Rhino Richards

I know. It was bollocks the first time.

I think Carroll got in trouble for alleged drunkedness and brawling at an inner city hotel in the last week or so. Its not the first time that Carroll has had off field issues. Its another reason why I hope we develop better options down back.

It will be challenging. Hence this is why he has to drift up to the centre wing to pick up possessions in no man's land

Shows out the validity of the 2%/98% statement. Agree with your general comments. I dont think its a matter of finding form. Hopefully DB can get the best out of him. i think he should be placed closer to goals (and newton at CHF) so that his kicking is not as much of an issue. at best he could hold down a position and be a solid contributor. at worst i think he has value in a bits and parts tall who will succeed benny holland. if we had of got a decent offer for him i wouldve traded him in a heartbeat,

Lets stick with the facts. He undertook behaviour that could have endangered lives. In this instance it did not. The outcome and results of his actions do have an impact in the punishment handed out. He was stupid and should be punshed for that. His actions on this occassion did not fortunately have negative outcomes. It does not reduce the stupidity but its mitigate the public outcome of the crime. Both his misdemeanors are reprehensible actions but lets not apportion outcomes that did not actually happen. He was lucky. He was at real risk of not being so. I think your judgement on the Club is harsh.

The number of people who have or may have done it is irrelevant and does not make the act any less stupid nor change the fact that he broke the law. I dont see any justification to be travelling 120km in a 50 zone anywhere anytime. However, nor do I see the need for a ritual hanging of the player for the offence. He was a fool and will be accountable for the reckless actions under the law and to the Club.

Agree Nozz. Good luck Barry. You will have to not only extract the stars but run the gauntlet of the ruthless judges of recruiters on the site.

And it then leaves the Club open to the perception both inside and outside the Club that it condones the behaviour regardless of how good the player is and is subject to not upholding community standards to which it is a high profile part of.

He has had two incidents and he probably is a bit of fool off the field. If he deserves a second chance then how can he have been given too many chances? But christ he can play football and I would have him in at MFC in a heartbeat. His issues are manageable and yes it does involve him taking the big step to maturity. I think it is the potential for the brand to be tarnished and any perceived lack of action or failure to appropriately punish the player by the Club would be seen as tacit approval of the behaviour. Its a no win situation for any party associated with these incidients Johnson was a fool for the traffic incident. Its probably not a big rebuke involved. But where do you draw the line in the incidents that Club will be punish and wont punish? I dont think the Club has a choice but to implement some form of review of the incident and discipline.

I just find it amazing you challenge my opinion of Yze's play over a the last 5 years in the course of game as not knowing what happens behind the scenes then somehow justify your statement of "undisclosed injuries" as your opinion. We both expressed an opinion on a subject but just have a different point of view. Just spare us the pretentious and facile differentiations.

Its the behaviour that is observed during the game not what goes on behind the scenes That is a judgement that you could only make if you know what goes on behind the scenes.

1. The problem is with Yze that he isnt accountable and does not chase or inflict defensive pressure on his opponents. How would you know if he needs to be inspired? If he cant inspire himself that how could he be an inspiration to others as a leader? 2. Its a limp and inplausible cop out to suggest that. ND to his fault backed Yze heavily as a player and a leader. He put in inconsistent performances in 2005 which lead to him being removed from the leadership group to try and focus on his game. Yze had the world at his feet at the end of 2002 and squandered the use of his talent with a range of short cut behaviours on the field. He has got worse each year since. Its not an issue of not giving a &*%# and not trying. Too often Yze has played the game on his terms rather than the teams. When up he was fine when the game was tight and contested and easy possessions were not as frequent Yze regularly got lazy and disappeared. 3. Ultimately its the individual that is responsible for his performance. Particularly in 2005 when we went through such a horrible patch Yze strung up a series of poor performances and was lucky not to have been dropped. Tossing the coin for 2005 EF should have been the first of many wake up calls for Yze. He slept through them all. 2006 was more of the same. The problem with footballers is that talent is finite and the opportunity limited to show it. In the past five years Yze's undoubted talent has diminished. His once sharp foot passing is flaky, the peripheral vision and athleticism has dimmed and efforts to tackle dont stick on opponents. In the past 12 months he has given the impression under pressure on a number of occassions of being "spooked" on contact. 4. He had the talent but the speed of the game is finding him out. Its his last year on his current contract. I am sure DB has got stuck into him to see what he could get out of Yze as Yze's last 2 years have been negligible performance. DB has all to gain and nothing to lose by doing it. I am mystified why a selfish and lazy footballer was put in the leadership group. I can only think it is DB trying to get more something out of Yze. IMO its a compromised punt.

There are also Privacy laws which would prevent the issue or use of such information without the permission of the player involved. Its not an area of law that an AFL club would want to become a test case for. Does anyone know what the AFL Players Association attitude is to this? While Hay had some problems at Hawthorn and not viewed as the sharpest tool in the shed, can anyone substantiate that Hay's diagnosis of depression was known by the Club at the time of his transfer? If it was known the AFL football grapevine would have disseminated it pretty quickly

Thanks. And avoid the hot dogs!

