titan_uranus

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/saints-rule-milne-out-of-game-against-melbourne-20130619-2ohk7.html

How much of this is true, and how much of it is made up? Does Ralph know if Jamar/Sylvia/Watts/Tapscott/Pedersen do nothing over the pre-season? Or is he just assuming?

Just what the AFL needs - more media, more coverage, more scrutiny, and another negative topic. We've already had racism, now conduct with women is back on the agenda. Also not what St Kilda needs - this weekend is Riewoldt and Dal Santo's 250th game. Obviously a rape investigation is quite serious, not trying to trivialise at all, but for the Saints, in a dreary season, acknowledging two of their better players, including their captain and a future Hall of Famer, would have been a highlight, but it's going to be overshadowed now. FWIW, I don't think Milne should play. Crowds don't take to him at the best of times - some hurtful things could be said. I'm also sure St Kilda would rather the focus be on their two 250-gamers.

Oh yes. Because the midfield last year with Moloney in it was brilliant. Unfortunately for those who didn't like Neeld, Moloney brought this upon himself. He was petulant and responded to Neeld in an immature and unprofessional way, and he was treated accordingly (i.e. being dropped). His response to that was to leave the club. So be it. To then take pleasure in Neeld being sacked is just another instance of petulance and immaturity. Even if that's genuinely how he felt, saying so on social media was inappropriate, rude, and wrong.

Round 3 against West Coast was our last non-Sunday/Monday game. However, we've only got two more Sunday games to go (Round 15 vs Sydney; Round 21 vs Fremantle; funnily enough, our last two home games at the G), though I suspect the final Round 23 game against the Dogs will be scheduled on a Sunday too (twilight, probably).

Maybe that's because Neeld almost never coached from the bench? I'm with you though in that I think Craig is a good influence on our players.

I liked it the way it was before the recent changes. However, the addition of Neitz was a great idea. I'm with rpfc though, I'd prefer a picture of him playing footy, given the others are action shots too.

West Coast appear certainties; there's been talk of Worsfold stepping down. If Richmond don't make the finals, especially given where they are now (7-4 with some easy games to come), the pressure on Hardwick will be enormous. Brisbane and Voss might be a possibility - 10 wins last year, won the NAB Cup, but donuts in the season proper.

Your last sentence means your first sentence is wrong. I don't think that the Gold Coast's form from 2012 to 2013 suggests that we are going to be 5-6 next year. What I think is that, if we do things right (e.g. appoint the right coach), improvement will come faster than pessimists like you think.

Yes, thank you OD. I also didn't know they had Ablett. Geez, now we're no chance! If you read my post again, you'll see I said it doesn't mean anything is certain for Melbourne next year. We're not going to be playing finals next year. What GC has shown, though, is that you can have a terrible year (they were awful last year, really really awful) but turn it around in the next year. If we improve 50%, or 75% of what GC did this year, from where we are now that's a great start.

Misson said today that Michael Evans is out for up to a month with a similar injury to Viney. Grimes is going 'really well', trained with the group for the first time yesterday, and should be ready to go at the end of his LTI-required 8 weeks (in 3 weeks). Viney is also 3 weeks away but is going well too. MacDonald will be tested tomorrow. McKenzie had a 'mild hyperextension' of his elbow but should be OK. Dawes and Frawley are both to be tested. Frawley is surprising with his running, so he's a chance for this week, whilst Dawes had last week off his legs and so looks OK this week. Said we won't know until later in the week. Misson report Round 13 injury list Mitch Clark (foot) indefinite Chris Dawes (ankle) test Michael Evans (foot) 4 weeks James Frawley (hamstring) test Jack Grimes (shoulder) 3 weeks Joel Macdonald (foot) test Jordie McKenzie (elbow) test Jack Viney (toe) 3 weeks

Not to mention the Gold Coast: 0-14 in 2012, but in 2013 they've played a month of footy where they've been level/in front of Hawthorn and Geelong in the third quarter, in the game against Essendon until halfway into the third, and defeated North, a finalist from last year. This of course does not mean Melbourne will do anything of note in 2014. But it also goes to show that hope is not unfounded entirely.

You brought it up you twit!

Mate, I'll take getting us out of the bottom 2 for starters...

