People suggesting Dunn will be moved on are kidding themselves. He is a good 3rd tall defender who rarely gets beaten.

He used to be. Hasn't played that way this year.

What Caro doesn't see is what the 'veil of negativity' (with varying degrees of 'infection'), looks like in the playing group, :

14 current players from the 186 era and Neeld's tenure: Mark Jamar, Lynden Dunn, Colin Garland, Nathan Jones, Rohan Bail,Jake Spencer, Jack Grimes, Jeremy Howe, Jordie McKenzie, Jack Trengove, Jack Watts, Max Gawn, Jack Fitzpatrick,Tom McDonald

Plus 8 current players for Neelds tenure: Jimmy Toumpas, Jesse Hogan, Cameron Pedersen, Matt Jones, Chris Dawes, Dean Terlich, Jack Viney, Dean Kent

That is 22 current players who learnt:

- they didn't need to fight for their spots,

- to play as individuals rather than do team things.

- it was ok to not follow coaching instructions,

- to pick and choose when to perform

- it is easier to give platitudes and 'feel disappointed' about losing than work your guts out to win.

I could keep going about the bad behaviours but you get the drift.

'Reprogramming' those bad behaviours must be like turning the Titanic.

TBH, I don't think there is a coach, CEO etc that can do it.

Roos has gone the 'reprogramming' route, It has not worked.

Now cutting out the cancerous 'veil of negativity' is the only way to go.

Of the 22 players above I could only count 7 that have shown they can really change.

We won't cull the other 15 but the worst offenders must go regardless of their position, seniority, salary or whatever.

They can not stay at the club if their bad behaviours/mindset have continued under Roos et al.

Otherwise the risk of contagion to our young brigade is too high.

Roos is an astute judge of players he will make the right calls.

This is what the 'veil of negativity' (with varying degrees of 'infection), looks like in the playing group, :

14 current players from the 186 game and Neeld's tenure: Mark Jamar, Lynden Dunn, Colin Garland, Nathan Jones, Rohan Bail,Jake Spencer, Jack Grimes, Jeremy Howe, Jordie McKenzie, Jack Trengove, Jack Watts, Max Gawn, Jack Fitzpatrick,Tom McDonald

Plus 8 current players for Neelds tenure: Jimmy Toumpas, Jesse Hogan, Cameron Pedersen, Matt Jones, Chris Dawes, Dean Terlich, Jack Viney, Dean Kent

That is 22 current players who learnt:

- they didn't need to fight for their spots,

- to play as individuals rather than do team things.

- it was ok to not follow coaching instructions,

- to pick and choose when to perform

- it is easier to give platitudes and 'feel disappointed' about losing than work your guts out to win.

I could keep going about the bad behaviours but you get the drift.

'Reprogramming' those bad behaviours must be like turning the Titanic.

TBH, I don't think there is a coach, CEO etc

Roos has gone the 'reprogramming' route, It has not worked.

Now cutting out the cancerous 'veil of negativity' is the only way to go.

Of the 22 players above I could only count 7 that have shown they can really change.

We won't cull the other 15 but the worst offenders must go regardless of their position, seniority or salary or whatever.

They can not stay at the club if their bad behaviours/mindset have continued under Roos et al.

Otherwise the risk of contagion to our young brigade is too high.

Roos is an astute judge of players he will make the right calls.

Spot on LH. As angry as we may get, it simply is not practical or workable to make wholesale changes to the list come the seasons end. Those who are supposedly in the know, say this year's draft is thin compared to last year, other than about the top 6, for which we should be well and truly in the mix, given our likely ladder position at seasons end. Other than that there is a trade period, which I would think will be extremely competitive this year. I still believe Roos is astute enough to make the right decisions, along with his match committee.

Can't believe you haven't quoted Lloyd, who probably nailed it squared.

I can't believe you haven't told us what Lloyd said.

Spot on LH. As angry as we may get, it simply is not practical or workable to make wholesale changes to the list come the seasons end. Those who are supposedly in the know, say this year's draft is thin compared to last year, other than about the top 6, for which we should be well and truly in the mix, given our likely ladder position at seasons end. Other than that there is a trade period, which I would think will be extremely competitive this year. I still believe Roos is astute enough to make the right decisions, along with his match committee.

It is not them that worries me iv'a

It is the 43 on our list particular the the players 25+

(1) we have a low number and (2) most of them struggle to be AFL standard let along have the ability to lead the team.

I would be more than happy to use all our high draft picks on trades for reasonable older players.

