Just now, Bring-Back-Powell said:

They also hosted North at Etihad.

So they hosted 2 games at Etihad? That makes even less sense.

21 minutes ago, A F said:

Yep. I distinctly remember thinking Neeld is killing this young bloke's confidence. He clearly isn't up to it yet, but despite this though, we kept playing him. Painful. And given Neeld's autocratic style, he probably shat all over Toumpas for every error early on.

Coupled with the sub rule; that thing was poison for developing players' confidence.

Just now, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Coupled with the sub rule; that thing was poison for developing players' confidence.

It's pretty well documented that Neeld was poisonous to the players and created a toxic environment.

25 minutes ago, A F said:

Yep. I distinctly remember thinking Neeld is killing this young bloke's confidence. He clearly isn't up to it yet, but despite this though, we kept playing him. Painful. And given Neeld's autocratic style, he probably shat all over Toumpas for every error early on.

I'd be amazed if Neeld 'killed' Toumpas. Neeld was gone by mid season of the Toump's first year. He had Roos for two years  and Macartney, Goodwin and Plapp for 12 months and of course Hinkley for 12. Neeld was bad, but he hasn't influenced Jimmy for nearly 3 & 1/2 years now. 

Edited August 20, 20168 yr by xarronn
Spelling

Toumps a dud, plain and simple

4 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Tiring hearing this trotted out regularly; if we'd drafted Wines over Toumpas, who's to say we'd have become the basketcase we did? Who's to say we would end up with a new recruitment team led by Jason Taylor? Or Peter Jackson as CEO? Or Roos as coach? Or the 4 wins in 2014 that allowed us to draft Petracca and Brayshaw?

 

 

 

 

We'll just have to get Wines in 2 years via trade to make it a reality.  

Settle petal - just saying.  But otherwise agree, you can't win them all.

6 minutes ago, johndemons said:

 

Ben Kennedy might turn into our little Puopoulo when he gets back into the side RE the Toumpas trade. Maybe Wines will languish over at Port, he's hardly set the world on fire all year. 

Yep, that's been my impression as well, along with most of the Port midfield bar Robbie Grey.  How much easier is it for players to look good in sides that are playing well.

6 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

It's pretty well documented that Neeld was poisonous to the players and created a toxic environment.

And where is Neeld now?  

Let's hope he can work his magic there!

52 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I feel for Toumpas because he seems like such a nice guy, sadly he just isn't suited to the AFL.

I agree Clint, I also feel for him. He can't make a decision under pressure. 

11 minutes ago, Roost It said:

Toumps a dud, plain and simple

He has had so many opportunities and kept failing. 

 

	K	H	D	M	HO	FF	FA	T	G	B	AF

Jimmy Toumpas

6

3

9

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

38

 

Complete failure as a footballer.

How can the football world still get something so wrong?

24 minutes ago, xarronn said:

I'd be amazed if Neeld 'killed' Toumpas. Neeld was gone by mid season of the Toump's first year. He had Roos for two years  and Macartney, Goodwin and Plapp for 12 months and of course Hinkley for 12. Neeld was bad, but he hasn't influenced Jimmy for nearly 3 & 1/2 years now. 

You weren't at those first three games of 2013 obviously. They were confidence holocausts for inexperienced players and we threw them to the wolves.

4 minutes ago, A F said:

You weren't at those first three games of 2013 obviously. They were confidence holocausts for inexperienced players and we threw them to the wolves.

Jack Viney came out of it okay.

1 minute ago, Chook said:

Jack Viney came out of it okay.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Some players can push through the rubbish. Jones is a good example, but there's no doubt we shot Toumpas' confidence and he mever recovered. Did he heap too much pressure on himself? Sounds like it.

5 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

This is a rough guide of percentage outcomes of tomorrows match. Top line is our score, down the left is Carltons score. Find the intersecting cell in the table for a rough idea of what our percentage would look like. I've bolded the outcomes which get us to the 107% mark, i.e. 80-30. Obviously from those numbers we'd need a roughly 50 point win to get close to the current mark. This does not take into account what happens next week.

