titan_uranus

Today, we did give a crack, we weren't devoid of effort, we ran, we chased, we pressured, and we even scored goals. In the first half. But before everyone jumps off the cliff, let's be clear about something. Today was a completely different performance to the last two weeks. West Coast is a very good side; they were off the boil in the first half, and we exposed them. When they stepped it up in the second half, when Cox, Kerr, Priddis, Shuey, Kennedy and Darling all lifted, no Melbourne player could go with them. The third quarter was terrible, but if you saw it, you'll see untalented players making crucial mistakes and causing goals from direct turnovers. Dean Terlich himself led to about four. It wasn't a situation like last week or Round 1 where the players stopped trying, it wasn't a situation where we just gave up. And take a look at West Coast in the third. Their forwards couldn't miss when they kicked for goal, and their mids gave them unbelievable use of the ball with unbelievably good disposal. Comments like 'Neeld can't get them up for even a half' are ridiculous, misplaced, and unfair. What happened today was that a very good side played one outstanding quarter, far too good for us, and we are a very poor side who can't compete with that kind of football.

Fair. 3 quarters, then . We've shown about 5 minutes of effort, in total, across two games so far. I'm looking for prolonged periods of effort/intensity/pressure/just trying. Whatever comes from that will come.

It's all about the effort. Margin is irrelevant, whether we win, lose by 1 or by 100, whatever. We just need to show a four-quarter effort.

First, you haven't been proven right that he had to go. You've been proven right that he would go now, but unless and until we see this decision have positive ramifications, you haven't been proven right on that. Second, if you've already forgotten, you were the one who originally said you were 'belittled' and that people's conduct towards you was 'shameful'. If me using those terms makes me an 'over-sensitive sook', then you are the same thing. Hypocrite. Finally, there you go again with a glib quote. You didn't make the apple fall. You picked the apple, then threw it at those with whom you disagree.

The hypocrisy stemming from this post is insane. You are not the only one to hold the views you hold; plenty of others agreed with your positions re: Schwab, McLardy, Neeld etc. You, though, are the only one to consistently shove them down everyone else's throats (e.g. all the threads you start). Simultaneously, you do not engage in debate with anyone, you merely provide one-liners like '32-102' or 'it's OK, you'll turn eventually' or references to addiction. It's OK for you to believe what you believe, you seemingly genuinely care about where this club goes in the future. But you never ever accept anyone else's opinion, you never engage in debate with someone who disagrees with you, and you regularly put down anyone who disagrees with you. You're the one who belittles, RR, and you're the one whose conduct is shameful.

As I said yesterday, McLardy/the MFC cannot win.

Another awesome round. Game of the round - Collingwood-Hawthorn. Another Sunday arvo MCG blockbuster, hopefully another 80,000+ people. Thrashing of the round - Melbourne-West Coast. Sad, I know, but I really don't see any other game being this big of a margin. Upset of the round - Gold Coast over Brisbane (if that's even an upset). Also Port over Adelaide. Maybe North over Sydney.

You whinge about an 'offensive post' (it wasn't. It was completely spot on), and then you write this: Making someone sound like a gambling addict, someone who, by virtue of being different, you are 'on to'. Everything Goodvibes said about you, from the one-liners to the divisiveness, was fair, reasonable, and based on evidence. Everything you say is the complete opposite.

She's at it again. "Frustrated at being unable to prove Schwab played a part in the plan to lose games - which became messy and panicked after the club won two games in a row in the second half of the season - deep animosity at head office lingers." No, Caro. There was no plan to lose games. She's a bitter mess of a journalist whose agenda over the summer was thwarted by a complete lack of truth. Go away.

People have got to drop this silly attempted analogy. An inherent aspect of being an AFL player is public scrutiny and comment. That aspect is lacking entirely from most 9-to-5 jobs, making your analogy redundant.

And then people would have said 'We will resolve this = what? They have no plan!!' Like I said, people are taking their pre-conceived notion of what they think of DM, and they are judging his response based on that. Impartially, his response is fair and reasonable.

What's the difference?

Me 1. You 0.

Now to me, this is bias. 'I want McLardy gone, therefore if he says something it's wrong, and if he doesn't say anything, that's also wrong. In fact, whatever he does, it's wrong'. Whether you think McLardy is the man for the job or not, give him credit for doing pretty much the only thing he could, which is to front up to the crisis we're facing, and dealing with it in a professional and appropriate manner.

I'm not going to lie, clearly I detest Lynden Dunn as a footballer. I was merely commenting on what looked like a defence of Dunn from Jack Jack, saying he was omitted due to injury, where I felt that, had he been fit, he should have been dropped. I wasn't intending on making this a thread about Dunn, and I already posted my views on the Sue Dunn rubbish.

You're honestly telling me if he bunkered down and did no media, and said nothing, that supporters would be happy with that? He can't win, Don, he just can't win.

He ought to have been dropped anyway. Doesn't deserve an automatic recall. Doesn't deserve any sort of recall.

The logic of this thread: Mother of (crap) player is upset ----------> Players are disillusioned. Good. And by 'good', I mean awful.

' We understand that some of you will be angry and disillusioned, that some will say we have heard all this before, and that some will lose heart and temporarily give up.' He saw you coming, BB.

Not the point of this discussion. I don't think anyone is saying 'if we had a decent ruckman we'd be a star midfield', or even a good one. But it's becoming clearer now that Jamar's ineptitude in the ruck is putting us on the back foot to begin with, which, given our midfield, we really cannot afford.

People whinge about Schwab's 'plan' revolving around subsisting off donations and handouts. Those same people want the club to be run by the AFL. Hypocritical nonsense.

Don is not delusional, he's doing the right thing, both for him, and by the club. Seems like RR etc. want him to say 'look, clearly we suck, therefore merely 18 months after doing this very thing, we're going to do it all again by throwing the coaches and CEO out the door. In Round 2. After the players committed a pre-season to Neeld. 24 games is enough for us, it's clearly you and not the players. Demonland said so'. Stability is exactly what we need right now. We need cool heads to say 'no, don't just respond in a knee-jerk manner' (which, coincidentally, people whinge about when we got rid of Bailey). We need to stabilise and back our judgments made 18 months ago, that we were right, and that eventually the hard work will pay off. Of course, this is far too simplistic for RR etc., so the 'T_U is an apologist' rubbish shall commence.

Apologies, that's kind of out of context. What he was referring to there, I think, was whether or not we needed Schwab to step in and guide our development, and I think what McLardy was trying to say was that Neeld and Craig are their own people, and they will do their jobs, with Schwab overseeing them, rather than Schwab just stepping in. I remember McLardy saying something like 'they're not wallflowers' in relation to some sort of crack at their personalities.

There was a thread yesterday/today about Jamar. My view is that he's a bigger part of our inability to win clearances than we may have first admitted. His ruckwork was appalling last night. It means our mids have to ruck to opponents, with no plan or strategy. We just stand there, wait to see the ball, then go get it, whilst other clubs have active ruck plans, where certain mids go for the ball whilst others know where it's going and who to block and so on. Is it possible to say Jamar's AA year hurt us more than it benefited us?

An interesting recurring theme was that whenever the concept of leadership came up, the two names that kept arising were Nathan Jones and Jack Grimes. Not Jack Trengove.