needafullback

The Age is reporting a two-week suspension for the bump, to be served concurrently with the one-week ban for the striking charge. A weak decision from the Tribunal. This is a fraction of what he would have copped under the AFL points system. Maybe they were influenced by Chris Scott telling the media that 3 weeks would effectively mean 7? Alternatively, they may have been swayed by his evidence that "I intended to tackle, then at the least minute he changed direction" what a load of carp that is. You need to brace yourself to bump; it's not an instinctive reaction to another player's change of direction. Quite the contrary. If he'd flung an arm out and copped him high I might believe it. The reality is he lined him up (probably influenced by the earlier niggle) and should have payed for it. He got off extremely lightly and that reflects poorly on the VFL Tribunal.

Yes I think he deserves our hatred. He'd never try anything like that in the seniors. He's weak. If the definition of offences in the VFL is the same as the AFL he should struggle to get off the rough conduct charge. He would have to show either (a) he had no realistic alternative way to contest the ball other than to bump (clearly he could have tackled) or (B) that the high contact was due to unforseen circumstances (eg sudded change in position of the victim player - again this defence does not look available.

The problem is we are significantly worse now than we were last year. From what we've seen, we will be lucky to win 3 games. Our strengths as a side have mostly been taken away and replaced with nothing. We are not defending or even tackling particularly well. I suppose it comes down to whether we need to go backwards in order to go forwards. There may be a good argument that we do, but I'm yet to come across it. To become a strong contested ball side surely you don't need to compromise ball movement completely. Like Richmond, we got 8.5 wins last year, and yet many punters, posters and commentators seems to accept that what we're going through now is somehow necessary. I don't. I'm more disappointed now than I've been since 2007 (given we finished as the top Victorian team the year before I had high hopes...)

I think Cuddles raises a very good question about the decision to go with Neeld. I don't think it's fair to characterise Cuddles' view as based on an imagined conversation. It's based in large part on the facts as we know them and what we've seen from the team so far. It involves a degree of speculation but so does a lot of educated opinion about football. Of course we need to give Neeld & co more time but if that's all we can say we may aswell shut this site down for a couple of years. I think we can say more. The players don't run, spread and handball like they did under Bailey. This is largely the reason we are getting smashed in uncontested possessions every week. It is not to do with clearances or turnovers. The stats on this don't lie. The fact that this part of our game has been so thoroughly obliterated is a huge part of the reason we are losing and losing so badly. The coaching department must bear a large portion of the blame in my view. If the players are using handball and short kicks roughly as much as they are told to then this part of the game plan is clearly flawed. We will never kick a winning score playing this way. On the other hand, if the players are not moving the ball like they are being told it is not because they are incapable of it (becasue they did it under Bailey) but because they are confused about the game plan. It is the coaching group's job to communicate the game plan effectively and make the player's understand it. Hird & co showed what could be done in this respect over one preseason. Why should we accept anything less?

Doesn't look to me like Guy Jalland has done much criminal law in his time, but I stand to be corrected on that. Until I hear that Robert Richter QC or someone of similar experience is on board I will have doubts about the adequacy of the advice received to date (unless of course Liam was told not to participate and insisted on doing so, which seems unlikely).

That wouldn't stop any recording being used in Court. Nor would it stop evidence being given of something said by anyone who heard it (journo, cameramen, soundmen, anyone else in the room...) whether it was on camera or off camera. Also, I should clarify that the danger is not confined to talking about the case. Something said about an apparently unrelated topic might, for example, be inconsistent with what has been said to police. What if the following happened: "Police: were you carrying a weapon? LJ: No, I couldn't wield a weapon because my wrist hasn't healed yet and I wouldn't have the strength." "Eddie: Liam, how's the wrist? LJ: coming along well, thanks. I started weight training last week." Sorry to go on about this but you can all probably tell its a topic close to my heart!

Absolutely. I agree completely. The risk might be small but why take it? It's an enviornment you can't completely control. In my view he should be advised in the strongest possible terms not to speak with the press. At all. About anything.

I am a lawyer. Mono you are right to mention the 'sub judice' concept (simply Latin for 'under judgment') as a reason why any media reporting of a pending case needs to be done with caution. Basically the rule is that anyone responsible for a publication which tends to prejudice a pending case could be prosecuted for contempt of court. An example would be suggesting someone is guilty, or publishing the prior crimnial history of an accused. More concerning from Liam's perspective though would be the danger of making an admission. Anything he said at all on camera concnerning the case could be used against him later. Even denying doing something or other might still involve an implied admission to being in the vicinty of the incident, for example. Jack Thomas was re-tried for terrorism offences soley on the strength of what he had told journalists (most notably, what he had said to Sally Neighbour in a Four Corners interview). I didn't see this 'interview' with Eddie but having Liam anywhere near a camera would make me nervous, and is probably unwise.

