

Keeping it in house is preferable to what it is now.

Unbelievable. This is not directed specifically at you RPFC - just generally...

We don't get enough information. The club is hiding injury lists.

We get too much information. The club is telling everyone about our underperforming Casey side.

You can please some of the people some of the time.......

Keeping it in house is preferable to what it is now.

I am fine with the comments I read about the fringe players - they have work to do. Great. Knew that.

What is so hard about having some similar vague sentences about those 22 lucky enough to play AFL?

Maybe it will help fans understand why players lose their spot, or how a few continue to keep their spot despite the desire for Land to see them dropped. Being critiqued in the paper is not the same as the head of development critiquing you and we all know that. To equate the two is disingenuous.

My basic principle - if it good enough for a fringe player, it's good enough for every player.

I already covered this in another topic a couple of weeks ago, I asked Burgo about it, and he wasn't free to even tell me the reasons why they can't do it, assume there are a myriad of reasons

But as per Jordie McKenzie, I can usually get the feedback from the players at training as to why they are not getting a spot in the side or why they were dropped, it is the way you ask

I also think we are informed with Roos' presser and the player interviews after game, Roos said "Dawes personally didn't have a very good game, but was still able to influence the team and result",

Unbelievable. This is not directed specifically at you RPFC - just generally...

We don't get enough information. The club is hiding injury lists.

We get too much information. The club is telling everyone about our underperforming Casey side.

You can please some of the people some of the time.......

As I said after that line - I would prefer the informed appraisals of players be extended to AFL players. Some on here were posting like confused sheep dogs wondering why Byrnes was getting a game - a quick review of his game would identify why he is getting a game and may quieten the hordes wishing for his blood.

It shouldn't just be for the 'underperforming Casey side' that 3 and 4 but for the 22 MFC players who are 3 and 6.

And Lincoln said that about fooling people.

I already covered this in another topic a couple of weeks ago, I asked Burgo about it, and he wasn't free to even tell me the reasons why they can't do it, assume there are a myriad of reasons

But as per Jordie McKenzie, I can usually get the feedback from the players at training as to why they are not getting a spot in the side or why they were dropped, it is the way you ask

I also think we are informed with Roos' presser and the player interviews after game, Roos said "Dawes personally didn't have a very good game, but was still able to influence the team and result",

Yes, when it comes to Jones, Dawes, Viney, Watts (too much for this guy), and every other 'banner' player we have - the public feedback is attainable through the traditional media. Even Burgan will be able to coax out a couple more appraisals.

But that is hardly the systematic going over of the all MFC players from a member of the coaching staff released by the club on the website.

Just do it for every player, or do it for none.

As I said after that line - I would prefer the informed appraisals of players be extended to AFL players. Some on here were posting like confused sheep dogs wondering why Byrnes was getting a game - a quick review of his game would identify why he is getting a game and may quieten the hordes wishing for his blood.

It shouldn't just be for the 'underperforming Casey side' that 3 and 4 but for the 22 MFC players who are 3 and 6.

And Lincoln said that about fooling people.

Yes, when it comes to Jones, Dawes, Viney, Watts (too much for this guy), and every other 'banner' player we have - the public feedback is attainable through the traditional media. Even Burgan will be able to coax out a couple more appraisals.

But that is hardly the systematic going over of the all MFC players from a member of the coaching staff released by the club on the website.

Just do it for every player, or do it for none.

Actually I think if you are a regular member of the AFL side then there are no issues with how you are playing, ie you are playing your role and doing exactly what the coaches have told you to do, so there is not much to add, we are all actually liking the fact that Roos makes players earn games, or if they are not performing they are out of the team, Michie, Toumpas, Mc Kenzie and then through Allison's reviews we find out why they were dropped and what they have to do to get back in

Edited May 23, 201411 yr by Satyriconhome