We need an increase in skill and dependability from the 25+ year old group.

What Caro doesn't see is what the 'veil of negativity' (with varying degrees of 'infection'), looks like in the playing group, :

14 current players from the 186 era and Neeld's tenure: Mark Jamar, Lynden Dunn, Colin Garland, Nathan Jones, Rohan Bail,Jake Spencer, Jack Grimes, Jeremy Howe, Jordie McKenzie, Jack Trengove, Jack Watts, Max Gawn, Jack Fitzpatrick,Tom McDonald

Plus 8 current players for Neelds tenure: Jimmy Toumpas, Jesse Hogan, Cameron Pedersen, Matt Jones, Chris Dawes, Dean Terlich, Jack Viney, Dean Kent

That is 22 current players who learnt:

- they didn't need to fight for their spots,

- to play as individuals rather than do team things.

- it was ok to not follow coaching instructions,

- to pick and choose when to perform

- it is easier to give platitudes and 'feel disappointed' about losing than work your guts out to win.

I could keep going about the bad behaviours but you get the drift.

Hang on, so players learnt they did not need to fight for their spots but...Jamar, Bail, McKenzie, Spencer, Fitzpatrick, Toumpas, and Terlich CANNOT get a game right now.

And that's a good thing. People calling for McKenzie to come back have NFI. He is a ball butcher and a type of run with player who is wholly negative and has no place in the game now.

I thought when Roos referred to the veil of negativity he was actually talking about us! Because the comment seemed to be triggered by an email from a supporter who said he knew we were going to lose to Carlton on his way to the game.

Contrary to what some are saying here, Roos did take responsibility for the lousy starts over the last month, but he admitted he doesn't know what to do about them.

AS FOR THOSE ASKING WHAT LLOYD SAID:

Lloyd criticised Dawes for failing to run with Kreuzer who was as a result able to run into an open goal unopposed, which Lloyd said was unacceptable for a senior player. True, but if you saw Dawes kick our second goal from just on 50 before half time, he collapsed in pain after kicking the ball. He may be playing hurt and can't run for all we know. If he is hurt and Pedersen were fit, Dawes would not be playing, but CP is done for the year so Lloyd may be doing Dawes a disservice.

Lloyd also said Roos was using an outdated game man on man game style and used Salem running back to guard a man rather than attack the ball carrier as his example. Contrast this with the way Bulldogs and Saints and others 'swarm' the ball carrier to force a turnover.

Lyon did not disagree but dismissed this point. Lyon's main criticisms. like others here, were about the listless, lazy performance that showed no spirit. Lyon seemed to think that Lloyd's point about game style was not relevant because the team has shown it can beat decent sides. He was angry they did not turn up and showed no ticker.

AS FOR THOSE ASKING WHAT LLOYD SAID:

Lloyd criticised Dawes for failing to run with Kreuzer who was as a result able to run into an open goal unopposed, which Lloyd said was unacceptable for a senior player. True, but if you saw Dawes kick our second goal from just on 50 before half time, he collapsed in pain after kicking the ball. He may be playing hurt and can't run for all we know. If he is hurt and Pedersen were fit, Dawes would not be playing, but CP is done for the year so Lloyd may be doing Dawes a disservice.

Lloyd also said Roos was using an outdated game man on man game style and used Salem running back to guard a man rather than attack the ball carrier as his example. Contrast this with the way Bulldogs and Saints and others 'swarm' the ball carrier to force a turnover.

Lyon did not disagree but dismissed this point. Lyon's main criticisms. like others here, were about the listless, lazy performance that showed no spirit. Lyon seemed to think that Lloyd's point about game style was not relevant because the team has shown it can beat decent sides. He was angry they did not turn up and showed no ticker.

Lloyd also said Dawes wasn't setting the example for Tyson & Vanders...obviously didn't realise they weren't playing.

Already expressed my view on Lyon.

Lloyd also said Dawes wasn't setting the example for Tyson & Vanders...obviously didn't realise they weren't playing.

Already expressed my view on Lyon.

Honestly Lloyd was a very good player but as a commentator he is way down the pack.

If he told me it was night time I would go outside and check.

the velvet sledgehammer is a moron.

worst 'commentator' in the business.

Lloyd doesnt have a clue what he is n about.

Lloyd doesnt have a clue what he is n about.

Rubbish.

The only thing I disagreed with Lloyd on was the Dawes/Kreuzer thing.

