Personally I’d do away with all these stupid cups and medals for rival / derby games. Surely their low point was the Drink Drive Bloody [censored] Cup presented to the winner of the Footscray v Richmond game when they were both sponsored by the TAC. 

34 minutes ago, Sydee said:

I'm curious - have you watched any of the VFL games that BBB has been "playing well" in?

His performance last week against Werribee was an improvement but still not great. He isn't in the AFL team because he allows opposition defenders to intercept mark too often and is easily out positioned by key defenders. When the ball is on the ground, unfortunately he doesn't seem capable of applying tackling or chasing pressure. These are non-negotiables if you want to get a game in an AFL forward line and it's the reason we have to play a 20 yo JVR atm because at least he competes hard in every contest.

I'm perplexed by the weekly commentary about a number of players at Casey that should be promoted when the reality is that as a team their form is just ok but not great and individually many just don't warrant promotion. This includes Howes, Laurie and Woewodin. I'm not suggesting they will never play AFL football simply that atm their form is not consistent or at a high enough level to justify promotion. I agree Turner is one player that could be promoted if the opposition called for another tallish intercept defender - this week may be another chance for him.

Our Casey team is where we develop our youngsters and where we play senior players back into some form - we shouldn't be doing that in the AFL squad IMO.

 

Agreed Sydee, that is on BBB'S form. BBB is a very ordinary pack mark, always has been. Watching his VFL skills he begins a lead but is soon overtaken by his opponent who then marks and runs on. Should BBB be then able to spoil his ground skills are negligible. Hard to see BBB now ever improving where necessary

Edited June 1, 20232 yr by Cyclops
Spelling

Would love to see BBB and Tomlinson in the side this week. I think we need the extra tall defender to combat the twin towers. Tmac is a favourite of mine but he just looks so slow at the moment. 

2 hours ago, bush demon said:

Not to mention the manufactured game day experience. No 'crowd' anymore.... just loud announcers and music controlling the messaging. Just watch Everton's  last game in EPL, by way of comparison. 

Premier League supporters complain the same way we do. Their game has been hijacked by corporates, all about the television money and the likes of Anfield, Emirates, Etihad and Old Trafford now are tourist meccas with long term supporters often priced out of the game

15 minutes ago, Cyclops said:

Agreed Sydee, that is on BBB'S form. BBB is a very ordinary pack mark, always has been. Watching his VFL skills he begins a lead but is soon overtaken by his opponent who then marks and runs on. Should BBB be then able to spoil his ground skills are negligible. Hard to see BBB now ever improving where necessary

And he is our one tall key forward on the list. We need another desperately and Verrall to also develop into one. 

1 hour ago, Newport34 said:

Would love to see BBB and Tomlinson in the side this week. I think we need the extra tall defender to combat the twin towers. Tmac is a favourite of mine but he just looks so slow at the moment. 

Hardly injecting a ton of speed and agility with those two IMO - I do agree however that we may need another tall option in D50 this week

 

3 hours ago, Deestinga2 said:

As for this weeks game, BBB simply has to come in. I dont think that its any coincidence that the Fritch Magnet had gone off the boil since BBB has been out of the team. I know BBB isnt much good when the ball hits the ground but isnt that what Kozzie, Spago and Chandler are in there for?

We must play a third tall in the backline, we won a premiership with this structure and have barely used it this year. Play Disco Turner for the rest of the season and tell him that 1 bad game is not the end of him playing at AFL level. Not much point drafting these kids if they never get much of an opportunity to prove they are good enough. I rather loose teaching kids for the future than loose just going through the same motions as before.

And if someone on here could pass this onto Steven May, please dont continue to kick the ball to the same spot after a point, im pretty sure that the other 17 clubs know exactly where you are going to kick it. Furthermore, could you ask Gawn and Grundy to lead to the opposite sides of the ground, wouldnt that be a nice option to have.

Bring in the Woewodin lad, need some legs speed since most of our elite runners seem to have concrete boots on.

I understand its not in Goodwins nature to make so many changes but we need a change up

BBB in agree, Turner as long as they don't ask him to play on someone 10 kilos heavier 

On 5/30/2023 at 10:45 PM, Redleg said:

I am 71, have loved the game and especially the MFC, since I was about 5 and I am now at the stage, where I only want to go to games, to be with my kids and grandkids.

I detest what I see happening to the game, which is run imo purely for money.

People are ripped off at every turn by the AFL.  AFL members are forced to pay $10.00 on top of membership for a seat at the G, for many games, instead of just being allowed to walk up.

