QueenC

Cutting players throats for a couple of (or one) bad games, or a form slump is a common problem due to our (maybe) inflated early expectations of our kids. The way I see it all players, big (who do take longer), small, or otherwise develop at different rates and therefore things will change as they do. Most, if not all have the skills, the heart, the desire, or all of the above, but they still have to find their feet in a very tough environment and sometimes this simply takes time. Now to us we don't want it to take any time, ever. We expect them all to be perfect (which no-one ever is) as soon as they arrive and forever after, because we need to win (as they do as well) and therefore we don't seem to be able to give these young men the time that some of them obviously need to find their way. Brett Kirk is one of my favourite examples of persistence and perseverance of a player, who is not particularly highly skilled, but is all effort (something that tends to get under-valued), being given the time to get to where he is now. And he is repaying the faith to the club, coach, supporters and team mates in spades. He was told in his mid-20's that he was not good enough, which is a sad but common insult thrown at players from the cheap seats around here, and he has proved so many people wrong. So maybe we shouldn't be so bloody critical or vitriolic towards our players, because at the end of the day they are our players. They should all have our support, all the time. Even if their form ebbs and flows. If any of them have a bad day, or play a bad game - be critical, but don't ever simply write them off completely, because none of us really knows. Which is unfortunately a very common throwaway insult towards some players on our list, a group which Bate has been added recently - we hear it all the time - "he is not good enough", "we will never win anything with him", "he has no skill, he is useless" etc. They are still human and will go throw good times and bad times whether we like it or not. But this is something that we can't seem to get our heads around. But it doesn't mean for a second that they are not trying to get us what we want to see, its just unfortunately sometimes they will fail. They at some point make mistakes that we will hate and that we will abuse, but lets not write any of them off for a few bad games. Because that really is a sad indictment on a supporter base. Oh, and congrats to Matthew for a fantastic game today !!!

Now with regards to Pickett it was said by the TV commentators, who seemed to think he had committed a capital offense, that he would be in trouble because of the fact he pinned both of the Port players arms, and therefore there was a duty of care because Cornes could not protect his head. But I was wondering if that kind of tackle had actually been declared illegal in any sense by the AFL (the TV folk mentioned that it was brought up pre-season with the clubs saying that this particular type of tackle was dangerous), or if it will just be looked at as rough play or something similar? I mean can a player actually be cited for a "dangerous tackle" in the AFL?

I have asked this before and I am sorry for that but I do have a genuine question for those closer to the club and its internal workings than I am, does anyone actually see the club extending Danihers contract? This is not to ask what we as individuals want, but what you think the club will logically do. And why. Does anyone here actually believe that after 10 years without the ultimate success, a truly appalling start to his last contracted year, a team that appears to be relatively unskilled and very unsure of themselves, and with what seems to be a very ineffective and reactive plan, that doesn't seem to suit the list that he built, that Daniher will be given any more time to get it right? And can the current appalling injury list, which has not helped in any way shape and form, be the reason for that re-appointment, if it should occur? For the record, I completely and totally agree with those that say that Neale should be afforded the respect that anyone deserves after serving for such a long tenure in a very difficult role, through what has been arguably some bloody awful times for a relatively difficult the club (including board upheaval, financial restriction etc), and for doing a genuinely fantastic job in being a spokesman for, and spruiking of, the club. But can the club really afford to give him any more time? Since the success that we all want seems to be getting further and further away. Now that there is a hell of a lot more stability at the other levels, is it possible that the club can afford to take a chance and make a change (which seems to be the popular choice) within the coaching department? While this was probably not a luxury the club was afforded in previous years. So back to the initial question, with all these factors (and facts) in place does anyone think that Neale will have his contract extended again? And if they do (which is perfectly fine, there is no judgement in this post) why?

I'll throw my hat in at 20 000'ish...... Nothing too specific is the safest bet from here !!!