It looked like we had control of the pill with a 2-on-1 on the members wing. McDonald and Howe should have won the contest. If I was coaching Dawes, I would have praised him because the balance of probabilities was that we would win it and need an option to go to...so on your bike.

Problem here wasn't Dawes at all, and his knee extension problem. Problem here was that McDonald/Howe should have won the one on 2. No wonder we are a pathetic offensive outfit, if we can't trust a favoured contest to get up.

Rubbish.

The only thing I disagreed with Lloyd on was the Dawes/Kreuzer thing.

It looked like we had control of the pill with a 2-on-1 on the members wing. McDonald and Howe should have won the contest. If I was coaching Dawes, I would have praised him because the balance of probabilities was that we would win it and need an option to go to...so on your bike.

Problem here wasn't Dawes at all, and his knee extension problem. Problem here was that McDonald/Howe should have won the one on 2. No wonder we are a pathetic offensive outfit, if we can't trust a favoured contest to get up.

It still doesn't excuse Dawes for letting Kreuzer wander around the forward line on his own.

I've been saying for a while it cannot be addressed under the current AFL player movement rules.

It is not possible to clean out and start again. It is not possible to bring in 5-6 players of true quality in a single year.

We are in a cycle where it won't get better because we can only really being in 2-3 quality players max (trade our 1st and 2nd picks plus a FA) per year. And if you do that you don't get any quality kids.

We have the ways forward:

1) draft/list assistance from the AFL to enable us to turn the list quickly, refresh the playing group, and bring in on field leaders.

This would involve bringing in 5-7 new senior players to the club. Not necessarily world beaters but culture builders, leaders. One of them at least needs to be a good mid fielder. The others all need to be workhorses who run hard and do the team thing and expect it of others.

2) We do the above the long way. That will involve long term (5-7 years) off field stability in both administration and footy department combined with continued large list turnover each year to constantly remove the poor culture and attitude thatdevelops, reinvigorating the list. This will be combined with incremental improvement in the list, a couple of players a year, will get added to the "keep" list while the others rotate.

The problems with this are that it takes a long time to get the base culture right with only incremental improvement in the list (but once we are there and this culture is removed we are placed to improve quickly like other clubs do) and neither supporters, media or players like this. The club will be under intense pressure in the media to perform on field. Players that represent good leaders and culture will not want to waste their career "fixing" our club but will look to move on.

3) we fold because it is too hard. And although we might not choose to fold, if we continually force off field changes through dissatisfaction with "performance" we will never get the opportunity to fix the culture first, so we will kill ourselves without realizing.

I don't like being crap but unless we get a massive leg up in October/November, we need to stick it out long term.

I hope that Roos coaches next year and doesn't hand over till 2017 as planned, because it will mean stability for 4 years before we start to come under real pressure (Goodwin will get at least one year of grace from the media) and 4 years may be enough see the culture turn.

I hope that this year we trade well again; another Salem/Tyson 2 for 1 deal because we need a to bring in lots of quality players.

I how we throw big money at a free agent for the same reason.

And although i don't like the "trade future picks" because i think for most clubs it represents list management risk, I hope we on trade picks so that we can get an addition senior player boost immediately.

A FA, plus two players for our first round pick plus one for next year's first round pick, plus one for this year's 2nd round pick.

Loose Howe/Garland for picks and replace with another untainted senior player.

Delist ~10 others and draft 4 other kids.

Bring in 5 senior players and a draftee as above. All 6 in our best 22. Bring in four other kids to the list. Take 10-12 off it. We might have a chance of fixing the culture a bit quicker but our onfield crap will persist a bit longer.

What's saddest to see is the dwindling number of posts on here and the dwindling passion. We all have a severe case of demonitis and despondency.

How could the Blues beat us at their second lowest ebb?

The first of course was their last game at Punces Park - which we won!!

Keep in mind we're in Demonland's off season. We'll be on fire during the trade and drafting season as normal.

Here is an article on Roos' 360 comments last night: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-24/email-criticism-riles-roos?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+Newswhere he says it is offensive to be asked about his commitment to the club and hurt over the team's performances.

To be honest, reading that article and seeing our anguished coach on 360 having to defend himself against anonymous keyboard warriors, made me embarrassed to be a Melbourne supporter. Roos has every right to be offended. His responses on 360 showed a lot more dignity and respect than those who bombard him with emails.

Most coaches' media grilling ends with the post game press conf. But Roos subjects himself to a second grilling on 360 each week.

He could ask the panel to play down our games. He doesn't. He takes the flak as he would take a pack tackle in his playing days: Standing up, never flinch then roll with the punches.

