I guess my original statement 'anyone who thinks we haven't improved from the time Neeld was coach is a peanut' was one of the statements that got a few worked up. To be honest, TimD, I'm not sure why some chose to contest that statement!

I don't really have an issue with criticism but I supposed that criticism needs to be balanced and shouldn't venture into the realm of being ridiculous. The tone one makes their criticism in is also important.

Criticism for the sake of criticism is also annoying.

Some of the stuff on the game plan is neither here nor there. I feel that Roos just doesn't have the cattle right now to pull it off.

Criticizing inconsistency in performance is valid. I don't think it's fair for Roos to carry the can entirely on that front. The CLUB as a working whole needs to look at what is going wrong there and there is a possibility there may be more to it than simply 'not having a go'.

In hindsight, and I got a bit defensive about it at the time, the stuff about 'negativity' (while I felt it had more than a kernel of truth in it) was just silly to put in the public domain as Roos was either going to put everyone in the club off side OR all your paid up members. What was going to be achieved by saying it (besides getting some kind of pyrrhic victory over the clowns who wrote in after the Brisbane victory telling him they would have rather lost than won like that)? Just terrible PR.

I ignore what Roos says because I think it is weightless puff. He's been great at being a public face - it has allowed a whole lot of avoidance of scrutiny fro 2 years. BTW thanks paul little - you're a star.

Game plan changes within games. That is a problem. We go from 1v1 to zones to switch-play to 80's long-down-the-line. It's a mess. It is clearly not organised and I'm not putting that down to cattle. That's message and/or messengers.

Lamumba goes from good to god-awful. Nate Jones too. Our leaders regularly struggle to lead on field - by action or by voice/direction. That is not ok - especially after 2 Roos years. there are ligit questions that exist outside of MFCSS.

Bulldogs at Etihad, Haw, WCE in Darwin, Carlton, Freo at the G, Port in Alice, Essendon...

How big are your hands?

Game was dead at half time but I am not going to hang my team for not finishing off. They needed to do more, but enough is better than par.

Some strange nominations.

Against WC we were 20 points down at 3/4 time. Relatively competitive showing up til that point against what is now a premiership favourite. Against Port we were 2 goals down at half time, after which they kicked 10 goals to 2, but both of those sides are far, far superior to the Lions.

Hell, as dire as we were in the first half against Carlton, the second half was better than any of the dross from the Brisbane game. I took next to nothing away from the performance other than the 4 points. Both sides butchered the ball from start to finish. Brisbane were kept to a low score because they couldn't hit a teammate 15 metres away.

As I said, bin it and be thankful we happened to be playing Brisbane that week. Anyone else would've been a loss. 7 wins is better than 6, and 13th is better than 14th. But don't tell me to take heart from the performance itself because we "won ugly". We played a shitful opponent.

Next season I want to see us put a team like that to the sword. A 10 goal win is on the checklist. It's been a while.

My question about that is: when we do win ugly, what do we do? Insist we reschedule the match 2 days later so we can come out and play more attractive football? Insist that Brisbane magically find better players so we can play against better quality opposition? You can only play against the opposition provided.

P-Man was basically right. We didn't play well but we won. Put the tape in the bin and move on happy that at least we got the four points.

Well, no, we were not happy - that's my point.

You can't critique someone and give them a 'D' and then say 'well, be happy you got this crappy win.'

Teams moving from being awful to something other than that are going to have games like the Lions, Essendon, and Carlton games and I think 'valuing winning' actually involves the act of valuing winning, and yet we just throw it on the pile of shitty losses (or lower than that apparently)...

I don't get what the debate is about. The last several years have taught everyone a single lesson: hold your leaders to account. Questions should be asked of Paul Roos. Every year, regardless of performance. This year, we've seen different game plans implemented inconsistently. Players picking and choosing. Selection decisions that appear inconsistent. Players in favour and then out of favour. Leaders doing well and then stinking. All these things might well have good answers to them, but we are allowed to see them and it is our responsibility to question.

If you are a supporter with blind faith, you are not a supporter. You are believer - a disciple. I have no time for blind faith. Same level of respect as blind drunk.

Well, no, we were not happy - that's my point.

