Timothy Reddan-A'Blew

Circumstances prevented me seeing or listening to the game (except for a very positive review of the contest at half time on 774 (sorry - I'm a hyphen after all!)), so I'm not voting as such, but I'm struck by the relative positivity of this thread - notable absence of the usual "daylight the rest" after the first one or two vote-getters, for example - compared with the Postmatch Discussion. Is 'the big picture' a little better, then, than the immediate distress?

^This. Go the Hyphens!

Hey, Daisy, watch it with the hyphenation sledges! (Took me a while to decide to post this. And was I wrong to do so? )

Grazman's post at 10 this morning - considered and expansive and quite probably on the mark. However, as an aid to helping us grasp it completely as an explanation of what is happening, can anyone set out in similar clarity and detail some actual passages of play during the two problem phases of last week's game - first the surrender of the 1st quarter dominance then the opposition's run away after half time - that support and demonstrate what Grazman has set out?

Sorry if this has been noted somewhere between the OP and here but the OP refers to us currently being 3 from 9. In fact, if (when!) we win this weekend we'll be 4 from 9, JUST like '87... JUST sayin'. p.s. I have a separate thread, ready for bumping at an appropriate time, that wonders if 11 wins (or even 10!?) will be eight-worthy this year, compared with '87's 12 (our Hawks-caused % doesn't help though )

I'm with you, sir. But just in case I need to get angry about unrecognition(?) sometime in the future, who ARE the people who decide the weekly nominations??

Quadruple with the Caseys getting up handsomely! (I'll take 'em where I can get 'em ) Soooo. Gooood.

Supercoach (for what it's worth): Hogan 110, McCarthy 114, and I'd say Hoges would have 'sentiment' on his side? p.s. I had him on my bench after the week off, AND, like a few others on here, traded Vanders out. Lost 10th vs 3rd by 22 but I DON"T CARE. Go Dees!

Jeez it takes a long time to read through to here after a win like that! So. It turns out the cheap red works nicely in ALL circumstances. And NOW I'm onto the single malt. Haven't seen any vision yet - first missed 'G game for the year (forced) - but by all accounts I'm so pleased for the boys, particularly the maligned ones.

So many threads this could go on!... Overheard in my local shops this morning: "Just you wait. It always happens to Melbourne. He'll be sacked the week they're playing us so it'll be the fired up first up win for the caretaker situation." Note: Trigg last night: "We've always said we'll review it in the second half of the season"; They have Brisbane in Brisbane the week before.......... (Needs emoticon - not sure which!)

Bummer, faulty. Hope it is a good weekend for you then... And that'd be the Cottees red?

This ... though the libation of choice differs in the two scenarios (single malt vs cheap red). 'Oblivion' is also a bridge just too far these days...

More of this, then, eh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FQvyxYLqTw from 2.55. I moved to that end for that last quarter and was sitting right behind it. Clearly (sadly?) I still remember it!

The 3 games I've been to. I admit it's hard to see the 'big picture' sitting where the atmosphere is (ground level, behind the goals) but the frustration for me in yesterday's game was that so much of the stuff that the boys were able to do that made the other two so exciting was missing, and there didn't seem enough in what Sydney was doing to explain all of the difference.

Surprisingly, we matched them, 38 clearances each. This isn't to negate your point Adam; rather, it highlights our inability to benefit from them and adds to the question of why. Agree about Billy - his very first involvement was the first of those tackles, I think? And loved his goal-with-first-kick moment - can't recall being present for one before!

I said on here I'd be taking a concerned interest in Christian after Taberner's hit on him last week. Christian took a similar mark last night; overhead, eyes up, pack bearing down. So I'm deleting "concerned" now!

Justin Plapp's views about Casey performances last week: Maxy: "Maxy definitely played his best game for the year...The week before, Gawny had a performance that probably wasn’t his best...we just need to see a bit of consistency with his footy." Pencil: "Big Jake’s past month has been tremendous...he’s had a good month of football." Conclusion 1: Pencil ahead on consistency. Conclusion 2: Maxy can do it and could be rewarded when he does it consistently. (p.s. Seeing him at Casey, when/if he can kick straight he offers something more in the forward line than Pencil)

+ 1. But it was also the way he said it, forcefully negating Burgo's question(point?) before he'd even finished it. Confidence...in himself, in his own view of the team's ability, and maybe that the team shares his view of its ability? And perhaps a confidence that comes partly from the team actuallyshares that before he'd even finished itfinished his question/point Poor proof reading - how embarassment!

Indeed no, t_u, but seeing as it's happened... "Gifted 100 games of AFL football": Is there anyone on here who could compile a list of all the current players in the AFL with 100-ish games, so we can make our own assessments where JW might be in the present-receiving queue?

I'm vulnerable to thinking along the lines of a couple of common themes here: 1. Investing exaggerated hope in the youngies who show immediate capability (Hogan, Brayshaw, etc) because of their relative scarcity at MFC and the perceived (positive!) difference between them and many of their experienced colleagues; and 2. Perceiving that those among these more experienced colleagues who were once like these current youngies have apparently since dropped off. So I'll be keeping an eye on Christian Salem, who has shown himself this year to be one of the first group, I reckon, in the hope Taberner's slam on him after his mark in the 2nd quarter won't make some small contribution to sliding him into the second group. My head tells me he doesn't seem the sort to be affected like that. That there was no suggestion of a head drop in taking such a dangerous mark, and the way he (eventually) bounced up to take his kick, suggests he isn't. Keep up the good work Christian!

I'd be interested to get to the bottom of this - basically, whether it's happening or not. We are told that, to be a successful team, everyone has to play their role. At the same time there is a view on here that JW will be important when we are being successful. But that creates a vicious cycle. Any player whose role it is to 'kick it to Jack' when circumstances require it, and isn't doing that, is not playing his role (and by extension JW isn't playing, or isn't being allowed to play, his). So, the mis/use of JW becomes a barrier to the success that JW would be valuable for. And what about other players for whom this might (to a lesser extent, I agree) apply - don't kick it to Chris, he'll drop the mark / Jeremy, he'll miss the goal / Frank, he'll miss his target / Jordie, he'll only handball / Jay (and currently Dom), he'll get caught, etc?

This notion featured in the Postmatch thread too. Firstly, did the 'not kicking to Jack' really happen today? But more importantly, is this means of 'sending a message' a real thing? Do players really do this - what do posters think? (footballers please comment; I can't remember it from my distant and inconsequential playing days) If it is happening at AFL level, at Melbourne, that is a real indictment on all the players involved, possibly worse than the "playing for I" Roos referred to in his presser.

Source, Greeny? I'm vague on his reasons for departure, but the list changes at MFC since would/may provide him new encouragement? T

Seriously: Been at both(?) of the games so far. Stirring stuff (possibly - but hopefully not totally - cos we won). This is something MFC MUST retain a pre-eminent role in. Nailing my colours to the mast, I reckon a womens comp should be the curtain raiser comp to the AFL. T

Can we just get back to foot-y? Sorry. T