grazman

WTF.... I know the modern game has changed, but fair dinkum.... The only difference I guess was that Mark Jamar is tough enough to keep going.

As compared to say Alistair Clarkson who had 14 from his first 44... or Brett Ratten who lost how many in a row? What's your point exactly - you appoint a bloke to do the dirty work, then hatchet him after he delivers the goods (rebuilding through the draft). Maybe DB and the club are a lot braver than you're prepared to give them credit for. - BTW how do you think the search for the Richmond coach will go if they say that he needs to have a least a 25% ratio from his first two years?

Good point Maurie, From what I've seen and heard of Bailey so far I think he's the man for the job, further more I'd extend his contract right now - especially if we're planning ahead to secure a priority pick (and at 1 and 10 we should be).

Depends on Junior's fitness - if he doesn't come up then it creates the opportunity, but with the fifteen man rule, it'll be interesting to see who plays in the magoos.

thanks for the clarification Bob, I thought it was a little strange, Colin keeps his cards pretty close to his chest nowadays, and even in the past, he'd only publish his rankings close to or after the draft.

I think the scenario is pretty simple. We just have to win less than four matches and finish below West Coast. West Coast's problem is that they're currently two matches and percentage ahead of us and play another three games against sides that are 'tanking' (perception only, because AD tells us this doesn't happen in his empire). Richmond had to pull Terry's chute quickly, he's stuffed them up for four and a half years, he was going to stuff them up for the rest of the year by actually trying to win games. Their real problem is that obviously if they're thinking ahead then next year's priority pick is what they're going to angle for, in which case the caretaker has a real bastard of a job, because he can't win more than one match in the next 12 weeks. The WCE v Richmond match at Subi should be very enlightening. The other problem the Tiges have is that half their list logs on daily to check the fortunes of their superannuation to see if they can retire at the end of the year or have to wait until they're 67 - so there's not much there to offer GC for some of their plum picks next year.

I'll be interested in seeing how many weeks Gardiner gets, in the 80s and 90s it would have been two weeks straight up even with a good record, maybe even as much as four with a bad one. I bet he gets only one week with an early plea for a deliberate attack on the head of an opponent that could potentially have left his with a broken jaw. I actually thought the standard of umpiring last night was much better than against the Hawks - at least they let the game go. There's obviously an issue with the midfield, but there's a bigger issue with delivery, obviously with such a young team there's always going to be problems with running the game out, but you can see where the game plan is heading.

I think it's important to keep in perspective why Robbo has been dropped, and while Bailey has intimated that the mark and play on maybe part of the reason it's not the whole reason. Watching the Foxtel telecast it was clear that Robbo wasn't chasing or putting any kind of forward pressure on when we didn't have the ball. He didn't lead at the ball when we did have it, he was criticised by James Hird for failing to present as a viable target. His preoccupation was to double back so that he could jump on someone's shoulders. He has slipped back into bad habits. When Bailey came to the club he had to change his ways, he actually showed something about dogs and tricks, he was chasing and tackling and working to advantage, his injury was just terrible luck. He's been dropped on form, that form isn't so much about kicking goals, but failing to do the team oriented things - well that's my take on it anyway.

I think he's played in the midfield at Casey since returning from injury. Perhaps a run with role?

People are tough on Bate, I thought he had a reasonable game. He's one of the league's leading 'score assists' players and works a lot harder than many seem to understand.

So even if he thinks Styne's is badly misrepresenting the club he should just shut up. "Unity" is the handmaiden of "Groupthink" which is the bridesmaid to an "escalating commitment to a failing course of action" I can see you're a fan of groupthink, because those that dissent are marginalised and ridiculed - as you've done to Mick. You were right in the first instance about Styne's clarifying his position, but the issue here is not a simple difference of opinion, and I doubt that Mick would even have approached Jim if it was, it's about the misrepresentation of the club as a whole.

Absolutely. Anyone that knows Mick would never doubt the sincerity of his actions. He's been a wonderful and tireless servant of the the club and his anger at Jim's comments would certainly not have been for himself or even for the previous board, but for the MFC as a whole and what it stood for. Jim's comment that is wrong and could hardly have been made in ignorance, why it was made is mystifying. Mick had a choice of either shutting up or taking the matter further. I doubt that I'd barrack for a club where principles were sacrificed for 'unity'.

I don't want to be unduly harsh on any particular player.... buuuutt, how long do we persist with PJ? We were slaughtered for most of the match, and if you believe the AFL site, Dunn had more hitouts than either Meesen and PJ for nearly half the match. What's PJ done this season to justify his spot in the 22? We'd be better off with one ruckman and using someone like Dunn or Newton to pinch hit. Jaded, winning the contested ball isn't the problem, (100 compared to Geelongs 130 and 24 clearances compared to 30) the problem is obviously we butchered the ball so badly that no matter how often we got to use it we just gave it right back to them. I really like Belly's attitude and courage, but I think it's touch and go as to whether he'll make it as a midfielder. As for Bate it wasn't his best game, but from what I saw nearly everytime he went to the ball he was competing against two and three Geelong players.

Thanks RPFC, I was getting a little angsty myself with the lack of perspective on this site over the last three weeks. I think you're dead right - especially about Bennell - I think he's one out of the box. Bailey's still in the scoping/developing phase of this project, there's still a lot more work to be done, but not as much as there was 12 mths ago!

