Dappa, I don't know the history between the two but really it's irrelevant.

I have to disagree there. The code of conduct only goes so far when contributing to the quality of this site. But more on that in a minute.

Regardless of whether people agree or disagree with Clint Bizket he is just expressing his opinion, which is what this forum is about, and as you've pointed out this isn't an isolated case with RR. It's made worse because he is a moderator.

I didn't see CB resorting to personal jibes in this thread so why does anyone else need to?

On that I agree ALMOST completely. But I will say this. You think RR has been personal? You've been around here long enough to know he, and other like him have done way worse. Personally I though it's only a MAYBE that he overstepped the mark. But more on that in a minute.

Cheers again Jarka.

You stay out of this. He was talking to me.

What sort of forum is this?

Well I don't know about you, but I stuck around on demonland, and posted a fair bit because I saw it achieving something. As a regular poster you'd have noticed by now the difference between the cynicism of 'ology and the youthful "exuberance" of 'land. For my part, when I joined I knew FAR less about MFC and footy in general than I do now. Posters like RR, hard as it may be to say it, contribute a lot towards the "education" of both the young posters, and the posters who aren't lucky enough to be a part of any other supporter groups (like me).

What they, and guys like Hannabal (wherever he went), despise is when people get on here spouting garbage and ill-conceived theories, then guys like Rhino come on and show quite clearly where the fault lies in their reasoning, and they STILL cling to it, as a matter of pride (to prove this, he resurrected the post after a month). I think it takes a gutsy poster to admit fault, and if CB just took an objective look at what he was writing compared with Rhino, he might actually learn something (god forbid) and become a stronger contributor for it. But no... and demonland is worse off for it. Why? because it's clear to the educated where CB's philosophy is faulted, but he stands by it and makes the kids on here believe him simply because RR couldn't be bothered arguing with a guy who won't listen.

Call me misguided, but I like demonland, and i think it's important. I find it warmer and more welcoming than 'ology, and my ambition here is to give us a chance to shrug the "Range Rover" stereotype we all have to live with. If the supporters on the whole have harder attitudes, maybe the club will too. Demonland brings us together, but I can't take us as seriously as I'd like to as a group of 27,000 when there's this kind of childishness banging around. Demon supporter sites are hard enough to be around as it IS!

So yeah. I think you're right. Personal abuse is something we need to absolutely avoid, but you tell me, where else did RR have to go with all this? I'm no friend of his, and if he disagrees with any of what I've said, I don't really care. I get angry with him sometimes too, and disagree often, but one thing I DO is respect him enough to read his posts properly and objectively when he has a point to make. CB has not done this despite RR using every tactic at his disposal. The fault lies with both of them (as it takes 2 to tango) but moreso with CB I reckon.

Anyway. This is ridiculous. No-one really cares besides the two of us Jarka, and I have no beef with what you've said really. Let's get back to the footy.

By that logic Daniher has far more football knowledge than Robertson.

So with your logic above Daniher's plan> Robertson's plan

You can't have it both ways.

My point exactly.

People like old55 and Rhino Richards constantly use the argument that my point is not "valid" or that the FD know more about what is going on, therefore if I disagree with them, I must be wrong.

I was just throwing it back at him.

Judging someone's argument based on who they are is pretty pointless isn't it. Especially when most arguments are based on opinion or interpretation and cannot be proved right or wrong.

You cant allways kick it "long" into the fwd line. Countless times i saw it during the Melbourne Hawthorn game and there would one or two melbourne players and 4-5 Hawks players. Who do you think is going to win that contest? The hawks, more times than not.

This week Port will try to crowd Nietz hence thats why its important that we don't allways kick long as it will be Nieta vs 3 port players. The usage of Dunn, Miller, Davey and Picket will be vital.

See this is what sh1ts me with this forum.

One poster makes a point about what Robbo said (Didn't see Robbo say it myself, was switching between TFS and playing 360) and then says we should kick it long to our forwards, and what do you know, half the forum jumps on him saying he is wrong and an idiot.

I don't care who is up forward, it is a pretty simple plan if we want to win games would be to put a big guy in the square who can at least give a contest and give Flash and co. a chance at ground level. Nothing puts more pressure on a defense than a long kick, but wait, lets handball around the half back line and lose games due to it (Rounds 1 and 2).

And if anyone brings up the Sydney game and say our delivery was poor because we kicked long, no it wasn't due to long kicking, it was due to poor decisions by the players, there is a time for long kicking when the forward is one out, you don't just hack it in blindly.

Hey dm, did you watch the Carlton vs St. Kilda game last night?

If so, do you still think "kick it long to the forward line" is the be all and end all to winning a footy game?

I have to disagree there....

Dappa, I won't reply to everything because you've explained your position well I just wanted to add some thoughts.

I started posted on demonology, but I've ended up here because I think this is a great forum most of the time (easily the best Melbourne one), I hated what demonology turned into, not sure if it's changed since couple of years ago but you literally couldn't post something without at least three people abusing you - not my kind of place.

