Leaderboard

its not wattsy, but it was his fault

Enough's enough. It's time to start believing again.

Quite right, and funnily enough it's quite the opposite. Third world countries have very low rates of both depression and suicide. When you've got to fight just to survive, there's no time to think of anything else. The more affluent you are, the more likely you are to get depressed. With regards to a link between drugs and depression, I have some anecdotal evidence to present (and yes, I too am a statistics nerd so please don't lecture me about statistically significant sample sizes people!). I am an occasional recreational drug user (alcohol and weed roughly fortnightly, mushrooms, LSD and ecstasy much less often, but not never). I speak from the position of someone who has tried (but for the most part, not abused) drugs, and who has mingled with many people who have tried (and abused, in some cases) nearly everything. Note that I'm a fully employed "white collar" professional in my mid thirties. You'll see me in a tie in the city. I don't live under a bridge. My experience of basically all drugs (alcohol included) is that they amplify whatever mental state a person is in. A happy, chilled out person becomes a bit more happy, and a bit more chilled, on drugs. A thug with violent tendencies on drugs becomes the guy you read about in the news after an incident in King St. Someone who is a bit depressed, like my friend who killed himself recently, spirals into deeper and deeper depression with the assistance of drugs. Is there a link between drugs and depression? I'm not sure, and correlation isn't causation, but anecdotally it seems to me that drugs exacerbate depression. Drugs become the easiest way for a person to make a temporary escape from how they feel, while paradoxically making them feel that depression even more acutely. It becomes a vicious cycle. Depression on the whole is vastly misunderstood. You don't blame a person who suffers kidney failure...It's a symptom of a malfunctioning organ in their body. For the same reason, you should not blame them for suffering from depression... they too have a malfunctioning organ, it just happens to be the brain. In any event, Curry & Beer, I too felt like you about "perfect people" with "perfect lives" suffering from depression... something I had no experience with and no tendency towards myself. Suffice it to say, finding out your outwardly healthy friend has hung himself after a brief but intense addiction to meth is an experience that can alter your worldview pretty significantly. It's a complex situation with no simple answers, but compassion trumps cynicism as a starting point.

From the sounds of things, we finally have a Football Department that knows what kind of environment/standards are required to develop a group of willing players into a top flight AFL team (there's little actual evidence of this yet, though I could point to the differing paths taken by Blease and Gysberts last year: the willing player works hard and significantly improves, the unwilling player doesn't and gets dumped). Now that the group is 100% willing (I presume those gotten rid of during the trade period were the unwilling ones), the kids coming into the club now (Toumpas, Hogan, Viney, Kent, Barry, etc.) will only know one way of doing things, the right way. So if I'm being optimistic, I'm actually most optimistic that we'll be able to turn draftees into good players with greater regularity now. Or, to put it another way: imagine if Jurrah, Morton, Gysberts, Bennell, Woneaemirri and Cook had arrived at a club where, from day one, they'd been given no option but to conform to elite training and preparation standards? Sure, not all of them would have made it, but I reckon at least one of two of them would have. With the power of hindsight about the Bailey years, I'm comfortable saying that Dom Barry, for instance, has a much greater chance of making it than Jamie Bennell ever had, purely because of the radically improved environment that Barry has entered.

well whoever it is , hope youre ok buddy .

