Aiden Riley 24 disposals and 9 tackles.

Bring him in and please for ffs can we actually play him onaller instead of just plonking him on a HFF all day. Get him into the action straight away and get his hands dirty.

Can he run out a full game yet though?

It's all well and good to be strong in the clinches, but we need players that will run hard both ways too.

Either he needs to get his fitness up to speed, or he hasn't yet built a tank big enough, imo.

Aiden Riley 24 disposals and 9 tackles.

Bring him in and please for ffs can we actually play him onaller instead of just plonking him on a HFF all day. Get him into the action straight away and get his hands dirty.

Can he run out a full game yet though?

It's all well and good to be strong in the clinches, but we need players that will run hard both ways too.

Either he needs to get his fitness up to speed, or he hasn't yet built a tank big enough, imo.

Coming off a broken leg, probably won't see him at his best until next season. Having said that he seems to be the only one pushing up for a spot at the moment.

Those afl fantasy - formerly dream team - numbers are taking into account frees for and against, which are +1 and -3 respectively.

Would reduce likely 'scores' a bit I would wager.

The problem with stats are they tell part of the story. What roles were they playing. For example Michie was clearly given a tagging role on 51 for tigers. In my mind it is stupid to put an in and under player in a tagging role. Totally un-natural. Spent far top much time out of position wondering where 51 was rather than doing what he does best. two weeks ago when he was allowed to play his game he got 30. I would bet 80-90% effective.

JKH was wasted in the forward line and clearly did not like it. 30 possies last week when playing his game.

As I have said before the MFC players are clearly dispirited playing in the Casey outfit. I have been to almost all Casey games this year, missed 1 which was on TV, and it is clear the deterioration in their body language. Somebody else said its a toxic place to be and I am now in full agreement.

Will be an interested spectator this week at Bendigo.

The problem with stats are they tell part of the story. What roles were they playing. For example Michie was clearly given a tagging role on 51 for tigers. In my mind it is stupid to put an in and under player in a tagging role. Totally un-natural. Spent far top much time out of position wondering where 51 was rather than doing what he does best. two weeks ago when he was allowed to play his game he got 30. I would bet 80-90% effective.

JKH was wasted in the forward line and clearly did not like it. 30 possies last week when playing his game.

As I have said before the MFC players are clearly dispirited playing in the Casey outfit. I have been to almost all Casey games this year, missed 1 which was on TV, and it is clear the deterioration in their body language. Somebody else said its a toxic place to be and I am now in full agreement.

Will be an interested spectator this week at Bendigo.

The reoccurring theme seems to be that MFC players are being asked to play a variety of roles often outside their preferred role. It doesn't seem to be helping the side but is there some longer term strategy at play because I am sure PR is dictating these moves and a reason R Welsh is peeved? I trust in Roos but it is high risk as players need to build confidence, best done playing to your strengths and then trying to work on weaknesses. We may as well give Blease, Tappy and co a go at the next level to see for sure if they have anything to offer before we have to cut. I still hold some hopes for Blease as he actually has some X factor (and a lot of faults) as compared to our often "vanilla" list of triers in the firsts

Mitchie and JKH can take this treatment this year as it is early days for those two.

Went on Saturday and asked a Casey official to point out Brett Allison as I had no idea what he looked like. He told me he didn't attend this game. Be interested to see what the report says.

Went on Saturday and asked a Casey official to point out Brett Allison as I had no idea what he looked like. He told me he didn't attend this game. Be interested to see what the report says.

They still have footage of the game that Allison would watch, including behind the goals footage that lets you see the whole field and how the structures are working, as opposed to close up TV footage that limits your field of view.

I don't think it's that strange for a coach like him to not attend.

I know that Matthew Knights doesn't attend Geelong VFL matches if the AFL Cats are playing on the same day or interstate, even though he is the Geelong VFL senior coach.

I don't think it's that strange for a coach like him to not attend.

I know that Matthew Knights doesn't attend Geelong VFL matches if the AFL Cats are playing on the same day or interstate, even though he is the Geelong VFL senior coach.

Truly ? I'm staggered at that. I can somewhat get Allison not being at a Casey game because he is not the coach. But Knights as coach of the VFL side not coaching if the Cats play on the same day ?

While there have been numerous discussions about the worth and quality of the allignment recently, in light of the above couple of posts, I think there are other ways the "reserves" could be improved, not only through how Melbourne competes.

I understand the VFL is a competition in it's own right, but now it is practically acting as a reserves competition. Given that the AFL fixture is released very early (late October), surely the VFL fixture could be organised so that the majority of teams/matches don't clash. For example, if the VFL alligned teams played on the same day, or the day after their AFL teams, it would mean players don'thave to sit games out as an emergency. Surely that would improve the VFL by having 10 of its best players playing every week, instead of sitting out just in case.

While there have been numerous discussions about the worth and quality of the allignment recently, in light of the above couple of posts, I think there are other ways the "reserves" could be improved, not only through how Melbourne competes.