A fair point. The last thing we need is for us to be on here 2-3 years from now bemoaning the one-eyed nature of the coaching panel, continually pressing for one person (whether it's Roos or anyone else) at the expense of others. It's vitally important that we put a lot of work into Roos, but we also need to make sure that he's the best candidate, and that means we put work into Eade, into Williams, into Clarkson, Laidley, Ratten and anyone else that is available. We need to see what the options are and we need to make sure that whoever we pick is committed.

I'm not judging Royal at all. Have you seen me make a comment about Royal? I'm not judging Royal, I'm judging you. There goes your bullying again - I know as much about the 'facts' as you do. I see Ratten in command of a midfield with an AA ruckman and a star and I wonder how you can simply ignore the coach's influence on that. I see Royal in command of a midfield with a ruckman who was AA the immediate year before he started, and then loses his form, and I wonder how you can simply ignore the coach's influence on that too. Just to top it off, you're now saying that Moloney was a C-grader who won the B&F in 2011, and that might have been something to do with Royal. So when Moloney reaches new heights under Royal, that's Royal's doing, but when Jamar goes from AA in 2010 to shadow of AA in 2011, that's not Royal's fault. As for the wins over GC/GWS thing, I knew you were still bitter about that. Things really gripe you, don't they? As I said all along, Neeld led us to five victories. Five. I'm not going to revise history to suit my arguments. You're welcome to.

Reminds me of James Hird's wishy-washy statements in 2010. Hird: "I won't be coaching in the next three to five years, and that might mean I never do." "I understand the speculation has been destabilising for both (coach) Matthew Knights and the club, and I want to put that to bed," "Being Essendon coach has a romantic ring to it -- the Essendon Football Club has always been a big part of my life -- but I now understand what a destabilising effect the comments can have on the club. I would love to be involved with Essendon to support the president David Evans, who is doing a great job, but that won't be as the senior coach." "I said in the story yesterday I wasn't thinking of doing the job at the moment, even if it became available." "I just answered a question honestly and from the heart. I did say, 'Not yet' and, on reflection, it's even further away now and will probably never happen." "I know I'm further away from coaching now than what I was on Monday night (when he was quizzed on On The Couch). I know that." Roos: "Look, I will take a call," "I am happy to talk if they want me to talk now that Neeld has gone. "I don't have a problem with that. My mindset is it would want to be a significant change ... to where I am at the moment." "The thought of coaching Melbourne doesn't scare me, not the club itself or any other club," he said. "In some ways it's the great coaching challenge, but you have got to be thinking like a coach to take it on if you are going to do that role." Like Hird in 2010, I find Roos' statements to be equivocal, neither here-nor-there, and incapable of leading to conclusions one way or the other. If anything, Roos' comments are even more equivocal than Hird's were. Hird made those statements just months before signing.

As Django said, when it's convenient for you you'll over-rate or under-rate players to make a point. Jamar was AA in 2010. Royal joined us in November 2010 for the 2011 season. Since then, Jamar's been crap. But to you, no judgment can be made on Royal's ability as a coach. However, you're more than happy to use player form to judge Ratten's ability as a coach, saying that his strength as a coach came when players were in form. And I'm sure I would get along with Django if I met him. Like most people on here, he's not a bully, and he makes fair and logical arguments.

Thought Neeld did as well as he could be asked to. The whole denial thing is just a smart strategy from Neeld (can hardly believe I'm equating Neeld with a smart strategy, but anyway). He's sticking to his position that he was given a three year timeframe in which to make the club competitive, and since he only got half of that afforded to him, we can't judge those decisions. That's fair enough. He's seeking to maintain what reputation/dignity he can out of this, so that he might get hired in the future. Why would he come out and say 'yep, I got that wrong, and yep, that one too' if he is trying to get re-hired? To me, he's doing the right thing - defend yourself on the (fair) basis that you only got half of a three-year plan that was supposed to be in place, and move on. The two most interesting parts of the interview were the questions on Grimes/Trengove as captain and Moloney/Rivers leaving. He dealt with Moloney/Rivers perfectly, but I thought he could have conceded that Trengove hadn't dealt with the captaincy as well as we'd expected.

Circular reasoning here RR.

A reminder - this thread is from 2011. Mods?!

If I were him I'd rather get this kind of thing out of the way and move on. Preferable to doing media stuff weeks later and have to keep being reminded of the whole saga.

This keeps popping up as having new posts, but since there are none, it follows that it's re-appearing with new content due to people answering the poll. This poll was from 2011. Mods?

Caro's view is we should take Williams. Take that as you wish.

You really are something else, tonatopia. Note that my use of 'something else' is entirely negative.