Actually Baghdad - that's not what I'm saying. Simplistic, albeit distorted, analysis from you once again. I can see it's a convenient approach for you to take, but it's not one founded in a sound methodology. Lazy stuff. In fairness, I accidentally deleted two paragraphs from my original post, which I've since reinserted. But I'll spell it out simply once again. You cannot simply compare the results from 2011 and 2012 because it's not comparing 'like with like'. 2011 was a 'finals' year. 2012 was a 'completely rebuild and wholly transform the entire football department/player group' year. The evidence reflects this. 1. 2011 - (Bailey's fourth year with Bailey's list) objectively speaking, a woeful year, which included some of the worst losses I've ever observed. Despite some big wins against flaky interstate teams, we got absolutely hammered by most decent sides, including suffering the worst loss of any AFL club in almost 30 years. At the commencement of the season, this was a 'finals' year - it was Bailey's fourth year at the helm, it was his list and the blue print was now for finals. We came 13th out of 17 teams. 2. 2012 - (Neeld's first year with Bailey's list) Neeld came into a very weak club which, through no fault of his own, was getting hammered from literally every angle: the 'lack of process' of his appointment was ridiculed, Jim Stynes passed away, he was accused of racism, senior players went feral, the 'tanking' debate (a remnant of the Bailey years, not his) was enlivened etc. He also inherited a bag of rotten fruit to deal with in terms of the list: it was not balanced, it lacked the requisite professionalism and fitness, there was a leadership vacuum, it lacked hardness, and the game plan was, in his view, all wrong - in short, it could not be relied upon to consistently win big games. None of this was his doing. Yet, he stated - I will change all of this - fundamentally, but it will take time. He then sought to turn everything on its head. Notwithstanding this, you seek to compare the results from 2011 against 2012. On any construction, that's completely ridiculous and as unsustainable as Bailey's game plan. 3. 2013 - (Neeld's first year with kind of Neeld's list) The season hasn't yet commenced, but Neeld has been ruthless with the structure of the list, the discipline and approach required of the players, the training regime, the leadership group, the culture of the group. This is obvious and it cannot be seriously contended otherwise. Whether it will work, who knows. But, the signs at this point are far more promising than previously - not necessarily for terrific results in 2013, but for improved performances in 2013 (relative to 2011), followed hopefully by improved ladder positions in 2014 and beyond. Why? Because Neeld has focussed on the underlying fundamentals. So, will I be saying Neeld is a success this year if we consistently get belted by only 12 goals each week, rather than 30 goals as you say? Well, no. It's you that wants to take the '186 benchmark' to a wholly ridiculous end, such is your way. I merely reference the 186 point loss on 30 July 2011 as indicia of a list/player group that was clearly in a hopeless state and, at that point in time, I literally could not see ANY light at the end of the tunnel. As at 1 Feb 2013, I no longer have that feeling - perhaps I'm deluded - but I suspect not. And I blame Neeld for making the much needed changes to get this list into a more decent state. I don't mind if you disagree with this. In fact, I don't really give a stuff if you do. BUT I do mind if you misrepresent my position through, for instance, the inane act of pulling definitions of words off the internet and posting it as some kind of argument in response.

The basis of a lot of thinking here is that if a journalist writes a complimentary article on Melbourne they are a 'good' journalist, but if they write a negative article on Melbourne they are a 'hack'. Stories supportive of Melbourne are immediately described as 'great' (regardless of their real literary worth), while stories criticising Melbourne have their author's integrity questioned I think it's sloppy logic and poor debate.

I was at training today and have some more photos. Going out tonight so no time to upload them all. Hoepfully I'll get it done tomorrow.

I don't like to get into one of these [censored] for tat, but you are basing you view of the current on the past, I can see why you are saying what you are saying, but as I have said that is the past, we haven't kicked a ball in anger yet in 2013. I have spoken to Aaron Davey, to use one of your examples, and watched him at training, he is happy, healthy and fit looiking, he has always been a skilful footy player, so hopefully he can put it together this year, I don't really care what he did in the past couple they are finished,.....same same with Sylvia and Jetta..........it may all end up a horrible mess again but we will only know that in August not February......I for one will be going to the NAB cup games with a fair bit of optimism this year........I want to have a look at them in actual game conditions

Sure. Sylvia has barely fired a shot for the decade he has been here. Dunn has not been able to cement any position as yet in his 99 games. Blease has 8 solid games in the bank but that's it. Strauss has it all to do to keep a spot on the list. Tapscott has to show he can do more than excellent shirtfronts. Davey has regressed amazingly in the last 2 years. Jetta has yet to show is anything more than a tough little nut. Rohan Bail makes awful decisions and hasn't come on since 2010. Not to mention that Byrnes, Rodan, Gillies and Pederson have to prove they are worthy of AFL games that other clubs felt they weren't. We have a number of players that have a great deal of work to do and I don't really feel my inference that Viney will soon surpass them is that inflammatory. I said before we officially got him that he would be in our top 6 midfielders in 2013. He is going to 'show up' a few I would say - opposition players and Demons alike.

In, and team is made. Only 100 changes to make before round 1 hits.

