1 hour ago, leucopogon said:

Let's say hypothetically that he is going to go back to WA, why would you keep him on the list until the end of his contract and end up with another Cam McCarthey situation? I'd move him on and be done with it already. The same logic applies to the Roos and Goodwin situation. Roos is gone at season's end, everyone knows it, why hang around? Just go and take the 1.5 million of AFL coin. 

No If this is to happen the best policy is to continue to develop him and allow him to make maximum  use of his abilities. This will maximize the return we would get on that asset. There are a number of advantages in this course, such as the younger stars playing in a more successful team while he is with us, which will attract better players than otherwise. Plus we should be able to attract better compensation for the loss of a marque player,

If he is that good and we lose him we should be arguing that a two tiered system is developing in the AFL. Concepts like de facto relegation come to mind. This is the last thing the gnomes in the AFL want as in the long term it will lead to a decline in Australian football's popularity. Anyway that is probably getting more and more off topic when the issue at hand is just why we got beaten by a second rate team.

I just posted in the "Roos match day thread"

Robert Shaw spoke about Freo. They've  tried attacking football for two weeks for a result of 0-2. Next week they will go back into lockdown mode and there will be a total of 13 goals kicked for the game.

Where to for us? 

What, were we ambushed? 

As STMJ alluded to we knew the Bombers were steeling themselves for this game. Something  which has been lost on the players for eternity is coming to play every week. They are genuinely dumb, there is no other explanation for them not grasping this simple concept. 

Lets ts not forget Goodwin has 3 years left after this season, we need to know ASAP if he can coach.

 

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

He has two years left on his contract, it wouldn't be at the end of this season. If it were a done deal, the players would know and wouldn't give him the time of the day. Langdon is the equivalent of a forum troll on radio. 

How would the players know if it was a done deal? Management deals in regards to contracts are kept in confidentiality. Players around the club wouldn't have a clue what Jesse and his management would discuss in regards to his contract status.

 

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

You are happy with a bloke who drops marks and runs around like a headless chook and then with every single kick or handball, turns the ball over. Well I am not.

Lumumba is a liability to us and was all last year and yet Grimes, who granted can do a poor disposal, but is hard and fit, is overlooked.

I think our FD has identified we have quite a few liabilities in our back six, hence Salem and Vince, and even Jones playing back there this year. I thought Lumumba was poor yesterday. If he wasn't skying kicks, he was kicking them along the ground and this was under little pressure. I think he'll be a more important player and more damaging when our team delivers some consistent work rate, but he looks useless when our blokes are standing still or refuse to run. 

I don't think Grimes is the answer. His kicking is just as bad, his decision making worse and he's slower. He's old Melbourne. Every time he takes a mark he'll take fifteen steps backwards and assess his options. At least Lumumba tries to move it on. That's what our side needs to do, but if there's no work rate, it means there's no one to kick or handball it to.

Steve has been right for about two season on Garland too. I thought Col was solid and probably one of our best in 2013. He would try to take the game on, but he just doesn't anymore and he consistently loses one-on-one battles. He offers no rebound and I too struggle to see what he is bringing to the table.

3 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Your also wasting your time on Garland.. Been saying it for years what a liability he is to our team.. but apparently he has good leadership blah blah blah.....

You got my vote...

4 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

I think our FD has identified we have quite a few liabilities in our back six, hence Salem and Vince, and even Jones playing back there this year. I thought Lumumba was poor yesterday. If he wasn't skying kicks, he was kicking them along the ground and this was under little pressure. I think he'll be a more important player and more damaging when our team delivers some consistent work rate, but he looks useless when our blokes are standing still or refuse to run. 

I don't think Grimes is the answer. His kicking is just as bad, his decision making worse and he's slower. He's old Melbourne. Every time he takes a mark he'll take fifteen steps backwards and assess his options. At least Lumumba tries to move it on. That's what our side needs to do, but if there's no work rate, it means there's no one to kick or handball it to.

Steve has been right for about two season on Garland too. I thought Col was solid and probably one of our best in 2013. He would try to take the game on, but he just doesn't anymore and he consistently loses one-on-one battles. He offers no rebound and I too struggle to see what he is bringing to the table.