So in another words, you'd rather see us lose by 100 pts every week than the 30-50 pts we have been? You do understand the connection with putting players behind the ball when we've shot our bolt and are no longer in the game? What you want to see is completely irrelevant to what needs to happen to teach this side how to play footy.

err did I miss something... minor premierships don't count for squat. I shouldn't get surprised at the expectations of footy supporters (but I do). Bailey has had 12 mths to work with a fractured list. How long did it take Thompson or Clarkson. Bailey's had 12 mths to cull the list, he's had 12 mths to instill a new game plan and rectify bad habits, he's now working with the youngest list in the AFL, and to his credit he's teaching the team something. This time last year we were getting smashed all over the park. We're no closer to winning one year on, but we've improved and we are getting better (and with younger players). The expectations of some supporters that it's the structure that's the problem is enlightening in itself, I just don't think I'm watching the same game, where I see improvement you see - well something else.

Well I'm not sure today was insipid at all, in fact it's exactly what I'd expect when most of your side are made up of babies, but in answer to your question - I don't know... but the positives from my perspective are - Sitting 0 and 3 isn't what we'd wish for as supporters and already it looks like we're in for another torrid year, but after three matches where (in the coaches words) we've been competitive for much longer periods than in 08 I thought I'd just kick around a few thoughts about why we can look forward to waiting for future seasons to come around. 1. We're better than last year, and our side is much younger - in fact most of the side all year has played less than 50 games which statistically speaking means we're on a hiding to nothing - that we aren't getting blown out of the water means that either the side is executing the game plan better or the younger players are better than those that have left the side or both... hopefully both. 2. We've found out that our hopes for some of our younger players: Jones, Garland, Morton, Martin, Petterd and Frawley were well founded. 3. That whilst our ruck situation doesn't look impressive ATM, that both Spencer and Meesen are worth putting time into. 4. That we'll be a much better side when we can get players such as Watts, Grimes, Maric, Strauss and Blease out onto the park.

Well that's what young players do, tease. If Bate has a problem it's that he's so one sided. He's a good long kick, and I disagree that he's terrible below his knees, he found the ball pretty well today a number of times and turned some pretty good opponents inside out. He's not a fantastic contested mark, but he doesn't usually drop sitters either. His real strength is his endurance, he worked his way into the game today and didn't drop his head which is a big step forward from last year IMO.

In the words of Arthur Fonzerelli "Exactamundo"

Maybe you should go as far back as 1997 and have a look at some of the names from that particular season. Or maybe the rd 1 team from 96 when we got smashed by Geelong by 127 pts. Worst Melbourne team in the last 30 years...you sound like Pollyanna. http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/1997.html#11 I think Spencer needs to go back to Casey and consolidate what he's learnt in the first two rounds in a less intense environment. Jetta too. I wonder about Meesen and whether promoting him on the back of the only two decent games he's ever played might be premature, but I guess that's the way it is when you're thin on the ground for ruckmen.

I'm happy to be corrected by those at the game, because being in Canberra I rely only on what I can see from the tele and any insight from the relevant commentary teams 1. I'd say that the first 45% of the game was assisted with neither ourselves nor Collingwood playing a zone. Like Dandee says, the game plan is coming together, but it does fall apart as the game goes on. Nick Maxwell mentioned our intensity early, but as you'd expect with a very young list that eventually fatigue and lack of experience/confidence will conspire to rob you of consistently being able to find team mates and create opportunities. Professional outfits like the Pies will continue to punish our mistakes. 2. Of the list yesterday half had played less than fifty games and only four had played more than 100 (five next week with Davey), so you'd expect there to be mistakes. Not hard to understand that there's a fair comparison between resilience and experience as well as fitness. 3. Our two ruckman yesterday had 46 games of experience between them. One is 25 and one is 20. Neither is really AFL grade at this stage, but given that most ruckman don't come good until their mid to late twenties, we've just got to be patient.

Gold.

I'll go against the grain here and say Colin Sylvia should not be brought back in this week. He's a repeat offender and he's served a one match suspension. According to Casey watchers he played one quarter of committed footy in response. Weak as [censored]. I'm not sure what the internal punishment is, but firstly I'd hope that it was more than one match, and secondly that when the suspension was served that he was only promoted back into the seniors based on his attitude and performance at Casey (which appears to be lacking). This is about consistency and leadership. The coach and the club aren't just coaching for the match against Collingwood they're coaching for the rest of the season and next. To let things slide because we didn't kick enough goals in rd 1 would be to reinforce a very bad example IMO. I have a lot of faith in Bailey I think he'll give all the debutants at least another week to consolidate their lessons before sending some of them back.

Hard to tell on Tele, but the commentators said we were playing a sixteen man rolling zone, which a lot of sides do. That basically leaves two forwards isolated in the forward line.

I don't think anyone's hanging Simon Buckley out to dry, rather we're saying there is a fundamental aspect to his game that is still not there. Accountability has nothing to do with pace or being "attacking" it's purely about what you do when your side doesn't have the ball. I'd take a stab in the dark and say he was played on Wells because he has the pace to go with him, but if you're consistently standing 10-20 metres off your direct opponent hoping for a turn over, then you're dudding your team mates. Buckley has pace and we need that, but pace alone won't see him continue to be selected if he refuses to play accountable footy.