1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Please stop making excuses for what happened 3-4 years ago

Ample time to erase and shred up all that rubbish. Any player who doesn't fit in or still cannot cope cannot be anywhere near a senior game. 

Excuses for lack of skill are a thing of the past

On that note, dredging up players limitations from 3-4 years ago is meaningless. Matt Jones, Grimes and Trengove have been through re-education, role changes and injury recovery and deserve to be assessed on their output capability today, not some deficiency from 2012 or 13.  IMO, the only evidence that's relevant is their games in 2016 and, aside from his work at Casey which may or may not translate to AFL, it's one good game by Grimes so far.

Edited July 13, 20169 yr by Fifty-5

38 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

I'm not even going to address your first three replies - they are a waste of effort, and in particular point 3 (the comparison of those players), you've clearly missed the point.

With regards to your last point, saying that the reason Grimes wasn't playing in the past 18 months because he was "shellshocked" is one of the most mind-boggling things I have read on here.

Grimes needs to do more than get his hands on it.  His first game he had 32 possessions, which was the 3rd most for the game.  He got last best on the AFL website, didn't make the best in the Herald Sun, and didn't received 1 vote from either coach.  Says a lot about the quality of his disposal (don't give me the 90% efficiency stat - I watched his game and that stat is far from reality), and also says a lot about the impact he had on the game.

Knowing the game plan isn't his issue, it's being able to perform his role within it, and being able to improve his skills, which has ALWAYS been his problem, and will ultimately cost him his place on the list at the end of the year.

Garland and/or Dunn would be called up straight away. You think, Garland has been in the twos for a long time now and White was promoted ahead of him last week, Dunn was dropped from the leadership group and may have played his last game for the cub.

Garland has the worst body language of any player at the club and if you think he's come through this unscathed you are clearly mistaken. You were talking about how other players have come through this period and handled it better than Grimes, well that is clearly debatable and I'd say  totally incorrect. Furthermore why do you think Dunn was dropped, was it his inability to follow team rules and the team plan?

Guess you missed the part where I said "Grimes being shellshocked and unable to adapt to the new game plan"

No point in trying to discuss something with someone who is only interested in selectively quoting what you say.

Roos said he was happy with his performance so I'll accept that over your criticism of his game. Let's see what happens at the end of the year.

Grimes game was less than perfect but I'm happy to see him back and getting his hands on the ball

4 hours ago, Dante said:

The current list of players, bar a few, didn't go through the years that Jack did and have been trained from the word go that they are good enough to win any game they play in, Jack, I would imagine, is still burdened by the years where we were tanking, list managing, changing the coach every couple of years and generally burdened by a loser mentality.

My opinion is that he has the talent but needs to adopt the "we can win any game we play in" mentality and to do that he needs to be in the side for a while, surrounded by positivity and perhaps then he will return to the player he should have been all the time.

The two Jacks can be really good players for the MFC, they just need to get the confidence that is needed to do so.

 

 

What a weird post. Which one game this year that he has played has he not displayed a  "we can win any game we play in" mentality??

FFS

Just now, jnrmac said:

What a weird post. Which one game this year that he has played has he not displayed a  "we can win any game we play in" mentality??

FFS

 

Maybe that's why he's only played one game this year.

That was just an observation FFS, you know the type we all make on here.

 

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

On that note, dredging up players limitations from 3-4 years ago is meaningless. Matt Jones, Grimes and Trengove have been through re-education, role changes and injury recovery and deserve to be assessed on their output capability today, not some deficiency from 2012 or 13.  IMO, the only evidence that's relevant is their games in 2016 and, aside from his work at Casey which may or may not translate to AFL, it's one good game by Grimes so far.

I watched both Jack’s down at Casey. I don't think either of their limitations have truly disappeared. Trengove's is a lack of legspeed and kicking penetration. Grimes' is ordinary disposal. 

I always said Grimes would get to 100 games in 2016, but let's see how he goes this week and next before we declare him fixed. 