You can't critique someone and give them a 'D' and then say 'well, be happy you got this crappy win.'

Teams moving from being awful to something other than that are going to have games like the Lions, Essendon, and Carlton games and I think 'valuing winning' actually involves the act of valuing winning, and yet we just throw it on the pile of shitty losses (or lower than that apparently)...

I'm merely talking about performance. Naturally you take a win over a loss. But there's nothing wrong with lifting standards and expectation with respect to performance. "A win is a win" is nice and simplistic, and winning is no doubt important for the mentality of this group, but we're on a path towards being able to compete with top four sides. Performance can be appraised regardless of the result.

Paul roos is on the right path, game plans do change during games, it's called having a plan b, plan c, teams that don't have more then one plan b don't win premerships, this year was better then last year wait and see next year , posters who want roos out would put the dees back 2 years, time for stability, so shut up you no idea fools, finger pointers who lay blame but don't know what you are asking for.

Edited September 11, 201510 yr by not angry anymore

Paul roos is on the right path, game plans do change during games, it's called having a plan b, plan c, teams that don't have more then one plan b don't win premerships, this year was better then last year wait and see next year , posters who want roos out would put the dees back 2 years, time for stability, so shut up you no idea fools, finger pointers who lay blame but don't know what you are asking for.

Paul roos is on the right path, game plans do change during games, it's called having a plan b, plan c, teams that don't have more then one plan b don't win premerships, this year was better then last year wait and see next year , posters who want roos out would put the dees back 2 years, time for stability, so shut up you no idea fools, finger pointers who lay blame but don't know what you are asking for.

2 years? Would probably be time to close the doors. We are on our last chance, make no mistake.

I agree Roos is probably not the best match day coach going around, but you have to look at the total package.

Our first priority was to draft well and then have the right development available.

Next on the list would be player retention. No point drafting good players to See them pizz off at the first opportunity.

I think Roos has achieved well on all those fronts. He has taught good defensive skills and emphasised running both ways.

The genius of the succession plan is that Goodwin brings to the table what Roos may be weakest at - game plan, tactical nous and the game day stuff.

He also is a players man and will build strong relationships.

Should also note the plus of PJ buying in. He wouldn't be hanging around a basket case.

Overall I am thrilled at the way things are going.

He also is a players man and will build strong relationships.

and then promptly bail a year from now

and then promptly bail a year from now

he is not bailing out stupid that's what the club ask him to do.

and then promptly bail a year from now

Was that not a comment on Goodwin, that was how I read it anyway.

and then promptly bail a year from now

will he though ?

I think he'll be offered some sought of club role

and then promptly bail a year from now

WTF? I just don't get it.

WTF? I just don't get it.

He thinks you were talking about Roos, I read it as you were talking about Goodwin. Which was it?

Paul roos is on the right path, game plans do change during games, it's called having a plan b, plan c, teams that don't have more then one plan b don't win premerships, this year was better then last year wait and see next year , posters who want roos out would put the dees back 2 years, time for stability, so shut up you no idea fools, finger pointers who lay blame but don't know what you are asking for.

Name one poster that says they want Roos out? They just want him accountable.

And BTW you are still angry.

I ignore what Roos says because I think it is weightless puff. He's been great at being a public face - it has allowed a whole lot of avoidance of scrutiny fro 2 years. BTW thanks paul little - you're a star.

Game plan changes within games. That is a problem. We go from 1v1 to zones to switch-play to 80's long-down-the-line. It's a mess. It is clearly not organised and I'm not putting that down to cattle. That's message and/or messengers.

Lamumba goes from good to god-awful. Nate Jones too. Our leaders regularly struggle to lead on field - by action or by voice/direction. That is not ok - especially after 2 Roos years. there are ligit questions that exist outside of MFCSS.

I also think what Roos says to the press is also balanced against his relationship with the playing group. Sad as it is, if he comes out swinging and is brutally honest about certain things that happen within the four walls of the MFC or the vibe surrounding the club, he gets pilloried. As I said earlier, I think his comments about negativity held some weight but on a PR front, they were silly and ill timed (and it was probably not best to say them at all).

