deanox

who would rather have do them? carrol? lol nah he hasnt been in crash hot form but remember he even got put on franklin a bit in round 1...lets hope he can turn it around.

i've got no doubt he will. im sure he would bring his own people. what i would like to see however is that PG and the current board recognise he is a big player and work with him to organise a smooth transition, rather than a blood spill. im not saying i wouldnt vote for him. just that i consider what it would do to us first.

i would vote for argus. as long as he is not trying to disrupt the current board. because im not sure about offield disruption...

best point so far in this thread. we have a debt of what 1, 2, 3 million? as we slowly make small profits every year that debt is reduced. there is no interest repayments on the debt meaning more cash going around. once we get to the point where we can say 'hey we made a profit of 1 million this year and we have no debt' then we can start making investments. i know it is not up to the afl to bail us out, or up to any individual BUT if we could just simply wipe that slate clean and make a small profit for a couple of years, we could quite comfortably start buying hotels pubs etc to make more of a profit. when we have had that opportunity we got stuck ie the faulkner club where we didnt get the pokies we were hoping for. we need to be back in black before we can make these investments, and i wish i knew how to get us there.

yes he hasnt been listed all year. funny how he missed 2 games games (didn't even play for sandy) before having another urn for sandy this week. he isn't injured right now, but he has been injured, and as we've seen so far this year, bailey expects players to play a game or two at sandy before they get selected in the mfc side. i would also suggest that 1 good game in the sandy side isnt always enough to get back into the mfc side. a couple of players have been shown that they need to produce continued results to be considered. learn to dominant the play, and learn to be consistent is the message hear i think.

while i think r&b&t's post is a bit silly and extreme, i think there is some merit in talking to the mcc and seeing wat we can become again. the only problem is, i cant see what we offer the mcc.

yes great point RE the under 23s having time to adapt to a new game plan. however, i still think the ND could have rolled the dice again with the old game plan, and won a few more games than he did, and possibly kept his spot. if we had of finished 6-8 last year and got knocked out in week 1 of the finals, I think he would still be in the job. however precariously perched he may have been. i believe he did the club a great service by trying to do what was best for the club, rather than by trying to get short term results that in the end would amount to nothing, and get us no where.

good stats arem. where did you get those? wonder if that is the biggest week to week score difference between two games by the same side?

like, i like cant remember! try afl tables. not a bad stats website.

on the upside its a relatively small list, and in a finals contending year we would probably be happy about it - no big name players no key players. however in a developing year there are a number of names there that are no good. grimes, petterd, PJ, meesen and molony who isnt listed. bates been injured and now miller is suspended. thats a fair chunk of the list to be out of the side when you really want them to be playing most weeks.

which is why he tried to change to a 'run and carry' gameplan last year, which caused us to get flogged, lost him his job. but he probably did the right thing for the club - he could have continued old methods and just made the finals again couldnt he? he had the same problem DB is having now, and that is that the players have psent 10 years playing a different game, and now they are learning a new one.

out of interest was that a shoulder or a broken forearm? for some reason i associate that injury with bishop.

good to see you got that settled all by yourself :D

read my previous post in this topic and you might learn a bit more about them game. you might also realise that DB's job is more intricate than saying 'hey guys guess what? we have 3 or 4 tall forwards up there so just kick it to them'. the coach is trying to get them to play a certain way. the players are struggling with it. RE delivery into the forward line, it looks terrible. is that a game plan problem, a foot skills problem, or a dumb player problem? lack of foot skills make it hard for a player to deliver the ball to the right spot. We do know that the players have poor foot skills atm cos they miss targets all over the park. lack of game plan makes it hard to predetermine where to lead to and where to kick too. if players aren't following the game plan this is made harder. if the players are just throwing t onto the boot, then it would be no wonder that the ball constantly hits opposition players.

i was there as usual, went the first couple of weeks by myself. aim to get to 14-15 games each year and normally watch the others on telly or on repeat if i cant get out of work etc i feel the need to point out to you that prior opportunity is not required for the umpires to make a holding the ball decision. if the player HAS had prior opportunity, then as soon as he is tackled and retarded it is holding the ball. if the player HAS NOT had prior opportunity, then once tackled and retarded, the player must dispose of the ball immediately otherwise it is holding the ball. The exceptions to this rule are when the player with the ball is infringed (ie in the back), the ball is knocked free in the tackle, or the ball is pinned to the player. if during ANY tackle the player with the ball disposes of it incorrectly (ie simply drops it, lets go of it, fails in an attempt to kick or handball, places it on the ground, hands it to another player, or bounces the footy) then it is also a free kick for illegal disposal such as a throw.

in all honesty i thought we got crucified in this dept on sat. these figures include players getting frees for 'trips' when they fall over by themselves, among other soft frees. neitz and robbo didnt get any frees for hands in the back. we got nothing up forward and were almost 'free kicked' out of the game in the first half, not by weight of numbers, but by where the frees were paid.

