Rhino Richards

Like I said tagging Ablett is going to be a hard, physical encounter. Davey is not your man. If Davey is closing down Ablett he is not attacking the way he does. Every Ablett effective disposal we nullify is a plus. The more we nullify this the more we potentially benefit. Its very important. The issue is that MFC must be hard at each and every contest and pressure every Geelong possession. How do we play a complete one on one if you have a spare player dropping back as you advocate?

I didn't. You take the crown and sceptre in your avatar too seriously, miss bossy boots.

*Rattle* *Rattle* If Ablett does not have a tag he will amass 50 to 60 possessions and kill us on his own. And remember one Ablett possession is more painful than a couple of MFC possessions. Putting Davey on him as tag is pure dumb. Firstly, Davey gets physically outbodied in contested situations and anyone that tags Ablett will expect considerable heat from his teammates. Secondly you want to playing attacking football but you take your most offensive weapon and you place him in a negative role. Bartram, Dunn and Bruce all have playing deficiencies but if they negate some or even most of Ablett's play then they are more value to us than if we were to rely on them having a more direct positive impact on the game. They won't. If you want to play one on one then MFC players must be wondering where their direct opponent is particularly if its a Selwood or Ablett. If you want an all out attacking effort (dumber than a total tag which I have not supported) then we will get belted in a shoot out on the ground and on the scoreboard. MFC are going to have to approach this game as a battle of degrees if we are to make progress and it will be a range of smarter strategies that will work as opposed to your throw your cards in the air and see where they land. I know you have thrown in the towel for this game but dont shut down all the faculties as well

Agree. Since when are the crowd judge and jury on non football matters.

It doesn't when you havent followed it. I promise to make it simpler if I can next time.

Fact is it??? Thanks for the confirmation that forwards are just receivers and dont need to win the contested ball.

I thought we have Courts of law in a democracy to judge the actual evidence. If there is a need to boo then let it be on matters on the football field. Efforts such as this really do reduce the evolutionary distance between modern man and the neanderthal.

Playing one on one implies direct accountability for your opponent. If we are as bad as you bleat then we are playing superior players who are going to win more possession of the ball. If we are playing accountable football then we are going to be trying to shut them down. Aren't we? Then you would be tagging as part of your one on one role. Right??? You should have your negative mindset seen too...really. BTW, what bigger challenge can you give to a player to say I want you to be accountable and cover Gary Ablett. You wont completely nullify him but if you can hold him to sub 30 possessions a game would that not help the team's position. You dont tag him then you have flown the white flag from the start. I got no problem with one on one Jaded it sounds good and appeals to masses. However it would be nice to think that the players would still play to their team plans and hopefully, if we dont massacre the ball, we just might put some pressure back on them.... on the scoreboard. I agree with you. However, the poster I responded is displaying a negative mindset that would do an ostrich with its head in the sand proud. The Lions were as soft as butter at Geelong and they didn't tag him effectively. They did not have a red hot go. They have a midfield stacked with overripe tomatoes like TJ, Brennan, Sherman, McGrath that disappear when the going gets tough. Their rucks yesterday were putrid. Geelong dont have Ottens in. They rely on Blake. The first point of pressure to put on them is the centre bounce. Its a start. Clearly if we are going to play one on one as you demand, then someone is going to have to play on Ablett!! So your solution is..lets give up we are all doomed. Top effort that!

At least they could have switched off Foxtel!

Your carry on about this game is a mountain out of a molehill. Adelaide supporters wont come across for a Sunday night clash. So it is up to MFC supporters. Even if we had double that at the ground. Big deal. We struggle to get that number of MFC supporters to the QBW game. (Dont fool yourself Collingwood outrank us at that game by alt least 2 to 1). It was a game time to suit TV commitments.