No he hasn't, Garland was last week like the rest of the team, excellent, this week not so

Edited April 3, 20169 yr by Satyriconhome

10 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

No he hasn't, Garland was last week like the rest of the team, excellent, this week not so

I remember Tommy Mac having a good game last week (some great spoils and high kicking efficiency), but I don't remember Garland offering any rebound or dominating his opponent.

Edited April 3, 20169 yr by AdamFarr

2 hours ago, McQueen said:

I still believe that we're progressing and yesterday was a calamity of issues some of which STMJ has detailed above.

The test of how far we've come will be the response from the group next week.

I'm not so sure.

Surely the test is just as relevant when we play a completely undermanned side like we did on the weekend? 

Next week won't show me anything because yet again, it'll be a game we'll get ourselves up on the back of a putrid performance.

The real indicators with our group should be week to week footy and the gap between our best and worst. 

And there seems to be no bridging.

Like your work Steve but there was nothing in there that wasn't covered numerous times in the post match. Not sure the uppity attitude is warranted.

Here's some sobering reading:

Yze was better than Salem

Neitz was better than Hogan

White was better than Gawn

Farmer was better than Garlett

Johnstone was better (by foot and in big games) than anyone on our list

Ward was better than Lumumba

Ingerson was better than TMac

ox was better than Pedo/Dawes (lol)

Woewodin was probably similar to Vince

Wheatley was better than Garland

Green was better than Kent

Bruce was better than Harmes

should I go on?

 

 

2 hours ago, praha said:

This is basically a tl;dr version of the post-match thread, and could have been posted in there.

Solid contribution. 

I started another thread to provide posters a platform to talk about fundamental, deep-rooted issues that exist at our club. The other thread is seems to be a place to vent frustration. 

Why post on this one at all if that's all you have to say?

2 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Really, we lost, this is only the start, there will be at least another 3 or4 threads all saying the same thing, it's carthatic,  the next one will be who we need to draft to fill the glaring holes in the list

Keep believing in the Tooth Fairy.

The fact that you fail to observe and/or point out any issue with losses like these only highlights the fantasy world you live in.

How about you post something insightful about the game on the weekend? Do you even have a view on it? On why we seem to lose games like this? 

Anything man? 

 

 

We have additions to contribute to the speed (Stretch), power (Petracca) and disposal skills (Trengove). An underdone Brayshaw didn't help and Salem's role needs to be looked at. He's too good a player to be all but absent yesterday.

Once we get our full compliment together on the field, we can put together a decent side. I haven't lost faith in the list build on the back of yesterday. Certainly the effort and cohesion was lacking badly.

11 minutes ago, P-man said:

Like your work Steve but there was nothing in there that wasn't covered numerous times in the post match. Not sure the uppity attitude is warranted.

Hard to sieve through with the drivel that's everywhere in-between.

If starting a new thread is an indicator that my attitude is uppity then so be it, but is your post any different?

Edited April 3, 20169 yr by stevethemanjordan

25 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

No he hasn't, Garland was last week like the rest of the team, excellent, this week not so

Give us something Sat-man.

I want to hear what you thought of the game and why games like that have become a trend at this club. 

Fire-away.

 

Just now, stevethemanjordan said:

Hard to sieve through with the drivel that's everywhere in-between.

If starting a new thread is an indicator that my attitude is uppity then so be it, but again, is your post any different?

I don't want to start something.

Clearly, some of us react differently to others after a bad loss. Emotional posts are considered drivel. So be it. It's called being human and giving a [censored].

 

Just now, P-man said:

I don't want to start something.

Clearly, some of us react differently to others after a bad loss. Emotional posts are considered drivel. So be it. It's called being human and giving a [censored].

 

All fine, and I started a thread in hope that it could shed some more detail on what went on yesterday and less 'player X is [censored]'.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

How would the players know if it was a done deal? Management deals in regards to contracts are kept in confidentiality. Players around the club wouldn't have a clue what Jesse and his management would discuss in regards to his contract status.

 

Because something being confidential never stopped it being leaked..

My point was that if Langdon knew a deal had been done then the players would know as well. 

