Chris
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Chris
-
-
There worst mistake is hard to quantify. I think there were a few major mistakes made at board level before Neeld was appointed that I will never forgive them for and it's why we are where we are now.
In no order they were, the hiring of CS, the sacking of Bailey and the way it was handled, allowing Stynes to stay on as President when ill and clearly unable to do the job required, leading to Lyon coming in as some kind of consultant to help his mate Jim out when he had no qualification to do so.
The board should have put the interests of the members first, it didn't and it was an absolute disgrace.
The boys club at work!
-
1
-
-
Edited by Chris
don't agree, sorry
its the pervading culture that got Smithy out, & the the other coach fell into bed with this culture, after about his 4th year.
And that culture is one of entitlement which has in the past been lead from the top, hence I say it is off field although it probably started before I stated. It was not however lead by the players, or the coaches, it came from the boys club on the board.
-
These posts make me sick. 8 years at the bottom and we are still behind? Seriously??
Yes, the problem is driven by off field issues.
this started when we sacked a coach who was doing ok (Norm smith or the rev, take your pick), only to then sack his replacement, who was also doing OK. We had a management team in place that bought in tanking, could make money to save themselves, was very much stuck in a boys club mode where everything will be OK in the end, and they ran us into the ground. They also oversaw the sacking of all our experienced players, including our captain. Something we rue to this day as what we have clearly lacked is experience guiding the players, St Kilda have it, the dogs have it, and look at how they are going! Going with youth is only good to a point, you need the wise heads around. Look at the difference between GC and GWS for more evidence. Our players lack knowledge of what is required and have had their confidence smashed as a result. Add to this a development team that has to be the worst in AFL history, and a recruiting department who were OK, but not great, and made to look worse by appalling development and things go from bad to worse.
Then Jimmy came in a cleared the debt (only to go into debt sacking more people) but he was still bound by the boys club, but to a lesser degree than others. Then the board made their worst mistake, hiring Neeld. Neeld may well have actually been an OK coach, he was not good at reading a groups of players and managing them, he lost them before he coached his first game, and if not then then he certainly did after it. The less said about this period the better, suffice to say we continued going backwards from when the rev was sacked.
Then came the sacking of Neeld, to me this is the beginning of the resurrection. From around this point we have a CEO in place who knows what he is doing, we have a recruiting team in place who are doing a great job, we have a development team in place who so far seem to be doing very well with the likes of Brayshaw, Salem, Watts (the fact he needs development is an indictment of how bad the previous development team were), and others, we have a coaching panel in place that is stable (although many on here seem to be thinking Roos should go, massive mistake purely due tot he instability it would create) with the players knowing who is coaching for the next 4.5 years.
Yes we are bad, but we are getting better, we are just coming from miles back due to the reasons listed above. The biggest of which was removing the experienced players, not only have we missed the experience but we have had to use draft picks and trades to bring other experience back in to the team!
How about for once in this clubs history we actually stick out a plan to the end instead of jumping off half way because it doesn't look good, and then having to start all over again!
-
2
-
-
Edited by Chris
I don't think Jack made him cry, I think it was something else he wanted to do to Jack!
-
2
-
-
Amazing that two hours after the game there are only two posts on this thread. I am used to two pages in the first hour after a game!
I guess Garland, Watts, Howe, Dawes and co can keep their jobs this week.
-
2
-
-
What if you could replace Garland with a best 22 mid that was in his age bracket. Would you do it?
Would be worth thinking about.
-
1
-
-
Edited by Chris
Jamar and Garland along with Dunn, Frawley, Sylvia are and were a core group of underperforming, inconsistent players who were and have been with us since the pre-Bailey era. Howe came along not long afterwards.
All of them, (for various reasons) have at times during their career shown a lack of care and commitment to be fiercely competitive at all times.
They also share these following traits:
* Lack of skill level and decision making. Sometimes to the point of making comical extremely comical errors.
* Have never improved their individual games over the course of their careers in a consistent way like Nathan Jones. Form has always been up and down.
* An extremely low level of leadership qualities present in their game and in the way that they play.
When you have a group of older/experienced players such as these guys who share those sort of traits, it doesn't bode particularly well for your club, the list, the younger generation of players etc etc.
There is a reason Frawley and Sylvia are gone. And no I do not believe that Roos would have preferred to keep them regardless of what he said to the media during that time.
Jamar and Garland are another two that will be gone for the same reasons and Howe has seemed to follow trend with this lot and we can still net something really good for him.
Someone please tell me what Garland adds to our club in it's present state? What?!
The other thing in common, they all came through the club during a leadership void. They have and to work it out themselves, and to a large degree are getting there over the last 18 months or so. Unless you can replace them with better leaders then the current young ones will come up in a void of leadership as well. That is not a good thing.
Garland would also add leadership to the quieter players, the ones who aren't into the jock crap that football clubs can throw about, and the reason I stopped playing in my 20's. No interest in it, Garland offers an alternative.
-
No.
Why jump to a silly ultimatum when it's easy to see what the post is referring too?
We are talking about blokes who have been here since the Bailey days and some from before.
The blokes who are insignificant players at our club but who should really be the leaders.
Nathan Jones isn't in that bracket and neither is Viney both for different reasons.
Why is it so hard to understand?
Because you argue based on someone leaving because they have been here too long. Does not make sense and is a mistake.
