I don't mind the frankness of the ratings as long as it's justified and warranted, after all it is no different to the absolute lambasting a player would get from the media and fans after a poor game at AFL level. That feedback would be even more public.

Consider Jack Watts and what he had/has to take (incl. from DL posters).

It's all part of being a pro footballer and if they can't handle it then I doubt they have the mettle to handle the real thing.

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.

If I buy a membership, merchandise, go to the games etc. then I would expect my club to be transparent with me. If there are players down in the seconds who aren't performing and up to scratch then I'd like to know about it - we all give our own harsh critiques of players who are in the Melbourne side, and we do it regularly, so why shouldn't we get a fair and honest report from the coaches about the players?

How is it harsh to say "Michel gets caught ball watching regularly and loses his opponent"? If the bloke isn't working hard enough then I want to know about it. Then when he doesn't get picked each week we aren't all complaining and asking about him, we are 'in the loop' and know not only why a player is not playing but where they need to improve upon to get there.

I also think it highlights exactly what the FD is asking for of the players and we, as supporters, get an understanding of the direction they are headed in. Stats only tell a fraction of the story, the above gives us more. Why we would be complaining about that is beyond me.

after all it is no different to the absolute lambasting a player would get from the media and fans after a poor game at AFL level. That feedback would be even more public.

You don't recognise the difference between numbnuts fans like us and the media getting stuck in as opposed to coaches who set specific roles and KPI's ? To draw the analogy again - it doesn't worry me what you say about my work performance - I only answer to my boss.

If I buy a membership, merchandise, go to the games etc. then I would expect my club to be transparent with me.

There is match review of the seniors with each club every week - seen one of those made public ? Do you see senior coaches critique all senior players every week ? Why is that ? Do you hear coaches explain the role all players are given each week and how they performed ? Roos has stated that they set specific roles in the team for the players - has he ever elaborated on them ?

I have never been a Jack Watts knocker but even his most ardent supporters have been given plenty of ammunition to criticise through games this year. Have you seen Roos make one negative comment about Watts?

So are we saying - there are two sets of rules - one for MFC listed players getting a senior gig and another for the ones playing at Casey - once you make the seniors you are immune from public criticism ?

I re-iterate - the only people who are benefiting from this insight are the supporters and I certainly wouldn't think the players appreciate it. If we truly believe this is so beneficial then we should be calling for the same critiquing of the seniors ( there are countless posts here where people can't understand why Bail/Watts/Terlich/Garland/Frawley and countless others are getting a game - shouldn't we have insight as to why they are ?)

You don't recognise the difference between numbnuts fans like us and the media getting stuck in as opposed to coaches who set specific roles and KPI's ? To draw the analogy again - it doesn't worry me what you say about my work performance - I only answer to my boss.

There is match review of the seniors with each club every week - seen one of those made public ? Do you see senior coaches critique all senior players every week ? Why is that ? Do you hear coaches explain the role all players are given each week and how they performed ? Roos has stated that they set specific roles in the team for the players - has he ever elaborated on them ?

I have never been a Jack Watts knocker but even his most ardent supporters have been given plenty of ammunition to criticise through games this year. Have you seen Roos make one negative comment about Watts?

So are we saying - there are two sets of rules - one for MFC listed players getting a senior gig and another for the ones playing at Casey - once you make the seniors you are immune from public criticism ?

I re-iterate - the only people who are benefiting from this insight are the supporters and I certainly wouldn't think the players appreciate it. If we truly believe this is so beneficial then we should be calling for the same critiquing of the seniors ( there are countless posts here where people can't understand why Bail/Watts/Terlich/Garland/Frawley and countless others are getting a game - shouldn't we have insight as to why they are ?)

It doesn't need to be made public because we can watch them each week, or get a full download of the game not long after it's been played. We can see what is happening, we can see the positives and deficiencies and make our own mind up. We don't have that opportunity with Casey as unless you can get to the games you generally have no idea what's going on.

