Chris

Robbie Flower in 87?

And one can only hope on a much better trajectory!

Few stats for those interested. Based on full 25 man squad. MFC RFC Diff Average Age 23.6 24.9 -1.3 Average Games 71.1 95.6 -24.6 Back Line Ave Age 24.8 24.7 0.2 Ave Games 107.0 98.2 8.8 Fol (includes wing) Ave Age 24.5 25.0 -0.5 Ave Games 88.3 109.2 -20.8 Fwd Ave Age 21.7 24.2 -2.5 Ave Games 40.2 79.2 -39.0 Int Ave Age 23.6 25.7 -2.1 Ave Games 52.0 96.0 -44.0 Melbourne Games Backline Fol Fwd Int total 0-50 1 2 5 4 12 51-100 3 2 0 1 6 101-150 0 0 1 2 3 151-200 1 1 0 0 2 200+ 1 1 0 0 2 25 RFC Games Backline Fol Fwd Int total 0-50 3 1 3 2 9 51-100 0 2 0 3 5 101-150 2 1 2 0 5 151-200 0 2 1 1 4 200+ 1 0 0 1 2 25 Fair to say that without our experience in the back line when compared to theirs that we are a much younger side. I still think our best can beat their best (just). It all comes down to who brings what to the table.

Certainly wasn't trying to write off the other women players, was more asking the question of the Dogs, have they embraced a captain of the womens team the same way we have? Have they taken them in and supported the womens team like we have? Do they have a figure head of the womens team? I honestly don't know the answer and I haven't really looked but I also haven't seen one out and about among the AFL.

Have a read of the comments and you will see what I mean. I won't post it here as I don't think it should have been posted at all.

It was about him needing constant praise due to damage done in the past ruining his self belief.

I did wonder that, especially the comments around Watts.

Haven't read that but it sounds like a sensible way to go.

The perils of a missing two letters. Was meant to be hasn't, not has. Whoops. Have changed the original.

I don't think you will find many who will say Beveridge hasn't done an outstanding job PD. What he did have though is a team of young players who had been developed well for a few years, they didn't have the wins on the board, and some senior players revolted, but it was there. That is also the reason their rise may well turn out to be sustainable and Ports wasn't.

Thanks for the heads up NC. The link has now changed though as they made their own thread out of it. The link is now https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/andy_macs-insights-on-goodwin-ask-andy.1129996/

It comes down to what you think Roos has instilled int eh group. The other clubs mentioned have gone attacking and had some success, it seems that to sustain that success it the game plan needs to be built on a pretty standard set of non negotiables such as intensity and defence. Any game plan can be built around these and you can change at will. We were so far from having these that it was ridiculous, Roos has given us these and now we can put the cream on top. If he has done it right it means we have the solid base to work from that you need in order to evolve as you need to as the game changes. Port Adelaide especially seem to have been caught out as I don't think they have that solid base. In my view the dogs do and it was the work of Macca that gave them the base.

And for the first time I have some degree of confidence the light isn't an oncoming train!

In the article Caro said she will captain the dees. Surely the AFl are clever enough to give the dogs and us either the first two picks (so we can pick our captains, although I don't think the dogs have a daisy equivalent) or give us a free pick outside the draft to use on the captains or our marquee players. Sorry, just realised I used AFL and clever in the same sentence. My mind must be failing.

Roos has always been about sustained success, I don't think you can say Hinkley has had that. In essence what has occurred is putting in the foundations for any game plan to be laid over the top of, I am not sure Port have that foundation, Roos may well have wasted 2 years, but Hinkley may be wasting more, we will never really know.

One of the great things I heard in the video interview with Macca last year was when he spoke about the young coaches and the old coaches. What he basically said was that the young coaches bring great enthusiasm and a new understanding of the game to the table and that it was the older coaches (him and Roos) job to temper that enthusiasm and make sure things were being done that will lead to sustained success, not a flash in the pan good year followed by bad. It was all about habits, learning, preparation, and getting the group to the point where they were coachable and could be molded as the coach wanted so they could be flexible and adjust to new game plans etc. That to me is what Macca did for the dogs, he wasn't a success as a senior coach, but he was a success in teaching a young group the required basics, Beveridge then benefited from this as he had a group that was coachable. Roos simply didn't.

Missed the point I was making by a mile and put words in my mouth, good going!

Beveridge especially had the work of Macca to build from. Macca had developed the side and got in the talent and was moulding them the right way. While Beveridge has done good things with the team he started from a much higher base than Roos. We simply didnt have the talent to do it and to go with that we had a history of bad development of the talent we had. I disagree we have gone from the bottom to10-13th as well. To say we were only the bottom is flattering, we were a good VFL side a few years back. It took time to even get back to the bottom.

Apparently that speach was made with under an hours warning. Makes all the more impressive.

Daisy is without doubt one of the greatest assets the club has. She is a class act. Seems the league is starting to clue onto that as well.

That depends entirely on the cattle you have to work with.

North have had the run of the umps for years in pretty much every game they play. I stopped watching all north games a few years back as it drove me mad. I watched the game this year and the umps are still at it, and it still drove me mad, but I took a little solace in the fact we actually played good footy, still p(*&es me off we lost though. All North have said about that game is that they didn't play at their best, JB said on the radio last night that they were atrocious in the game against us. If that was atrocious for them then I am surprised they haven't won a flag int eh last few years because they looked to be playing pretty good footy to me. Maybe it is just the standard excuse, we can't seem to ever beat anyone without then having the worst game of their life.

One of the really interesting things I have heard Roos say over the journey was in the last few weeks. He spoke about the players not being in a position to give them a spray to g them up as it wasn't what they needed or responded to. He spoke about how the players were looking for answers and wanted to learn and know why things weren't working. Roos seemed really pleased with this approach from the players and noted that the coaches had taken this on board and adjusted how they were doing things in order to become the teachers to a young group who were hungry to learn and improve. I think it is fantastic that both the players have such a thirst for knowledge and improvement, and that we now have coaches who can recognise that and change the way they do things to get the best out of the players.

I wasnt alive in 64 but i am fairly sure we won that one. I havent seen that finish but i dont like the idea of a team trying to get a point knowing it will end the game, as opposed to getting a point not being sure ifthat gives the other team possession and maybe a chance to score.

The problem i see with a point counting is you will end up with a Dunn type player taking a pot shot from 70 in hope and if it falls short it would be all but a scrum as players go for the try/rushed behind. I would prefer to see it decided by a more AFL like final play.