2 minutes ago, old dee said:

I no longer believe the MFC will win a flag in my life time Dockett there are too many things stacked against Small Victorian clubs and we made every effort to destroy ourselves in the ten years up to 2013 so we are even worse off.

I will be happy to go to my grave supporting a club that wins more than it loses and plays finals regularly.

IMO that is the best I can hope for.

Not sure I hold your level of pessimism 'old dee' but I do agree with the highlighted view.

In the run up to the expansion clubs and the compromised draft along with the advent of free agency our clubs management was an absolute disaster. So yes we have started a fair bit behind any other club in the AFL in our rebuild.

It's for this reason that we have to understand why clubs like St Kilda & the Dogs are or seem to be ahead of us.

It's also why we drop games like on the weekend, we are a very inexperienced team coming from a long way back. If it keeps happening next year I will be concerned, at the moment I just think it's par for course.

9 minutes ago, rjay said:

Not sure I hold your level of pessimism 'old dee' but I do agree with the highlighted view.

In the run up to the expansion clubs and the compromised draft along with the advent of free agency our clubs management was an absolute disaster. So yes we have started a fair bit behind any other club in the AFL in our rebuild.

It's for this reason that we have to understand why clubs like St Kilda & the Dogs are or seem to be ahead of us.

It's also why we drop games like on the weekend, we are a very inexperienced team coming from a long way back. If it keeps happening next year I will be concerned, at the moment I just think it's par for course.

The last decade has beaten the stuffing out of me rjay and today is not a good day. I will no doubt be more positive tomorrow.

However I will still hold the view that we will not win a flag in the next decade and that will see me out I think.

4 hours ago, mo64 said:

TBH, I'm envious of Hawthorn. They've always had a strict payments policy. When a superstar like Franklin starts chasing the big bucks, they didn't get in a bidding war. They knew Buddy was leaving, and they just accepted it, and moved on. Same applies to Brad Hill now, although money isn't a factor.

Players stay at the club for less than their market value, and free agents in the twilight of their career are attracted by success, and are also prepared to play for less.

Hawthorn are the envy of every club in the league.

As a club, we should compare our situation with the Dogs. They've re-signed all their young guns to long term deals. IMO, that's a result of Beveridge's instant impact compared to Roos' slow burn approach to success.

Beveridge had the years of development under Macca to build from. It wasn't his instant success, it was Maccas slow build that he has benefited from, and done an outstanding job with. Goodwin may well do the same next year after 3 years of Roos development, lets hope so.  

8 minutes ago, Chris said:

Beveridge had the years of development under Macca to build from. It wasn't his instant success, it was Maccas slow build that he has benefited from, and done an outstanding job with. Goodwin may well do the same next year after 3 years of Roos development, lets hope so.  

So why did they sack Macca?

50 minutes ago, old dee said:

I no longer believe the MFC will win a flag in my life time Dockett there are too many things stacked against Small Victorian clubs and we made every effort to destroy ourselves in the ten years up to 2013 so we are even worse off.

I will be happy to go to my grave supporting a club that wins more than it loses and plays finals regularly.

IMO that is the best I can hope for.

Don't like Monday's OD?

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

Don't like Monday's OD?

Just a statement of facts jnr

I am rapidly running out of years.

Time waits for no one not even MFC supporters

13 minutes ago, america de cali said:

So why did they sack Macca?

Could have been one of many reasons. He may not be a great senior coach, the club and players may have become impatient, the senior players didn't like him (which I don't think they did), could really be anything.

One thing is true though, Macca is rated as one of, if not the best development coach in the country. Can he be a senior coach, who knows, the evidence says maybe not. 

27 minutes ago, Chris said:

Beveridge had the years of development under Macca to build from. It wasn't his instant success, it was Maccas slow build that he has benefited from, and done an outstanding job with. Goodwin may well do the same next year after 3 years of Roos development, lets hope so.  

This argument has been done to death. McCartney was sacked for a reason. He was a poor coach. Unless he could have achieved in his 4th year what Beveridge did in his 1st year, your argument is merely guesswork.

 

I'm praying that Goodwin is a better man motivator and matchday coach than Roos, otherwise we'll go into freefall once again.

21 minutes ago, Chris said:

Beveridge had the years of development under Macca to build from. It wasn't his instant success, it was Maccas slow build that he has benefited from, and done an outstanding job with. Goodwin may well do the same next year after 3 years of Roos development, lets hope so.  

This just isn't right. Yes he was coach for three years. They won 20 games in 3yrs and they got rid of him because the players revolted. No-one wanted to coach them , they were a basket case, their captain left, as did their CEO, and arguably their best player was out for 12 months. Everyon had the Bullies on their bottom 4 teams. They turned it around very quickly. Why? Not because of Macca.

You do Beveridge a diservice. The protoges of Clarkson have a strong track record of short term success because they have implemented a game plan that works and they have got buy in from the players. Beveridge has done wonders. His system works.

The whole Macca is a genius thing is stretching it beyond belief. For the record I think he is a good development coach but you are giving him way too much credit.