"You've been around here long enough to know he, and other like him have done way worse"

I completely agree with this comment which is the reason for my first post on the subject.

Most people will sometimes slip in a personal comment from time to time, footy is an emotional sport so it's bound to happen, in another thread recently I did the same thing to Nasher, but on reflection I felt terrible about it and apologised. I just have my doubts that RR has the same reactions when he does it and with that in mind is he the right kind of person to be a moderator on this site considering the types of values it stands for?

Regardless, the above questions are my own thoughts and don't need to be answered, but perhaps something good will come out of this thread.

Hey dm, did you watch the Carlton vs St. Kilda game last night?

If so, do you still think "kick it long to the forward line" is the be all and end all to winning a footy game?

Or our effort in the 1st quarter against Port? "Kick it long" in hope to a contest clearly isn't enough. We have to be more clever than that.

Quote Neale Daniher:

"I thought we improved today in a lot of areas. We still need to improve with our ability to hit with our feet, forward of centre, and that was our thing. We just weren't able to find enough targets inside 50. The first quarter just killed us, with our just banging it in there."

Or our effort in the 1st quarter against Port? "Kick it long" in hope to a contest clearly isn't enough. We have to be more clever than that.

Quote Neale Daniher:

"I thought we improved today in a lot of areas. We still need to improve with our ability to hit with our feet, forward of centre, and that was our thing. We just weren't able to find enough targets inside 50. The first quarter just killed us, with our just banging it in there."

Cameron Bruce's and Matthew Warnock's long kicks into the forward line in the last quarter resulted in turnovers and Port's winning goal.

kicking long is fantastic as long as you kick it to a player or to a contest. kicking blindly to 3 opposition players all by themselves serves no purpose.

kicking long is fantastic as long as you kick it to a player or to a contest. kicking blindly to 3 opposition players all by themselves serves no purpose.

Indeed, oppositions flood back and outnumber your forwards, sometimes the only options in long kicking range are options where you are outnumbered, in these cases kicking long loses you the match. You have to do something else. I have never said never kick long, I have only said it's not the right option all the time and you need other strategies. Kicking long can be mucked up when used at the wrong time or executed poorly just like kicking short and run and carry.

Cameron Bruce's and Matthew Warnock's long kicks into the forward line in the last quarter resulted in turnovers and Port's winning goal.

The disallowed winning goal to Davey came from a long kick and a crumb.

Also IIRC we had 8 set shots that we missed during the afternoon, suggesting that getting the ball forward quick rather than stuffing around with short handballs presented us with more opportunities.

Yes you'll get turnovers when you go long, but you'll also get far more opportunities to score. The good outweighs the bad, as long as your forwards convert their chances. I'll back our blokes to do that 9 times out of 10, especially when they are fit and in form.

A lot of those first quarter turnovers didn't come from kicking to a 3 on 1, they came from miskicks that went straight to Port defenders. I think we had six or seven straight inside 50s that were poor disposals coming forward. The method was perfectly correct for the first time all year, only the execution was off.

Indeed, oppositions flood back and outnumber your forwards, sometimes the only options in long kicking range are options where you are outnumbered, in these cases kicking long loses you the match. You have to do something else. I have never said never kick long, I have only said it's not the right option all the time and you need other strategies. Kicking long can be mucked up when used at the wrong time or executed poorly just like kicking short and run and carry.

i like the idea of kicking long for goal rather than kicking long into the unknown. what i mean is that a long kick from just the defensive end of the centre square can be marked about 45 -50 out giving us a shot at goal a long kick from too far forward can result in the ball droppingto the space that the defenders cover when trying to stop leads. i suppose the main thing is the forwards and the midfielders need to know what each other are thinking so that they know where they are supposed to kick. while it wasnt a long kick per se a good example of this was nick davies kicking it to barry hall when he had a set shot on a tight angle. barry knew where to run and davies knew where to kick it too. that was planned and practiced and showed that our backmen werent ready for it. you don't want to be too robotic but its good to have a plan...

It's not just about kicking it long, it's not as simple as that, there's a whole lot of other variables that have to work for that style of game plan to work. For example, the forwards and midfielders need to work hard to give our KPP's players enough space to lead and give them a target to kick long to, not just to a pack of players standing in front of goal.

That's why it makes me laugh when people can the 'kick it long' style of play, it's just not the simple.

The disallowed winning goal to Davey came from a long kick and a crumb.

Yes Neitz pushed Wakelin in the back which again resulted in a turnover, thanks - another good example Hards

Yes you'll get turnovers when you go long, but you'll also get far more opportunities to score.

Yes and provide your opposition with more opportunities to score also. I don't want more goals I just want more goals than the opposition.

For example, the forwards and midfielders need to work hard to give our KPP's players enough space to lead and give them a target to kick long to,

i was saying a similar thing in the thread called 'structure' or similar. it is up to the half forwards and the mids to make sure there is room for the forwards to lead into...