Further to the final comments in my post above i thought these comments from Jack Trengove posted today on the MFC site were interesting:

“The last four games are really important to us and we want to finish off this season really well and take some confidence into pre-season and into the years to come.”

Switch on, not off.

Is he back from Scotland?

It's not what Paul Roos said that interests me but why he said it. If Mick Malthouse had been in a similar situation and made these comments at a media conference the press (and Demonland) would be questioning why Malthouse was using a diversionary tactic.

So, was Roos hiding something? If so, what could it be? Here are some suggestions (none of which I have any evidence to support - just putting them out there as unsubstantiated ideas):

• he knew that the Match Committee had not made the right team selections, either in personnel or on-field match-ups going into the game
• he knew that the team had been overtrained in recent times and didn't have the energy to compete properly
• he knew that some players he didn't wish to name had injuries he doesn't wish to disclose
• he's preparing the ground for some players to be delivered some bad news about their future
• he wants the players to be scared of what might follow when he speaks to them privately (which could also be coupled with, he wants the players to realise when he eventually speaks to them privately that they needn't fear him like they might have anticipated)
• he coached badly on the day and doesn't want to publicly admit it
• he's sending a message to Casey about the standards he expects for MFC seconds players
• he's sending a message to his own development coaches that they have to improve their output.

It's not what Paul Roos said that interests me but why he said it. If Mick Malthouse had been in a similar situation and made these comments at a media conference the press (and Demonland) would be questioning why Malthouse was using a diversionary tactic.

So, was Roos hiding something? If so, what could it be? Here are some suggestions (none of which I have any evidence to support - just putting them out there as unsubstantiated ideas):

• he knew that the Match Committee had not made the right team selections, either in personnel or on-field match-ups going into the game
• he knew that the team had been overtrained in recent times and didn't have the energy to compete properly
• he knew that some players he didn't wish to name had injuries he doesn't wish to disclose
• he's preparing the ground for some players to be delivered some bad news about their future
• he wants the players to be scared of what might follow when he speaks to them privately (which could also be coupled with, he wants the players to realise when he eventually speaks to them privately that they needn't fear him like they might have anticipated)
• he coached badly on the day and doesn't want to publicly admit it
• he's sending a message to Casey about the standards he expects for MFC seconds players
• he's sending a message to his own development coaches that they have to improve their output.

  Or all of the above.

Or he was just frustrated and annoyed with a crappy performance and said the wrong thing

A different journo for a change ~

Tanking isn't to blame for the Demons' seasons in hell

It's a good perspective.

But the tactics of tanking did not stop in 2009. While we more akin to winning games as a priority - we still got rid of experience, and we still didn't recruit established professionals that could help develop these kids we got in the draft.

I have said this many times - tanking is either as narrow as 'telling players to lose' or it is as wide as 'setting your list up to lose' and we were setting up our list to lose from the point Daniher left to the point Neeld took over.

Roos comes in and what were the first moves he made? Give a 28 year old a 4 year contract, give a 30 year old a 2 year contract and trade down from a top 2 pick to get a player with 3 years experience, and rescue the career of 27 year old and a 24 year old already at the club.

That is how you build (re-build) a list in the AFL.

Oh Jack, I now see what you mean by your bite! Don't you like Barracuda's?

It's not just barracudas that I don't like Bob. I don't like anything fishy such as the activity of one particular poster who visits here infrequently but came out of the woodwork last night and quoted part of a post of mine but deliberately falsified the words which completely changed the context of what I'd written.

That sort of thing is about as craven and as low as one can go and reminiscent of the dirty tricks campaigns carried out from time to time by shonky politicians (and given the location of one of his IP addresses I don't think that's entirely a co-incidence). The upshot is that this poster and his IP now have a life ban and I assume that explains your reference to "Barracudas"

Back on topic, I've had a busy week so I only caught up with Caro's performance on FC last night and it confirmed that she continues to be a real piece of work who continues to apply double standards for different clubs. During the segment in which she slammed Melbourne for tanking five years ago she mentioned that like us, Carlton had also tanked.

This is what she said in her execrable Demons: shock & awful article.

"The Demons and their more rabid supporters keep banging on about the fact that everyone was doing it. No other club seems to have done it quite like this, though, and if Carlton is guilty then the current mood of the AFL indicates that club, too, will be forensically examined and punished." (my emphasis)

Carlton haven't been "forensically examined and punished" and despite her role as chief football writer of the Age, she's not even suggested since that this should happen.

Now that she agrees the Blues did tank why does she remain silent?

Or he was just frustrated and annoyed with a crappy performance and said the wrong thing

I like your thinking...and I'm always one to advise that when having to choose between conspiracy and Koch-up assume Koch-up every time. But so far he's been very measured with everything he's said which allows one to wonder whether it was it an aberration or deliberate.

I like your thinking...and I'm always one to advise that when having to choose between conspiracy and Koch-up assume Koch-up every time. But so far he's been very measured with everything he's said which allows one to wonder whether it was it an aberration or deliberate.

Leaving aside his God like status around here he is actually human.

I believe we're done with this thread. It repeats ground we've gone over in the past and it's getting us exactly nowhere.