Rhino Richards

Its unlike you to snipe Daisy.

I always quote you WYL in case you meander down the "Oh this is what I was saying" when you get found out repeatedly by others that it clearly wasnt. Its a poor habit to have WYL. Even Joe Hockey would not try and stretch the truth that far.

I would love to beat the Saints but boy they would really have to turn the pressure burners off for us to do them. I think this assessment is about right. They will apply their boring squeeze gameplan until we inevitably cough the pill up...again and again. This game is a good chance for some MFC players to stand up and make a name for him/them selves. I wonder who???

The test is who was he on and what impact did he have on the game relative to Dunn's impact. Based on his form this year many of his assignments would have to be near invisible in their impact to create a net positive outcome.

I think the FD do. This is his seventh year at MFC and he should be making a position in the side his own. Despite the illusion in 2010, he still has not nailed that spot. And Bate is in the same boat. Its amazing we seem to be getting more from a lower pick in the 2004 draft in Newton (and good on him). P.S. Dunn turned 24 on Saturday.

No. I just challenge facetious or ridiculous statements...regardless of who posts. WYL just posts so many of them.

Good assessment. Dunn's tackle was very crude. Any thought that Dunn is a limited footballer and Bailey may have actually got the best out of him...Hmmmm.

This is what you said..... Matthes has only said that his "loyalties" lie with Hawthorn. It said nothing about coaching intentions.

Rubbish. Collingwood have not always had a winning culture at all. Up to 2010, they have had all those supporters, all that money and facilities, favourable fixtures and had won one flag in 51 years. Its a crap result and a poor return. And if they had not been playing a club with an endemic losing culture in St Kilda they may have exnteded the run to 52 years. For the first 32 years of that period they had the biggest monkey on their back because the club were chokers when it counted. Lucky Malthouse came good last year, the McGuire/ Malthouse decade had produced disappointment. Full marks to them in 2010/11, they are a fully professional outfit. But FFS, they werent always like that at all.

Does not mean Lethal has a passion to coach Hawthorn..... Hmmm..20 year ago...sack Northey.

Didak, Del Santo, Betts, Milne, Davey, Cooney come to mind as front runners.....

Cheers.

Our mids are there to win the clearance from the ruck and/or at the very least prevent their opponent from doing likewise. They are accountable for the direct opponent in the centre. Now do you think there would be a slight chance with Goldstein winning the rucks they may have positioned themselves to beat there direct opponent and either win the possession or at the very least nullify advantage? Take your time no hurry....

Or yours.

Good explain that to Adelaide if its that simple. Our mids did not or were not able to do that which raises the question is that how could Juice continue to be effective up forward when the inside 50s had effectively dried up? Hmmm

He was very good up forward but he has hardly the main reason we were in front. He did his role up forward. Games are won and lost in the midfield. I am glad you are no longer asserting that I said that "because he was playing well up forward he should have more impact in the middle" I did not say that at all. And it makes you original "what a ridiculous post" seems like you did not actually read the post. My point was that given he was getting the leather that he had a better chance to influence the game that a lame Dunn who managed to get himself a 5 week holiday for a crude and stupid tackle. He will get selected next week that was never challenge by me but raised by you assuming someone else's point of view.

The game is won and lost in the midfield. Its what was happening in the midfield why we were smashing them early. By the time Newton got to the ruck, the midfield battle was already beginning to be lost.

I'll keep it simple. Newton was picked as forward/pinch ruckman. Newton finished off the good work done by the midfield up forward. Another poster said that Newton was the reason we were in front. He was part of the reason. However it was the midfield where the action was coming from. It was in the midfield where we lost it. The impetus in the game was changing in the last 5 minutes of the first quarter. North started to win the clearances, the contests and the inside 50s. We stopped moving the ball inside 50. So it would not have mattered if we had Newton down forward as our forwards were starved of opportunities after we continually lost the clearances. His dominant position was being created by the play up the ground. He was marking and getting his hands on the ball which was good for Newts but also a product of the midfield. Dunn offered us nothing in the ruck against Adelaide and we could afford to have him there without hurting us in junk time. Adelaide have poor rucks and no abiility to hurt us in the centre. North lead by Goldstein were the opposite to Adelaide. Putting Dunn in the ruck would have been essentially handing the ball to Goldstein and saying do what you want do with it. The choice between Newton and Dunn reflects just how thin our options were to back Martin.

About as likely as Lyon coaching MFC. Matthews was a successful coach with a great record. But like another great coach, Barassi, he had a use by date. Its past.

Wrong. Newton was the recipient of some great work in the first 20 minutes when MFC dominated the inside 50s (I think it was 11 to 3 on the radio). We were belting North in the midfield who were lazy and unaccountable. Newton did his doing job up forward. But it was from the midfield where the game was won. But the game changed at about the 21 minute mark and North started to haul us in. We folded like a pack of cards. We stopped winning the centre clearances and inside 50s. Goldstein took over. Newton was selected to play forward and pinch hit the ruck. Martin was rested to ensure he could have rucked for the majority of the match. I am not sure we lost much forward because when our midfield got beaten we rarely did move forward. And given you felt he was diong so much what better than to put him where the action was...in the centre. I would have backed Nev Jetta to have more impact at a centre bounce than Dunn.

Newton was in the ruck at the start of the second quarter. North had finished the first quarter kicking 3 goals in 4 minutes. The flow of the game had changed as the second quarter started and flowed harder in the 2nd quarter as North took over.. Maybe you just missed it.

Since when did the shoulder become the head?

You are in fine form WYL. I dont always agree with Choko but he has nailed you in one.

At best Newton could nullify the taps not necessarily win them. We were always short in the midfield without Scully, Trengove, Grimes and McKenzie. Moloney was not touching the pill at all. The tide in the game had turned and we were losing the clearances and contest in the midfield. Newton was seen as a better option to doing that than the ineffectual Dunn. But its really splitting hairs arguing Newton vs Dunn. We were getting smashed in the ruck. And having Newton there was making less easier than it would have been with Dunn.

We had to rest Martin at some stage. North had started to take the initiative late in the first quarter and we were starting to be overrun in the midfield with Goldstein starting to get his hands on the ball. Putting Dunn in the ruck is akin to give North first use of the ball at each and every centre bounce. Newton was marginally better option in the ruck to at least try to nullify the change in flow in the midfield. But in reality having neither Jamar or Spencer exposed MFC to having only Martin as the ruck. I am not sure why posters are saying to have kept Newton up forward as the inside 50s and clearances that get the ball forward had dried up as the North avalanche commenced.