We're kidding ourselves!

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, Redleg said:

Yes I do. But that is not what you said. You said we were the worst. A talent unmatched by other supporters. I think we are no different to most other teams' supporters. In fact after 52 years since the last flag I think we deserve a medal. 

Well then highlight that bit so I understand what you're getting at - you quoted my whole post and simply said 'rubbish' without clarifying what you were aiming it at. 

We deserve a medal?  Woe is us.  That's life.  Thankfully we have coaches in place who are focused on putting the right things in place for the long term, not the short, so hopefully we can have the sustained success we have all been craving for so long.

[Undeeterred 3,124]

43 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Well I'm sorry that I brought it up.  You guys can keep on worrying about other clubs and what they're doing and how, after a win, they have sped ahead of us in development, talent, money and gameplan.  Don't let me stop you.

What you're overlooking is how many clubs, over a period of 10 years, just drop for a year or two then smash it back up the ladder, while we sit here saying give it a couple of years, give it a couple of years. Everybody's sick of it. 

[stuie 7,374]

13 hours ago, ProDee said:

As good as they are first and second year players won't provide a "hard edge".  But the sooner Oliver, Brayshaw, Trengove, vandenBerg and Salem are back the better. 

Totally agree. It's a sad indictment on our culture that it's up to them to provide our hard edge and competitive spirit.

 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

50 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Maybe 10 years wititout a final appearance has something to do with it. Our rate of progress seems glacially slow compared to other sides e.g. Bulldogs, Carlton etc. Supporters have a right to be frustrated when substandard performances like Sunday occur - no excuse for being beaten by almost 8 goals.

By an out of form team who had been beaten soundly In their prevIous 2 matches. Some on here seem think we were playing the Eagles, Swans or Hawks etc. They were struggling prior to meeting us. It's how "we" played/lost and the effort on the day that has many on here [censored].

I have news for all the marshmallows on here who seem to suck up a loss like that like they were at a teddy bear's picnic looking and finding berty beatles... look again before eating as It just might be  a big Dog's polly waffle with a very mediocre aftertaste!

[JTR 2,846]

Note to self....  whenever we lose, avoid this place like the plague.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the mood changes from one extreme to another off the back of wins or losses. Why can there never be some rational middle ground?

I'll let you get back to the wrist slashing now....  

 

[Gator 17,361]

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

Totally agree. It's a sad indictment on our culture that it's up to them to provide our hard edge and competitive spirit.

 

And it doesn't take too hard of an edge or skill to tackle.  Going into this game, which had a lot on the end of it, we were averaging 69.6 tackles per game.  We had 46 against Port.

There wasn't the stomach for a battle.  The collective will was lacking.  

You're right when you insinuate that our leaders don't lead and it's the kids coming through that we're relying on.  Poor old bloody Viney.  It appears if he's down we're shot ducks.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

For me, it isn't the fact that we're not improving or there is no hope. I think evidence would suggest we are definitely getting better.

The frustration is that we clutch to the young list mantra like a security blanket. It's been a bit like chasing a mirage - we have had to keep turning the list over in volume because the young guys don't come on so our list remains young and we get sold on potential time and again.

I get that having a young list is a genuine reason for both excitement and inconsistency but I'm not going to just assume these guys will keep up a linear rate of improvement because history tells me there are no guarantees. A lot of the threads on here now are mirror images of threads from 2010.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Radar Detector

[Gator 17,361]

8 minutes ago, Radar Detector said:

... I'm not going to just assume these guys will keep up a linear rate of improvement because history tells me there are no guarantees. A lot of the threads on here now are mirror images of threads from 2010.

You can't tell the difference between Viney, Oliver, Hogan, Salem, Tyson, Brayshaw, Gawn (young for a ruckman), vandenBerg, Stretch, Harmes, Hunt and a few others ?

You think they could be the equivalent of Morton, Grimes, Strauss, Blease, Maric, Watts, Gysberts, Scully, Trengove (cruelled), etc. ?

The latter are skinny and outside, whereas the former (in the main) have shown quality inside grunt and skill.  I think if you gave it a bit of thought you'd note the differences.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

44 minutes ago, ProDee said:

You can't tell the difference between Viney, Oliver, Hogan, Salem, Tyson, Brayshaw, Gawn (young for a ruckman), vandenBerg, Stretch, Harmes, Hunt and a few others ?

You think they could be the equivalent of Morton, Grimes, Strauss, Blease, Maric, Watts, Gysberts, Scully, Trengove (cruelled), etc. ?

The latter are skinny and outside, whereas the former (in the main) have shown quality inside grunt and skill.  I think if you gave it a bit of thought you'd note the differences.

That is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight for the latter group and unproven foresight for much of the former which is exactly my point. Scully and Trengove early days looked almost as good as Oliver and Brayshaw. Morton was always very outside but got his hands on plenty of ball and we had a young AA full-back as well as a rising star winning CHB under the age of 25 (albeit undersized).