6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

This just isn't right. Yes he was coach for three years. They won 20 games in 3yrs and they got rid of him because the players revolted. No-one wanted to coach them , they were a basket case, their captain left, as did their CEO, and arguably their best player was out for 12 months. Everyon had the Bullies on their bottom 4 teams. They turned it around very quickly. Why? Not because of Macca.

You do Beveridge a diservice. The protoges of Clarkson have a strong track record of short term success because they have implemented a game plan that works and they have got buy in from the players. Beveridge has done wonders. His system works.

The whole Macca is a genius thing is stretching it beyond belief. For the record I think he is a good development coach but you are giving him way too much credit.

Exactly my point. I have never said he is a good senior coach but to ignore the development aspect of what he did at the dogs is wrong. You will also note that I said Beveridge has done an outstanding job. 

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

Exactly my point. I have never said he is a good senior coach but to ignore the development aspect of what he did at the dogs is wrong. You will also note that I said Beveridge has done an outstanding job. 

Based on your logic, which I fail to see, if we succeed under Goodwin, will McCartney receive all the credit for development or Roos?

3 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Based on your logic, which I fail to see, if we succeed under Goodwin, will McCartney receive all the credit for development or Roos?

Roos, he is the head coach, he is in charge. Macca will get some of the credit but he will still be there doing development behind the scenes. You simply can't throw out the influence of the previous coach, either good or bad, when a new coach comes along. To say Macca didn't have a big influence on the young group at the dogs is silly.

If we do bolt up the ladder next year would you seriously say that Roos is a dud and has done nothing and that Goodwin is brilliant?

All fascinating reading, people, but what does this have to do with TMac?

4 minutes ago, Chris said:

Roos, he is the head coach, he is in charge. Macca will get some of the credit but he will still be there doing development behind the scenes. You simply can't throw out the influence of the previous coach, either good or bad, when a new coach comes along. To say Macca didn't have a big influence on the young group at the dogs is silly.

If we do bolt up the ladder next year would you seriously say that Roos is a dud and has done nothing and that Goodwin is brilliant?

This will be my final point. Just as I give Barassi little to no credit for our success under Northey, I'll give Roos the same if we bolt up the ladder under Goodwin.

2 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

All fascinating reading, people, but what does this have to do with TMac?

Sorry I started it. Just get sick of the 'the dogs have done in 1 year what we can't do in 3' argument. It really is comparing apples with oranges and ignoring any history at either club before their incumbent coach was there. 

 

Back to TMac. I hope he stays, he is great defensively but does have deficiencies offensively. Hopefully with the other defenders developing around him these can be hidden more in future. 

1 minute ago, mo64 said:

This will be my final point. Just as I give Barassi little to no credit for our success under Northey, I'll give Roos the same if we bolt up the ladder under Goodwin.

This will also be mine. If we do bolt up the ladder you would be very harsh not to give Roos any credit, to do so would also ignore the reality of the matter. 

Every successful business goes around picking brains. We have umpteen part or fulltime ex D players as coaches at very good clubs. Some of them (clubs) used to be insignificant mud holes, their dances were alright. We need their know how here ASAP.

 

chip is on about $650k a year at the hawks, so no idea where that $350k number is from.

 

that's about what howe is on at the pies - proving that club love comes before cash money.

 

it's quite incredible that jerome was offered nearly double that to go to a franchise but instead wanted to play with the club that he grew up barracking for in lieu of earning big dollars.

18 hours ago, Jaded said:

Structurally I think the 3 most important players in our team are Gawn, McDonald and Hogan in that order.

Hogan may end up at number 1, but premierships are won in defence. We need a Tom McDonald in finals. No team can win a flag without a strong backline. Some have won it with average forwards but defence has to be rock solid. McDonald, for all his kicking brain fades, is not even in the prime of his career and is already in the top dozen tall defenders in the competition.

If we lose him, we will probably go back 2-3 years minimum in our tilt at a premiership, and that's only if we can draft/trade/develop someone else who is equally as good. Maybe we won't. 

KPDs don't grow on trees. They are as hard to get as KPFs and they make or break a team. 

 

I'm really over these group-thought, run-of- the-mill lines that seem to circulate around demonland and have done for years. 

The same used to be said about Frawley, Garland and Dunn (until they were dropped) etc etc...

Firstly, as a side, we've had to rely on Tom McDonald more than we would like simply because of the lack of experience and lack of cohesion we've witnessed in our backline this year. 

Frost (35 games), O-Mac (12), Hunt (14), Wagner (13), White (3), Salem (29), Michie (21). 

These are the players who have played as part of our back six this year with Frost, O-Mac, Hunt and Wagner being the regulars. It goes completely against the philosophy that Roos' continually spins in regards to how important it is to develop young players at reserves level.

The fact that we have Dunn, Garland and Grimes combining for a total of 406 AFL games experience sitting in the VFL, all of whom have played the majority of their career as defenders is the reason that we find Tom McDonald to be an important player for us at this present time. We have the most unsettled and inexperienced back six in the entire competition.

You've completely disregarded all of that by stating outlandish one-liners, the most ridiculous being: 'If we lose him, we will probably go back 2-3 years minimum in our tilt at a premiership'. 