So what's wrong with saying a player needs to work on certain areas of their game? Nothing. For so long many posters, including myself, moaned about the lack of honesty in the reviews we got on the website. Now we get honesty and it's too hard to some to take.

And I have no idea why the players wouldn't appreciate it - if you don't want to continually be told that you need to work on your defensive transitions then WORK ON THEM so it doesn't have to be mentioned again. If it's happening over and over and over again then the players only have themselves to blame.

I don't mind hearing "his attacking and ball use has been great but he needs to work on defensive transition" or "needs to improve his. .." but I object to "2 fumbles and 2 missed tackles" "he's making no real signs of improvement".

I was actually uncomfortable this week for the first time. Normally they read like a summary of some of the things the coaches and played work on bit I thought this week was very harsh.

I am very surprised that apparently the coaches don't show these to the players first and discuss in detail during a review.

It makes me think we have already marked the cards of these players as not good enough. But if so that really seems to go against Roos' style of player empowerment and leadership.

It doesn't need to be made public because we can watch them each week, or get a full download of the game not long after it's been played. We can see what is happening, we can see the positives and deficiencies and make our own mind up. We don't have that opportunity with Casey as unless you can get to the games you generally have no idea what's going on.

So what's wrong with saying a player needs to work on certain areas of their game? Nothing. For so long many posters, including myself, moaned about the lack of honesty in the reviews we got on the website. Now we get honesty and it's too hard to some to take.

And I have no idea why the players wouldn't appreciate it - if you don't want to continually be told that you need to work on your defensive transitions then WORK ON THEM so it doesn't have to be mentioned again. If it's happening over and over and over again then the players only have themselves to blame.

No problem with your performance reviews at work being made public ?

No idea why players wouldn't appreciate them ? And your idea of coaching is if a player doesn't do as he is told then the best way to fix that problem is just make it public !

I don't mind hearing "his attacking and ball use has been great but he needs to work on defensive transition" or "needs to improve his. .." but I object to "2 fumbles and 2 missed tackles" "he's making no real signs of improvement".

I was actually uncomfortable this week for the first time. Normally they read like a summary of some of the things the coaches and played work on bit I thought this week was very harsh.

I am very surprised that apparently the coaches don't show these to the players first and discuss in detail during a review.

It makes me think we have already marked the cards of these players as not good enough. But if so that really seems to go against Roos' style of player empowerment and leadership.

Do you honestly think after a Casey game they go "okay lads, your review will be on the website on Tuesday, we'll speak after that..."

Apparently is your key word here Dean, and I wouldn't believe for a second that the coaches haven't discussed this with the players first or at least made them aware.

Do you honestly think after a Casey game they go "okay lads, your review will be on the website on Tuesday, we'll speak after that..."

Apparently is your key word here Dean, and I wouldn't believe for a second that the coaches haven't discussed this with the players first or at least made them aware.

You still have avoided the question - you don't see any other club making such frank assessments of individuals public - do you think this is beneficial to the player ?

If you answer this yes - then shouldn't you question as to why don't all clubs don't do this for VFL and furthermore why it is not done at senior level.

I must say I'm really looking forward to next week's Casey reviews and the chance to have the same argument again.

No problem with your performance reviews at work being made public ?

No idea why players wouldn't appreciate them ? And your idea of coaching is if a player doesn't do as he is told then the best way to fix that problem is just make it public !

So what is your solution? Just give the paying supporter BS? Because, clearly, that's what we used to get. I'd rather a forthright review than being served up rubbish.

You still have avoided the question - you don't see any other club making such frank assessments of individuals public - do you think this is beneficial to the player ?

If you answer this yes - then shouldn't you question as to why don't all clubs don't do this for VFL and furthermore why it is not done at senior level.

I haven't avoided any question - I'm happy with the way it's done as it gives us, the paying supporter, an idea of how these players are going and what they need to improve on. I couldn't give a stuff what other clubs are doing, as in the past we have tried to emulate other clubs in certain ways and look how they worked out.