I understand the VFL is a competition in it's own right, but now it is practically acting as a reserves competition. Given that the AFL fixture is released very early (late October), surely the VFL fixture could be organised so that the majority of teams/matches don't clash. For example, if the VFL alligned teams played on the same day, or the day after their AFL teams, it would mean players don'thave to sit games out as an emergency. Surely that would improve the VFL by having 10 of its best players playing every week, instead of sitting out just in case.

not to mention having too many byes when they have an even number of teams

not to mention having too many byes when they have an even number of teams

That I could never understand.

Truly ? I'm staggered at that. I can somewhat get Allison not being at a Casey game because he is not the coach. But Knights as coach of the VFL side not coaching if the Cats play on the same day ?

They must have decided he is too valuable for the AFL side on gameday.

As they own their VFL side it is at their discretion.

I think the prevailing attitude is that the assistant coaches are capable of running matchday without him, and the end result of the match to the club is inconsequential - it's more about development of the young AFL listed players, and providing VFL players with an opportunity to get picked up.

This week's review by Brad Miller. Who was, presumably, at the game.

Similar vein, lots of "we're working with xxx to improve that side of his game". Only two to come through unscathed were JKH and Riley.

This week's review by Brad Miller. Who was, presumably, at the game.

Similar vein, lots of "we're working with xxx to improve that side of his game". Only two to come through unscathed were JKH and Riley.

After reading Allison's reports I thought his blunt assessments might just be his style but after reading Miller's report, and the same bluntness, I can only conclude that this public method of critiquing players is a policy of the FD. ( as opposed to "Jeff Kennett going off half cocked at Hawthorn - but hey that's Jeff")

Huge focus on not fumbling and sticking tackles last week

After reading Allison's reports I thought his blunt assessments might just be his style but after reading Miller's report, and the same bluntness, I can only conclude that this public method of critiquing players is a policy of the FD. ( as opposed to "Jeff Kennett going off half cocked at Hawthorn - but hey that's Jeff")

I was all for Allison's reports at the start of the year. The method of those reports was to say a positive of the game, and finalise each player with something they need to work on.

Recently it's turned into public humiliation. The feedback the players are receiving on that, should be a one on one conversation and a general statement given to the public.

Speaking to a Casey player, two weeks ago they did no in-house review of the weekend game. The only feedback they received was a paragraph on the MFC website.

It is poor human management and it's completely unsurprising that no players are pushing for selection, they've got no guidance from above. Their senior coach hasn't attended a game, and the development coaches can't put together a post match synopsis for them.

I love alot of the things this club is doing, but this is Neeldesque ignorance of the lesser players. It's a slippery slope to a discontent squad and I hope Paul has a closer handle of it than weeks gone by.

A Casey player?

Or a MFC-listed player who is currently outside the 22 and has played games at Casey?

Anyway, that is a bit troubling.

It doesn't sound correct.

My concern would be that certain players have been given up on.

I was all for Allison's reports at the start of the year. The method of those reports was to say a positive of the game, and finalise each player with something they need to work on.

Recently it's turned into public humiliation. The feedback the players are receiving on that, should be a one on one conversation and a general statement given to the public.

Speaking to a Casey player, two weeks ago they did no in-house review of the weekend game. The only feedback they received was a paragraph on the MFC website.

It is poor human management and it's completely unsurprising that no players are pushing for selection, they've got no guidance from above. Their senior coach hasn't attended a game, and the development coaches can't put together a post match synopsis for them.

I love alot of the things this club is doing, but this is Neeldesque ignorance of the lesser players. It's a slippery slope to a discontent squad and I hope Paul has a closer handle of it than weeks gone by.

Someone mentioned the other day they saw Roosey at a Casey Game.

A Casey player?

Or a MFC-listed player who is currently outside the 22 and has played games at Casey?

Anyway, that is a bit troubling.

It doesn't sound correct.

My concern would be that certain players have been given up on.

MFC-listed. Outside-best 22 at the moment , is still developing but I did ask was it just you being younger and he said no, all the Casey boys found out how their game went on the weekend at the same time supporters did. He rightfully didn't divulge too much, but without using the words suggested their was disharmony amongst others that once you were at Casey trainings didn't involve you and you didn't feel part of the group. That would suggest your players have been given up on attitude may be right.

I have been an enormous fan of the moves we've made but as mentioned above I do hope we get the 2nds blokes right too. I am so jealous of the Box Hill Hawks and Geelong VFL sides because they play the same system, they have competitive VFL players to support their AFL seconds players and they have excellent systems in place to manage the lower players. Hallahan and Lowden are examples that time in the 2s didn't discourage them. It motivated them. I still don't see this at Casey.

Do any other teams have such confronting VFL reports as ours? I'm not asking that rhetorically.. Genuinely curious as to whether I'm the odd one out on finding this public commenting slightly wrong, if other clubs do it maybe it's just industry standard. I remember you saying Machsy, that you check out other clubs websites, do they do stuff like our reports?

Someone mentioned the other day they saw Roosey at a Casey Game.

They were referring to him saying he watched the game on AFL360, but he later eluded to the fact it was on tape.