The fixturing is completely unfair and of its own, makes the whole competition a compromised sport.

The umpiring is inconsistent.

The MRO and Tribunal are a joke.

The media because of accreditation are sycophants, too scared to report honestly.

Everything is a deal, or fixed by a deal.

Players now are unsure how to play the game and as an example, against Freo, I watched Melbourne players actually hesitate before going for the ball or tackling.

Games being played on school nights, so families are denied the ability of attending.

Blasting music so loud you can’t talk to people next to you.

Excessive Politicising of the game.

My love of the game has been severely diminished by its administrators, who couldn't run a BBQ without giving everyone food poisoning.

I detest the direction of the game, that these people have taken it in and I am not referring to efforts to make it safer.

Yes they have improved the viewing facilities, with some new grounds and refurbishments, but they have imo achieved little else.

At least I have my memories of hard, tough,skillful footy, umpired reasonably, with penalties at Tribunals that were pretty consistent and people loving the game and actually living for it.

I’m a “reader” and not a “poster” as evidenced by my 144 posts in 13 years. I’ve also never taken a fellow Demonlander to task before. Yet, your post kept me awake last night. I only post this now because of the high regard I hold for the quality of your posts and your influence on other Demonlanders. As an additional preface, I want to make clear that I share your concerns with all the issues you have raised about the present state of the game.

I have not followed the game for as long as you. However, in the 35 years I have followed the game, people have always complained about the umpiring, the rules, the tribunal and the administration. Furthermore, there have always been those who have claimed the game is at its lowest ebb. I suspect it has always been such and always will be. This discussion need not be restricted to football. People make similar comments about the state of society generally. So, I am naturally sceptical of such claims.  

What is missing from your post and similar lamentations is balance. For all the negatives you have identified – and with which I agree – there are positives. 

Most obviously is the phenomenal success of women’s football and the explosion in participation. This is great for the game, gender equality and public health more broadly.  

Football clubs and matches (AFL/VFL and local) were once places of open racism that was not only tolerated but encouraged. Racial slurs were seen as a legitimate way of putting an opponent off their game. Whatever you think of clubs taking a stance on the Voice, surely we can agree that there is less racism in football today and that is a good thing. 

What was once glorified as toughness has been better identified as thuggery and the game is cleaner. Does anyone really think we need more players running past the ball to shirt front an unsuspecting player? Toughness is better appreciated as playing the ball and never shirking a contest. Viney, along with Oliver and Petracca, are outstanding examples of tough and clean players.  

The players are bigger, stronger, faster and more skilful. The tactics and strategy are more complex. Fundamentally, when you strip away inconsistent umpiring and ambiguous rules, the game is still fascinating and spectacular.  

I look at my young boys. They love playing this athletic and skilful team game with an odd-shaped ball, just as I did at their age. They have no awareness of the concerns I have about the direction of the game. Though I’m sure they will when they are my age, when their own kids develop their love of the game and I bemoan how the game is not what is was in the 2020s when the MFC won a cabinet full of premiership trophies. 

My point is, just as the game and society change, so do we. Psychological research shows we have a tendency towards preferring to maintain the status quo as we age. We also have a cognitive bias towards negativity and we weight losses more than gains (i.e. the negative effect of losing $100 is greater than the positive effect of winning $100). Evolutionary psychology theory argues we have evolved thus because this confers a survival advantage (at the expense of our happiness and with the burden of anxiety). 

So, the negatives are easy to identify and we tend to overestimate their magnitude. We may need to look harder, but the positives are there as well. Across the course of my life, on balance, both football and society have changed for the better.  

Thanks for your great insights and humour over the years. I trust you will receive this post in the spirit with which it was intended. 

 

 

 

 

In:  Tommo, Hunter

Out: Harmes, T-Mac

15 minutes ago, speed demon said:

 

I’m a “reader” and not a “poster” as evidenced by my 144 posts in 13 years. I’ve also never taken a fellow Demonlander to task before. Yet, your post kept me awake last night. I only post this now because of the high regard I hold for the quality of your posts and your influence on other Demonlanders. As an additional preface, I want to make clear that I share your concerns with all the issues you have raised about the present state of the game.

I have not followed the game for as long as you. However, in the 35 years I have followed the game, people have always complained about the umpiring, the rules, the tribunal and the administration. Furthermore, there have always been those who have claimed the game is at its lowest ebb. I suspect it has always been such and always will be. This discussion need not be restricted to football. People make similar comments about the state of society generally. So, I am naturally sceptical of such claims.  

