Chris

There is a world of difference between 'do what I say' and respect. Having respect for someone can mean you do what they say, doing what someone says does not mean you have respect for them. If fact, having someone heavy handed and demanding often means there is little respect as respect is a two way street. If you listen to Roos' comments a while back it is clear he has changed how he manages the players as the young guys respond to different stimuli. The 'gen y' kids want to be taught, they want to be listened to, and they want to learn. If you can give them that then they will respect you and will follow you lead. The world they have been bought up in is faster with infinitely more options so if you go down the authoritarian route then you lose then very quickly and they look for other options where they can learn. This is different to how it was and is better in some ways, it is also worse in some ways. It just takes a bit of an adjustment to the way we think and you get the same outcome, sometimes a better one.

You may find he gets a sneaky couple of games in. That would nicely bring his total to 100 and therefore access to any future progeny. Would be silly of the club not to do it given he is so close. Howe miraculously managed to get to exactly 100 last year as well, even though he probably should have been dropped on a few occasions. Funny how that worked out.

ASADA actually couldn't under the rules in play, under today's code they can and I think would have. From memory the AFL actually wanted to charge the club back when all the penalties were dished out but the EFC refused to sign if it stayed in, hence it was reduced to 'exposure to risk'. There is nothing stopping the AFL from dishing out a penalty to the club under the bringing the game into disrepute clause for the use of PED's. They didn't because they are soft as butter and incredibly conflicted.

The problem is binman, the club hasn't actually been penalised for running a PED program. They got penalised for exposing their players to risks of PED use but that is a close as it gets.

That may well just be a case that he has found where he is comfortable on an AFL ground, and that place is dishing of handballs to the best option. Hopefully as his confidence in himself and his ability grows that 'comfortable place' on the ground will evolve to include looking at the longer options. I have no doubt it will come in time.

Your read on Oliver is different to mine. Yes he goes for the handball a lot but I don't see that as him making up his mind before he has the ball, it is just that when he gets the ball is usually under pressure. He gets the ball, gets the arms free as first priority, and then tries to find the option. Sometimes this doesn't work out as there is no option but a lot of the time he gets the hands off to the right person. There aren't many players I have watched who regularly give the ball of to people who may be third in line when they are actually the right option. Most footballers go to the easiest option or the closest option. Oliver regularly will hand pass past or over team mates to get to the player who is actually int eh best spot. Doing that is not that common, especially in your first 10 games! What Oliver does need to work on is that many of his hand balls are 'loopy'. This is great in some places as it builds in a margin of error and allows the team mate to run onto the ball, there are times it is too slow though and the quicker more direct hand pass would be better. He has put people under pressure due to this but improvement will come and he certainly isn't the only one of our players guilty of putting team mates under pressure. The other thing he could do is work on changing his thinking when he is more open, he always looks to go with his hands, he needs to look to kick the ball more when he is more open.

One thing to add to the realistic statement, which also adds weight to the optimism statement, and that is the standard of the development of our young players is much better than it was. That is clearly observable.

Watch a bit closer, while not to the same level as Shaw, Jetta is involved at the start of a lot of our rebounds, be it through a side step and handpass or a 20-30m dash and then deliver. He has come forward in that aspect massively int eh last 2 years, as has his whole game.

Not a lot of love for Jetta in this, he is clearly under rated by the comp and it seems by his own supporters. He is clearly among the best small defenders in the game. Maybe it is just that there is not much appreciation or romance around small defenders.

Yes they are coming from the same place and they do know the basics, it is how that is applied at the higher level that they need to learn. just like a uni grad, they know the basics and the theory but rarely know how to apply it in the real world. They need to learn this. If there was no jump or requirement for learning then the TAC cup would be the same standard as the AFL.

By 'our boys' you are talking about the dons aren't you? What makes you say this too?