		Melbourne
		10	20	30	40	50	60	70	80	90	100	110	120	130	140	150	160
Carlton	10	104.75	105.32	105.88	106.45	107.01	107.58	108.14	108.71	109.28	109.84	110.41	110.97	111.54	112.10	112.67	113.24
	20	104.16	104.72	105.29	105.85	106.41	106.97	107.54	108.10	108.66	109.22	109.79	110.35	110.91	111.47	112.04	112.60
	30	103.58	104.14	104.70	105.26	105.82	106.38	106.94	107.49	108.05	108.61	109.17	109.73	110.29	110.85	111.41	111.97
	40	103.00	103.56	104.12	104.67	105.23	105.78	106.34	106.90	107.45	108.01	108.57	109.12	109.68	110.23	110.79	111.35
	50	102.43	102.99	103.54	104.09	104.65	105.20	105.75	106.31	106.86	107.41	107.96	108.52	109.07	109.62	110.18	110.73
	60	101.87	102.42	102.97	103.52	104.07	104.62	105.17	105.72	106.27	106.82	107.37	107.92	108.47	109.02	109.57	110.12
	70	101.31	101.86	102.41	102.95	103.50	104.05	104.60	105.14	105.69	106.24	106.78	107.33	107.88	108.42	108.97	109.52
	80	100.76	101.31	101.85	102.39	102.94	103.48	104.03	104.57	105.11	105.66	106.20	106.75	107.29	107.83	108.38	108.92
	90	100.22	100.76	101.30	101.84	102.38	102.92	103.46	104.00	104.55	105.09	105.63	106.17	106.71	107.25	107.79	108.33
	100	99.68	100.22	100.75	101.29	101.83	102.37	102.91	103.44	103.98	104.52	105.06	105.60	106.14	106.67	107.21	107.75
	110	99.14	99.68	100.21	100.75	101.28	101.82	102.36	102.89	103.43	103.96	104.50	105.03	105.57	106.10	106.64	107.17
	120	98.62	99.15	99.68	100.21	100.75	101.28	101.81	102.34	102.88	103.41	103.94	104.47	105.01	105.54	106.07	106.60
	130	98.09	98.62	99.15	99.68	100.21	100.74	101.27	101.80	102.33	102.86	103.39	103.92	104.45	104.98	105.51	106.04
	140	97.58	98.10	98.63	99.16	99.68	100.21	100.74	101.26	101.79	102.32	102.85	103.37	103.90	104.43	104.95	105.48
	150	97.06	97.59	98.11	98.64	99.16	99.69	100.21	100.73	101.26	101.78	102.31	102.83	103.35	103.88	104.40	104.93
	160	96.56	97.08	97.60	98.12	98.64	99.17	99.69	100.21	100.73	101.25	101.77	102.29	102.82	103.34	103.86	104.38

Hope they show the players this and tell them that this came after pages and hours of supporters consideration.

If the players show the same passion as supporters they can get the result

 

14 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Jimmy Toumpas

6

3

9

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

38

 

Complete failure as a footballer.

How can the football world still get something so wrong?

 Because the kids that are drafted are babies. And had only ever played against babies. That trick that worked so well against a 16 year old suddenly doesn't work as well when the guy running at you is a 120 game 25 year old. The good ones either are natually those that can slow down time (Pendles), find other strings to their bow (Jetta), or just work bloody hard at what they can do and drop the things that no longer work. Chunk is probably a good example of that. He wanted to run through every tackle when ghe was first on the list because that is what he could always do... against kids because he was the biggest one. Against men he couldn't so he changed his style. Jimmy seems lost in a similar way because that extra second he used to have isn't there in the big league. and he gets flustered because of it.

I wish him luck, even though I think his time is running out, but sometimes things click. He's still young and still on a list so maybe he will find a way to find his mojo.

33 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Jimmy Toumpas

6

3

9

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

38

 

Complete failure as a footballer.

How can the football world still get something so wrong?

You left out the fact that he played only 55% game time.

Next lowest for Port was 71%.

A bit weird.