What is missing from your post and similar lamentations is balance. For all the negatives you have identified – and with which I agree – there are positives. 

Most obviously is the phenomenal success of women’s football and the explosion in participation. This is great for the game, gender equality and public health more broadly.  

Football clubs and matches (AFL/VFL and local) were once places of open racism that was not only tolerated but encouraged. Racial slurs were seen as a legitimate way of putting an opponent off their game. Whatever you think of clubs taking a stance on the Voice, surely we can agree that there is less racism in football today and that is a good thing. 

What was once glorified as toughness has been better identified as thuggery and the game is cleaner. Does anyone really think we need more players running past the ball to shirt front an unsuspecting player? Toughness is better appreciated as playing the ball and never shirking a contest. Viney, along with Oliver and Petracca, are outstanding examples of tough and clean players.  

The players are bigger, stronger, faster and more skilful. The tactics and strategy are more complex. Fundamentally, when you strip away inconsistent umpiring and ambiguous rules, the game is still fascinating and spectacular.  

I look at my young boys. They love playing this athletic and skilful team game with an odd-shaped ball, just as I did at their age. They have no awareness of the concerns I have about the direction of the game. Though I’m sure they will when they are my age, when their own kids develop their love of the game and I bemoan how the game is not what is was in the 2020s when the MFC won a cabinet full of premiership trophies. 

My point is, just as the game and society change, so do we. Psychological research shows we have a tendency towards preferring to maintain the status quo as we age. We also have a cognitive bias towards negativity and we weight losses more than gains (i.e. the negative effect of losing $100 is greater than the positive effect of winning $100). Evolutionary psychology theory argues we have evolved thus because this confers a survival advantage (at the expense of our happiness and with the burden of anxiety). 

So, the negatives are easy to identify and we tend to overestimate their magnitude. We may need to look harder, but the positives are there as well. Across the course of my life, on balance, both football and society have changed for the better.  

Thanks for your great insights and humour over the years. I trust you will receive this post in the spirit with which it was intended. 

 

 

 

 

Thank you. ❤️💙

PS: on the subject of balance, please post more often. 

17 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

In:  Tommo, Hunter

Out: Harmes, T-Mac

Guess or inside info?

24 minutes ago, speed demon said:

 

Thanks for your great insights and humour over the years. I trust you will receive this post in the spirit with which it was intended. 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the compliment and I do receive the post as you intended.

27 minutes ago, speed demon said:

 

I’m a “reader” and not a “poster” as evidenced by my 144 posts in 13 years. I’ve also never taken a fellow Demonlander to task before. Yet, your post kept me awake last night. I only post this now because of the high regard I hold for the quality of your posts and your influence on other Demonlanders. As an additional preface, I want to make clear that I share your concerns with all the issues you have raised about the present state of the game.

I have not followed the game for as long as you. However, in the 35 years I have followed the game, people have always complained about the umpiring, the rules, the tribunal and the administration. Furthermore, there have always been those who have claimed the game is at its lowest ebb. I suspect it has always been such and always will be. This discussion need not be restricted to football. People make similar comments about the state of society generally. So, I am naturally sceptical of such claims.  

What is missing from your post and similar lamentations is balance. For all the negatives you have identified – and with which I agree – there are positives. 

Most obviously is the phenomenal success of women’s football and the explosion in participation. This is great for the game, gender equality and public health more broadly.  

Football clubs and matches (AFL/VFL and local) were once places of open racism that was not only tolerated but encouraged. Racial slurs were seen as a legitimate way of putting an opponent off their game. Whatever you think of clubs taking a stance on the Voice, surely we can agree that there is less racism in football today and that is a good thing. 

What was once glorified as toughness has been better identified as thuggery and the game is cleaner. Does anyone really think we need more players running past the ball to shirt front an unsuspecting player? Toughness is better appreciated as playing the ball and never shirking a contest. Viney, along with Oliver and Petracca, are outstanding examples of tough and clean players.  

The players are bigger, stronger, faster and more skilful. The tactics and strategy are more complex. Fundamentally, when you strip away inconsistent umpiring and ambiguous rules, the game is still fascinating and spectacular.  

I look at my young boys. They love playing this athletic and skilful team game with an odd-shaped ball, just as I did at their age. They have no awareness of the concerns I have about the direction of the game. Though I’m sure they will when they are my age, when their own kids develop their love of the game and I bemoan how the game is not what is was in the 2020s when the MFC won a cabinet full of premiership trophies. 