Wasn't Craig a fitness coach at the Crows in '97-'98 and credited with implementing a training regime which had them peaking in September? I think he'd be a great acquisition for the Dees. I've a lot of respect for those who preside over teams which never 'bottom out'.

I agree with you. In particular, it shows where our senior players are at. Though I hope it doesn't sap too much confidence from the kids who had a crack like Watts and Trengove. The evidence that we have gone backwards since last year was there already, but respectable losses against good sides followed by wins against Richmond, GC, and Port would have been misleading. There is no hiding from this or papering over it. When I think back now to some of the excuses I made for the team in my own mind after some earlier losses they now seem misguided. I told myself after the Hawthorn (1st game) and West Coast games that it was really only a couple of quarters which were that bad and that can happen in the modern game with the press etc. That was rubbish. Something was deeply wrong in both games. No-one stood up. No-one did anything. Even if its only for a quarter, this is unacceptable for an AFL side. Today the same thing happened but for a lot longer, but the phenomenon was the same. In those three games we have been subject to abject humiliation. I have managed to remain positive about our prospects to this point but clearly we are a long way off. I still have faith in many of our younger players, but we won't be contenders for a while. I certainly won't be making excuses for us anymore.

Trengove. He will take match-saving marks down back. He will take match-winning marks up forward. He will win the ball out of the middle. No-one else will do all of these things.

Just to correct the record in relation to Jack Watts' contribution yesterday: his time on the ground was 51% of the game (so it's a bit misleading to say his 6 disposals came in 3 quarters). He is also credited with 5 tackles. This is an area in which we were seriously deficient at the start of the game. He took 4 marks, made a spoil and made no errors. I also read somewhere that he was credited with 12 'pressure acts'. This is important when he has clearly needed to lift his intensity and ability to make an impact in contests. His impact was not especially significant but nor would I rate it poor at all. The only players to lay more tackles for us were Moloney (6) and Tapscott (6). Davey laid 0 after spending 83% of time on the ground, Jones laid 2 after spending 79% of time on the ground. If everyone showed the desire to tackle that Watts did, we would never have been 5 goals down. The conditions after half time didn't suit Watts and the substitution was sensible, but I really don't think anyone should be more doubtful about his prospects after yesterday. For those who can't understand why some of us think he will make it as an excellent footballer, I observe the following. He is a very good size and will only get stronger and better able to impose himself. He is very quick and has very good endurance. He is smart and usually takes the right option. He kicks the ball beautifully on both sides of his body. He has good hands. He is a superb shot for goal. A lot of these attributes are hard to acquire, and are rarely found together in one player. He has them naturally, and is getting stronger and more competitive as he goes.

I also agree, and this is worth keeping in mind during the year. We shouldn't take too seriously the views of footy journos who don't know our side aswell as we do. A couple of points about the team. I agree that Warnock doesn't make it. Love the way he goes about it but he's a one-dimensional old school full-back and their time in the game is over. Bennell must play IMO (pacey line-breakers are gold in today's footy). Dunn and Bate are arguably competing for the same spot. Maric looks to have forced his way into the side for round 1 (though I concede he is probably still behind a fully fit and in-form Wona). Finally, not selecting a second ruck on the bench or as a sub is cheating. Fully fit, Campbell would be on the bench. Right now I say Martin edges out Spencer because can also go back or forward. Bail would be my sub: quick - you would really notice his fresh legs, can play anywhere from back flank to forward flank. Morton would also be a good sub because of his flexibility.

I agree Rhino. He can obviously play, but I very much doubt he can teach at all. Some players can do it without having any aptitude for explaining how. He is selfish and thick as two short planks so I agree with those who say that, from an MFC point of view, he will only occupy a space on the field that might otherwise be filled with one of our emerging young talls.

Agree. Not happy with this at all. A Carlton official was quoted a couple of months ago referring to the many stories about Fevola we didn't hear in the media. One example he gave was of Fev ridiculing team mates who were doing extra sessions in the gym. Don't want someone with that attitude anywhere near our young players.

Agree completely. I think one really important factor in his ability to win the 50-50s is body strength. This is something that has been lacking in our side, particularly in our backline, in recent years. Joel MacDonald shows what difference a mature strong body can make. It's no accident that Frawley's ability to beat opponents like Jonathan Brown coincided with his physical development. This should give us even more cause for optimism as our young list gets stronger, including players we use across half-back like Grimes and Morton.

I'd like to share a thought that has given me some comfort. I'm not completely convinced by it, and I should all preface it by saying that all of this is mere rumour and I think Tom will stay. Our club plays at the home of football. We have the makings of a great side. If looking around at the likes of Watts, Trengove, Grimes, Gysberts, Jurrah, Tapscott, McKenzie, Frawley and all of the other young talent on our list does not motivate Tom Scully to stick around and win a premiership, or even create a dynasty, then he's not the sort of player we want anyway.

