Chris

Only from what Roos has been saying about the young guys being tired. He has played the 4 weeks or so and needs his loads managed, may not happen but just a feeling I got from what Roos has been saying.

I don't think there would be any uncertainty among the playing group as to who is in and who is out. They have named a squad of 25 as you do for a Sunday game, only injury would change any plans at this point. My tip is Dunn for Garland, Wagner and Stretch for Oliver and Brayshaw. Maybe Frost for Pedo as well.

I get where you are coming from with the mindset now, yes I agree the coaches need to instruct, they need to let the players know the plan and what they need to work on (that feeds into the belief I was talking about). If that is what you refer to as mindset then I agree. I see that as different from motivating though but it does set the scene to a great degree from which the players can motivate themselves. I have no issue with a spray from the coach every now and then, and pep talks can be the same, if players rely on them every week though then you have a real problem.

Lets disagree. I think if you rely on the coach to get the players in the right mindset then you are destined to fail. It is far more powerful and sustainable to have the players drive this themselves. Coaches pep talks etc always made me cringe and distracted me and took my mind off what I needed to do, I was far better being left alone and at most have a quiet chat with the coach if there was something specific they thought I needed to do. Horses for courses on that though. What is the coaches role is to ensure the players have belief in themselves and the team, without that no amount of desire will work, and with that belief then motivation as a group is far easier to gain. Everything from the players says they believe but are they all just saying the right things?

They did report on one of the articles on the website that they will have a run on the ground on Saturday.

You comment about not playing for the coach it contrary to what the coach wants to put in place. Roos has said many times that the desire to get better needs to be owned and driven by the players. Needing the coach to get you going every week is not sustainable and should not be needed. The lack of effort rests with the players, as it should, desire is not the coaches job to create.

Some stats on the teams for this game. All stats from full list of 25 named. MFC NMFC Diff Average Age 23.9 27.0 -3.1 Average Games 70.0 142.1 -72.1 Back Line Ave Age 24.8 26.0 -1.2 Ave Games 87.0 123.2 -36.2 Fol (includes wing) Ave Age 24.2 27.7 -3.5 Ave Games 88.5 177.2 -88.7 Fwd Ave Age 23.3 30.7 -7.3 Ave Games 57.8 228.7 -170.8 Int Ave Age 23.3 24.1 -0.9 Ave Games 50.1 54.1 -4.0 Melbourne Games Backline Fol Fwd Int total 0-50 1 2 4 4 11 51-100 4 2 0 2 8 101-150 0 0 2 0 2 151-200 0 1 0 1 2 200+ 1 1 0 0 2 25 NMFC Games Backline Fol Fwd Int total 0-50 1 0 0 3 4 51-100 1 1 0 3 5 101-150 2 1 1 1 5 151-200 1 2 2 0 5 200+ 1 2 3 0 6 25 As is clearly evident, they are vastly more experienced and a fair bit older than our team. Their average games played is more than twice ours, even removing Harvey it is still a big gap. The only positive from looking at this is that unless they snag a flag in the next couple of years I get the feeling their is a big rebuild coming for the Roos before they can get close again.

The elephant in the room is Junction oval. Cricket has it now but fits the ex VFL ground criteria, fits in our heartland, fits with ability to be developed to suit, fits with potential for exposure. Pity it is now a cricket only venue and off limits.

Thats a good thought, actually use the Bob Jane stadium at Albert Park. There may be issues with the existing stand as it would need to come down and I think the roof is heritage listed as it is, I think, the oldest cantilever roof of its size in Oz (or something like that). I think the cricket oval at the end of Commercial roadworks but you would need to move the tennis courts next door which would cause issues.

When we ended up at Casey we also gave up the aliance with Sandy which fits far better with the clubs supporter base. Fawkner park could work, there is plenty of space to do as you please and a fair bit of exposure, especially to the corporate StKilda road types. No way in hell it would get past the locals though.

Not a fan of the Brunswick street oval idea, nice place and all but it is hardly in our heartland and is close to traditional Carlton and Collingwood areas. If there is no option adjacent to the G, which would be ideal, then our new home needs to be in our heartland and close to the CBD. Somewhere like the South Yarra Cricket ground, Orrong Park, or Toorak park. Both would need mass redevelopment but both are linked to where are supporters are traditionally from, which is inner east and south east, not north of the Yarra. Even somewhere like Fawkner park (although there would be protests about that), or the cricket oval on StKilda road at the end of commercial road would be good. The exposure from StKilda road and Queens way on the last option would be great although the ground is not quite as big as the G.