Either way, there's no way he'll be on the senior list at Melbourne next year.

8 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

I always said Grimes would get to 100 games in 2016, but let's see how he goes this week and next before we declare him fixed. 

or we declare him cooked.

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

or we declare him cooked.

FWIW, do you believe poor kicking in a 27 year old can be reprogrammed?

-

2 hours ago, Dante said:

 

Maybe that's why he's only played one game this year.

That was just an observation FFS, you know the type we all make on here.

 

You actually think an AFL listed player, would not go out thinking they could win a game?

An observation, he has only played one game up to now because the Footy Dept thought other players offered a better option, then with his displays in the VFL they had to reward him, perhaps he replaced Bugg or Dawes coz one of them said to Roosy "gee Roosy don't think we can win this game in Darwin"

14 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

FWIW, do you believe poor kicking in a 27 year old can be reprogrammed?

Possibly, only if it was a key forward and it was his action when kicking for goal. But it's not so its a no, 

2 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

You actually think an AFL listed player, would not go out thinking they could win a game?

An observation, he has only played one game up to now because the Footy Dept thought other players offered a better option, then with his displays in the VFL they had to reward him, perhaps he replaced Bugg or Dawes coz one of them said to Roosy "gee Roosy don't think we can win this game in Darwin"

So you think that all the players thought we could win any game when we were getting flogged week after week?

Do you really think that?

You don't think there was any hint of a doubt?

If you read what Roos said it was re programming Jack to play in a different position and when they thought he had shown he was able to play well enough in a different position, they did, they played him.

I didn't think you were an idiot but the last part of your post has me wondering.

 

12 minutes ago, Dante said:

So you think that all the players thought we could win any game when we were getting flogged week after week?

Do you really think that?

You don't think there was any hint of a doubt?

If you read what Roos said it was re programming Jack to play in a different position and when they thought he had shown he was able to play well enough in a different position, they did, they played him.

I didn't think you were an idiot but the last part of your post has me wondering.

 

It was you that said certain players think that way, it is insulting to professional athletes if you think they went out knowing they would lose, maybe you think that way. Any professional athlete NEEDS to think they can win, it is what stands them apart from the wannabees

Edited July 13, 20169 yr by Satyriconhome

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

It was you that said certain players think that way, it is insulting to professional athletes if you think they went out knowing they would lose, maybe you think that way. Any professional athlete NEEDS to think they can win.

So how do you explain 186? what about when we were tanking, do you think all the players were switched on then, do you think they were stupid enough to think we were really trying to win games? Do you honestly think that all the players in the side thought  we could win every game we played in in 2013?

Don't give me the Professional Sportsman garbage, there are plenty of sportsmen who know they have no hope of winning but go out to get prize money, how much chance does a qualifier give himself at Wimbledon if he plays Federer in his first match, how many team riders that are there for the benefit of the team leader think they will win the tour de France.

'perhaps he replaced Bugg or Dawes coz one of them said to Roosy "gee Roosy don't think we can win this game in Darwin"

That's why I questioned if you are an idiot.

 

26 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

It was you that said certain players think that way, it is insulting to professional athletes if you think they went out knowing they would lose, maybe you think that way. Any professional athlete NEEDS to think they can win, it is what stands them apart from the wannabees

26 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

It was you that said certain players think that way, it is insulting to professional athletes if you think they went out knowing they would lose, maybe you think that way. Any professional athlete NEEDS to think they can win, it is what stands them apart from the wannabees

I would argue pre "Roos" every interstate game we had a number of players who ran out knowing we would lose.

Im not saying they didn't try but they knew they were never in it.

28 minutes ago, Dante said:

So how do you explain 186? what about when we were tanking, do you think all the players were switched on then, do you think they were stupid enough to think we were really trying to win games? Do you honestly think that all the players in the side thought  we could win every game we played in in 2013?

