titan_uranus

Seems like a combination of us actually trying and Fremantle really easing off this quarter have evened the statistics. 10 inside 50s each, 3.1 to 2.4, harder running and more pressure from us. All of it means nothing when you're 12 goals down at half time, of course.

SEN making a point about noting that we're at least running this quarter.

Sounds like Howe is giving a yelp today. In contrast, Jamar's had 0 touches. Jetta 3, Tapscott 4, Byrnes 4, Evans 6, Nicholson 7. Players who should be getting in amongst chains of play through the middle.

Viney. Hogan. There's two players to their one. Does that make us better?

The fact that Jamar hasn't touched it in a half of football, when his opponent is Zac Clarke, a spud of the highest order, speaks volumes of how poor he is playing this year. IMO, his lack of ability to influence games is one of the 102931231241029412 reasons we're playing poorly - one of the more serious reasons.

None of that is true. He's weak, squibs contests, pretends to be aggressive, can't play anywhere properly, and isn't really that good of a kick. Nonetheless, at a time like this threads about individual players aren't really fair or appropriate.

David Mundy has 106 DT points. Not even half time. Hope you've got him in your team!

Channel 7 played the 2001 game between Essendon and North Melbourne this afternoon. The one where Essendon came back from 69 points down in the second quarter. Somehow, I don't see a repeat of that happening today.

For those of us playing at home, able to elaborate?

You have to credit Fitzpatrick for going back to the VFL and stringing continuous performances together. The same cannot be said for Blease, who seems to possess far more natural talent. I'm not sold on Fitzy, I don't think he's ever going to make the transition from AFL to VFL, but you have to commend the fact that he's doing his absolute best to show otherwise. I guess if Gawn needs a rest from the seniors, that's a swap that could be made, otherwise not sure where he fits into the current side.

I'm not sure how relevant it is that they pantsed us in those statistics, but to the extent that you're saying they're doing better than us, I clearly agree. I just found it interesting that they looked pretty good today despite clearly getting beaten in many KPIs and statistics. The same thing is happening to us, we just don't look as good as they do in getting beaten in those areas, and I think that the lack of that A-grade talent means that, when you go down in those areas like that, you get thrashed. For GC, they also go down in those areas, but they are much more able to make the most of their chances, and as such, those kinds of discrepancies aren't as damaging to them as they are to us.

I just read that whole thread. Yes, that highlights reel was impressive. But as many pointed out in that thread, so was the highlight reel of Casey Sibosado. A highlight reel doesn't make a player a clear stand out to be drafted, and in fact, as was pointed out by a few on that thread, there were questions over his hardness and consistency. That's probably fair, given this year he's averaging something like 13 disposals and 1.6 goals per game. There is nothing in that thread to suggest that not taking Hall was a clear mistake. There was nothing in that thread to suggest he should have been taken where we took Sellar, or anyone else in that year. This is really just you having a whinge, since it's clear you wanted him in 2011. Good on you, you liked a kid and he's playing some decent, if inconsistent, AFL football in 2013. But that's not cause to say we should have drafted him.

Interestingly, GC had 75 fewer disposals, 13 fewer clearances, 27 fewer inside 50s, 21 fewer contested possessions, and 8 fewer tackles. Those kind of numbers would get people on Demonland riled up (and did so when we lost to Brisbane). I'm not trying to say we're as good as they are, or anything like that. I think it's interesting, though, that statistically things aren't too different between them and us, and I feel the difference is they have more class at the top (Ablett, Bennell, Prestia, Swallow, O'Meara) than we do. Over time, if we keep tracking the same way they are, and we start to develop the top-end talent on our list, maybe we'll look better despite losing the statistics the way they did today. Just a thought.

Sorry, but 'spots moved on the ladder' shows diddly squat about a coach.

I've never really seen an AFL player in Strauss. Then again, same goes for McKenzie, Nicholson, Bail, and Dunn. I really don't think his kicking skills are as good as some make them out to be. I also don't think towelling Nahas is as wonderful as some are making it sound (Nahas is mediocre at best). Having said all that, I certainly understand the anger associated with dropping him after a game where he might not have been our best, but wasn't clearly our worst either. And as for 'like-for-like', Watts wouldn't have played on Nahas if he'd been in instead of Strauss v Richmond, so I don't see how that argument stands. Strauss was, it seems, identified by Neeld/the FD as being the weakest player and the one who needed to make way for the incoming Watts. I'd have thought Bail and Nicholson, also similar style players, were just as bad, but there you go.