That's a really great number, thanks for posting dees...... And I am with Finks in the hope that this new found membership support doesn't wane after this year. Quite simply, it is great to see the club get this kind of support :D !!!

Cheers Jack !!!

Thanks for the report on the function Choko..... It was informative especially since some of us can never really attend these things I really appreciate the effort and the opinion .

Improving the list is one thing, but wow, winning a premiership must be easy....... Since it seems all we have to do is get rid of some unpopular players.

.........And quite possibly the ICC and definitely the ARU :D !!! And just on a side note...... There was a new rule instituted on obstruction in the Rugby League at the beginning of the season. And this rule change has caused more issues and problems within the code than anything I have seen for quite some time, and today there was a meeting of the sixteen club coaches, the referees boss and other NRL bigwigs to discuss what to do with the obstruction v decoy runner rule. The reason I bring this up, is that the NRL actually admitted that the rule change was not working for players, coaches and fans, and was therefore harming rather than helping the code, and changed it back to the way the rule was being interpreted in 2006. This decision has been very well received by all. Now I think that the NRL should be applauded in making the change and admitting the error before any more problems arose out of the mess. But I would find it very hard to believe if the AFL would ever admit something was so wrong that it needed a revision mid-season in order to help the code or its fans.

Just apropos of this...... It really was quite sad being at the game on Saturday night and witnessing a team that seemed to get so confused and flustered when trying to bring the ball out of defence and through the middle of the ground. And the SCG is a small ground. It was like no-one really wanted the ball, or the responsibility, and when they had it they just wanted to get rid of it as quickly, and with as little trouble as possible, but it never seemed to occur to anyone (on multiple occasions) to actually kick it quickly into the forward line. And I am not talking about just bombing it onto the forwards heads either, as that did happen, eventually. But generally it was a painfully slow entry, if it got there at all, which helped the Sydney defence no end. Spoiling became very easy with the amount of time they had to set up. But more often than not this headless chook routine in the middle led to hand balling to players under pressure (a common thread throughout this season) and therefore multiple turnovers, which in turn were turned into points by the Swans, very quickly. Giving our defence little time. But what struck me the most was that kicking didn't seem to even be in their heads, and I do realise I am being fairly general in this assessment. I also realise that the kick is not always the best option, but it seemed as though it was not any kind of option. Of course actually hitting the target, by hand or foot, was also a small problem !!!

Burgoyne found not guilty By Roger Vaughan May 01, 2007 PORT Adelaide midfield player Shaun Burgoyne remains eligible for the Brownlow medal after the AFL tribunal cleared him tonight of a rough conduct charge. Burgoyne argued successfully that he made no substantial contact with the head and neck of St Kilda onballer Lenny Hayes during the match at AAMI Stadium on Friday night. He also argued that the contact was not reckless, but that defence became irrelevant once the three-man panel dismissed the charge. Burgoyne said at the start of his evidence that the lure of winning his first Brownlow medal was one of the reasons that he would never intentionally commit a reportable offence. "I aim to play all 22 games (this season), I'm a contender for the Brownlow Medal, I use that as a motivating force on the weekend," he said. "I do nothing stupid to put any of that in jeopardy." Burgoyne, who would have faced a three-match suspension had the tribunal ruled against him, has made a strong start to the season, and he is among the top 10 in betting for the game's highest individual honour. Hayes hurt his neck in the incident, but Burgoyne's counsel, Mark Griffin, SC, suggested that the injury occurred when the Saints player hit the ground. The jury only took a few minutes to rule in Burgoyne's favour. AAP http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,2...1-23211,00.html

Really well said Gouga, you are spot on ...... All players have certain strengths and weaknesses that can contribute to, and sometimes harm the success of any team. But it is still a team, and while every one has a weakest link, it is not that simple to say "without him we are going to be the champions". And frankly, I would like to see a hell of a lot more team work, eg shepherding, which seems to have become an optional extra for everyone within the Dees team at the moment, rather that anyone trying for any particular individual glory. And maybe, just maybe this would be a stepping stone to any future success we may have.