8 minutes ago, Uncle Fester said:

 Because the kids that are drafted are babies. And had only ever played against babies. That trick that worked so well against a 16 year old suddenly doesn't work as well when the guy running at you is a 120 game 25 year old. The good ones either are natually those that can slow down time (Pendles), find other strings to their bow (Jetta), or just work bloody hard at what they can do and drop the things that no longer work. Chunk is probably a good example of that. He wanted to run through every tackle when ghe was first on the list because that is what he could always do... against kids because he was the biggest one. Against men he couldn't so he changed his style. Jimmy seems lost in a similar way because that extra second he used to have isn't there in the big league. and he gets flustered because of it.

I wish him luck, even though I think his time is running out, but sometimes things click. He's still young and still on a list so maybe he will find a way to find his mojo.

Things dont click for someone who seems as far behind what's required as Toumpas. He is light years off what is required. Even further than Watts was early on. At least he had elite foot skills. Jimmy has elite brain fades, and nothing else.

I suspect you are correct with the kids v men analogy, but my question is, why cant professional recruiters spot who will fail with those qualities, and who can overcome them.

9 minutes ago, Seraph said:

You left out the fact that he played only 55% game time.

Next lowest for Port was 71%.

A bit weird.

ok fair enough. what was his disposal %

The kid hasn't got it. I dont expect this to change.

6 minutes ago, faultydet said:

ok fair enough. what was his disposal %

The kid hasn't got it. I dont expect this to change.

Yeah I'm not defending him, I just find it weird that he played such limited minutes. DE% was 77%. 2 clangers though. Not great from 9 touches.

Edited August 20, 20168 yr by Seraph

9 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Things dont click for someone who seems as far behind what's required as Toumpas. He is light years off what is required. Even further than Watts was early on. At least he had elite foot skills. Jimmy has elite brain fades, and nothing else.

I suspect you are correct with the kids v men analogy, but my question is, why cant professional recruiters spot who will fail with those qualities, and who can overcome them.

Im not a recruiter, but I'm going to go with because they are babies. Every year there are first round picks delisted. It's more a lotto than a science, I think.

I wonder if the hits would get bigger, and the misses smaller if the draft was raised to 20, but I guess we will never know.

How long or often did we sit down and chat with Oliver before we drafted him? Interested to know how we guage who we're going to recruit in terms of their "football IQ" and not just their physical attributes and highlight reel.

Edited August 20, 20168 yr by johndemons

3 hours ago, SaberFang said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I seeing Collingwood playing their manditory home game at Etihad Stadium against Gold Coast? 

Really...?

They get theirs against Gold Coast and we get assigned St Kilda at Etihad twice.

I really shouldn't be surprised by the transparency of AFL HQ these days, it's just amazing how they don't even hide it.

About the only thing that I can think of which shiits me more about the way the AFL treats Melbourne than having to continously play 'our' home games against either St Kilda or the Bullies at Docklands is having to wear poxy white away jumpers that look nothing like a Melbourne jumper.

12 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

About the only thing that I can think of which shiits me more about the way the AFL treats Melbourne than having to continously play 'our' home games against either St Kilda or the Bullies at Docklands is having to wear poxy white away jumpers that look nothing like a Melbourne jumper.

We should bring in a light steel type silver and keep the Red V and have various grades of silver or grey. White has no place on a Demons guernsey. The Steel grey colour adds a metallic toughness and brings out the other colours

Edited August 20, 20168 yr by johndemons

Just now, johndemons said:

We should bring in a light steel type silver and keep the Red V and have various grades of silver or grey. 

Nope.  Red and blue all the way.

I could live with 80s retro royal blue or possibly the predominantly red one, but silver, grey and white have never been part of the clubs DNA.

Collingwood and Essendon hardly comprise their jumper and neither should we.  The AFL's infatuation with away strips is out of control.  So often I see teams playing in away jumpers even when there is next to no clash with the traditional strips.  Port and Freo changed their strips to one which actually clashes more and they should be the ones that change their jumper when we play them - Port should have just adopted their prison bars (much better than Collingwood's anyway Eddy!)

29 minutes ago, Seraph said:

Yeah I'm not defending him, I just find it weird that he played such limited minutes. DE% was 77%. 2 clangers though. Not great from 9 touches.

I'm just cranky that we are the team who wasted pick 4 on him.