I admire his grit.

It is up to the players to show similar grit and start doing their job, consistently!

While part of me agrees with you another part is thinking about how this shows supporters' passion for a club which is notorious for having passionless supporters.

This may seem off topic but I think it's pertinent.

I remember in I asking a few questions in one of those despicable threads that slandered Mitch Clark as having faked depression (never directly but the perpetrators always used weasel words) that I think has resonance in this situation.

What were those questions you may ask? They went as follows:

How many of the people who now sling mud at Mitch were kissing his ring when he came to the club? And how many were talking about how 'brave' he was before he went to Geelong?

I followed it up with the observation that many of the same people who were gushing over Mitch but eventually turned on him like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction would be the same time of person who carried on like Roosy had ascended from heaven like some divine figure but would turn into complete peanuts the second things turned remotely bad.

I would like to see how accurate my observation was. I would say I would be pretty much on the money.

Yes, I loved Mitch Clark before he totally betrayed us and now I hate him

Isn't that amazing

I've been saying for a while it cannot be addressed under the current AFL player movement rules.

It is not possible to clean out and start again. It is not possible to bring in 5-6 players of true quality in a single year.

We are in a cycle where it won't get better because we can only really being in 2-3 quality players max (trade our 1st and 2nd picks plus a FA) per year. And if you do that you don't get any quality kids.

We have the ways forward:

1) draft/list assistance from the AFL to enable us to turn the list quickly, refresh the playing group, and bring in on field leaders.

This would involve bringing in 5-7 new senior players to the club. Not necessarily world beaters but culture builders, leaders. One of them at least needs to be a good mid fielder. The others all need to be workhorses who run hard and do the team thing and expect it of others.

2) We do the above the long way. That will involve long term (5-7 years) off field stability in both administration and footy department combined with continued large list turnover each year to constantly remove the poor culture and attitude thatdevelops, reinvigorating the list. This will be combined with incremental improvement in the list, a couple of players a year, will get added to the "keep" list while the others rotate.

The problems with this are that it takes a long time to get the base culture right with only incremental improvement in the list (but once we are there and this culture is removed we are placed to improve quickly like other clubs do) and neither supporters, media or players like this. The club will be under intense pressure in the media to perform on field. Players that represent good leaders and culture will not want to waste their career "fixing" our club but will look to move on.

3) we fold because it is too hard. And although we might not choose to fold, if we continually force off field changes through dissatisfaction with "performance" we will never get the opportunity to fix the culture first, so we will kill ourselves without realizing.

I don't like being crap but unless we get a massive leg up in October/November, we need to stick it out long term.

I hope that Roos coaches next year and doesn't hand over till 2017 as planned, because it will mean stability for 4 years before we start to come under real pressure (Goodwin will get at least one year of grace from the media) and 4 years may be enough see the culture turn.

I hope that this year we trade well again; another Salem/Tyson 2 for 1 deal because we need a to bring in lots of quality players.

I how we throw big money at a free agent for the same reason.

And although i don't like the "trade future picks" because i think for most clubs it represents list management risk, I hope we on trade picks so that we can get an addition senior player boost immediately.

A FA, plus two players for our first round pick plus one for next year's first round pick, plus one for this year's 2nd round pick.

Loose Howe/Garland for picks and replace with another untainted senior player.

Delist ~10 others and draft 4 other kids.

Bring in 5 senior players and a draftee as above. All 6 in our best 22. Bring in four other kids to the list. Take 10-12 off it. We might have a chance of fixing the culture a bit quicker but our onfield crap will persist a bit longer.

Wow deanox that is a cold shower if ever I have seen one.

Realistic though.

I have been saying for sometime it is going to take some years before we will play finals and your comments above confirm my thoughts.

Perhaps it would be better if I lived off shore for a couple of years and came back in 2018 we will have solved the problem one way or the other by then.

Either a much better playing group or out backwards.

Yes, I loved Mitch Clark before he totally betrayed us and now I hate him

Isn't that amazing

Whenever there is a comment to be made that requires a minimum of thought but a maximum of vitriol, you never let us down Curry.

But please, bury me with your mountain of logic like you do with anyone so unfortunate to cross your path. I look forward to it.

Oh dear, that's going to be a lot of players. I'm skeptical of revolutionary change because it generates instability. It's too erratic.