If I was in charge: - Sit the players down and make them watch the game at least twice, firstly with coaches pointing out examples of lack of effort and then leave the players to watch it alone (only the players that played, not the whole group) - All players get a quiet talking to about what is expected, along the lines of the parents favourite, 'I'm not angry i'm just disappointed'. - Leaders get pulled aside and told that they need to get into the heads of the playing group and let them know how they all as a group let the club down. Leaders need to be told that their performances drive the standard and that they were not up to scratch. - Put a tall back in the team to help out (Dunn or Frost). - Leave the team mainly unchanged and allow the players to respond. I would only take out players who were injured or need a rest (Oliver and maybe Brayshaw). - Make it clear that if the players do not respond or if their standard drops again then the axe swings and they are in for 2 weeks of VFL minimum.

Yes Hawthorn use leading teams, have done so for a decade.

I think there is a big difference between challenging for a flag and in contention. I think we may well be in contention in 3 years, but whether or not we actually do challenge for one is a whole other story.

Good pick up. I missed putting the 'M' in M Boyd on my spreadsheet so the numbers have changed. Murphy is also listed in the forward pocket. The right numbers are: Average Age 24.0 Average Games 81.5 Back Line Ave Age 27.5 Ave Games 112.7 Fol (includes wing) Ave Age 22.7 Ave Games 64.2 Fwd Ave Age 24.3 Ave Games 108.7 Int Ave Age 20.5 Ave Games 20.0 Games Backline Fol Fwd Int total 0-50 2 2 2 3 9 51-100 1 4 2 1 8 101-150 1 0 0 0 1 151-200 0 0 1 0 1 200+ 2 0 1 0 3 22 When compared to our side this week that now makes them the same age and 9.1 games more experienced than us this weekend. They have 1 less player over 100 games but 2 more between 50 and 100. Sorry for the stuff up, still catching the multiple players with the same surname glitches.

Must be best 22. The Hawks with last years flag team with this years replacements for lake etc average about 140 games for the best 22 with 16 of those having over 100 games.. We are averaging 72 this week end for our 22 with 6 players over 100 games.

Stats for the dogs as they are lining up this week. They are younger by 1.5 years and less experienced by 2.7 games than we are this week end. Average Age 22.5 Average Games 69.7 Back Line Ave Age 22.0 Ave Games 69.5 Fol (includes wing) Ave Age 22.7 Ave Games 64.2 Fwd Ave Age 24.3 Ave Games 108.7 Int Ave Age 20.5 Ave Games 20.0 Games Backline Fol Fwd Int total 0-50 3 2 2 3 10 51-100 1 4 2 1 8 101-150 1 0 0 0 1 151-200 0 0 1 0 1 200+ 1 0 1 0 2 22

Some stats for each team that may be of interest to some. Stats taken from the teams as listed. MFC EFC Average Age 24.0 25.0 Average Games 72.4 85.5 Back Line Ave Age 25.5 25.2 Ave Games 97.7 43.2 Fol (includes wing) Ave Age 24.8 26.0 Ave Games 88.5 123.3 Fwd Ave Age 23.8 23.5 Ave Games 60.3 56.3 Int Ave Age 20.5 25.8 Ave Games 28.5 136.3 Melbourne Games Back Fol Fwd Int total 0-50 1 3 3 3 10 51-100 3 1 1 1 6 101-150 1 0 2 0 3 151-200 0 1 0 0 1 200+ 1 1 0 0 2 22 EFC Games Back Fol Fwd Int total 0-50 4 2 5 2 13 51-100 1 0 0 0 1 101-150 1 2 0 0 3 151-200 0 1 1 0 2 200+ 0 1 0 2 3 22

No team has an average of 120 games for the playing group or 2/3 of the list at 100 games or more. Hawthorn, Freo, Swans, and WC all average between 68 and 86 games for their lists and have no where 2/3 of there players with over 100 games. Hawthorn has 16 players over 100 on their primary list, Freo 14, Swans 11, and WC 17. By contrast our average games is 56 with 8 players over 100 games. We are probably no more than 3 years from having the same sort of numbers the four clubs I listed do.

Or Bondi Chef wants a renovated footy show?

A lot of our players have been on front ended contracts in order to free up more money in coming years for just this sort of opportunity. They could easily play around with when players are paid and should be able to fit them all in. We hardly have the team of stars the Hawks or Cats have managed to fit under their caps in the recent past.

Now 35,319. Hope it jumps again after smashing the cheats.

From the article "The positive effects of thymosin beta-4 are cell regeneration and repair, in a manner similar to an anabolic steroid." And the delusionals still maintain TB4 isn't performance enhancing and is harmless!

only slighlty?

That was a first effort, yes it was good but it wasnt a second effort. If you watch the rest of the game he makes one effort at the ball and then stands there flat footed while everyone runs around him. The Gif of that would be too long as there were plenty of examples yesterday.