I view our problems differently to you TimD. From what I can tell, the game plan itself is very structured and relies on the concept of the slingshot (at least more so this year). The one piece of ball movement that I have heard Roos specifically praise is the final ball movement that resulted in Salem's goal vs. Essendon last year.

It looks and sounds very much like this:

https://youtu.be/QOyo5ZTWK0Q

Henceforth, I would suggest that is what Roos is trying to achieve.

Sadly though, I constantly see us hesitate when moving forward. This also falls over when players remain flat footed when getting that clearance or the players we have just aren't quick enough or skilled enough to pull it off. That's where the cattle comes into it. As the Gaz man said in the Wash Up on AFL.com, we have no break neck speed. We have some decent ball gatherers but no one there to put the cherry on top of the sundae. Gus Brayshaw is quicker than he looks but he is no Lewis Jetta.

This tends to result in the 'bomb it in long' style that we all know and love(?) where the players (sadly often Bernie Vince and Nate Jones) go for that bomb kick and hope that our talls mark it. If Roos and his coaching staff do deserve criticism, it's that they have struggled potentially to get the message across concerning how we should move forward to the fifty and that all players need to play their role when doing so. If that means you are the finisher then good for you. If that means you are Cameron Ling pushing blokes out of the way then that's what you do.

One other problem is when players go into business for themselves and aren't doing the blocking and shepherding work they should be doing. I guess this can be put down to 'the past' as most players went year to year terrified of getting cut. When everyone wants the ball, ultimately no one gets it.

I have already addressed what I how leadership is fostered within teams so won't repeat that.

Edited September 11, 201510 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

Name one poster that says they want Roos out? They just want him accountable.

And BTW you are still angry.

Problem is jnrmac, what does that mean? Taken on face value, it's nice and ambiguous but from where I sit, it means that there are measureable consequences to your actions and a prescribed course of action to implement those consequences.

What consequences should Roos face for not living up to the standards of some and how should these consequences be implemented?

Edited September 11, 201510 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

I was talking about Roos and Goodwin in combination - how one will compliment the other.

He thinks you were talking about Roos, I read it as you were talking about Goodwin. Which was it?

Ah yes, I misread that I did think he was takling about Roos, sorry chook

Well, no, we were not happy - that's my point.

You can't critique someone and give them a 'D' and then say 'well, be happy you got this crappy win.'

Teams moving from being awful to something other than that are going to have games like the Lions, Essendon, and Carlton games and I think 'valuing winning' actually involves the act of valuing winning, and yet we just throw it on the pile of shitty losses (or lower than that apparently)...

I would say if you are coming from where we are coming from, while you are not necessarily happy per se, you aren't going to knock back the four points. It's the silver lining at the end of the day.

We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and pump up wins like the Lions one as being on a par with a finals win but like a loss, we can take both negatives AND positives out of it.

I would say if you are coming from where we are coming from, while you are not necessarily happy per se, you aren't going to knock back the four points. It's the silver lining at the end of the day.

We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and pump up wins like the Lions one as being on a par with a finals win but like a loss, we can take both negatives AND positives out of it.

My own team has some crappy, scrappy wins and you have a laugh about how difficult it was to get going and move on with a smile and work on went didn't go well on Tuesday.

Telling blokes off for winning is counterproductive and confusing.

And am I 'pumping it up'?

The win column is pumping it up. As I said throughout the last 8 years - winning isn't the only performance indicator by it is a legislatively important one...

My own team has some crappy, scrappy wins and you have a laugh about how difficult it was to get going and move on with a smile and work on went didn't go well on Tuesday.

Telling blokes off for winning is counterproductive and confusing.

And am I 'pumping it up'?

The win column is pumping it up. As I said throughout the last 8 years - winning isn't the only performance indicator by it is a legislatively important one...

Mate, I'm with you! I think we may have gotten our wires crossed a bit here!

I believe we still have a number of players on our list who are happy being AFL listed players on a good wage.

And not hungry enough for success. The MFC wage is the same for all clubs

I do not blame Roos at all, but i DO expect a savage cut and cull of our list this trade period

Otherwise Goodwin will get burnt without a chance.

I believe we still have a number of players on our list who are happy being AFL listed players on a good wage.

have thought this for some time. good wicket eh !!