Jamar

M Jones

Terlich

Grimes

Riley

Garland

Howe

Dunn

Bail

They will either be at another AFL club or in the VFL or amateur leagues. If you chop them you need to bring in depth and role models. Problem is that the gap was too big and, really, this off-season will be part 2 of the rebuild.

Fmd.

Couldn't agree more! However I think we'll keep Jamar & Dunn.. As maligned as he is Jones will probably stay on that list..

And I wouldn't be surprised if Garland left.. Would be a handy player in a good team!

Whenever there is a comment to be made that requires a minimum of thought but a maximum of vitriol, you never let us down Curry.

But please, bury me with your mountain of logic like you do with anyone so unfortunate to cross your path. I look forward to it.

no need for a mountain, your point is utter tripe

so youre saying if you were happy we got Roosy, you have to remain happy and supportive of him even if he leaves this club with us on the bottom of the ladder

otherwise you are fairweathered, or something

yeah great point mate makes heaps of sense

It still doesn't excuse Dawes for letting Kreuzer wander around the forward line on his own.

Are you serious?

If Mitchell has the ball in hand, his teammates just get on their bike. AKA offensive mode. It is rarely turned over, so you don't see Hawthorn front-runners like Breust and Sheils and any other overrated players they have, pay a price. It is actually the other way. They free-wheel knowing that 9/10 it will come off.

We had a 2-on-1 where we were likely to win the contest, and you expect Dawes to say in 50/50 or defensive mode?

You are probably one of those supporters that lament our poor scoring and Roos' ultra-defensive mindset. Do the maths sunshine.

Couldn't agree more! However I think we'll keep Jamar & Dunn.. As maligned as he is Jones will probably stay on that list..

And I wouldn't be surprised if Garland left.. Would be a handy player in a good team!

If it's decided that Jamar and Dunn are part of the problem.

They've gotta go.

I want unconditional competitors.

All others should be shown the door.

As for Roos "Veil of negativity" comment

Bloody hell ....... Not making it any easier on the recruiting dept is he.

The more I listen to him the more I know he saw the cash and took the job with his eyes wide shut.

Are you serious?

If Mitchell has the ball in hand, his teammates just get on their bike. AKA offensive mode. It is rarely turned over, so you don't see Hawthorn front-runners like Breust and Sheils and any other overrated players they have, pay a price. It is actually the other way. They free-wheel knowing that 9/10 it will come off.

We had a 2-on-1 where we were likely to win the contest, and you expect Dawes to say in 50/50 or defensive mode?

You are probably one of those supporters that lament our poor scoring and Roos' ultra-defensive mindset. Do the maths sunshine.

Supporters don't realise that 'frontrunning' isn't a bad thing.

All the best players do their fair share of frontrunning - they read the play so well it usually doesn't hurt their team - in fact quite the opposite - it is their frontrunning that gets them into positions to get the ball forward and/or get into scoring positions.

Frankly, I think Roos has overcorrected this facet of the game and we are so inert and worried about being hurt the other way that we don't hurt teams ourselves...

The more I listen to him the more I know he saw the cash and took the job with his eyes wide shut.

Was Paul Roos on the dole before we employed him?

Are you guys serious? How dumbed down is this debate? I ditched Foxtel because I had a gutful of Mark Robinson drunk dumb pub talk. But I get it here in droves. A culture of a club starts from its' supporter-base, and no second prizes why our culture has been deplorable.

Paul Roos has the highest integrity in AFL football. For a coach-killing club to attract a man of his callibre, we had to pay $$$. If you are interested in value for money, then spend your time worrying about Diamond Jim, Neeld and Co.

This absolute rubbish about how his heart is not in it; how he has come for money ala Blight.

Whether the MFC succeed or fail under Paul Roos, will in a large way, determine his legacy as a coach. He was willing the drink from the poisoned chalice. He had/has plenty of skin in the game.

The only unforeseen emergence has been the sudden late demise of ultra defensive game-plans. In 2012, Roos and Malthouse could proudly boast that defence wins premierships and their ultra defensive mindset has stood up for ever. In 2012/13, Roos and Malthouse could have demanded 5 year deals if they wanted to; especially Roos. In 2014 and 2015, the game has suddenly changed. Teams now need to be able to pull the trigger offensively, and have an ultra-offensive lever. Suddenly, Malthouse is on the scrap-heap; and according to MFC and the media, Roos should folllow soon.

Look at ball ups now. Umpires have been told to sprint in and throw it up so stoppage structures can't even have time to eventuate. Slow teams (Syd 2005) can no longer congest and suffocate quick (Eagles 2005) teams. It is getting harder with mega rotations, and a nervous AFL that want the game to look pretty.