You want to avoid tagging but you feel we will get smashed and knowingly but you want to play one on one? Gotcha

Jaded, The AFL will not change their stance on us as a Club until we have a number of years of sustained good crowd performance. Blind Freddy could see that this game would struggle to crack 20,000. MFC budgeted that it would not. MFC- Adelaide games have no atmosphere and 4pm Sunday is a time to suit Foxtel TV loungerooms not at ground attendances. Its self serving to suggest its the stick the AFL will use on our back. They have far more compelling and weighty evidence on that.

If a decent side had not slacked off towards the finish they would have been tripled our score. Adelaide were never seriously challenged all day. Its an indictment on our performance that they had no need to attack for 100 minutes while we massacred the ball and effectively negated ourselves. They have the four expected points and no injuries/reports. Job done. And I thought there could be nothing lower than the match attendance and the standard of the game yesterday. Well done for proving me wrong on that.

I dont know why posters keep falling back on this absurdity as some sort of mitigation for Newton's performance. The fact (read fact) is Newton didn't. Its a fatal flaw for FF. Its like saying if Bryce McGain had only been bowled better he would have taken wickets. If a FF does not have confidence to kick a drop punt, its like a golfer who cant use a golf club. As a MFC supporter group, too many celebrate the bog ordinary performances and justify them with "If only he had....".

Well argued and I agree. Sometimes when things are tough on the ground, a player absent through injury becomes a "better" player in people's minds than he actually is. If fit I think he would be selected in our team. However, he has missed alot of football and may take some time to acclimatise. I enjoy his onfield enthusiasm I agree that we are screaming for picks going forward. Its a gift often provided by opposition defenders. A greater gift to have is the ability to win the contested ball.

Two weeks running his inability to convert rare shots on goal is a fatal flaw for a forward. He is going to end up disappointing alot of apologists

Why would you keep a player who does not perform a further 3 weeks??? BTW, Robbo has played his best footy from the goal square.

The conditions were terrible, the skills poor. It was always going to be a battle of attrition. The fundamental skills errors undermined the team effort. On days like this, those misses at goal really hurt. At no time did Adelaide crack us open. At no time did they run away the game. The players fought it out. It was a pity that we had no made more of our opportunities in front of goal. If had one goal then a 16 point deficit becomes a 10 point deficit and then it is definitely game on. The Ox05 sums it up well.

Agree with that conundrum

Agree on both the myhthology of Anzac Day and Carlyon's books are informative and respectful accounts of WW1

Robbo has a 2 yr contract that expires this year. I understand from my sources on the inside Robbo is keen to saddle up again next year, fitness allowing. We need to cut 6 to 7 players this year. We need to keep refershing the list. For mine Junior, Wheatley and Whelan will retire. I will punt on at least McNamara, Bell and PJ to be cut. And given that this is the last pre GC draft you can forget teams offering draft picks for NQR players.....particularly ours. And what players do we have that are surplus to our needs that other Clubs will give up their draft picks for? I cant think of one MFC player in that boat.

How do you know? I am sure a number would not be happy having the day hijacked for commercial interests. There is difference between the commnity respectfullly and duly honouring its war dead and organisations seeking and pushing an alignment with the ANZAC spirit that is nothing more than spin and self interest.

I doubt it. I cant believe MFC held onto a player like Ferg who was never going to make it. It says something about the Club that we could not encourage/ force Ferg into the trade.

Port won flag in 2004. Many of the harder nuts in that team that push them that additional step....Pickett, Guerra and Hardwick are gone. Tredrea, Cornes x 2, Lade are all in the twlight of their career. Its not the same team these days. And no Burgoyne brothers last night really hurt Port for class last night. While there is no blueprint there are some common themes and characteristics that all Flag team share. Leigh Matthews reckons the quality of your list is 80%. And uncontrollable issues in football like injuries, tribunal outcomes etc all assist in the final outcome. I absolutely agree that bleed red and blue is a hackneyed term that holds no relevance. Simon Godfrey bleed red and blue but I cringed when we had him in the side and on the ground.

I absolutely loathe the first home buyers grant. Totally counterproductive to its target constitutuency, a waste of taxpayers money and a political [censored] to be seen to be doing something when what your doing is worsening the situation. Agree on the Anzac Day tripe.