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

Yeah, after that WCE game I am sure the reviews would have contained 22 'ticks' with players doing exactly as they should...

All players get feedback. At the moment they are making the feedback for fringe players available to the public.

I would like to know why the distinction.

Yeah, after that WCE game I am sure the reviews would have contained 22 'ticks' with players doing exactly as they should...

All players get feedback. At the moment they are making the feedback for fringe players available to the public.

I would like to know why the distinction.

I am going to go to training again next week before they leave for Alice, who would you like me to ask and what, it seems to be getting to you

I am going to go to training again next week before they leave for Alice, who would you like me to ask and what, it seems to be getting to you

Yeah sure!

When you are asking it you can ask it in a less condescending manner!

Yeah sure!

When you are asking it you can ask it in a less condescending manner!

I am trying to get you information, it's not condescending, you seem to be overly concerned (in my opinion) that players are not being treated equally, if you want a question answered I'll ask them, I usually get an honest answer

I think rfpc's point is a legitimate question. I'm not sure I agree with him, though, but I can see where he's coming from. Which raises in my mind the question of whether the difference in approach for AFL and VFL player reviews (public v non-public) and the content of the VFL reviews themselves are part of a grander strategic approach or just the way the cards have fallen.

Two years ago I would have said that it was an unplanned approach which just happened to have this outcome. Now I'm happy to say that it's quite possible that this is a deliberate strategy. Whether we agree with the strategy or not (and clearly some do and others don't) it's nice to think that perhaps there is a grand plan in place.

I get where you're coming from rpfc, in the interest of fairness etc. I do however think this type of feedback is arguably more important for the fringe players as they are the ones trying to break into the side and have been given instructions on what they need to do to achieve that.

The outstanding majority of us don't get to watch Casey, so this is our means for tracking performance and the appraisals provide the story behind the stats. They are just more honest than they have been in the past, and I don't think they are tipping over into the area of ridicule (which is how I interpreted Welsh's comments as they were printed).

Watching MFC games, we can use our eyes to determine if players are or aren't working hard enough defensively.

I also doubt the Casey boys would have much of an issue with theirs being made public. They have bigger fish to fry.

Yeah sure!

When you are asking it you can ask it in a less condescending manner!

I agree with your general thrust but you asking people to be less condescenting show a remarkable lack of self awareness.

I am trying to get you information, it's not condescending, you seem to be overly concerned (in my opinion) that players are not being treated equally, if you want a question answered I'll ask them, I usually get an honest answer

I had an argument with you last year about how Rookies were treated under Neeld but also in the AFL at large.

As he has moved on - that Rookie that I was talking about last year was Nathan Stark. Some of the things told to a family member of mine directly from Nathan didn't just imply a hierarchy amongst the players - it confirmed it as institutionalised by the coaching, medical, and conditioning staff.

I hope Roos tore down those walls - but I just see these VFL Reviews - without an AFL equivalent - as an archaic division that I see little need for.

I agree with your general thrust but you asking people to be less condescenting show a remarkable lack of self awareness.

Fair call. This is just one of my little bugbears of the last couple of years due to connections.

Sorry rfpc, but what do you mean by "an archaic division"?

I had an argument with you last year about how Rookies were treated under Neeld but also in the AFL at large.

As he has moved on - that Rookie that I was talking about last year was Nathan Stark. Some of the things told to a family member of mine directly from Nathan didn't just imply a hierarchy amongst the players - it confirmed it as institutionalised by the coaching, medical, and conditioning staff.

I hope Roos tore down those walls - but I just see these VFL Reviews - without an AFL equivalent - as an archaic division that I see little need for.

I agree. There's something strange about public reviews for the lesser players but not for the top players.

It's why I think they should switch to the Sydney style of just picking select players to review - outstanding games, those close to senior selection etc.

Or even no VFL review for players in their first 2 years (or just one year). Roos has talked about young players just coming in and training and learning how to be an elite footballer. Public critical reviews seems to go against that theory.

I want honest reviews. And the likes of Evans, McKenzie, Michie, Blease should be knocking the door down to play and if they aren't then I understand us fans should hear why.

But I'm not convinced Jayden Hunt who's come in from school footy as a super raw prospect needs his games analysed.

I had an argument with you last year about how Rookies were treated under Neeld but also in the AFL at large.

As he has moved on - that Rookie that I was talking about last year was Nathan Stark. Some of the things told to a family member of mine directly from Nathan didn't just imply a hierarchy amongst the players - it confirmed it as institutionalised by the coaching, medical, and conditioning staff.

I hope Roos tore down those walls - but I just see these VFL Reviews - without an AFL equivalent - as an archaic division that I see little need for.

It wasn't an argument per se you made a categorical statement which went against everything I had been told and saw, we both have sources of information, but we also both have to temper what we have been told, in a couple of instances from last year, with the wonderful hindsight I now know I was lied to, but hey that's in the past move on

I think it may be part of a strategy, any coach (as we have seen in the past) can say anything and we have to take it on face value, Roos has continually stated he is trying to build a 'culture' (a word I personally hate) with standards that have to be met, if you are playing in the AFL side consistently it means you are meeting those standards consistently, if you are not you are told, the supporters are told, the media are told what you need to do to reach those standards......there are no chinese whispers about players not being picked because the Coach doesn't like him, or cliques of players deciding who should or who shouldn't be in the team..........