Reprimand. Free to play this week !!!

That really would make my birthday celebrations on Sunday so much better !!!

Whoever they chose, and I don't think there will be too many changes, a great day is all I ask....... It is my birthday on Sunday and lets be honest four points would be a great present :D !!!

I hope this doesn't sound narky, but why especially?

He has apparently been offered a week with the early plea........ But he has a great record and is a wonderful person so it is more than enough for that tiny little infraction. At least that is how the Sydney press reported it!!!

Adam Goodes has been cited for elbowing Simon Godfrey in the back, off the ball in Saturday nights game.

I'm pretty sure I heard him say that there was a basic lack of support and there was not much Miller could do. He also said something along the lines of the total lack of midfield pressure making it very tough on the defenders. The dropping back in the hole comment does make a lot of sense though !!!

Totally with you Jaded..... The ball was flying in with no pressure out of the middle and you're right in that there was absolutely no help in defence at that point. Even Michael Voss in the Channel Ten commentary made a couple of statements about the total lack of support Miller was getting in the opening quarter, and that there was not much else he could be doing under the circumstances. I was just defending Carroll (not having a go at Miller) who was better in the position, but of course having help helps. And here lies the problem for me, having now been to a game. There seems to be very little teamwork. Minimal shepherding or spoiling or working for each other. Miller was always going to need help playing on Hall (most defenders bar Rutten do) but did not get it. Thankfully they learned from that and changed, but by then it was probably too late. And on the few occasions there was work off the ball it was relatively successful.

It would probably be better if he wasn't, but he is. And he did a really good job last night !!!

That is exactly the way I was left thinking as well Hards......

Nope not just you..... Hall was killing him when he was back, but then again the ball was coming down with such ease that there really wasn't much help. But there was a massive improvement when he went forward. Yes, the kicking still needs more work, but it is getting better and it is just ridiculous to criticise someone who presents all day long and works as hard as he does (unless you want to). The marking seemed better, as well as has the field kicking. And believe me there really wasn't too much of an opportunity for any forward to get us back into the game as there was no pressure against the Sydney goals. And I actually thought that Carroll was pretty good after he went onto Hall. Not great, but he kept him a little quiet, at least. The problem as I saw it, and I still haven't seen a replay, is that they seemed to get confused when coming through the middle, which is when the handballing went into overdrive (and badly) and our targets were consistently missed, making any decent, quick, or strong forward movement near impossible. There was a lot of running in circles and handballing to players either standing still or with three Swans on their tails. There was also no speed of delivery, then the ball tended to just get bombed on top of the forwards, thus the Sydney defenders had tonnes of time to easily make the spoils when needed.

I haven't seen a replay as yet but mine and my dads initial opinions were fairly similar to joeboy's....... Apart from Bell who was good, despite a shocking kick for goal in the third and a couple of errors, he was given a tough assignment on O'keefe and held him pretty well. He definitely deserves a hell of a lot more credit than he gets. He was everywhere and against the odds damn good. Miller was leading all day and again worked very hard and looked pretty good (his goal kicking still needs work obviously but he took some nice marks, which can only be a good thing for his confidence), after the first fifteen or so minutes, and should never be put back again. There was a noticeable groan from the crowd when he went to Hall in the beginning. And his switch forward, which automatically made us look better, could possibly have been the quickest positional change Daniher has ever made!!! Petterd had a really great debut and his goal in the last was great to watch, Davey was fantastic, Yze didn't completely suck, Bruce got a lot of ball but didn't seem do a hell of a lot with it (he needs to have some target practice), and Godfrey seemed to be everywhere and trying very hard. But the problems were in the middle, again, I am not sure just how many clearances we actually won but it really couldn't have been too many. The ease in which the Swans were taking it away and out of the middle was embarrassing. And this is despite the full hearted effort from Moloney.

You are probably right there Rod, but do you want lay odds on that actually happening ?!!!