titan_uranus

There's a difference between 'undisciplined' and 'reckless'. Jetta was doing what Neeld surely asked of us: bumping, shepharding, harrassing, pressuring. He could have done what he did better, I don't think anyone would deny that, but that doesn't make it undisciplined, it makes it poorly executed. That's why he's going to get suspended.

Let's all be honest here. We're almost no chance. Yes, we just won, and yes, Brisbane just lost, and yes, Brisbane look bad, and yes, we looked OK. But remember, we played poorly enough during the first three quarters to be trailing by 19 against GWS. And that was at the G. We have to go to the Gabba next week. Brisbane was beaten by North, a very good side who's 1-3 record doesn't do its form justice. If we play like we did in the fourth, we'll be in with a shake, but we're far more likely to play like we did in the first, second and third, opening ourselves up to being beaten quite easily.

Along with N Jones and Sylvia, stood up in the fourth. His previous three quarters were pretty average, though. Fumbled and looked a bit lost at times.

If you want to talk stats, he also had 6 tackles. What doesn't come up in the stats is his chasing, his blocking and his willingness to get to the next play.

Byrnes' skills were clearly a cut above the other 21 players, and that was clearest in the middle two quarters when he was making difficult passes when the others couldn't kick under no pressure. Matt Jones and Dean Terlich are both great for their intensity and repeat efforts, but unfortunately they're both awful with ball in hand. Jones' first instinct is handpass, sold many under the bus numerous times today. Terlich likes to take the tackle on but often gets himself into trouble doing so. They're good players, they have the guts and strength and general football brain to play, but they really need to work on their disposal (of course, almost everyone was poor today, but these two stood out). Go take a look at those again, preferably with the anti-Watts glasses off. In many of those instances, he was given the ball when he really shouldn't have been. He then looks up, sees the same problem the previous player saw, and is the one who's forced to cop the criticism for the eventual turnover. In the middle two quarters we were fumbling and we were disjointed coming out of defence. Watts would often provide a link-up option but would get used when he shouldn't have been. I'm not saying he played well, he didn't. But don't call him out for things that aren't his fault.

His ceiling exceeds all other midfielders on our list, by a long way. He's the only true A-grade player we have right now (though Viney and others may get there later). His inability to get into the game in the first three quarters was part of the reason we were so uncompetitive. His ability to get involved in the fourth is part of the reason we became a much better side.

You lose one RR, another just pops up.

I can't believe what I'm reading. People are commenting as if it was a cheap shot! It was nothing of the sort. It was a poorly executed but warranted bump. Yes, it was late, and yes, it contacted the head, which is going to draw the MRP into play, but it was a perfectly fine thing to do, and he was well entitled to lay it how he wanted. He hit the head, he'll cop the consequences, but it was accidental and right on the ball, just a tad late. Leave him be. He was one of our best today, and he showed the aggression we need from all 22.

It works a lot better when the siren's about to go and we're going to win. If I ever hear it in a close game where we might lose, I'll scream, though.

He's both right and wrong. His argument is right. It's an unforgiving role sometimes - when the club is successful, who points to the President or Board? But when we're struggling, they're the first names to get thrown up as at fault. However, that's probably not something a President should be saying. Whilst I agree with him, he needs to own up to the fact that it's a reality of AFL that senior members of clubs are going to feel pressure when the club isn't performing. Don needs to accept that. Try changing mantras when we're on top of the ladder, not at the bottom.

His intensity and courage just weren't there today. Not AFL standard. I'm not sure what dropping him to the VFL does for him, though. The intensity of the VFL is so far below AFL standard that he won't learn much from going down there. He'll most likely cruise around half back, rack up 30+ disposals, get confident again, but upon returning still won't have the requisite intensity. I wonder if leaving him in the AFL side and keeping the heat on him might produce results more readily than dropping him. Certainly, though, there's no avoiding the fact that his efforts were really, really not good today. He does himself no favours by not chasing hard enough and not going hard into contests. It's just not good enough.

That we could find the resolve and determination to fight back from 19 down at three quarter time to win the game (let alone by 41, ignore that for now) is the most pleasing part of today. How many times under Neeld would we have rolled over and dropped our heads? Yes, it was only GWS, which brought the possibility of a comeback into consideration, but it's not fair on the players to simply put it down to GWS and say we're still no good. It takes an effort, no matter who you're against, to fight back from three goals down at the last change, and the heart that was shown today was really fantastic. Other positives include finding a way to goal without Clark, not falling apart when down to two rotations, Evans, Byrnes, Gawn (he's going to be a star if he stays fit), and just the confidence boost that the players surely will get.

6 - N. Jones 5 - Byrnes 4 - Evans 3 - Grimes 2 - Gawn 1 - Jetta

We're starting this already?