Viney, Tyson, Gawn and Petracca are clear points of difference but everyone else on your list could become a boom or a bust. I don't think there are any guarantees about Salem (injured), VDB (already 24 and limited by his skills) and any of Stretch, Harmes, Hunt and Kent who could be world beaters or the equivalent of Blease, Strauss, Maric and Tapscott when we look back in a few years time.

As I said, I don't think it's true that we're not improving. But we are not light years ahead of where we were in 2010. The fact is we remain well short of finals standard and are being sold the same dream as we have been since Bailey. I hope your assessment is correct and it very may well be, there appears to be plenty of talent on the list. But I'm not going to get as seduced as other until I see us beating good, or even mediocre opposition more regularly.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Radar Detector

[drdrake 3,174]

2 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

They said on the weekend we were number 1 for goals kicked against inside 30m, and I doubt much will have changed after the Port game.

That is our issue sides earn their goals against us between the 50m arcs, which Is the same as most clubs but we are to slow to react once sides work through the zone.  Our defenders don't work hard enough to get back which leaves 2 and 3 against 1 open goals galore.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Well then highlight that bit so I understand what you're getting at - you quoted my whole post and simply said 'rubbish' without clarifying what you were aiming it at. 

We deserve a medal?  Woe is us.  That's life.  Thankfully we have coaches in place who are focused on putting the right things in place for the long term, not the short, so hopefully we can have the sustained success we have all been craving for so long.

Of course, but rather than pot people for having the temerity to question the commitment of the current playing list, just understand that it is due to the love of the club that we have and the fact that not only have we been starved of success for so long, but we have been absolutely putrid at times.  As a result, surely it is understandable that we ask questions.  The fact that we do does not diminish our commitment to the red and the blue. It is not about hand wringing and woe is me.

No point in telling vested stakeholders that they should just grin and bear it, while paying their hard earned every year.  Imagine a business saying to their clients, I'll take your money, but that does not give you a right to complain if you think the product we offer is sub-standard at times???????

Edited May 31, 2016 by iv'a worn smith

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

2 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

So Carlton are just better than us? 

Who said Carlton are better than us? I'm as annoyed with the ups and downs as anyone but some people need to get a grip. We're not sub-AFL standard anymore, teams lose games sometimes. We're on track to be in the mix for finals (granted the next month may put paid to that) which is about where we're at. The Essendon loss was infuriating but other than that we've lost 2 games against better ranked teams and 2 games against 50/50 opponents. We've also beaten one team better than us, 2 against worse teams and 2 against 50/50 sides. So all up I'd say we're about par for the course. Not exceeding where we should be but not worse.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

1 hour ago, Undeeterred said:

What you're overlooking is how many clubs, over a period of 10 years, just drop for a year or two then smash it back up the ladder, while we sit here saying give it a couple of years, give it a couple of years. Everybody's sick of it. 

They're coming from a higher base than us. We stuffed up two rebuilds in 5 years! We're onto our 3rd rebuild since 2007 of course ours is taking longer than some other clubs. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

1 hour ago, Rusty Nails said:

By an out of form team who had been beaten soundly In their prevIous 2 matches. Some on here seem think we were playing the Eagles, Swans or Hawks etc. They were struggling prior to meeting us. It's how "we" played/lost and the effort on the day that has many on here [censored].

They lost to WCE by 8 points the week before and beat the Lions by 80 points two weeks before that. They weren't struggling like Gold Coast are they just weren't dominating as some expected them to. We definitely didn't play to our ability but this was a genuine 50/50 game, one in which we went in underdogs. Some are acting like it was the Essendon loss all over again - it's not. It was annoying, frustrating whatever but its not burn the house down blow up the list stuff that some on here are making it out to be.

We are building a young developing list. Roos said he should've made more changes - he's said that a couple of times. But how do you make 4 changes to a team that won by 10 goals? How is that good for morale? I think he's also protecting the players by taking the heat while getting games into the kids. Would you rather Petracca and Oliver are in the team or out? Hunt and Wagner? Sure the argument could be made for Oscar McD but overall we're playing the kids because the facts are they are the better options.

[Redleg 40,926]

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

 

 Thankfully we have coaches in place who are focused on putting the right things in place for the long term, not the short, so hopefully we can have the sustained success we have all been craving for so long.

Amen. 

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Who said Carlton are better than us? I'm as annoyed with the ups and downs as anyone but some people need to get a grip. We're not sub-AFL standard anymore, teams lose games sometimes. We're on track to be in the mix for finals (granted the next month may put paid to that) which is about where we're at. The Essendon loss was infuriating but other than that we've lost 2 games against better ranked teams and 2 games against 50/50 opponents. We've also beaten one team better than us, 2 against worse teams and 2 against 50/50 sides. So all up I'd say we're about par for the course. Not exceeding where we should be but not worse.

Wiseblood's previous analysis of their list implies as much.

Edited May 31, 2016 by iv'a worn smith

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, iv'a worn smith said:

Wiseblood's previous analysis of their list implies as much.

Where did I say that Carlton were better than us?  I've never said that.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

7 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Where did I say that Carlton were better than us?  I've never said that.

I said your analysis implied as much.