Don't give me the Professional Sportsman garbage, there are plenty of sportsmen who know they have no hope of winning but go out to get prize money, how much chance does a qualifier give himself at Wimbledon if he plays Federer in his first match, how many team riders that are there for the benefit of the team leader think they will win the tour de France.

'perhaps he replaced Bugg or Dawes coz one of them said to Roosy "gee Roosy don't think we can win this game in Darwin"

That's why I questioned if you are an idiot.

 

That is a poor example, because they all share in the spoils of the win, if they are in the team, you are contradicting yourself, their whole aim is to win

Name calling, I was using an example that you say exists

 

6 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

That is a poor example, because they all share in the spoils of the win, if they are in the team, you are contradicting yourself, their whole aim is to win

Name calling, I was using an example that you say exists

 

Patthetic answer to a legitimate question...

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

That is a poor example, because they all share in the spoils of the win, if they are in the team, you are contradicting yourself, their whole aim is to win

Name calling, I was using an example that you say exists

 

I guess there are no teams in the event who think they haven't a chance, just like there are no athlete who run at the Games, knowing they are seconds behind the top athletes, who know they can't win.  Are you that naive that you think that all sportsmen think they can win in any event they run in.

As I said, in 2013 do you really think we were going out every week thinking we could win. We were, sometimes, out of the contest after 10 minutes of the first quarter.

16 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Patthetic answer to a legitimate question...

Just following your fine example precious   any input to the topic or just you usual sourness 

 

 

Edited July 14, 20169 yr by Satyriconhome

I think it's as simple as Jacks destiny is in his own hands, he's in the team right now and so long as he continues to play the way he did on the weekend i am 99.9% sure he'll get another contract at the Dees, if not he'll finish his time at the Dees having captained and played 100 games for the team he grew up supporting, which is what most people dream of.

5 minutes ago, Dante said:

I guess there are no teams in the event who think they haven't a chance, just like there are no athlete who run at the Games, knowing they are seconds behind the top athletes, who know they can't win.  Are you that naive that you think that all sportsmen think they can win in any event they run in.

As I said, in 2013 do you really think we were going out every week thinking we could win. We were, sometimes, out of the contest after 10 minutes of the first quarter.

Naive   they wouldn't put themselves through all they have to to reach a certain standard if they thought they couldn't win     which bit don't you get  the last few years were a combination of issues   doesn't mean the players didn't want to win

On 7/13/2016 at 8:14 PM, Satyriconhome said:

Naive   they wouldn't put themselves through all they have to to reach a certain standard if they thought they couldn't win     which bit don't you get  the last few years were a combination of issues   doesn't mean the players didn't want to win

I think belief is a really funny thing like that, there is a difference between seeing no reason you can't win, or liking the idea of winning or genuinely believing you can win.

I think Hawthorn are the only side in the AFL that would go into every single game feeling as though a loss would be a failure, so if you aren't in that frame of mind, do you genuinely believe you're going to win every week?

7 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Just following ypur fine example precious   any input to the topic or just you usual sourness 

 

 

I agree 100% with Dante

we had many seasons where players didn't believe they could win during the Bailey & Neeld tenures. 

If you couldn't see it you really don't understand sport. 

But then it's just a social outing to you

"to be near your boys..."

8 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Naive   they wouldn't put themselves through all they have to to reach a certain standard if they thought they couldn't win     which bit don't you get  the last few years were a combination of issues   doesn't mean the players didn't want to win

Wanting to win and believing you can win are 2 VERY seperate issues...

8 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Naive   they wouldn't put themselves through all they have to to reach a certain standard if they thought they couldn't win     which bit don't you get  the last few years were a combination of issues   doesn't mean the players didn't want to win

Now where did I say they didn't want to win? I said I don't believe they always thought they'd win. And what standard do you think they reached, everyone in the competition and most supporters new we were going to lose, they had a % of 54 so that meant they were scoring around half what their opponents were scoring, each week. Yeah, Naive.

I think they do think they can win now, but back then I'm sure there were many games they knew they would lose, probably most.