Yes it does seem like that sometimes on here especially in regards to MFC and alleged Tanking. Unfortunately Journalists since the beginning have numbered more towards imbalance views and propaganda than balanced truth. Yes the invention of the printing press enable many good causes and the sharing of ideas that changed peoples life for the good, but unfortunately it was also used to spread unsavoury messages that hurt many innocent people. Journalism today is like everything else a business and it is also unregulated and protected by the idea of a free press. But to have a regulated press that was controlled and run by government would just be a form of tyranny. So we are left with a system that means that people right stuff to make money and sell papers, these days trying to sift through the mass media for unbiased, non-sponsored and balanced information is a challenging task that people just don't have the time and energy to waste on. Sometimes you gotta just find the article that you agree with and ignore the rest. Is that the right thing to do? IDK you tell me! FWIW I think that what's right, is a hell of a lot harder to do then what is easy. I reckon Journo's and D'landers like me are guilty of it on occasions. Does that mean that they and I are wrong? Who knows, Who cares. But now that I have written all this I have realised that like a fluffy cloud on a spring day this post meanders across the sky going no where in particular seen by some and missed by others. I stop and think an ponder the question if words are written and remain unread by others do they exist....... I think there is something in that for none of us Ba Ha Ha Ha!

Nobody is denying what happened In 2008-09 Baghdad. Just the way Wilson wrote about it. Big difference.

Amazing conflating of the question 'Did we tank' with 'Was Caro's reporting fair'. You seem so keen to paint yourself as oppressed by the majority here that you will tack the 'lack of tolerance' line onto a minor disagreement that popped up. Many here, probably the majority of whom you complain, believe we tanked but don't deserve any special punishment and think Caro's reporting was the pits. Many others say we didn't tank because tanking is not properly defined, and think Caro's reporting was the pits. And other variants. A small number think we tanked and deserve punishment regardless of what other clubs may have done or what Caro writes. Some think Caro is generally a good reporter but her putting the boot into the MFC (and no other club) was disgraceful. Some think she is a crap reporter and her putting the boot into the MFC (and no other club) was disgraceful. A small number think she is great and MFC deserves all we get from her. And other variants. I see a divergence of views on this forum. Just because most posters take a certain position on something doesn't make it 'groupthink'. It could just happen to be the majority view. And that may even be correct on occasion. (And the abuse the minority sometimes unfortunately suffer from some in the majority is no worse than the abuse some in the minority throw at others.)

It's called debate, Bob. I love the way you try to foreclose on debate with this 'groupthink' category, making anyone who might want to quibble with Maurie hesitate or not bother lest they be counted part of some gang. And this isn't the first time you've done so, even if it was by some other name. If half a dozen or so people politely arguing with Maurie constitutes 'groupthink' I suspect I'd prefer that to your particular demagoguery, which makes of you a perpetual majority of one.

A player to test positive for tanking

See this is the shame - you are either unaware of what she initially claimed or you don't realise how much she got wrong. She said that CC 'threatened' staff at a "code named"(1) meeting 'specifically called to discuss tanking the season' (2). (1) Caroline didn't know, nor care to inquire that the 'code name' was actually the nickname given to the shed at the old juntion that housed the meeting - not the meeting itself. (2) Caroline didn't know, or care to inquire that the 'specific tanking meeting' was a regular Match Committee meeting. These myths are out in the ether now and I can tell you they are wrong and that Caroline will never be right about these 'facts'. I guess it doesn't matter when the footy world (and some Dees fans evidently) think they are truth.

Any thoughts on the actual training ?

If its Tommy I'm leaving work to go home and cry

try 2016

I am eager to see Viney show up blokes who have been around for years. I am unsure of how we will go this year but I know that number 7 will give a decade of skill and hardness and that is comforting.

Felix- I too select articles I like from the papers and ignore the rest. Some journalists can hardly spell, yet they work in print. I once found a turtle crossing the road and we took it in and looked after it for a while . We then went around and knocked on all the neighbours houses to see if anyone owned it. A Vietnamese family said they did but I'm not certain they were telling the truth. We gave them the turtle anyway because they are fairly boring pets and i have enough to worry about. The media have told us they are quite capable of regulating themselves and they have the money to prove it . I dont really have a point but I just wanted to share that with you .

Notwithstanding, this doesn't justify opinion articles which smear the club and it's officials or single them out for contempt for doing what several others were doing for several years with little if no condemnation at all. Moreover, many here have been known to cringe at articles that are complimentary of the club if they sense a touch of fairy floss about them. And while I accept grapeviney's comments about Martin Flanagan's role as a colour/feature writer, his piece defending Melbourne was in response to Wilson's loathsome attack on the club (which was itself an op ed) so in that instance the comparison is valid.

I hate the constant comparisons between Flanagan and other journalists. Flanagan is a colour / feature writer - his job is not to break stories or report the news. He's given the time (and he has the skill) to really practise writing as a craft - a luxury not afforded to a news journo on deadline. If he was forced to report news or break stories you might well come to loathe him as you do the others. That's not an attack on him either - I really enjoy his writing. But you can't compare him to Caro et al. He writes about the game in the way that Garrie Hutchinson used to do.