 

Quote

The core of their good players were playing finals in 2009-2011 and 2013.

Everyone (media and fans) misjudged their list. I think Malthouse's terrible coaching was underestimated. He took a list that was good (not great, but good enough to be playing finals) and wrecked it, basically.

 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, iv'a worn smith said:

I said your analysis implied as much.

 

 

I didn't say the quote you used, though.  That was someone else.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I didn't say the quote you used, though.  That was someone else.

My sincere apologies Wiseblood, I was meaning Titan. who said it, as well as this

Quote

They had 4 former pick 1's, two former pick 2's, a pick 3 and two pick 10's.  All up they had 9 former top 10 picks and 11 within the top 13.  Half of their team was drafted within the top 13 of the National Draft.  To put that in perspective we had 6 players from Saturday drafted within the top 13; and that includes both Hogan and Viney.

Our average age was 23.5 months - there's 25.11 months and our games experience average was 63.9 compared to 98.4.  Those numbers present a huge disparity.

Bolton is doing a great job, but their experience and top end talent is better than what is being reported.  

 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They're coming from a higher base than us. We stuffed up two rebuilds in 5 years! We're onto our 3rd rebuild since 2007 of course ours is taking longer than some other clubs. 

I cant get over how nobody else sees this. Look at each of these teams best on the weekend

Carlton: Gibbs, Docherty, Armfield. Curnow (Ed), Rowe, Cripps    Total games: 576 Avg: 96 lowest: 32
St Kilda: Steven, Armitage, Reiwoldt, Fisher, Geary                               923, 185, 122
Bulldogs: Wood, Dahlhaus, Liberatore, Macrae, Hunter, Suckling          505, 84, 46
Power: Wingard, Gray (R), Ebert, Dixon, Westhoff, Boak                       872, 145, 75

Our best from win the week before:
Melbourne: Hogan, Bugg, Stretch, Petracca, Garlett, Oliver, Watts      395, 56, 5 (4 played less games than all listed above)

They might be having faster "rebuilds" but they are lead by seasoned stars, we are lead by children

[The Reverend 1,736]

Ahhh... it's great to have the old Demonland back and in full voice.

 

 

 

[chook fowler 19,459]

To be fair our supporter base has been criticised in the past for being too accepting and passive. I have no doubt about the coaching or the recruiting however there is no hiding the fact that Saturday was a substandard performance and too many players went AWOL. Supporters are entitled to vent. It also raises concern that the team still has a soft underbelly and this needs to be addressed.

[Gator 17,361]

1 hour ago, Radar Detector said:

That is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight for the latter group and unproven foresight for much of the former which is exactly my point. Scully and Trengove early days looked almost as good as Oliver and Brayshaw. Morton was always very outside but got his hands on plenty of ball and we had a young AA full-back as well as a rising star winning CHB under the age of 25 (albeit undersized).

Viney, Tyson, Gawn and Petracca are clear points of difference but everyone else on your list could become a boom or a bust. I don't think there are any guarantees about Salem (injured), VDB (already 24 and limited by his skills) and any of Stretch, Harmes, Hunt and Kent who could be world beaters or the equivalent of Blease, Strauss, Maric and Tapscott when we look back in a few years time.

As I said, I don't think it's true that we're not improving. But we are not light years ahead of where we were in 2010. The fact is we remain well short of finals standard and are being sold the same dream as we have been since Bailey. I hope your assessment is correct and it very may well be, there appears to be plenty of talent on the list. But I'm not going to get as seduced as other until I see us beating good, or even mediocre opposition more regularly.

Really ?  Hogan, Oliver, Brayshaw and Salem could be "boom or bust" ?

You should learn to back your eyes a bit more.

And even on limited viewing Stretch, Harmes and Hunt have shown a greater propensity to contest and tackle than Blease, Strauss, Maric and co.  Stretch averages double their disposals for starters and even though he's outside he cracks in far more.

Anyway, I'm happy to relax knowing the list we're building and you can just hope we're getting things right.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

19 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I cant get over how nobody else sees this. Look at each of these teams best on the weekend

Carlton: Gibbs, Docherty, Armfield. Curnow (Ed), Rowe, Cripps    Total games: 576 Avg: 96 lowest: 32
St Kilda: Steven, Armitage, Reiwoldt, Fisher, Geary                               923, 185, 122
Bulldogs: Wood, Dahlhaus, Liberatore, Macrae, Hunter, Suckling          505, 84, 46
Power: Wingard, Gray (R), Ebert, Dixon, Westhoff, Boak                       872, 145, 75

Our best from win the week before:
Melbourne: Hogan, Bugg, Stretch, Petracca, Garlett, Oliver, Watts      395, 56, 5 (4 played less games than all listed above)

They might be having faster "rebuilds" but they are lead by seasoned stars, we are (sic) lead by children

Yep, we are led by children.  As I said earlier in a post on this topic, the poor MFC is unique and no other AFL side has had to experience the same list issues or administration problems that we have had to.  Not all that long ago, the Bullies sacked their senior coach, who is now with us, Cooney and Griffen walked out and that all now seems like a distant memory.