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.

If a father wants to attend the birth of their child how does that make them soft?

If you do not want to attend the birth of your child that is your decision. I may have my opinion of what that says about you, but in the end it is your decision.

And if you think that Nathan Jones has not given 100% to the MFC for many years and deserves to be able to take 1 game off then I think time has passed you by.

Nathan Jones is not soft. He has my respect.

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

Frawley for Dawes if he's fit, but I think Jetta will come in.

He's good on small forwards, missed last week only through illness, it's indigenous round, plus he features on the website wearing the jumper.

It wasn't an argument per se you made a categorical statement which went against everything I had been told and saw, we both have sources of information, but we also both have to temper what we have been told, in a couple of instances from last year, with the wonderful hindsight I now know I was lied to, but hey that's in the past move on

I think it may be part of a strategy, any coach (as we have seen in the past) can say anything and we have to take it on face value, Roos has continually stated he is trying to build a 'culture' (a word I personally hate) with standards that have to be met, if you are playing in the AFL side consistently it means you are meeting those standards consistently, if you are not you are told, the supporters are told, the media are told what you need to do to reach those standards......there are no chinese whispers about players not being picked because the Coach doesn't like him, or cliques of players deciding who should or who shouldn't be in the team..........

I don't agree Saty. I don't think we get an explanation as to why players are dropped from the seniors and we don't get a critique on how each senior player performs.

I've little idea why McKenzie was dropped, or Michie. I don't know why Riley was promoted ahead of McKenzie. And I don't think I'm entitled to know.

RPFC's point is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I agree but think the comments should be tempered. GRRM's comments are also well made. The perception that the senior players are scrutinized by the media and public in a way Casey players aren't misses the point. The critique by the media is worth an opinion but public comment by the players employer is in an entirely different bracket.

Many supporters and the vast majority of posters here were in favour of Neeld's hard approach when he arrived. It was clearly wrong which some called very early. I think the directness of Allison's comments were a mistake.

Not sure why it's so much of an issue. The AFL industry, pretty much as a whole now provides specific information about some, but most of the time, all of their players playing in the lower grades. There is obviously a real or perceived high level of interest in that level of information, presented in that way. If there was an equally high level of interest in individual player reports from the seniors, I think it would happen. If you want the senior critique made public, start a campaign and try and get it done. Maybe, for most people, they are happy enough to make up there own mind about the seniors because they can see it for themselves.

If the players have a problem with it, they can take it up with the AFLPA and try and get it stopped, but it's been happening for a while now so maybe the players are fine with it.

Some seem to prefer the meaningless and less than honest stuff we got given in the past which hinted that all our players were knocking on the door of selection every week. I like hearing the honest stuff and the same stuff that would have already been presented to the players.

I don't agree Saty. I don't think we get an explanation as to why players are dropped from the seniors and we don't get a critique on how each senior player performs.

I've little idea why McKenzie was dropped, or Michie. I don't know why Riley was promoted ahead of McKenzie. And I don't think I'm entitled to know.

RPFC's point is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I agree but think the comments should be tempered. GRRM's comments are also well made. The perception that the senior players are scrutinized by the media and public in a way Casey players aren't misses the point. The critique by the media is worth an opinion but public comment by the players employer is in an entirely different bracket.

Many supporters and the vast majority of posters here were in favour of Neeld's hard approach when he arrived. It was clearly wrong which some called very early. I think the directness of Allison's comments were a mistake.

I know exactly why Michie and McKenzie were dropped and Riley was promoted.

I don't want to keep revisiting the past but the Neeld approach was overblown, there were probably about 6 players who wouldn't buy in to his message, Watts being the most obvious, the rest just wanted to play footy, there were way more other issues in the last couple of years than just being shouted at

My whole point in this, is we have always had the reviews, in the past posters on here continually whinged about them being fluff pieces, now we get a bit of truth the same posters are now horrified........they are appearing so you can safely assume Roos. Mahoney and Jackson do not have an issue, and if it is ok with them it's ok with me

I know exactly why Michie and McKenzie were dropped and Riley was promoted.

I don't want to keep revisiting the past but the Neeld approach was overblown,

It's good you know why Michie and McKenzie were dropped and Riley was promoted but we don't. You have information that others don't so don't confuse your position with the point RPFC is making.

And for the record Neeld's approach wasn't overblown. I also know both players and FD personnel and he was a disaster. You only have to look at how much happier the players are under Roos (before we were winning) to know how bad Neeld was. I'm over the Neeld bashing but let's not ignore what happened.

And for the record I've never complained about previous player reviews being puff pieces but I'm against the frankness of Alison's reviews this week. And I'll retain my independence of thought about what happens at the club. That doesn't mean I'm anything but supportive of Roos, Jackson or Mahoney.