Man do I feel for this kid, playing at an AFL club and partying every weekend, I can see why he was so depressed. I bet he was scoring heaps of chicks too, the poor bastard.

He's skinny.

Can we now return to the topic guys (which is Dom Barry)?

I am truely amused by a number on here who seem to think that selling sponsorship of the MFC would be easy. I have spent all of my working life in Sales. From my view it would be the hardest job in the AFL. Consider the product Membership in the bottom half dozen clubs, one of the lowest number of supporters outside of members. Poor on field performance for the last 7 years on end. Terrible off field publicity over the last two years. Reputation now of being tankers. Very seldom play gamers in peak viewing times with large numbers of games buried on foxtel. Gee what a great product you have to convince companies to come on board. If you were selling this product on commission you would be broke in 3 months. Now I have little knowledge of the skill level of CS / marketing team but they have one tough job. However there is a way out It is called winning Games. Start stringing together seasons in which we win more than we lose and the game changes. Until then this is one tough gig and any initative that generates leads is well and truely worth it. 2013 is in my opinion going to be a year were we have a number of unfilled sponsorship spots. Not a good result but you would need to be JC to do any better IMO

My wife bought that book and hasn't wanted a bar of me since. I've been using the buit up sexual tension to have juvenile arguments with Stu. I picture myself pouring hot wax all over him and then getting BBO to whip him Red and Blue. Sloonie then comes in and [censored] Slaps him till he finally shuts the frick up. It's not perfect ,but it gets me through.

Good one. Thanks RR. Oh, god.... I just realised, we have another RR on Demonland. Please don't start any polls or begin banning posters for 'dubious' posts Rigoni Rigoni

And forget that Dean Bailey "vigourously denied tanking" and said that he will fight any allegations of wrong-doing. You (continue to) cherry-pick information that supports your position while ignoring or dismissing information that doesn't. Sensible thinking?

I might comment on that after he makes his two picks. Anyone watching the ODI game at the moment? If you still need a player from the Caribbean, you might want to pick up Extras (WI) - top scorer at the moment.

Terlich for sure and all OK

I said 'a lot'. I didn't say 'all'. I don't think a 'lot' necessarily even means 'most'. Funny though how most, if not all, people get the bulk of their information from, and rely on, the very media that they castigate, selectively filtering out what they want to hear from what they don't. There will be a lot of egg on some faces when this is sorted out. Whether it's Caro and Pierek, or some posters here, I'm not willing to speculate.

It is there, I've seen it.

I have a sickening feeling at the bottom of my stomach. Lets hope the attention is mostly precautionary ... you can't be too careful.

Was James O'Dea in the vicinity?

still makes no sense whatsoever that the clubs are not told the status of their own players.

The only use of a nadir is to show how absolute rock-bottom low you can go. I'd rather benchmark against other successful teams than against any of our past performances.

The only reason I had Garland as a lock is he is continuing in the leadership group so his contribution must be internally valued. I think his position is under pressure though. Probably only Frawley amd McDonald are really locks. Garland, Watts, Dunn, Gillies, Jetta, Nicholson, Terlich, Strauss, Tynan are all battling for 4 spots. To answer stuie's and autocol's point about running backmen rotations - they're not rotated for match-up reasons - they're rotated for fatigue reasons and I wouldn't sacrifice a rotation position for an extra backman from the list above - that player has to be a capable midfielder with the attibutes to play back. I think Grimes is the natural player to rotate from the midfield through the backline (a la Malceski) when runners are resting. Sellar and Macdonald appear to be depth and Davis and Clisby development.

I know exactly what you are saying Rangey, but I've never stopped believing ......... 1965, '66, '67, ............. 2012, 2013 .... ad infinitum until I'm in a pine box.. There's one thing that's certain however, we are getting closer as every year goes by (sound logic that!) and I'm looking forward to 2013 with great anticipation and excitement.