How do you know they are being forced to play?? One of the challenges of being an AFL footballer is putting yourself open to adulation, scrutiny and criticism both on the field and off the field. All three aspects intrude significantly on normal life. For all the gloss and high pay its crap life that frequently leaves you crippled by the time you are forty. However if they want to play AFL footy then it goes with the territory and they need to get used to it or choose another profession. I am not sure why there should be full disclosure of their medical position and given the rights of privacy a player has. And they seemed to be limited these days. BTW, your last sentence undermines your more sensible contributions to date. However I will keep your views in mind when Daniel Kerr jumps on a car bonnet or arranges another pharmaceutical trade or a team uncovers a budding Laurence Angwin or Karl Norman. They obviously must be carrying an injury!

Great effort Fork. I trust other contributors on future training runs or club events will do your efforts justice with as good a report. Were any of the senior players training (Neitz, Robbo White etc.) Any comments on Whelan or Rivers? Thanks

Agree with Rogue on this. I dont think it is any benefit releasing sensitive and confidential information on a player's well being. If a footballer was that worried about supporter abuse then they would not play the game. Thanks undeeniable for verification of your position. The whole thing seems murky.

No problems. However there are posters who cant see why MFC members dont get full disclosure on the extent of MFC player injuries!!!

Mo, I think Shaft's explanation and news article identifies the sacking of the fitness adviser for breach of confidentiality not the quality of his fitness program. If Geelong's allegation is true then Bertolacci has done his professional career irreparable damage. Any proof to back up your statement undeeniable?

I dont think you will through legitimate means.

Thanks for the legal action info. I was not aware of that. The manner and terms of the dismissal may be the issue not necessarily the reason for the dismissal. But with due respect, I would think that those in the Footy department should be in a better position with more information at hand to make more informed decisions than posters who go to the footy once a week and sit in row T of the grand stand. Its not a matter of quantifying matters that cannot be realistically quantified but understanding through research of the facts why problems occur and making people acountable for their responsibilities in reference to the problems. Otherwise nothing does change and nothing is improved.

How do you know? Do you know the specfic reasons why he sacked? I agree fitness advisers should be dismissed like any other party that gets it wrong? What did Bertolacci do wrong? Was he sacked or was it a mutually agreed parting of the ways?

BB started in December 2006. So his impact on 2007 would have been muted to some extent not having been part of the whole pre season. So I am not sure you can make an accurate comparison between a full pre season program and a program devised part of the way through a season. Also given the change of Coaches clouds the capacity unless you are on the football dept inside to work out what are DB changes and what are BB inspired changes to program. I dont think you can read to much into it comparison wise and I think some of your questions regarding philosophies could only be answered by DB and BB themselves. As I said before the fitness coach is responsible to prepare the fitness programs for an individual and group basis under the communicated football objectives of the football coaching department. The established programs would be agreed with the coaching team and incorporated into the training program for the individuals and the group. He is responsible for the impact of the fitness programs on those football objectivesd If you looking at responsibility for the outcomes of a season's injuries and player's states of fitness (the crunch), you must review what transpired over the year in player performance including the need to look at why the injuries occurred (game collision, tackle or landing awkwardly) or were they related to physical incapabilities of players bodies to fufill functions (eg chronic hamstring problems, back etc.) and were the latter types of injuries more or less than in previous years and how much impact changes in rules and game plans impacted. If you are looking at the causes of the latter types of injuries then a review of the fitness program is part of that process. If the fitness progeam is deficient then it is the responsibilty of the fitness adviser to correct these shortcomings and report back to the football department. Its foolhardy to apportion responsibility for these outcomes without doing a thorough analysis of why they occurred. From year to year the reasons can change and vary.

CJ's problem was not hearing the message from the Coach. It was actually having the appetite for the hard contested nature of the game. Its all up to CJ. No coach is going to make him do it. Laying the blame at the coach is a cop out.

BB only creates and implements the fitness program in response to the requirement of the football department to address issues like strength and endurance. The program BB put in place was in response to the requirements of ND's footy department. The terrible run of injuries we had last year were primarily due to a series of contingent events on the ground which were not a function of the BB program. How many more soft tissue injuries did we incur in 2007 above 2006? In regard to the long term OP sufferers the issue the Club needs to address is given the available knowledge of this medical problems that was available had they implemented the right treatment. The problem seems to be the nature and impact of the injury rather than the actions taken to correct it. Unless someone can provide me evidence to the contrary. For all the criticism of fitness staff, I have yet to see a researched assessment on this site that has validated those concerns beyond posters pushing their own biases and myths. I dont buy that the fitness group work autonomously and just advise the coaching panel of the program. That's rubbish. Clearly if a Coach has a game plan set up hard running these features will be part of the fitness preparation prepared by BB. This would also extend to individual players who either require more strength or alternatively need to cut down to play their game role. One of the players who did manage to play nearly all games this year and who clearly benefited from the conditioning was Nathan Jones.