All I've seen you do is make sure we view the players as meek little babies who might be a little bit hurt if they read that their performances aren't good enough, yet I've failed to see you provide us with a logical solution.

So what is your solution? Just give the paying supporter BS? Because, clearly, that's what we used to get. I'd rather a forthright review than being served up rubbish.

I agree - don't serve up rubbish but why are we entitled to know the contents of player reviews ? We have never had it in the seniors - Have a look at the Hawks VFL handling - they give a VFL match report and highlight who played well and is in line for promotion. Those who don't get a mention - we can work it out for ourselves.

I don't accept that because we don't see the game we need the club to give us a player by player critique. Even though we see the seniors it is obvious that the coaches see players differently than we do. I like Salem but he has so far failed to provide any more than cameos. Many have been wondering why he has held his place. I am sure Roos has his reasons - but doesn't the same apply - should Roos tell us why ?

I am NOT making this conversation about us, the supporters. I am making it about the players and I have noted that we are the only club that gives such frank assessments - are we cleverer than the rest of the AFL ?

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.

feel free nut to post your performance reviews on demonland

i'm sure we could provide some constructive comments

feel free nut to post your performance reviews on demonland

i'm sure we could provide some constructive comments

If you think footballers have fragile ego's that's nothing compared to me.

I would make Lake's hissy fit look like nonchalance.

If you think footballers have fragile ego's that's nothing compared to me.

I would make Lake's hissy fit look like nonchalance.

"Nutbean has issues with accepting feedback or criticism...."

"Nutbean has issues with accepting feedback or criticism...."

That's the biggest load of horseshi................... ohhh...

I have no problem with the reports.

They are just honest. They aren't belittling, they simply outline what they did well, what they didn't do well and what the main focus for them is.

Good, constructive feedback. We, as supporters, just aren't used to hearing it.

I feel that these reviews are a direct result of Roos trying to instil the same culture here as he did at Sydney, a culture of working hard to improve and being harsh on oneself.

It is brutal and if you really listened to Sydney's players on the ground while Roos was coach, they'd scream at each other, swear at each other and really lift each other to improve their game on the day. They would have got brutally honest treatment from the coach too though at the same time there'd be nurturing and development.

It might not be the kindest culture but those who couldn't deal with it wouldn't last. I like it, for it creates a tough atmosphere and I think a number won't last.

I love these reviews. Constructive shows out the ones who aren't working hard enough.

Much better then the one liners Brian Royal use to pull out last year.

Players have either got it or not.

If they cannot handle constructive criticism considering where the MFC and Casey sit...the door is over there...

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.

Geelong do a VFL player review, but it's not done by one of the coaches, only one of the media team.

I think our player reviews are probably a result of feedback from supporters like us for years on end.

A response to mass reports of supporters being fed up with "spin."

Do you honestly think after a Casey game they go "okay lads, your review will be on the website on Tuesday, we'll speak after that..."

I can tell you they don't even get that.

Work with a father of one of the Melbourne listed players.

not for 2015, if he's not being spoken to at all re development, you would think.

in saying that, i'm not sure i believe you. there's a reason we have roos leading up an expanded coaching team, and that's to provide development and guidance.

perhaps the son of your co-worker, olc, simply does not like the feedback he's being given.

not for 2015, if he's not being spoken to at all re development, you would think.

in saying that, i'm not sure i believe you. there's a reason we have roos leading up an expanded coaching team, and that's to provide development and guidance.

perhaps the son of your co-worker, olc, simply does not like the feedback he's being given.

Too separate things. If he didn't like the feedback, he'd say that. That's three people who have been told they regularly don't do VFL reviews, other than the MFC article.

It's not acceptable, whether you try justify it as the players fault or not.

Roos time coaching in 05 to now were different periods. It's not entirely ridiculous to think there are things he'll need to work on as coach too.

not for 2015, if he's not being spoken to at all re development, you would think.

That's not what I said.

They get effectively no feedback till they read the reports.

I have no reason not to believe him.