Any journo I read :-. ( and this applies across the board - not only on MFC articles) 1/ We the reader need to be savvy enough to distinguish between opinion and fact however I will judge the journo's standing in my eyes based on their presentation and whether they forward their opinions masqueraded as fact. CW has let herself down on this issue badly by her constant forwarding of her opinion and stating it as fact 2/ Accuracy - I (we) are probably more sensative on MFC issue to accuracy as we have more insight but it is simple journalist philosophy - "check your facts before publishing" 3/ Opinion - I seek balanced opinions from journalists I read. I have no idea whether some of the journalists on this issue are agenda driven or not but there has been an appalling lack of balance by most journalists. A good example of balance in my eyes is the last Gerard Healy piece - he states we tanked ( I disagree as there is no clear definition of tanking in my eyes) , he also comments on AFL induced incentive to do so and a practice that other clubs have done with tacit approval from the AFL. 4/ conclusion - (and logic) - I have been astounded that hardly one journo has taken this whole debate to its logical conclusion. There are a lot of ifs but if Melbourne are charged and if Melbourne, true to their word, take the AFL on in court there is little chance that other clubs who have done much the same will not be dragged into this. Whilst some may not agree with this, it is a very valid line of thought and I am again astounded that so few journo's have at least forwarded this scenario. So many on here have commented on here that the last thing the AFL wants is to have to have a tanking investigation into another 5 clubs yet the majority of journo's have not ventured into this at all. ( I believe if we were the only club to have "tanked" then the AFL would have little hesitation in going us boots and all) Nutbean the fact that that logic can be extended to most subjects that are close to our hearts is what saddens me. To be informed about issues and ideas is a wonderful product of the media, but when opinion is constantly masked by Fact then news articles become as reliable as an internet forum post. If you read a news article and it treated like an other post by GerardRocks72 or Carrorageagainsthedees then I am sure that it would be held to the most severe litmus test of accuracy. I am a cynical ba$tard and reckon the Journo's and their editors are aware of where this could lead in fact giving it a nudge only means more "news" to sell to the masses. But I am digressing yet again. I agree that the AFL will look at all the possible consequences of any actions they take in this matter. Their response should undergo a vigorous Legal and Risk assessment, if the advice they get is thorough then this issue will die a quick death. But hey depends on who is giving the advice if its lawyers well??...nah not even going there.

Any journo I read :-. ( and this applies across the board - not only on MFC articles) 1/ We the reader need to be savvy enough to distinguish between opinion and fact however I will judge the journo's standing in my eyes based on their presentation and whether they forward their opinions masqueraded as fact. CW has let herself down on this issue badly by her constant forwarding of her opinion and stating it as fact 2/ Accuracy - I (we) are probably more sensative on MFC issue to accuracy as we have more insight but it is simple journalist philosophy - "check your facts before publishing" 3/ Opinion - I seek balanced opinions from journalists I read. I have no idea whether some of the journalists on this issue are agenda driven or not but there has been an appalling lack of balance by most journalists. A good example of balance in my eyes is the last Gerard Healy piece - he states we tanked ( I disagree as there is no clear definition of tanking in my eyes) , he also comments on AFL induced incentive to do so and a practice that other clubs have done with tacit approval from the AFL. Compare this to Denham ( who i dont consider to be a journo's shoelace) - he has labelled us cheats, which in essence is an opinion that he can forward as in his eyes we have tanked yet goes one step further and suggests we forfeited games and fails to give any background on past histories of other clubs and the tacit approval of the AFL to this kind of behavior. 4/ conclusion - (and logic) - I have been astounded that hardly one journo has taken this whole debate to its logical conclusion. There are a lot of ifs but if Melbourne are charged and if Melbourne, true to their word, take the AFL on in court there is little chance that other clubs who have done much the same will not be dragged into this. Whilst some may not agree with this, it is a very valid line of thought and I am again astounded that so few journo's have at least forwarded this scenario. So many on here have commented on here that the last thing the AFL wants is to have to have a tanking investigation into another 5 clubs yet the majority of journo's have not ventured into this at all. ( I believe if we were the only club to have "tanked" then the AFL would have little hesitation in going us boots and all)