My point is, just as the game and society change, so do we. Psychological research shows we have a tendency towards preferring to maintain the status quo as we age. We also have a cognitive bias towards negativity and we weight losses more than gains (i.e. the negative effect of losing $100 is greater than the positive effect of winning $100). Evolutionary psychology theory argues we have evolved thus because this confers a survival advantage (at the expense of our happiness and with the burden of anxiety). 

So, the negatives are easy to identify and we tend to overestimate their magnitude. We may need to look harder, but the positives are there as well. Across the course of my life, on balance, both football and society have changed for the better.  

Thanks for your great insights and humour over the years. I trust you will receive this post in the spirit with which it was intended. 

 

 

 

 

All valid points. Can we just lose the loud music at the games, that’s all. The rest I can handle.

Selection needs to be based around helping May and Lever play to their strengths. 

They are absolutely key to our success and we can't afford Jake Lever taking just 2 marks a game and dropping one crucial one in the dying minutes to concede the sealer.

The fact that they only have 10 coaches votes between them (I think they've only polled in 1 game each) tells me their either out of form or are badly affected by our new look defence, sans the one less tall defender and less Max Gawn helping out.

Once these two players start dominating games again, we will consistently win again.

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

If the two clubs wanted to be serious about it, it would be something named after Ron Barassi

There actually was an RDB cup in this game for a little bit. 

15 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Selection needs to be based around helping May and Lever play to their strengths. 

They are absolutely key to our success and we can't afford Jake Lever taking just 2 marks a game and dropping one crucial one in the dying minutes to concede the sealer.

The fact that they only have 10 coaches votes between them (I think they've only polled in 1 game each) tells me their either out of form or are badly affected by our new look defence, sans the one less tall defender and less Max Gawn helping out.

Once these two players start dominating games again, we will consistently win again.

It seems we’re dropping numbers back, perhaps to help them. I say give them permanent help and get the numbers around the ball again. We recruited Schache, he’s a good height and a good footballer, get him in the side FFS

Edited June 1, 20232 yr by Roost it far

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

All valid points. Can we just lose the loud music at the games, that’s all. The rest I can handle.

I just want to meet one person that really likes the loud music at games so they can be interviewed on the news. 

23 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Selection needs to be based around helping May and Lever play to their strengths. 

They are absolutely key to our success and we can't afford Jake Lever taking just 2 marks a game and dropping one crucial one in the dying minutes to concede the sealer.

The fact that they only have 10 coaches votes between them (I think they've only polled in 1 game each) tells me their either out of form or are badly affected by our new look defence, sans the one less tall defender and less Max Gawn helping out.

Once these two players start dominating games again, we will consistently win again.

Moving Petty out of defense was a structural mistake. We had other options for tall forwards, but his absence has been felt in defense. Lever has been forced to play as a traditional man on man key defender instead of a roaming third tall intercepting general. Teams have recognized our structural weakness and exploited it. Our premiership was based off their dominance and one of the statistically one of the stingiest defenses in AFL history. That defensive strength has been removed, so we have one less weapon and one more thing for the opposition to exploit. It’s the main reason why we can beat up on weaker teams, but can’t compete with other top 8 competitors.

There’s still time to adjust our gameplan and structure this year though. If we don’t change both structure and gameplan though, we will not win this year.

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

All valid points. Can we just lose the loud music at the games, that’s all. The rest I can handle.

Oath. 

7 minutes ago, layzie said:

I just want to meet one person that really likes the loud music at games so they can be interviewed on the news. 

I’m yet to meet them. It’s just an assumption by the marketing fools at the AFL, much like Gather around. Has there ever been a more hyped up load of [censored] round of football ever! 

4 hours ago, Newport34 said:

Would love to see BBB and Tomlinson in the side this week. I think we need the extra tall defender to combat the twin towers. Tmac is a favourite of mine but he just looks so slow at the moment. 

Spot on.  We need the extra tall and Tomlinson, while not ideal understands the role and the surrounding team members.  Not perfect but no option now IMO to shore up defence.

I'm expecting another good decision-making performance by Salem this week which should help.

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Moving Petty out of defense was a structural mistake. We had other options for tall forwards, but his absence has been felt in defense. Lever has been forced to play as a traditional man on man key defender instead of a roaming third tall intercepting general. Teams have recognized our structural weakness and exploited it. Our premiership was based off their dominance and one of the statistically one of the stingiest defenses in AFL history. That defensive strength has been removed, so we have one less weapon and one more thing for the opposition to exploit. It’s the main reason why we can beat up on weaker teams, but can’t compete with other top 8 competitors.

