mo64

I'd say he's very doubtful.

I think you are giving way too much credit to Frost. Watts and Hogan have played well when we've won contested possession in the midfield. It's a mere coincidence that we played poorly as a team when Frost was out. As poorly as VDB has played this year, he's taken far more marks on the lead as a forward than Frost. Frosts' nickname should be Rains, as in Claude Rains The Invisible Man.

Of course we'd be looking for a key forward like him, but unless he's been linked to us, what's the point of starting a new thread?

I can't believe that any serious football watcher can suggest that a player who isn't considered in the best 25 at a lowly club would be the difference between a win and loss. The reason why Grimes isn't in the team is that he's been incapable over the past 3 years of doing the things you suggest he would have done as Wagner's replacement. Grimes played in the NAB Challenge as a wingman, so your stats comparison is irrelevant. And using his DE% against that Dogs reserves team is pointless. I'm not a Wagner fan, but your post is silly going on absurd. I'm surprised you didn't throw up Garland as well.

Whilst I agree that Wagner's selection was bewildering to say the least, his selection and Grimes' non-selection hardly cost us the game. For starters, Grimes isn't a good matchup for any of the North forwards. The message that the FD are sending with the non-selection of Grimes and Garland is that being a "vanilla" footballer as a defender doesn't cut it. You either have to be a really good defender, or you need to provide some offensive drive. Garland and Grimes are both stat fillers with ball in hand. Both will look for a sideways 20m pass which makes their DE look impressive, but actually hinders the team's offense.

Exactly. After watching the replay, you can take the significance of the stats with a grain of salt. That Frankston side would struggle against a decent suburban side.

Jackson Trengove did at Port before Ryder arrived.

They do, and they generally have one part to their game that makes them AFL ready to compete. With Weideman's current physique, he'd need to have a huge tank to make multiple leads, or be an exceptional mark. Didn't see any evidence of either. He seems to lead well, but wouldn't think he'd get many opportunities in an AFL game.

Just watched a replay of the Casey game, and Weideman needs at least a year to develop at Casey before being considered for selection. He just looks like he'd be easily pushed off the ball at AFL, and doesn't have a massive tank like a Hogan.

We are miles off a flag, so why bring this up when discussing the merits of selection this week? Either Dunn is part of our best 22 this week or not. IMO he clearly is. O. Mac shows promise, but needs time to develop. If the FD haven't got faith in Wagner playing a shutdown defensive role, then I'm not sure why he's in the team. He wasn't horrible against North, but has shown little to suggest that he'll be a damaging half back at this stage.

"The culture" means JS if you're not winning games. If we remain a club in the bottom half of the ladder for the next 5 years, what has an improved culture achieved?

Jeez, I wonder if some of us constantly bagging Garland had an impact on the FD dropping him this week? Then again, if they blocked everyone bar Saty, we'd have the same list every year, with the exception of retirements. But in all seriousness, this week was one of the rare times I've seen us have an honourable loss. But that doesn't mean that the team can't play better, and the personnel shouldn't change.

Bugg is not a skilled player, and was caught on his wrong foot (his right). Earlier in the game when in the same situation, he tried to get back on his left, and coughed it up. Hopefully he's replaced in the team by the likes of Petracca, Trengove or ANB.

I hate honourable losses, but after last week's effort, I was expecting a 10 goal drubbing. After being 7 goals to nil down in the 1st, the players showed some fortitude, and didn't drop their bundle. Even at half time, I thought that North would kick away again. We didn't win, but our contested possession against a hard nosed team was a huge plus. I'm not even close to being livid compared to last week.

Insufficient force, no damage to player. Will get 1 week for stupidity, but offered a fine with an early guilty plea.

Still can't work out why we recruited these 2, and play them out of position. Play Frost as a backman or not at all, and use Bugg as a lockdown on small forwards or at Casey. Both are underwhelming recruits.

Scorps would end up the same way if Melbourne ended the alliance. Only the old VFA powerhouse clubs in Port and Willi will survive long term I'm afraid.

Give it away Saty, or at least do some research. Hawthorn gave up picks 25 and 41 for Gibson. That's not steak knives. As for Garland, he was pathetic in the NAB Challenge. He was equally bad against GWS, yet you described his game as "brilliant". So based on your assessment, he was dropped after 1 poor game. Laughable.

He wasn't given a chance because he was perceived as a failure. It happens all the time in sport, whether your a player or a coach. It's funny how you defend any actions of the MFC to the hilt, yet when another club axes their coach and achieves immediate success, you still manage to defend the new MFC employee. Your views on football are blinkered by blue and red.

Yeah right. McCartney is well respected as a development coach wherever he's been, so it's understable that he would have had a good relationship with young players like Bont. But that doesn't make him a good senior coach. There's a huge gulf between the 2 roles, and people are selling Beveridge short if you think that McCartney would have had the same level of success if he remained in the job. It's not too dissimilar to the Barassi/Northey era at Melbourne. Whilst we had some good player development by Slug Jordan in the Under 19's, Northey deserves all the credit for our finals appearances.

When you explained that the player wasn't a regular, it reeks of a disgruntled employee. Given the massive list turnover under Roos, it's not hard to narrow down who the player is. I'm not a massive Roos fan, but I don't take much notice of these sorts of rumours.

Whilst your first point is valid, you're underselling the coach. Beveridge came in under the most difficult circumstances (lost captain (Griffin), best player (Libba), new CEO). If that happened at Melbourne, you'd give him a 3 year apprenticeship. What Beveridge has done is give the players belief that they can achieve from year one. The same applies to Simpson at WCE. The easiest coaching job in the world is one where there is no expectation of winning. Bailey initally had it at Melbourne, McCartney thought he had it at the Dogs, as did Watters at the Saints, and Roos has now got it at Melbourne. IMO, player development and recruiting is why you have specific personnel in those roles. The coach's job is developing a gameplan, and matchday coaching. Beveridge deserves all the credit he gets. As does Simpson at WCE.

If you're going to play a zone defense, and one of your 2 key backmen is incapable of fulfilling a role due to height, then don't pick him. Frost has the athleticism to run and jump, whilst Dunn has the strength to outbody an opponent. Garland just stands directly behind his taller opponent, and gives himself no chance to spoil.

Dunn on Petrie, T. Mac on Waite, Frost on Brown. Garland wasn't just bad last week, he's been abysmal throughout the NAB challenge and against GWS. Every time he had a matchup with Lobb, he got beaten. If the FD had any sense, they'd scrap the zone defense and match up one-on-one with the opposition key forwards. GWS cost themselves the game against us by not keeping Davis on Hogan. Marchbank got caught out on Hogan in the last qtr, and that won us the game.

And you were going so well until the last word.