titan_uranus

This quarter, it's 14 disposals to 53. However, North's also laid more tackles, 6-4. This is exactly what we were like under Neeld, which is greatly worrying. Trengove - 2 kicks, 5 handpasses, 3 tackles. Grimes - 1 kick, 4 handpasses, 2 tackles.

This is going to get ugly. Fitzpatrick's the only positive, it seems. 3AW massively critical of our fitness and our intensity at the contest.

Where is he playing? 9 disposals in the last 6 quarters he's played. Not good enough.

About the only positive we can take at the moment is that we're only 25 down. We turned on for about 3 minutes in that quarter and managed 2.2 whilst North played a lot worse. Obviously playing well for 5% of a game isn't good enough, but if we can improve in the second half, the margin isn't prohibitive (especially given it's North). More likely outcome is North kicks straight and we go down by 70, but who knows. Getting beaten in clearances 15-24 and contested possession 55-72. Those have to improve.

Sounds silly given the game, but those misses from Gawn and Jones are going to hurt. We had a tiny bit of momentum at that point, and from what it sounds like, they both should have kicked those. North then goes inside 50 twice for two goals. Now a 50 metre penalty against Viney which Leigh Matthews says is a bad one. Standard.

Agree, I hate the loose man in defence and I'm sick of MFC coaches (Bailey, Neeld and Craig) resorting to it as their routine plan B. It's pathetic and gets us nowhere.

Well he's kicked one now. Happy? Contested possessions 18-7 to us in the last five minutes. That's good at least. Inside 50s 6-7 their way this quarter. So at least that's an improvement too.

Luckily, haven't seen a single minute. Don't think I'll want to, given the way things are going. Sounds horrendously bad. A club in our position is going to have ups and downs, but to regress this badly back into a situation where we're uncompetitive to the point where we can't go inside 50 isn't good enough. As I say that, Fitzpatrick kicks one, which helps.

Not surprising. You clearly aren't capable of digesting differing opinions. Compare our effort against Geelong with our efforts pre-Craig. The running, chasing, tackling, all better. Our skills were abysmal, but no one's suggesting they're not. We're a substandard AFL side, but we're much better than we were under Neeld. The Geelong game would only have been worse under Neeld. Can't agree. The Craig half of the year is almost about everything other than wins. It's about whether or not our players actually have the ability to play AFL - we weren't sure under Neeld. It's about whether or not we can galvanise this group, about whether they want to play for us, about whether there is a future. It's about whether we have a forward and/or backline, and whether we're right in saying our midfield needs reconstructive surgery. Wins are important, but right now, with the improvement we've shown, I'm looking at where this club might go in 2014, and it's looking a lot better than it did on Queen's Birthday.

Fair enough.

There's a difference between paying 'overs' and going too far. I'm happy for us to offer more than rival clubs to keep him, but we may well be on the brink of climbing off the bottom of the ladder, and we have other important cogs who need to stay with us. We can't afford to spend big on Watts and then in 2014 lose someone else because we used their pay on Watts. It's a balancing act, one which we should be able to meet.

It's stated on the AFL site as being 'quad', but who knows. Big game for Tapscott. Must show something.

Terrible results from the Sussex game. Cowan 66, Hughes 84, Smith 98*, Khawaja 40. Smith may go on to make a 100, which will save his spot, but what do we do about the rest? Can we drop Hughes after making an 84, to go with his (superb) 81* at Trent Bridge? Can we drop Khawaja for only making 40, despite being better than Smith and Hughes at Lord's? Can we drop Watson despite not giving him a chance at Hove? Warner's 193 now also looks just OK given the South Africans' batting. You'd expect Warner to get back in, which means someone has to go. I think it should be Watson but surely he can't be dropped without getting a chance at Hove, so if it's not him, I'd pick Hughes, even though this 84 is good. Khawaja looked maybe like he was getting comfortable at number 3. If Lyon bowls well, don't be surprised if Agar gets 'rested' or something along those lines (I maintain he never should have been picked). Bird and Starc have Pattinson's spot to play for, too (maybe they'll both play if Harris isn't fit).

Why?

The one makes the other. We looked better against Sydney. We looked better against Geelong even. We looked better against Brisbane. You and jumbo are really struggling to come up with fair arguments in this 'debate'. The evidence as most people can see it is that we are markedly better since Craig started coaching. We're haven't suddenly become a top 8 side, we haven't even become a top 15 side. We know where we sit. But we're much better than we were when Neeld was coaching. We are running harder and smarter, we are playing a more direct brand of football, we are structured better and we're being coached on game day better. We're still crap, but we're better.

Yes, they now are, and that's one big difference.

In: Spencer, Pedersen, someone from Casey who is showing a bit (Tapscott? Strauss?) Out: Gawn, Garland (inj), Toumpas Gawn looks like he needs a spell at Casey, seems to have been run ragged the last few weeks. Swap for Spencer (would also be good to get another look at Spencer). Pedersen for Garland to help cover North's talls. Pedersen to play Garland's third tall spot, running off half-back where he can. Try to play him as closely to his role at Casey as we can. The last one is 50/50, but Toumpas' game really was atrocious, and if there is someone at Casey who is in good enough form, maybe Toumpas could go back for a week or two to get his confidence back. Requires a Casey player to be in form, which isn't necessarily an option.

People sacked - Schwab, Neeld, Harringon (kind of) Players delisted - well that's not going to happen before the season's end. Nice try. Perpetrators called to account - Schwab, Neeld, McLardy Presidents to resign - McLardy Board members to resign - McLardy, Hayes, Grimshaw, Jalland Coaches to go - Neeld Captains demoted - was always unlikely to happen mid-season, and is likely to happen post-season. Something done - see above. Also, wins - Bulldogs.

There was an article in the paper today about Simon Katich, the forgotten man. Should never have been dropped when he was. He's currently in good form in English County cricket and has said he has not retired from international cricket. We could do a lot worse.

It's actually worrying. We have one Test quality batsman in the entire country (Clarke). There are 0 players not in this squad who are threatening to become a Test player, whilst the current side is made up of barely first class talent.

You really are a joke, WYL.

He's a one-dimensional fail of a Test player. Another useless, standard Watson innings. 20 off 23, out LBW. Get him out.

It's not about shelving the idea of taking the game on altogether. It's about learning when to try to break the tackle and when to give the ball off. Jones has learnt this, Terlich needs to. That time he laid 12 tackles in a match? You know, last night?

I wasn't having a go at you in particular. Just a comment on people's use of statistics.

Also, Dean Terlich needs to learn that he's not superman. He continually tries to run through tackles and gets caught. Nathan Jones used to be like that, but has improved, and Terlich needs to take a leaf out of his book. He also needs to tighten up defensively, it seems his opponents are kicking a few goals against him.