Rhino Richards

I love to be entertained by MFC. I remembered being highly entertained by Tiger Crosswell, Crackers Keenan and Mark Jackson. Loads of entertainment. Didn't bring us any enduring success. Playing Fev means we are not getting game time into some else with a bigger future. I dont give so much weight to beating sides like the Blues, Dons, Pies or Hawks in years where it does not really count if it compromises our chances when we are seriously challenged. And then there is all the stuff..... The club consists of adults but Fevola has shown habitually than he cant act like one. And his experience at 2 clubs and post that time has shown himself a seriously malignant element and influence. He is proven poison and an unnecessary sideshow distraction from the long term aims of this Club.

Yoko, While it does not look these days, I used to cringe watching KB throw the ball out in front of himself when about to be tackled and claim "holding the man"....and getting the free. Alot has to do with the interpretation of the rules and the desire of all team to control possession of the ball (or in simple terms...if you dont have it then make sure the other side doesn't).

This thread started on a dubious note and has deteriorated further. Matter closed.

Mine isnt. To date he has one game where he has kicked 5 when Casey were steamrolling another side. If he was focussed, if he complied with even the most basic tenets of fitness, Fevola should be carving up the VFL in no uncertain terms.He hasn't been and is nowhere near the level of football fitness and off field stability that he should be if he was really serious about AFL. He aint. He is 31 next year and a truck load of baggage. If the choice is between developing a promising young player or punting on Fevola with a future for our window in 2014 to 2017, the answer is easy. It aint Fev.

A-ha so it the umpires fault and not the medical department so many players are getting injured? Good work. You are onto something here.

I think it applies to what happens once the tackled player has possession of the ball which includes when he tackled and not tackled. I think the fact that Tapscott made no effort to release the ball when first tackled made his disposition worse. If he had tried to get rid of the ball at that time and the due to circumstances he was not able to then there is a reasonable presumption of no prior opportunity. I know there is umpire consistency here but the number of times where a player tackled makes a dramatic show to indicate that he is trying to release the ball but cant suggests to me that most players are aware of the obligations.

While we are whinging, does anyone want to complain about Green and Watts not being pinged for blatant throws of the ball in our forward line? The problem with the umpiring is the consistency not the bias.

OK so you putting emphasis on a statement about an issue that you have no factual knowledge about. Thats not like you WYL.

If I saw Tapscott tackling someone like he was tackled I would be expecting it to be holding the ball. If you have one hand free with the ball then its expected he should at least try to kick it. There are worse decisions being made.

Can you name the person who told Aaron to say those words? This is shocking if true.

I do too. However, its a formula all clubs use to address the contrived circus called the media. It would be better if the Club stopped the players saying anything and make the deeds on the ground talk louder. Why did North hit the lead? Their work rate through the midfield and around the ground picked up significantly. The pendulum move 5 minutes before the end of the first quarter. North were terrible and uncommitted in the first 15 minutes and they picked up. I think the truth is that North's output picked up significantly and in some cases ours dropped off or more importantly certain players were not given the latitude they were given earlier.

D'man, that probably a more realistic explanation than "we gave up" or the "malaise of comfort". Its clear the players and FD are in anything but a comfort zone.

Agree. If the club had any sense they would ban all player I/Vs and twitters and get them to make their football talk for them instead.

Sorry about that slagging mistaken you for another poster. apologies given elswhere. I agree with you that WCE had it in spades and they blew it (or something else with it). I'd love a flag but with the hard work being done I dont want to compromise that success in the way WCE did. With where they were coming into 2005, they should have been looking at a number of flags from that group. They got one. But they paid a penalty which is still costing them for their excesses. They are an extremely rich club with great resources. Its early days whether they are back on track. There are a number of models of success that we have seen in the past...Brisbane, Geelong and most recently Collingwood. I would gladly consider their experiences as a model to emulate. But WCE reminds of the fortune of one of their favoured sons. Had it all at their feet, but blew the opportunity. And at their recent zenith in 2005/6, WCE had it all. But they had harboured and fostered a malignant underbelly which dulled their success.

Eekk i confused old dee with you. My unreserved apologies to Old dee. I know you would not get it. Now back to the days when you and Goanna lashed Channel 7 and 2.....

Its not a case of Cousins vs choir boys. But our lack of success in 46 years is not as pathetic as your self promotion on knowing what a "winning culture is". Many people who post on this site have worked in successful organisation but dont need to pizz on others about alleged "expertise" You regularly claim to have some extra/special/god given ability to be pre eminent on an issue when your posts suggest its illusory and often fantasy at best. Please continue to lecture all on "culture". Your disciples await your next "I know" vindication.

See I told you, you didn't know. Why go on to prove it further?

In tablet or in powdered form? WCE knowingly allowed and tolerated activities and behaviours from senior players that lead to one possible club great to self destruct in order to achieve short term success. They have also lost once in a generation elite midfielder (Judd)because of it. They should have been looking at a dynasty of success which would have challenged Geelong. One flag from such a rich golden opportunity is a really poor show.

Had Dunn actually caused injury to the player emphasis great force of the crude tackle he would have and should have got more but 3 weeks is about right for the act.

West Coast indeed had it....in the white powdered form. FMD. If ever a club had a malignant culture that caused them to self destruct it was WCE. Its not the culture I want at MFC. Please dont berate other posters about understanding the fundementals of culture when you clearly dont understand them yourselves. Never let the facts get in the way of.....

Getting sacked...somewhere.

Wasn't it the current board that extended his contract?

Its called damning with faint praise. His first quarter was very very good. He worked hard, provided an option,kicked 2.1 and forced an advantage goal to Watts through laying a tackle that lead to a holding the ball decision. I dont see the issue of consistency being relevant here. As the midfield caved in and Newts opportunuities dried up in the forward line. In the 2nd quarter when the tide began to turn, MFC forwards were starved of inside 50s. And MFC are at desperate stage when they have to use Newton to be back up centre ruckman in order to back up a fourth string ruckman in Martin.

Roost, I just checked the tape, Newton rucked once in the centre and was on the ball for 2 minutes with 3 minutes to go in the first quarter. Most of that time it was in the backline He did not ruck at all in the 2nd quarter. Martin took every centre bounce. During that 2 minutes we went forward once from clearance where Newton nullfied Goldstein and Bail took the scrubby kick out of the centre. It was cleared easily by North. And I never asserted that Newts only played well due to our midfield. But his access to the ball was a consequence of the midfield winning possession. Newton did his job well up forward. However his move did into the ruck did not impact the game. Its interesting to note then when the midfield started to get beaten in the midfield so did the supply forward. And it got worse in the 2nd half. Posters claiming the Newton move robbed MFC of momentum etc... were not seeing how the game was unfolding (or how MFC was folding). Some of the pressure and effort in the 2nd half was just plain embarrassing.

Fair point. Its just that every time I hear Joe Hockey talk about economics or the budget...well its our taxes at work.