I'll give it a shake. (Obviously this is subject to change at the conclusion of the NAB cup, but for now here goes) My starting six for round 1 against Port would be as follows: B Garland Frawley Jetta HB Strauss McDonald Watts/Dunn Garland is great for versatility as we know he can play on smalls and talls. He's quick, creative and has finally developed some body mass so I hope that gives him some added confidence because sometimes he is not physical enough on the field. Lets hope he gets his kicking right this year too. If he had some aggression he would be an A grade backman, no doubt. Frawley needs to have an injury free year and get back to his 2010 form. It's pivotal for our improvement as a team for him to show the confidence he did in 2010. He's quick, strong, aggressive and a pretty efficient kick for a Full Back. The whole backline look a lot stronger when Frawley is up and firing. He's a confidence player. Jetta and Nicholson are competing for a BP position in my eyes. I've heard that Jetta will more likely play HB but I rate his footskills under pressure higher than that of Nicholsons so he gets BP for me. I'm still not convinced by Nicho. Yes he's always winning and leading the time trials at pre-season, but if you can't kick, I don't care how elite your tank is. I was playing footy against him in the Amo's not long ago and I've never rated him as highly as many on here. (It's not jealousy, I swear....) But seriously. It looks like Jetta has had the pre-season he's been waiting for and with his aggression, physicality, flair, and more importantly footskills, he gets the nod at this stage. Strauss and Terlich are competing for a spot with Strauss ahead for me. Whilst he wasn't rated overly high at Scotch college he's always had phenomenal footskills and a pretty good tank so if he can get his mentality right and show some physicality which is what he'll need, then he could be a fantastically damaging HB for us. Terlich looks to be similar and may turn out to be the player I want Strauss to be. NAB cup can't come soon enough. McDonald plays CHB on one of the big boys. He's got a tank to match any hard working CHF, a mongrel of an appetite to compete, and a serious desire to improve that has already seen his kicking come a long way. I will admit, there were definitely times last year where I wasn't entirely convinced but I certainly am now. In my eyes he is a much better kick than Nicholson and you can see at training and in interviews he is hellbent on fixing it. He's a very exciting prospect for us. Pretty quick for someone with such a big tank. A rare mix. Watts starts on the field with Dunn the 7th back on the bench. The beauty of these two playing the same role is that they can both go forward as well during a game for a bit of variety. I have a feeling the Watts is starting to piece it all together. He looks bigger, more assertive, confident. Playing on physical players such as Dawes and Clark at training will have helped him too, (even though Clark has been injured for all of it). Watts is not a naturally aggressive player as we know but I'm hoping we'll start seeing a little bit of it this year. Dunn is the guy who does have the aggression and I rate him as a role player. I'm sure he'll get games for playing on specific players to unnerve them etc. He is still valuable. Can play as a defensive forward also. That leaves Sellar, Nicholson, Terlich, Gillies, Tynan all of whom are behind in my eyes for various deficiencies in their game. Kicking mainly. Sellar is a good kick but McDonald, Frawley, Garland and Watts/Dunn are ahead. Can't wait for the season to begin. Go Dees.

You reckon? In my experience, you show me a confident young man and a rule, and I'll show you a broken rule. It's been scientifically proven that the ability to consider consequences fully develops quite late in life... like, well into the 20's for many people. That Garlett kid who failed to get drafted this year was a prime example of someone unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions.

So is yours. There's a lot more to a lot of posts about journalists on these threads. Just because some posts are as you describe doesn't make them all like that.

I think such a comparison is brutally unfair on Neeld (ie, comparing the average losing margin between 2011 and 2012). The methodology is wholly wrong. In short, you are not comparing like for like. 2011 represented Bailey's fourth year at the club. By this time, it was essentially his list, he was responsible for the preparation of the players (ie, fitness, strength conditioning, mindset), the game plan, the culture, the professionalism etc. However, Neeld inherited this list at the end of 2011. It was Bailey's list, not his. Neeld immediately assessed the list, and seemingly formed the view that it lacked quality in the senior ranks, it lacked quality leadership, it lacked a decent game plan, it lacked the requisite fitness base, and it was a black hole in terms of culture - in short, it was not sufficiently competitive to consistently win important games. And he then embarked on a strategy to introduce a hard, accountable, professional, disciplined approach to the list and the way it performed. He pretty well sacked the entire leadership group, he flamed the senior players, he changed the game plan etc. He did so, he said, because it would ultimately pay dividends and there were no quick and easy ways to achieve sustained success. This was the blue print. But, importantly, he said this would take time. However, some of you guys, rather simplistically, seem to think he should've been winning games from round 1, 2012, even though everyone who knows anything knows he was committed to fundamentally changing everything about the list and the culture of the team. FCS get real. Edit: I was at work when I posted this, and given that I was in a rush to get to a meeting I accidentally deleted two whole paragraphs, which I've just reinserted, but without which the post doesn't really make sense.

We have not "squandered" anything yet. That judgement will be made around the end of 2014 or 5. gee the recruits don't get long in your book Can you at least give him and the recruiters a couple of games.

Forgive the shaky camera. First time shooting on an SLR without a tripod.