MFC-listed. Outside-best 22 at the moment , is still developing but I did ask was it just you being younger and he said no, all the Casey boys found out how their game went on the weekend at the same time supporters did. He rightfully didn't divulge too much, but without using the words suggested their was disharmony amongst others that once you were at Casey trainings didn't involve you and you didn't feel part of the group. That would suggest your players have been given up on attitude may be right.

I have been an enormous fan of the moves we've made but as mentioned above I do hope we get the 2nds blokes right too. I am so jealous of the Box Hill Hawks and Geelong VFL sides because they play the same system, they have competitive VFL players to support their AFL seconds players and they have excellent systems in place to manage the lower players. Hallahan and Lowden are examples that time in the 2s didn't discourage them. It motivated them. I still don't see this at Casey.

Do any other teams have such confronting VFL reports as ours? I'm not asking that rhetorically.. Genuinely curious as to whether I'm the odd one out on finding this public commenting slightly wrong, if other clubs do it maybe it's just industry standard. I remember you saying Machsy, that you check out other clubs websites, do they do stuff like our reports?

My issue with it is - I find it completely unnecessary.

The players should receive feedback and it should be done one on one.

The only the positives I can see for this method is for the supporters and as you have pointed out - I can only see a negative for the players.

I will repeat - I have performance reviews but it isn't published in the company newsletter.

So I have had a look at other club websites.

Carlton and Geelong seemed to ignore VFL altogether.

Hawks do a generic match report.

Richmond and Collingwood do the same as us - have their coach/development manager assess each player - posters should go on the sites and read them - they are in stark contrast to us. Richmond had to very soft negative comments and it appears everyone is a gun at Collingwood even if you don't a kick.

So I have had a look at other club websites.

Carlton and Geelong seemed to ignore VFL altogether.

Hawks do a generic match report.

Richmond and Collingwood do the same as us - have their coach/development manager assess each player - posters should go on the sites and read them - they are in stark contrast to us. Richmond had to very soft negative comments and it appears everyone is a gun at Collingwood even if you don't a kick.

Considering we've copied so much else from them I like the Sydney way:

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2014-07-08/neafl-wrap-round-14

Player of the week and notable performances. Let the omissions of others do the talking for you.

Shane Biggs could be a handy back flanker/outside midfielder as well if we are looking for one.

So I have had a look at other club websites.

Carlton and Geelong seemed to ignore VFL altogether.

Hawks do a generic match report.

Richmond and Collingwood do the same as us - have their coach/development manager assess each player - posters should go on the sites and read them - they are in stark contrast to us. Richmond had to very soft negative comments and it appears everyone is a gun at Collingwood even if you don't a kick.

Appreciate that Nut. Exactly sums up my point.

I've looked up the Rd.2 VFL report and these are some examples:

Mitch Clisby: Mitch played half-back/back-pocket all day. He had 22 disposals and had a good battle and worked hard with his direct opponent. Mitch has been focusing on the defensive side of his game in the last couple of weeks. He made some improvements this week. His ball use and decision-making was good over the course of the game.

Jack Fitzpatrick: Jack played full-forward and had a couple of stints in the ruck. He had 12 possessions and kicked three goals. He led and presented pretty well during the day. Although he kicked three goals, he missed two other kickable goals. Jack contested well, but I’d like to see him contest more in the air and get the ball to ground level, so that the smalls can get to work, if he doesn’t mark it.

Daniel Nicholson: Dan played half-back and on the ball. He did his best work across half-back. He ran well and took the game on with his legs. He broke the lines on a number of occasions, but his ball use let him down at times. If he can tidy that up, he could be in line for senior selection.

The tone of these is helpful and it gives us an idea of what he needs to work on to be AFL. I don't understand why supporters who can't be bothered going to Casey need more than that. Simply knowing their deficiency gives me an insight and I feel the report here is worthwhile.

James Strauss: James played half-back and had 21 possessions. He used the ball pretty well over the course of the day, but he was too loose on his opponent at times and he doesn’t pay them the respect they deserve. He needs to force as many contests as he can – one to defend and two to help us turn the ball over.

Jimmy Toumpas: Jimmy played half-back and wing. He had 20 possessions. Again, this week, it was probably Jimmy’s ball-handling that let him down over the course of the match. Defensively, he gets caught out ball-watching or not joining in as well.

Michael Evans: He played a run-with role on Jonathan Simpkin in the midfield. Michael had 23 possessions. While he won a bit of the football, I thought his opponent outpointed him on the day. Michael gets caught ball-watching regularly and loses his opponent.

Michael Evans: Michael played midfield and had 13 possessions. He looked really flustered and distracted at times during the game. He was often by himself at stoppages, which is certainly not the way we want to play football. So he needs to really adjust that part of his game, if he wants to press for senior selection.

It's gone from a general tone, to an aggressive attack and the one's underlined I think are excellent points for solid one on one conversations. They're quite belittling on a public supporter website. These players want to impress us as supporters and want us to be proud of them. These comments feed the troll posters and only add fuel to the fire.