There are a couple of ways to think of sponsorship. Some companies attach themselves to sports clubs/stadiums/whatever they can get their hands on for initial exposure, for getting their name out there. Think Opel with the MFC, or Etihad Airways with Etihad Stadium. In other instances, companies are looking to align themselves with something or someone successful, in order to have their brand named and shown alongside their success. The more successful you are, clearly the more companies will want their name and brand associated with you. Being a poor performing side means you do yourself no favours in the latter market, and you're in essence hoping your timing for sponsorship coincides with companies looking to get their name out there, who will take anything which gives them a latent amount of widespread exposure (as the OP notes, even a crap club gets its name in the paper and on TV). But to be consistently a player in the sponsorship market, you have to be successful.

Agree with this. We've seen it before: Strauss looks amazing at VFL level, we promote him, and he stinks at AFL level. Similar to Addam Maric in that regard. Has yet to be able to make the transfer to AFL standard intensity. The key indicator of this is that people continually referred to both these players as 'elite kicks', yet this was never evidenced at AFL level. The intensity and pressure that exists in the AFL made both Maric and Strauss crumble and their skills went to water. I expect to see Strauss get a game some time soon, which reflects more on where the MFC is at, rather than Strauss as a player. I also fully expect him to show little improvement on his AFL performances in the past, as I don't believe he has the requisite strength or courage to play AFL football. If Fitzpatrick can't improve enough in 2013 to get into the seniors, I doubt he'll even be on our list in 2014. Even if he is, surely he'll be fourth in queue behind Clark, Dawes and Hogan.

The issue at hand here is whether we'd done all we could to investigate before telling the AFL we had no connection. If McLardy and other senior members of the MFC took reasonable steps to see if we had a connection to Dank, and they couldn't find it because Bates and/or anyone else was trying to hide it, it's not that big of a deal. To say 'it's not good enough, he should have known' is an irrelevant statement until we know how much was done to see what was going on in the club. Yes, McLardy and other senior members need to take responsibility, but there is only so much you can do as President. If it emerges that we conducted a full and proper investigation, and those who were in the know covered up their connection to Dank, and that led us to tell the AFL we had no connection, and there is no way we could have done any more short of invading privacy, then there cannot be any ramifications for McLardy etc. Of course, if we didn't do all we could, then that is not good enough, and to not investigate properly and miss this, in the process telling the AFL there was nothing wrong, there are going to be problems for McLardy and co. Regardless, it appears Bates and/or others have misled the club, which will have obvious negative consequences for them. Until we know exactly what steps the board/club took when it tried to find out if Dank was involved with us, we really can't defend or condemn McLardy or the board. We have to wait and see what they did (if anything).

Absolutely no way Bail gets dropped. He played much, much better than many of the others against WC. There are plenty of others more deserving of being dropped than Rohan. Edit: This is, of course, fitness pending.

It's definitely a crack at Toumpas. If you thought Toumpas was a good player, you wouldn't be asking if we'd stuffed up, and you wouldn't be talking about how Wines would be amazing in our side. As 45 said, if you wanted to start a thread talking about Wines, why did you link it to potentially 'stuffing up' our pick with Toumpas?

Sensationalist bullsh!t. With not a skerrick of evidence. Could you possibly be any more negative?

I didn't say you said we made a mistake. Your post was to call into question our pick of Toumpas over Wines. It's MFCSS at its best, seeing one player play well and wishing we had that player instead of the one we took simply because he's playing well three games in and the other one isn't. Entitling your thread 'too early to stay we stuffed up again in not picking Wines' is not just discussion on the subject, it's inviting criticism of the decision to take Toumpas after merely three games. It's unfair and ridiculous.

Look at their midfield. They had the star core there: Hartlett, Boak, Cornes. Those three are far better than anyone on our list. Use the fact that it's possible for poor performances to be turned around in a short time frame to get some hope back.

Did you know Jamar was going to have 1 effective kick in three games in October last year? No. You didn't. So stop using hindsight. At any rate, Martin was, and still is, crap. The answer isn't Jamar, nor is it Martin. It's Gawn, or Spencer.

This thread is an embarrassing joke. How many other clubs' supporters decide drafting was wrong after three games? THREE. All those who agree with the OP should go read Axis of Bob's post. It well explains exactly why this decision was made, and highlights the logical reasoning missing from all those who bleat that we made a mistake.

My take: AFL standard - Jones, Grimes, Trengove, Viney, Sylvia, McKenzie, Blease, Evans, Howe A-grade at their best - Sylvia B-grade at their best - Jones, Grimes, Trengove, Viney, Howe, Blease Consistently at their best - Jones, Grimes, Viney The problem, therefore, is that our only talented midfielder, Sylvia, can't consistently play to his ability, meaning that we're being led by B-graders. No other midfield in the competition is in this situation - they all, with no exception, have at least one A-grader who consistently is an A-grader. Until we push more players into the A-grade bracket (I'm looking at Grimes, Trengove, Viney, Howe, Blease and Toumpas), and we get consistency out of these players (Blease and Howe play at least one bad game for every good game), we're going to struggle.