I agree with you C&B. I would be happy to win a game of tiddlywinks at AAMI stadium. I am sick to death of losing there. When we had real hopes of being contenders earlier in the decade and the bad losses there really hurt. Not just AAMI either obviously. A huge disparity between performances at the G and away from the G has been in my view a sign of mental weakness. Hopefully this group of players proves tougher - two wins interstate last year and a stirring comeback against Freo were strong signs of this. Given all of the positive talk at the moment and the bold target of 40K members, a strong showing in the NAB cup would be good I think. It would give us even more momentum after we smash the Swans in Round 1.

I don't think you've really responded to my point about courage coming in degrees, which I explained with specific examples. On a football field you can see everything from obvious and embarrassing squibs (which I agree is never acceptable from anyone) to rare acts of reckless indifference to personal safety (like the ones I cited) and everything in between. Because there is this degree of variation, summing it all up with hackneyed old slogans like 'when it's your turn' is simplistic, and perhaps only refers to avoiding obvious acts of squibbery. On your argument, why are some players, like Green, particularly noted for their courage? Is everyone else a shirker? The idea that all players do and should exhibit the same level of physical commitment is demonstrably false. Are you seriously saying that every player should go back like Riewoldt did in Sydney? A glance at the list of players who took the field in last year's Grand Finals also shows that sides who play off in September also have a healthy spread of players across the spectrum of courage...

I thought someone might pick me up on this. I agree that everyone is expected to 'go when it's their turn', but this is vague. Acts of courage come in degrees. Is everyone expected to do what Riewoldt did in taking that mark in Sydney? Or go back as hard as Hird did when McVeigh caved his face in? Of course not. That's why these are completely exceptional acts of courage. Simply standing your ground, putting both hands up to mark and not ducking your head while the pack arrives, or simply not deviating from a straight line in attacking the contested ball are more stock-standard situations which are referred to when people talk about 'your turn'. Creating danger when there wasn't any by running back hard against the flight of the ball is not 'your turn' and only a few players who are rightly noted for their courage do it. Green is one of them. Rivers is another. Davey is not one. Realistically, every club only has a few. That's what I meant.

Spot on Garry. Not every player is expected to throw themselves into dangerous situations; but the captain is. Having a captain who sets an example by fearless attack on the ball is essential. Davey, as important a player as he is, simply does not do this. Nor do I particularly want him to. I remember once against Brisbane at the 'G Davey stuck one arm out going backwards into a marking content, avoided body contact, but controlled the ball in front of him when he landed, swooped on it and kicked a goal. Beauty. We get a goal and he remains uninjured. I'd expect the captain though to go back full bore and take the mark with both hands, getting crunched if necessary. Junior would do this. Nietz would do this. Lyon would do this. Green will do this.

Definitely a KP back in my view. He is strong in ropey kind of way, like Dustin Fletcher. He is certainly not so easily brushed aside in a body-on-body that you would decide not to play him on someone just because of a perceived difference in size. More importantly he is clever with his body use and won't get sucked into wrestling when he can stand off and then use his fantastic closing speed. He played very well on Fevola who is physically considerably bigger. It made no discernible difference. Also, there don't seem to be many Fraser Gehrig types around who will look to monster a smaller opponent at every opportunity.

Travis Johnstone's best performances were in finals. This shouldn't be forgotten when the eulogies of his career are being written. We were out of finals games against Adelaide in 2002 and Essendon in 2004 until Trapper brought us back. On neither occasion would we have gotten close if it weren't for him. This fact doesn't sit easily with the perception that he lacked heart, though clearly this perception was also well-founded. As usual, the truth is complex. I'll miss watching him kick the ball.

My suspicion is that Brad Green is injured, and that explains his kicking yesterday. It's not the fact that he missed 4 shots but the way he missed them. I think it was in 2008 that he had a problem with his left foot or heel, which clearly affected his kicking. He began kicking 'up-and-unders' without his usual penetration. His kicking for goal yesterday reminded me of the way he kicked when he had this problem. If this is the case it may explain why he was running so close to the man on the mark at distances which would normally be no problem for him, i.e he was concerned about it. Compare his kicking from earlier games this year - even where he has missed he hasn't had any trouble kicking it 50+ until yesterday (that bomb against the Brisbane Lions was from inside the square as I remember it)

Good to hear that he is genuinely enthused about us - many in the football media seem to enjoy ridiculing us. Could've done without the reference to 'Silver Spoons' in the headline though (perhaps not Niall's fault) or the reference to MCC members calling the G the 'cricket ground' (Niall's fault). I have been an MCC member for 16 years and have never heard it referred to as 'the cricket ground'. I wonder what the club can do to shake off this image of its supporters as wealthy, fickle skiers. I reckon it would be worth sending a few uni students to the slopes in July-August with clipboards to conduct surveys - my money would be on Hawthorn supporters as the real range-rover driving skiers. The club could then refer to the survey results anytime the usual brainless slurs come up.