Gawn has been around a long time. It seems some of the older brigade have struggled to learn and are no longer playing. There is also a big contingent that haven't had 3 years of learning and have only had one full preseason, or none in some cases. That contingent should be much smaller than it is in the players on the field but we don't have that option. Of the players who played on the weekend the players who have done one full preseason or less are (including missing due to injury) Hunt, Wagner, Oliver, Petracca, OMac, Stretch, and Vandenberg. Add to that Harmes who has played a fair bit this year and Brayshaw (both of whom are probably starting 22 when in form) and that is 9 players including a big chunk of our defence who haven't been in the system long at all, let alone the 3 years Roos has been there. I would also say TMac and Viney are significantly better now than they were 2.5 years ago. In terms of you learning in 3 days, I assume that you would be coming off a pretty good base of previous work to be able to do so, try doing that with a grad straight out of uni, that is effectively what a big chunk of our team are.

That's a good way to look at it. The way I think it has unfolded is: Year 1: Put the training wheels on then realise half the team still can't ride so throw them out at years end Year 2: Bring in the new players and keep the training wheels on and learn more fundamentals. Throw out a few more players Year 3: Start to loosen the training wheels and start to use what has been learnt and make the game plan more complicated. Year 4: (under Goodwin) should be a climb up the ladder. Our defence is OK most of the time, it does fail miserably when the effort across the ground drops. When the effort is there is works well enough.

The footy department, minus the players, has been rebuilt and is now good. The players have been turned over almost completely with many in the second season of AFL. If the list hadn't been turned over then I would agree, that is why Carlton are doing OK as there turn over was smaller and for players with a few years through the system already, we don't have that. If we don't have the jump in the next 12 months then I will agree.

You can also actually create an unsustainable loosing culture while winning, seems odd but can certainly happen. It all comes down to attitude and the non negotiables. If they are right and they stay right while you develop then when you start winning (which is the hard bit) then the culture is there to fall back on and the winning continues. If it comes easy or you start winning due to purely having a great gameplan without the right culture behind it then you fall over after a little flash of light.

That is the trick, and that is where it may take a little longer to learn it. We do have players there to provide the advice off the field, and the coaches, the problem is they may not do it on the field. I think with someone like Viney leading the group we aren't too badly placed, he will not stop or lie down until we win, that can be very contagious.

Answered in bold above, just seemed easier.

I am not so worried about bringing in the top tier players, that sounds odd but I think the bunch of kids we have include some of that next top tier so it is more a question of not losing them than bringing in new ones. I also think we wont have a real tilt at a flag till at least 2019, by which time the current top tier are getting old, unless you plan on getting a gun 20-23 you old into the club, in which case go for it. You also highlight what I think is the biggest hurdle the club face at the minute which is they don't know how to win. At some point this should click but I don't see that happening until they go into a game against a good side where it is close to even money and then knock them over. Winning the 50/50 games against good sides (which wont come for a while) will teach you far more than winning one you aren't expected to win (i.e. Geelong last year).

It all depends how you win them. If you look at port, they put in place a game plan that was great, for a year. Then everyone worked in out and they have struggled. Roos is basically saying we could do that and win heaps in one year, and then struggle for the next few. What he is trying to put in place is a game plan and system that may not have the instant gratification but it will win more games in the long run and deliver more success long term. This approach may not include the instant gratification the other approach gives. It will be interesting to see if Carlton crash next year or not. The dogs have stayed up and I expect them to continue to do so due to Maccas building at the start. WC seem to have dropped, especially interstate, are they the next Port?

Isn't that all pollies? Social media and the immediate feedback loop really have killed off the politician who did things because they were right, not because they got the most likes (or you have Dan the man who does them because his puppet masters tell him to). I have also been very aware of the lack of articles in columns such as daily life in the age about the horrors women face in extreme Islam.

Were they referring to the super hero? Was it a term of endearment? No on both counts for Caro and yes on both counts for Hulk and the Beast. Very different things.

Who here has said she isn't or has said the comments weren't due to their conflict as pres v journo? It is you who fails to see she is a women or that threatening to kill anyone is not a good look, especially a women in this day and age.

It is about the culture as a whole and the jokes are just one part of that. Death by a thousand cuts if you like.

I don't think it would be anywhere as big an issue but that is due to the current national debate around violence towards women and stamping out language such as that used by these oafs. It also wouldnt be as big as there wouldnt be the anti brigade saying she needs to just suck it up and deal with it if she was a he.

For starters they weren't but if they were they would still be in bad taste. You wouldnt get the anti feminists on here though but most of those who think this was bad would still think so.