Yes, I'm serious. Notice how I didn't start saying things like 'you're an idiot', even though I kind of believe that. I tried to have a debate with you. Instead, knowing your position is weak and mine is at the very, very least, reasoned, you started with the 'are you serious', 'you'll give me more excuses' stuff. Oh well, here we go then. I admitted that Cook was a mistake, so you've wasted your time on that one. Nice work. My point there was that there were also people who wanted Toumpas. You're trying to make it sound like 100% of Demonland said 'let's get Wines' and then we were all taken aback when we took Toumpas. That simply was not the case. Only two were tall forwards, Morton was never a forward, so good work on that one. Everything you've said about Scully is reflecting with hindsight. Back in 2009, there was no debate as to his status as the number 1 pick. To call out the recruiters because he's since not lived up to it is hold them to crystal-ball standards, which isn't fair. You know very well that it was a 50-50 debate as to who was better out of Watts and Naitanui. Again, I'm not saying the choice was completely clear. What I am saying, though, is that there was plenty of support for Watts both here and in the public. The decision to take Watts might not have been yours, but it was a justified decision that plenty on here shared, so whinging about it really doesn't make much sense except to show that you're bitter. As to this whole 'look at them now, imagine if we had them', I'm reminded of a great article I read about NBA drafting a few days ago: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/62485/the-kawhi-leonard-conundrum-and-why-life-is-unfair. Since you're unlikely to read it (or, if you do, concede that it makes a good point), let me explain. Essentially, the author says that it's easy for Washington Wizards fans (the Wizards being a perenially crap NBA side) to say 'imagine if we'd drafted X', when they see players playing for clubs like the San Antonio Spurs, who are perenially a strong side. He argues that the Wizards are generally more poorly administered than the stronger clubs, meaning that players don't reach their potential. You're more likely to be a good NBA player, he argues, when your opportunity is to play with beasts at the Spurs than with no leadership at the Wizards. I believe the same argument applies here. Who knows what Naitanui would be like if he'd come here? Certainly the evidence suggests he'd have struggled. Conversely, who knows what Jack Watts could have become at a strong club with strong leaders and standards. Those are my arguments. They're not excuses. They're simply reasoned arguments. I know you don't like them, because you're bitter and angry and recruiting is really easy to whinge about.

I didn't say our list wasn't crap, it is. But I do not see drafting as the main reason for this problem. I see it as terrible on and off-field leadership, I see it as a lack of any sort of club culture, I see it as poor coaching, poor development, little direction, at times poor facilities. Lucas Cook is the one example that exists of a genuinely bad drafting decision. I don't disagree with that. Whinging about Darling, however, is based purely on hindsight, and calling our drafting team our for not taking him, as has been said numerous times before, is unfair, given that every other club (except Collingwood, who didn't pick until pick 30), also passed on him. Not every other player who went before Darling is better than him, so we're not the only ones to have missed him. Again, I don't disagree that Wines is a good player, but Toumpas was highly rated, and most who favoured Wines did not claim that Toumpas was untalented. I guess we can split 'recruiting' into halves, drafting and non-drafting. In terms of drafting, Cook is the only pick I would say was a genuine error. He wasn't rated that highly, we admitted at the time it was a bit of a left-field pick, and we paid the price. The rest of them, though, were players picked where they were rated, and we made the right decision based on the evidence available (I'm talking Morton, Watts, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts Toumpas). Disagreement after the fact is based on hindsight and I don't agree with it. In terms of non-drafting, it's easy to say 'we should have gone after [X]' (Luke Ball, Shaun Burgoyne, insert whoever we wanted here), but in reality there are a huge number of constraints operating on who a club like the MFC can get. There wasn't universal agreement over these players, but we really haven't paid a lot for any of the ones who people consider to be crap (Gillies, Rodan, Pedersen). Overall, I don't attribute a great deal of fault to our drafting/recruitment team. Yes, there are certain players who simply haven't lived up to their position in the draft. But Cook aside, I don't say that's because we drafted poorly. I say that's because of the myriad other problems at the MFC.

I'm with you, but I'm not holding high hopes. Really? Who doesn't like to admit it? I'm fairly confident most, if not all, MFC supporters are aware of this fact, and accept it.

Surprisingly took 13 posts to get someone having a whinge on what was clearly designed to be a positive thread.

Really? You want to back this crap up?

Unfortunately not. You can't recruit with hindsight, which is what Demonlanders love to do. In fact, if you go back to each year, you'll find Demonlanders generally completely agreed with the decisions taken.

The girl's actions were disgraceful, but let's remember she is a girl. 13 years old, apparently. I'm not condoning what she said, but many people make mistakes in life that go unnoticed. Unfortunately she's made one on a national stage and is almost a national villain right now. Again, she deserves to be punished, to learn a lesson, and to understand that what she said is 100% unacceptable, but it'd be nice if people remembered she's 13. To me, the bigger issue is the pig of a mother/grandmother/friend/relation who was sitting next to her (I'm going to assume they knew one another as she also appeared to open her mouth when Goodes ran past, she seemed to have a smile on her face before the security guards came over, and the girl gave her her jacket as she left). How this person, not a minor at all, could just sit there and let the girl walk out on her own is beyond me. Completely pathetic.

My guess re: Gillies is that they'd rather name him as an emergency rather than someone like Davis, then have that emergency not play and thus miss a game. Surely Spencer misses too (no way he's better than Jamar or Gawn, and we'll be far too top heavy with all three). Watts and Byrnes come in, Toumpas and either Bail or Strauss to make way.

Port's bad, don't know much about Freo (I can imagine, though). Won't ever be as bad as Collingwood or Richmond (dear me, the Richmond flogs in the MCC on the weekend were atrocious).

I don't often agree with you, but I agree with you here. The defence shouldn't be slammed. In fact, it should be applauded. GWS and the Dogs (maybe) aside, other clubs' defences don't have to put up with constant inside 50s under no pressure. I don't have the figures but I'm not surprised to see our rebound 50 figures are good. When we start to learn how to pressure the ball carrier through the middle more (we started doing this against Richmond, forcing them to go backwards and sideways at times where, against other clubs, they've sped through the middle), we'll begin to improve.