deanox

scott thompson, troy simmonds, shane wowoedin ferguson, brown, bizzell, neitz, bell and rivers

clint, i think that ND is going out with dignity. He was not sacked, he got to say that he wouldnt seek reappointment. then he made the decision not to coach out the year, meaning he can go out on his on terms. While there may have been some pushing behind the scenes, there was no public bloodletting, no "you're sacked" speach. i think he has been treated with respect and dignity. think back over all the coaching turn overs of the last few years. can you can remember one that was done with as much dignity allowing him to choose when to go out? even letting him have a testimonial game almost?

and only 2 weeks off? didnt brock sit out half the season? you must be a machine...anyway its not WHAT you injured, its HOW you injure it that counts ey jaded?

its a good return, and you would call it a win for richmond in that match up. but destroyed is a term i would use when a player boots a bag of goals on you, takes 15 marks, and has 35 touches. not 1 and 6 as discussed.

lucas is listed as 192cm and 98 kg's, too big for bell 186 and 89. bizzell is listed as 188 and 85 which is still too small...wheatly is not big enough either (at 189). i think that we'll either see a late change, neitz out, miller in, and miller will take lucas... or, out of left field, bell goes to lloyd and carroll gets lucas. they are better match ups than any other combination i can think of...although i think lloyd could cause us all sorts of problems then...bell will at least match lloyd for pace and his spoiling from behind on the lead is fantastic, while lucas will definitely be too strong for him, better suited to carroll. this will have the effect of pushing carroll away from goal, and we have had a reluctance to do this, carroll normally takes whoever stays in the square. but i cant see any other combination really...

so it sounds like he got beaten. but 2 goals and 7 possessions is hardly "destroyed" is it?

broken nose? :lol:

and the sandy reports have said he has been doing alright... how much of the game was bell actually played on brown?

i reckon some people will struggle if he kicks 5

plenty of worse players have been picked up at his age in the preseason draft. and at 29, the age when he was delisted by collingwood). i am surprised no one picked him up back then, because i think he woul dhave played for zilch. and i am dissapointed that a player who could win a brownlow (especially for us) could be effectively out of the game at 28. amazing really. but this is a stupid thread. and you can't really think we should get him back if u have any idea about footy.

when it comes to presidents, i bet most people could name most of the vic teams but not the interstater. the only vic team you named was the bulldogs, and i reckon most people would get smorgan...

fair enough. my mistake, i was thinking senior coaches. but my statement about that clause in ND's contract still stands, and i cant see a reason why these coaches would have different contracts, especially assistant coaches who want to move into a senior coaching role.

put it this way i hope healy and sheehan have nothing to do with the running of the mfc. healy, as go the biff put it, shouldnt be let in the front door. sheehan can barrack for who he wants to, but his job is to sell papers. his comments are crap and he rarely says a good word about us... i think lyon could be suitable in this type of role, but with his friendship with connolly i think there i s aocnflict of interest. i think the board should set up a sub committee, which may include members of the board and may include outside consultants to help choose the best coach, but it must be remembered that no one on this board has ever hired a new coach before, so they may need a little impartial help.

how does it get paid compared to an afl coach? and is the job similar?

not so sure about that. i read that ND's contract had a clause that was july 31, allowing him to talk to other clubs after that date. basically he would still be mfc coach, but could discuss employment with other clubs for next year. i can only assume that would be a common clause in coaching contracts. and honestly, we're not gonna be getting coaches from clubs in the top 8 are we? so september isnt an issue...

you guys realise that this has now turned into another "wowey" thread talking about whether he deserved it or not lol

a lot different that nick smith. nick was constantly injured but 'couldabeen' good. he never showed enough over a consistant four quarter effort, he flashed in and out, and no one call for him to get a game like people are for newton. newton has kicked 30 goals this year and took over 10 marks last week, which according to the sandy coach "most of them were contested". he only played 3 quarters. he is performing, unlike nick smith.

well said. i think our list is actually a pretty young list when you consider that of our best 22 only 4 are over 28. i posted the ages of everyone at the mfc at the start of next season and the next group is thin as well (only a couple of 27 and 26's) the bulk of our players are 19-24 and these are the players who look like they could carry us to a flag...im not concerned.

out of interest, the head coach at sandy, mark williams, would that be his full time job? like it would be if he was an mfc coach? because if it is a 2 trainings a weeks plus some other stuff type job well its a big step from vfl to afl. don't get me wrong, im not trying to diss mark, im just interested thats all...

perhaps the best move yet, for us to have someone ready to go and appointed to start in September, make his own minds up about the list before trade week and the draft, and have complete control over everything. otherwise the coach effectively starts in 2009.

ok let me clarify. i believe that wowey won fair and square and deserved the award. the umpires award the votes on what they see. but i don't think that makes him the best player. for an umpire, the best and fairest player is different than from a supporter in the stands, it is different from the coaches view, from the media view and from the players view. i'd be interested to see who won the aflpa player of the year, and the coaches player of the year awards in 2000, but id bet it wasnt wowey.

clearly it went over your head. it should have read: great player, great player, great hair. wow was a solid contributor who had a good season with bright blonde hair and picked up votes cause he was seen. im not taking away from wow's brownlow, he won fair and square, and according to the umpires was the best and fairest that year. would he have won with brown hair??? probably not. and i think you mean, invalid not unvalid.

but BB you are contradicting yourself. you say the aim is to win but the primary function is to enjoy the contest? yet you disagree with me? the aim is to win without a doubt. you just agreed with that. at the proffessional level where millions of dollars (how much do you make? 40k? 60k? 250k? not millions i bet) a year is spent to try and win. people dont spend millions just for a bit of kick to kick. this is a business. and we are about winning. that is why ND is leaving, because winning is more important than keeping a great bloke in a job for longer. that is why good players and coaches get paid 500K, because we want the best to help us win. not so we can feel good about paying them lots.

just an edit, give a kid a football and what do they naturally do? markers up. see who is the best mark. it is competitive from the get go, we are competitive by nature.

out of interest football was "invented", as you put it, to keep cricketers fit in the winter. they could have easily just gone for a run together, but they specifically developed a competitive game, where the goal is to score more than the opposition. fwiw cricket is also 'competitive', where there are winners and losers, so the cricketers were trying to keep fit so that they had more chance of winning. if it wasn't about winning it would be about having fun, and there would be no winners. we would get there and have a kick to kick. it is about winning, and if you kid yourself otherwise its only because we havnt been. i have been to games where there were fights, in fact i was threatened last year not to go to the car park after the game after the opposition coach disagreed with an umpiring decision i made. this coach is a d%%%head. he has obviously has a problem discussing an issue he had and cared more about winning that about being a reasonable human being. fighting at kids sport only proves that the people fighting are stupid, too stupid to realise that a contest is exactly that. it is about competing to see who is the best. only one side can be, and therin lies the glory of sport. we can all take some pleasure in watching a great team, and we can appreciate watching the way a skilled team beats our team, but the aim is still to win.