I don't think Neeld's approach can in any way be defended. Jamar's recent comments about how refreshing it was to be "treated like men" could not have been more blatant in its message.

I don't see Allison's comments as being in the same ballpark as Neeld's inadequacies as a communicator.

It's good you know why Michie and McKenzie were dropped and Riley was promoted but we don't. You have information that others don't so don't confuse your position with the point RPFC is making.

And for the record Neeld's approach wasn't overblown. I also know both players and FD personnel and he was a disaster. You only have to look at how much happier the players are under Roos (before we were winning) to know how bad Neeld was. I'm over the Neeld bashing but let's not ignore what happened.

And for the record I've never complained about previous player reviews being puff pieces but I'm against the frankness of Alison's reviews this week. And I'll retain my independence of thought about what happens at the club. That doesn't mean I'm anything but supportive of Roos, Jackson or Mahoney.

BB, don't mind this at all, it is healthy debate, I did pass on the info on Michie and McKenzie in other topics, Riley was rewarded for his absolute dedication when coming back from a broken leg and putting 4 or 5 consistemt games together and doing exactly what he was told to do

There are a couple of players that are not happy under the Roos regime, but you will always get that there are 46 of them, every workplace is like that (that is what formed the basis for the Welsh statement about whingeing)

Sorry rfpc, but what do you mean by "an archaic division"?

A separation of players based on who plays in the seniors.

If you play in the seniors you are treated differently.

This is all about development of players (which I would argue is a list 45 deep but even if we just take those not yet established AFL players) - which is what Allison's job involves, and why we have these reviews made available.

Roos (thankfully) has said that 'you can develop' in the seconds.

Those players are to be critiqued by the Head of Development and released to the website. But if you are playing AFL and developing - the Head of Development's review is not released to the website.

'They are already playing AFL' is not a sufficient reason for me.

But I have said my piece. I will let it go for now.

A separation of players based on who plays in the seniors.

If you play in the seniors you are treated differently.

This is all about development of players (which I would argue is a list 45 deep but even if we just take those not yet established AFL players) - which is what Allison's job involves, and why we have these reviews made available.

Roos (thankfully) has said that 'you can develop' in the seconds.

Those players are to be critiqued by the Head of Development and released to the website. But if you are playing AFL and developing - the Head of Development's review is not released to the website.

'They are already playing AFL' is not a sufficient reason for me.

But I have said my piece. I will let it go for now.

Thanks, and apologies for mis-spelling your nom de plume. As I said before, I appreciate where you are coming from.

So there are two issues here. The first is the content and the second is the scope. The general consensus appears to be that if the club is going to do this then the honest 'warts and all' approach is best. However, is it fair just to target, or at least, be seen to be targetting, a select group of players, being those that are not playing in the seniors?

For what it's worth, I prefer the honest approach and the targetted scope. In other words, the status quo.

I expect frawley and jetta to come in that's all. Roosy doesn't try to change the team to much.

For those saying about Jones missing the birth it isn't for another 6 weeks. Hopefully she comes early. But look at the type of guy Jones is. Of course he will be at the birth of his first child and good on him on being there for his wife and giving her his full support. Plus touch wood this never happens but not all births go according to plan. Things can happen to cause distress to the mother. Also its his first. he'd never miss it and people shouldn't expect him to.

Reading the Casey player reviews, as a fan I really loved the honest frankness for a change. As a fan I'd love to see that for the AFL side too.

However I can't help but think that, going into battle, the last thing you need is the enemy knowing what your coaches think (not to mention your coaches diverting time to writing stuff for public consumption anyway and its psychological effect on the players). So, as much as I'd love reading the coaches factual player reviews, I'd be dead against them being shown anywhere, other than to the players and other coaches, and only if Roos wanted that.

I think the main short-term purpose to the way that Allison's appraisals are written and presented on the website is to let us know why the Casey players aren't in the firsts and what they have to do to get back there. It does also point out he parts of each player's game that the coaches are pleased with. The overall tone is constructive; it's not just criticism for the sake of criticism. Every one of the 44 on the list wants to play in the firsts - the appraisals are about what those who aren't there have to do to get there.

In the light of this clear evidence before us that each player at Casey should know exactly why they aren't in the firsts, it's a concern if some are complaining to the Casey coach about it. Because these appraisals also show us week to week who's working on what they need to do, and who isn't. And this may well play a part in determining who remains on the list for 2015 and who doesn't.

The appraisals also give us a great insight into what's expected of every player at the club - the famous "non-negotiables". In the games we've been smashed against really good teams (Hawks in pre-season, then WCE) our game just fell apart and it seemed like every player just stopped doing the "non-negotiables". Port will be a big test to see if we can keep the "non-negotiables" going the whole game, even if we can't keep up with them.

Oh, and Saty ... do you really believe that Watts was the main one of a small minority of players who "simply refused to buy in" to whatever it was that Neeld was trying to do? If so, that's a mind-blowingly superficial take on a very complex situation. You really need to be more aware when you're not getting the whole story - or, as in this particular case, anything that even remotely resembles the whole story. Remarks such as Jamar's should give you a clue.