Premiership sides are made up of disciplined, experienced and functioning sides who both attack and defend really well as a collective and premierships are almost always won on the back of the talent, strength and depth of the midfield brigade. I'm also fully aware that there have been elite champion key position backmen in premiership sides over the years just as there have also been 'no-fuss', combative and limited big bodied defenders playing in those key position roles. 

It is complete tripe to suggest KPD don't grow on trees. The Dog's picked up Adams from the WAFL last year, Freo picked up Collins from the VFL. Sydney have Richards, Grundy and Laidler as their three talls. That's two trade ins and a former forward turned defender. The power traded for Hombsch from GWS, GWS have a former Brisbane geriatric. 

They're everywhere. Those teams however have incredible support and experience around those positions which simplifies the role of the key defender. McDonald is doing an honourable job and is in my view, doing more than he would normally be required to do given the circumstance. What we are missing is a genuine big body who can play on the heavy weights which is why I think bringing in a Brown or Mackenzie type would help our cause. (Providing Dunn never gets back to his best).

If Tom leaves because he feels he deserves more money, it won't concern me at all providing the club had a plan in place. You're missing the bigger picture in all of this.

The addition of Melksham and the potential addition of Hibberd next year will go a long way to settling our defensive setup. Both have over 100 games experience with Hibberd being able to play multiple roles.

The shape of our list is still changing and needs to change. For the better.

Tom McDonald's position is an important one, but one that can always be replaced if he left.

41 minutes ago, mo64 said:

This argument has been done to death. McCartney was sacked for a reason. He was a poor coach. Unless he could have achieved in his 4th year what Beveridge did in his 1st year, your argument is merely guesswork.

 

I'm praying that Goodwin is a better man motivator and matchday coach than Roos, otherwise we'll go into freefall once again.

Yep. Totally agree. We are no where near where i wanted the Team to be when Roos hands over the keys...

27 minutes ago, mo64 said:

This will be my final point. Just as I give Barassi little to no credit for our success under Northey, I'll give Roos the same if we bolt up the ladder under Goodwin.

Being able to understand opposing sides of an argument is a strength of mine, but this view is incomprehensible to me.

Production of the "Goodwin era" is precisely what Paul Roos was for. The development and coaching systems and playing list in place for Goodwin to inherit were put in place by Roos, with staff hand picked by Roos, including Goodwin himself. I can't see any logic in taking credit away from Roos for this.

9 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Being able to understand opposing sides of an argument is a strength of mine, but this view is incomprehensible to me.

Production of the "Goodwin era" is precisely what Paul Roos was for. The development and coaching systems and playing list in place for Goodwin to inherit were put in place by Roos, with staff hand picked by Roos, including Goodwin himself. I can't see any logic in taking credit away from Roos for this.

This is the wrong post for this discussion, but where has the things you've outlined take us? A coach that wins 7 to 9 games in their 3rd year is a failure. Roos' reputation and media friends have allowed him to avoid greater scrutiny. 

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Beveridge had the years of development under Macca to build from. It wasn't his instant success, it was Maccas slow build that he has benefited from, and done an outstanding job with. Goodwin may well do the same next year after 3 years of Roos development, lets hope so.  

Fingers and toes !! 

11 minutes ago, mo64 said:

This is the wrong post for this discussion, but where has the things you've outlined take us? A coach that wins 7 to 9 games in their 3rd year is a failure. Roos' reputation and media friends have allowed him to avoid greater scrutiny. 

Clearly you haven't actually noticed the changes at our footy club. Almost the entire list has been turned over and most of the team has played under 50 games, many under 20. We are now less experienced than we were when Roos started yet we are winning far more games and have doubled the percentage. What Roos said he would do is put together a coaching group and list than was there for the next coach to work with. He has done that very very well. 

If we already had these players 3 years ago then I would agree with you, we didn't. Roos has changed this club massively both on field and off, what we have now is a great group of young talent that is developing well, to expect the youngest team in the league to win all the time is stupid and unrealistic. 

If our senior players had developed as I am sure Roos hoped they would (Dunn, Garland, Grimes, Dawes) then I think our Win Loss ratio would look very different to what it does. They didn't, they aren't getting played, and we are going with the kids who will play the right way.

26 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Being able to understand opposing sides of an argument is a strength of mine, but this view is incomprehensible to me.

Production of the "Goodwin era" is precisely what Paul Roos was for. The development and coaching systems and playing list in place for Goodwin to inherit were put in place by Roos, with staff hand picked by Roos, including Goodwin himself. I can't see any logic in taking credit away from Roos for this.

 

10 minutes ago, mo64 said:

This is the wrong post for this discussion, but where has the things you've outlined take us? A coach that wins 7 to 9 games in their 3rd year is a failure. Roos' reputation and media friends have allowed him to avoid greater scrutiny. 

'mo', you are way off the mark.

If you can't see that we've gone from a basket case, the worst club in the AFL by a country mile to competitive you are not thinking straight.

Compare like to like and you will find no club like this one in the way it was so poorly managed...