secruity would have told them to take down the banner because it obscures the sponsors ads, and the sponsors have paid for them. i was once asked to move my scarf for the same reason....

rotations are a seperate issue. rotations depend on how you train the players to play. if they are trained to run in bursts, then rotations is the way to go. if they are training to run enduranec, then rotations are low. compare all the clubs average rotations, different clubs play different styles, but it all comes down to how the players have trained, and both methods can be effective. rotations however will be limited in the long run because interchange players restrict this, but if you are an endurance team injuries wont effect you as much. the game plan is simple. the crux of it involves linking up around behind your team mates as you run the ball. picture a rugby field as the ball travels through the backs. basically the player with the ball is drawing the player before dishing off, to a (hopefully) more open player. that is why sometimes there will be a chain of 3-4 quick handballs which ends with a player close to the centre of the ground who can then kick towards the forward line. i assume there are more nuances than this. there are probably designated kickers, designated retrievers etc. around the rucks there are set plays etc which actually havnt looked too bad (i believe our HO's to advantage would probably be up this year on last year, but i havnt checked the stats). our delivery into the forward line has been particulary poor; in fact it has been poor for a number of years. our forward set ups don't seem to be working, we have neitz robbo and newton who are all clumsy and fall on top of each other. we have davey up the ground somewhere and sylvia trying to fly for marks therefore we have no crumbers. our forwards dont seem to lead to a predetermined spot, and the delivery never seems to be to their advantage (ie the right side of the contest.). in fact it looks like they kick without looking. you will notice that we have managed to get this running 'circle behind the ball' type approach working a few times and it has been effective when everyone is in the right position. however, the players don't understand the plan well enough to dig themselves out of trouble. whenthey are pressured, they freeze, and handball to another stationary player. this is why it looks like we handball in circles. it is why we get nowhere. it is also why our kick/handball ratio is so high. thats a simply minded approach that hasn't considered what has really happened at our club over the past 4-5 years. that game plan proved that it wasn't good enough to win a flag. simple. we played well with it, but when it didnt work we got smashed. we had no way to slow the opposition, and unless we were 100% on our game it was full of turnovers. the game plan was changed by daniher because that plan wasn't going to get us a flag. this one might. stick with it all for a bit before losing your head. its only 4 rounds in. DB deserves more time than you have given him. it seems to me that you who are criticising DB expected him to step in and take us to a flag (or top 4) this season. if that is the case you havnt really thought about what has happened in the past 6 months. with the list change overs, DB's statements about building around the under 23's etc you should have realised what was to come.

rivers plays on the best forward every week. the only reason you assume he is the third defender is because he is so good at reading the play that he drops into the space. don't seel rivers short, he is our best defender, and moving him to a HFF would be a waste. you are correct we dont have a second quality KD. carrol will play the third man and hopefully frawley will be the FB eventually. you forgot to mention tom macnamara in your analysis.

i propose a motion to have colin sylvias name stricken from the record of this weeks votes. too much outside, not enough real possessions. possies in the back line in the last quarter don't count yze magic. i don't rate bowden, why should it be good enough for sylvia?

but do you mono, believe that the lack of skills is a function of baileys coaching? they cant hit targets, whose fault is that? bailey has come in, he obviously has a lot of stuff to change, game plans etc preseason is all about fitness normally, but perhaps next preseason is about skills not fitness.

sylvia was having calf cramps in the last quarter, he had to stretch them a number of times, and was drinking lots of fluid. once he actually cramped up while chasing down a north player who kicked a goal on the run. he probably should have been off. he will be a wasted player if he becomes a mid sized defender. he needs to learn how to crumb so he can play in the forward line where he can use his strength to advantage when he is one on one. when he is there with robbo and neitz however he needs to learn to play small.

JUNKTIME ROBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOO!!!

we would have got about pick 30 for him. not a first rounder. thats why we didnt trade him. although i sort of wish we had've.

of course he will. we need off field stability just as importantly as on field success at the moment. after all the processes we went through, we couldnt possibly sack the coach mid year. the players are playing so badly for the same reason we played badly last year. for the same reason a couple of players struggled the year before. the quality of a players disposal is their responsibility. i suppose the coaches might have to walk them through some basics, but they are afl footballers, not under 13's that need to be taught how to drop the ball correctly. we have have two distinct issues here. for me the most important is that the players disposal is substandard. all of them. all over the ground. players miss targets by hand and foot. their passes are hospital passes (leave the player exposed while gathering the ball, rather than letting them run onto it). disposal is often to the wrong side of contests (probably because the skill level is down). this needs to be fixed no doubt. often however disposal looks worse because of a luck of intuition of the game plan. players handball to stationary players. kick to stationary players. they don't look like they know where to run. in fact it looks like they are trying to play two plans; the link up running plan, and the kick to possession plan. players are often in a position for neither, which makes the disposal look poor.