There’s still time to adjust our gameplan and structure this year though. If we don’t change both structure and gameplan though, we will not win this year.

Well said.

I'm hoping the Mtch Cttee can read.  I really hope we see this week they are on to it.  Otherwise I fear for a Curnow breakout.

This is from a friend and his ‘mail’ has been accurate lately in regards to changes. 
Joel Smith is in to play forward, Tomlinson and Hunter the other ins. 
 

2 hours ago, speed demon said:

 

I’m a “reader” and not a “poster” as evidenced by my 144 posts in 13 years. I’ve also never taken a fellow Demonlander to task before. Yet, your post kept me awake last night. I only post this now because of the high regard I hold for the quality of your posts and your influence on other Demonlanders. As an additional preface, I want to make clear that I share your concerns with all the issues you have raised about the present state of the game.

I have not followed the game for as long as you. However, in the 35 years I have followed the game, people have always complained about the umpiring, the rules, the tribunal and the administration. Furthermore, there have always been those who have claimed the game is at its lowest ebb. I suspect it has always been such and always will be. This discussion need not be restricted to football. People make similar comments about the state of society generally. So, I am naturally sceptical of such claims.  

What is missing from your post and similar lamentations is balance. For all the negatives you have identified – and with which I agree – there are positives. 

Most obviously is the phenomenal success of women’s football and the explosion in participation. This is great for the game, gender equality and public health more broadly.  

Football clubs and matches (AFL/VFL and local) were once places of open racism that was not only tolerated but encouraged. Racial slurs were seen as a legitimate way of putting an opponent off their game. Whatever you think of clubs taking a stance on the Voice, surely we can agree that there is less racism in football today and that is a good thing. 

What was once glorified as toughness has been better identified as thuggery and the game is cleaner. Does anyone really think we need more players running past the ball to shirt front an unsuspecting player? Toughness is better appreciated as playing the ball and never shirking a contest. Viney, along with Oliver and Petracca, are outstanding examples of tough and clean players.  

The players are bigger, stronger, faster and more skilful. The tactics and strategy are more complex. Fundamentally, when you strip away inconsistent umpiring and ambiguous rules, the game is still fascinating and spectacular.  

I look at my young boys. They love playing this athletic and skilful team game with an odd-shaped ball, just as I did at their age. They have no awareness of the concerns I have about the direction of the game. Though I’m sure they will when they are my age, when their own kids develop their love of the game and I bemoan how the game is not what is was in the 2020s when the MFC won a cabinet full of premiership trophies. 

My point is, just as the game and society change, so do we. Psychological research shows we have a tendency towards preferring to maintain the status quo as we age. We also have a cognitive bias towards negativity and we weight losses more than gains (i.e. the negative effect of losing $100 is greater than the positive effect of winning $100). Evolutionary psychology theory argues we have evolved thus because this confers a survival advantage (at the expense of our happiness and with the burden of anxiety). 

So, the negatives are easy to identify and we tend to overestimate their magnitude. We may need to look harder, but the positives are there as well. Across the course of my life, on balance, both football and society have changed for the better.  

Thanks for your great insights and humour over the years. I trust you will receive this post in the spirit with which it was intended. 

 

 

 

 

Two points

 

1. post more often

2. Umpires have always been the subject of frustration But in the 'old days' with one umpire you knew what you were getting and adjusted according to their particular biases. That changed slowly with the addition of another umpire and then another. Consistency was lost. And that ideally is what we all are after.

Nowadays we have four giving inconsistent interpretations, rules of the week, letting certain things go like throws or push in the back and even standing in the wrong positions. Frustration in the extreme,

A lot of this started with the attempts to speed up the game. Interchange being the main culprit. All for TV.One of the beauties of our game was that players got tired and couldn't run as far or as fast as the game wore on. Contested footy was the norm. And good teams stood out after half time.

Now its a mad scramble from start to finish. Its hard on players and umpires. No other sport has umpires run as far nor require them to have skill - like bouncing a ball.

We have the worst of all worlds it would seem and longstanding watchers are fed up with the 'product' and the entrenched biases like fixtures and MRP etc.

1 minute ago, Dee Zephyr said:

This is from a friend and his ‘mail’ has been accurate lately in regards to changes. 
Joel Smith is in to play forward, Tomlinson and Hunter the other ins. 
 

Same guy who said Woewodin was debuting last week?