Not every player also needs to be an overt leader, I am sure there would be young players who would look up to the Garlands and Jetta's of the world, quiet achievers who get their job done with little fanfare. I know as a kid these were the sort of people I sought out, not the overt look at me I am leader type, they left me cold, and still do. You need a mix of both.
-
1
-
-
-
Seriously. Did you just appear out of a cave?
Have the last two drafts, recruiting and development done absolutely nothing to quash that view?
Have you been following the club since the Bailey days?
No I didn't just appear out of a cave, Yes we have drafted and recruited well, I have been following the club since Carl Ditterich was the Coach.
Going with youth alone does not work, you need to keep experience around the club. Three examples, us after we sacked the captain and all the other experience and went with youth (worked wonders), Gold Coast, went with youth with very little experience around, really struggle when the littel experience they do have is missing, and lastly, GWS, have bought in experience with their youth and have leap frogged GC by a country mile.
If you think we need only focus on the future and get rid of anyone from the past then we are rid of N. Jones, Vince, Cross, Dunn, Garland, Howe, Watts, Lamumba, Dawes, Trengove, Grimes, Pederson, Garlett, and a bunch that will either retire or probably delisted (at best provide a little depth).
Remove these players (which is the extension of your argument to go with the future) and our club would sink straight back into the mire it finally seems to be extricating itself from. But I suppose that's OK, we have some players for the future, again.
-
-
I'm of the belief that both Garland and Howe will be shown the door by the club at the end of the year and I reckon Roos is comfortable knowing that it'll give us the ammunition we need to further compliment and improve our list.
To continue to bring in blokes with a fresh state of mind and willingness to compete at all times. Whether it be specialised positions we'll be targeting or mids to complement our one-paced midfield or both. Our own supporters are scared of what the unknown looks like.
Posters were scared and underwhelmed when we grabbed Bernie Vince, arguably our best mid (along with Jones).
Posters were scared when we got Garlett for nothing on the back of a poor season at a club he was uninspired to play for and look at the impact he has not only on the scoreboard but in general play. I implore you to look at some of the vision of opposition players kicking out and how something as simple as kamikaze style running at that opposition player, (providing they play on) usually results in a miss-kick and a restart for us. We've been missing those kind of pressure acts from most players on our list for the best part of a decade.
Do I even need to bring up Vandenberg again and the impact he has had in his first year as a bloke who had a shoulder op and did half a pre-season before he played.
I can't fathom the idea that some supporters of ours want to keep underperforming players in the hope that they'll come good. Or because they've been with the club for so long that there's a sense of 'sorry' felt for them.
[censored] me. First year players have shown both of these blokes up!
Not only that. If you're looking at the needs of our list, it doesn't even make sense to want to keep someone like Garland! A player who's strengths we already have covered and who's weakness/weaknesses we already have enough of.
Imagine if we'd kept Frawley like so many here were hoping we would!? It's astonishing.
We need to continue to turn over underperforming experienced players who are NQR's. Roos knows it, the rest of the club knows it.
We don't have the champion leader veterans of yesteryear like a club like St Kilda or even the Doggies have. We had to bring one of them in! Cross!
When will people wake up to the fact that keeping as many 'experienced best 22 atm players who have been on our list for 6-7 + years' is simply not an option for the MFC!?!
I will happily eat humble pie if we keep Garland and or Howe. But I honestly cannot see it happening for the sake of rebuilding and rebranding our entire list from top to bottom.
Garland
Howe
Jamar.
They'll all be gone by the end of the year.
Save this post.
Garland I think will stay, if he wants to. I don't think the club will push him. He is very versatile and is in our best 22 every week, no doubt.
-
5
-
-
-
Edited by Chris
My solution.How is that? How would you reform the Academy player bidding system?
Each club younger than 20 years can have an academy, each club over twenty years old gets father son.
Every five years each club can have a max of three picks from F/S or academy for free. They can use these all in one year or spread them out depending on the talent coming through. The five years is a rolling five years.
If a club want more than the three picks then they can have one per year, which would be governed by the rules as they were, i.e they can't get them for their last pick and would need to pay close to market price for them.
This sounds complex but is actually fairly simple and allows for forward planning by all clubs, and removes the disadvantages of having F/S coming through or academies.
-
2
-
-
assuming the ladder stays where it is, we have pick 4.
trade ND4 to a middle of the table team ie. Geelong for both ND9 and ND27
trade ND22 (845 points) and ND27 (703 points) to GWS for tomlinson and ND28
use ND9 on a Ah Chee or Curnow / etc
GWS get to use the extra points to offset selecting both Hopper and Kennedy (presumed early picks of ND5 (1751 points) and ND9 (1469 points) respectively) totalling 3220 points
ND10 = 1375
ND22 = 845
ND27 = 703
ND46 = 331
total points = 3254
Perfect example of why this new points system is bull S&*T.
-
2
-
Delistings/trades at end of the season
in Melbourne Demons
You are right on the time frame and I changed my post to reflect that.
Don't necessarily agree with the arrogance tag, more entitled and definitely a boys club through and through. Comes back to the private school boys running the place, they think it is like business where who you know is as important, if not more so, than what you know. That doesn't work in football and you get found out, as we have been many times.
I think the new regime are going a long way to removing this crap.
On another note, I wouldn't lump Davey in with the bunch of footballers who wouldn't tackle or chase, he is credited with inventing the modern version of forward pressure by doing those exact things.