Edited April 3, 20169 yr by Ethan Tremblay

I haven't watched the presser but when Roos says that perhaps upwards of half a dozen of the boys looked tired I'm sure he's talking about more than just an observation and that his assessment actually derives from some serious biodata. It's possible that such a flat performance (compounded by the Don's possession game) is an effect of the rotation cap (and our under-use of it) from last week and that we're still learning to adjust. It only takes a fraction of reduced output at top level for the wheels to fall completely off in other areas (such as when you're chasing all day the spread and skill execution will then drop). There were some strange things going on yesterday re. rotation numbers between the teams but I can't find the half-time stats.  .

4 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Jesus I hate to say it again, but will Garland contribute anything positive to the team again? Kicking, body language, aggression, run, leadership, anything? I'm becoming increasingly confused about his role at our club. He has no spark! 

 

12 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

All fine, and I started a thread in hope that it could shed some more detail on what went on yesterday and less 'player X is [censored]'.

 

My analysis - weak willed, arrogant, disorganised and inept.

I have no idea if screenshots work on this forum.... but a lot of people are talking about Garland and I saw several of these moments from him:

Dees up by 2 points in the last.  5 minutes gone so players should still have legs.

TMac attacks from the front and fails, spoil allows the ball past.  Garland is standing in front flat-footed.

Bugg runs straight past Garland to make the tackle, preventing an open goal and is paid a free for Ess holding the ball.

TMac instantly runs forward to create an option.  Garland stands next to Bugg.

Bugg switches to Dom who is the only player apart from TMac running.

Dom has nowhere to kick so goes long to Gawn, beaten in a 2-1 and the ball comes back, Garland two steps behind.

Personally, I see TMac attacking well.  Bugg covers well.  Dom creates well.  If Garland had made an option, the rebound down the wing would've been fast and aggressive.  Switching to Dom locked it in.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 20169 yr by No10
Needed mbs

18 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Give us something Sat-man.

I want to hear what you thought of the game and why games like that have become a trend at this club. 

Fire-away.

 

Garland is like most of the players we have on the list, consistently inconsistent, it not only drives the fans wild but the coaches must sit there some times scratching their heads as well

We train really really well, I have seen enough sessions to last me a life time, I have seen some really good stuff in games also, but also some horrific moments.

But to me it is just footy, it is not something I get angry about.

I am still waiting like everybody else to see us put it together on a consistent basis, if I knew how to do it I would be an AFL coach, the players all have footy talent, you wouldn't be on an AFL list if you didn't, so it is just application.

Which magic button will turn it on god knows, we have turned over the list so that obviously isn't it

I will continue to turn up in the hope that we can turn into a consistently good footy team, if not I will still turn up

7 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

 

 

Did you read anything else I wrote on either side of that particular section on Garland or?

 

 

9 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Garland is like most of the players we have on the list, consistently inconsistent, it not only drives the fans wild but the coaches must sit there some times scratching their heads as well

We train really really well, I have seen enough sessions to last me a life time, I have seen some really good stuff in games also, but also some horrific moments.

But to me it is just footy, it is not something I get angry about.

I am still waiting like everybody else to see us put it together on a consistent basis, if I knew how to do it I would be an AFL coach, the players all have footy talent, you wouldn't be on an AFL list if you didn't, so it is just application.

Which magic button will turn it on god knows, we have turned over the list so that obviously isn't it

I will continue to turn up in the hope that we can turn into a consistently good footy team, if not I will still turn up

Then you get someone else who can play their role consistently. Garland is 28 this month. If he can't find consistency in his game by now (or even two years ago), he never will. Instead, they've given him a leadership position. I can only assume this is to motivate him into an aggressive player that takes the game on more on game day. Either way, it certainly hasn't worked.

Edited April 3, 20169 yr by AdamFarr

51 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I'm not so sure.

Surely the test is just as relevant when we play a completely undermanned side like we did on the weekend? 

Next week won't show me anything because yet again, it'll be a game we'll get ourselves up on the back of a putrid performance.

The real indicators with our group should be week to week footy and the gap between our best and worst. 

And there seems to be no bridging.

I agree. Next week might show us whether we are capable of matching with the best, but I'm confident we already know this.

If we win next week, the better test will be the week after against Collingwood. Better yet, the next real test is either Round 6 vs St Kilda (especially if we snag a win or two vs North, Collingwood and Richmond) or Round 9 vs Brisbane.