But all this takes deep thought; and Matthew Lloyd may be right. I think Roos is young enough to adapt, but he has got to lose his stubbornness and his 100% belief in his mindset; if I can assume that this is what he has.

To claim that Roos is in it for the money, where he could have EASILY ASKED FOR A 6 YEAR DEAL at 1.5 m plus incentives, makes your ascertain (which is not unique to you) absolutely and utterly brainless and offensive.

Was Paul Roos on the dole before we employed him?

Are you guys serious? How dumbed down is this debate? I ditched Foxtel because I had a gutful of Mark Robinson drunk dumb pub talk. But I get it here in droves. A culture of a club starts from its' supporter-base, and no second prizes why our culture has been deplorable.

Paul Roos has the highest integrity in AFL football. For a coach-killing club to attract a man of his callibre, we had to pay $$$. If you are interested in value for money, then spend your time worrying about Diamond Jim, Neeld and Co.

This absolute rubbish about how his heart is not in it; how he has come for money ala Blight.

Whether the MFC succeed or fail under Paul Roos, will in a large way, determine his legacy as a coach. He was willing the drink from the poisoned chalice. He had/has plenty of skin in the game.

The only unforeseen emergence has been the sudden late demise of ultra defensive game-plans. In 2012, Roos and Malthouse could proudly boast that defence wins premierships and their ultra defensive mindset has stood up for ever. In 2012/13, Roos and Malthouse could have demanded 5 year deals if they wanted to; especially Roos. In 2014 and 2015, the game has suddenly changed. Teams now need to be able to pull the trigger offensively, and have an ultra-offensive lever. Suddenly, Malthouse is on the scrap-heap; and according to MFC and the media, Roos should folllow soon.

Look at ball ups now. Umpires have been told to sprint in and throw it up so stoppage structures can't even have time to eventuate. Slow teams (Syd 2005) can no longer congest and suffocate quick (Eagles 2005) teams. It is getting harder with mega rotations, and a nervous AFL that want the game to look pretty.

But all this takes deep thought; and Matthew Lloyd may be right. I think Roos is young enough to adapt, but he has got to lose his stubbornness and his 100% belief in his mindset; if I can assume that this is what he has.

To claim that Roos is in it for the money, where he could have EASILY ASKED FOR A 6 YEAR DEAL at 1.5 m plus incentives, makes your ascertain (which is not unique to you) absolutely and utterly brainless and offensive.

I agree on the main but would say you still need a very solid defence to win a premiership. The dogs will find this out, as they were against the Eagles. They are purely offence and it falls if you cant match it with defence. The trick is you need both and you need a bunch of players that can switch from one to the other as a unit on instinct. We are so far from that it isn't funny.

Are you serious?

If Mitchell has the ball in hand, his teammates just get on their bike. AKA offensive mode. It is rarely turned over, so you don't see Hawthorn front-runners like Breust and Sheils and any other overrated players they have, pay a price. It is actually the other way. They free-wheel knowing that 9/10 it will come off.

We had a 2-on-1 where we were likely to win the contest, and you expect Dawes to say in 50/50 or defensive mode?

You are probably one of those supporters that lament our poor scoring and Roos' ultra-defensive mindset. Do the maths sunshine.

Dead serious, he was jogging around aimlessly, so if we had of won the contest he was not working hard enough to create an option and if we lost it, which we did then he was out of position. The way we were playing the maths tell me we were a better than 50% chance of losing the contest.

...and we are not Hawthorn sunshine, it might surprise you that we don't quite have their skill set and Mitchell doesn't play for us.

As for Roos, well you will have never seen me post anything lamenting....I understand where we are as a club and I understand some of our senior players are letting us down.

Supporters don't realise that 'frontrunning' isn't a bad thing.

All the best players do their fair share of frontrunning - they read the play so well it usually doesn't hurt their team - in fact quite the opposite - it is their frontrunning that gets them into positions to get the ball forward and/or get into scoring positions.

Frankly, I think Roos has overcorrected this facet of the game and we are so inert and worried about being hurt the other way that we don't hurt teams ourselves...

Reading the play is a damned great skill to have 'rpfc'...you would be moving hard in one direction or another to create space, shut down an opponent or create an option for your teammate with the ball.

This is far different to front-running, which as understood in the AFL context where you are seen to be a one way runner.

Because we see a lot of turnovers and missed opportunities, it must be difficult for our players to create targets with confidence.