titan_uranus

Why is Dunn the sub? Last time he was the sub he came on (against the Bulldogs I think), we put him in the forward line, and he did nothing at all. Subs should be midfielders to provide pace and run to weary legs. Don't understand what Dunn is going to provide as our fresh player.

Agreed. A conference system is merely a formal written version of what the current ladder system should already be producing. We do not need to set out formal conferences to ensure teams play each other a fair number of times. The AFL can do that themselves within the current system. We can't have a fair single season: that would require 34 games, with everyone playing everyone else home and away. Since that can't happen, the next best alternative is to have equality over a period of years (i.e. not one). So, like the NFL, you could have a 3/4 year period in which each team plays each other team a certain number of times, and develop equality that way.

No. Let's try and find some forwards. Not defenders who we like so we thrust them forward because we don't have any forwards. Leave the defence as a unit. Eventually the midfield will get better and then our defence will be a rock solid unit. Garland is also a versatile defender, as he showed on the weekend playing on Milne.

Don't disagree that Watts was poor. But I don't agree that Dunn was doing well on Fisher. Fisher, to me, had a good game. Dunn didn't do anything to stop him or to negate him. As per usual, he waved his arms around and didn't zone up properly.

Cannot believe no one has Jamar. To me he was almost BOG. He was all over Stanley and McEvoy and gave our mids first use of the ball at every opportunity. 6 - McKenzie 5 - McDonald 4 - Jamar 3 - Jones 2 - Rivers 1 - Bail

A really good performance tonight I thought. Felt like two evenly matched football sides for the first time this year. I don't feel disgraced and I don't feel like I can't see a future. McKenzie was outstanding on Goddard, McDonald was amazing on Riewoldt, Jamar dominated the ruck, and Jones gave us some leadership early. However, Dunn was insipid once again, MacDonald is still a liability with the ball in hand, Grimes can't kick, Trengove can't move (OP? Leadership? Something's not right with JT). Sellar is slow. So there are plenty of things that are still wrong. We're going to be in for a long, tough, 7 weeks. We're unlikely to get close to winning any of them. But we might at least get a contest or two if we play with the endeavour and structure that we brought tonight.

I'm actually flabbergasted at our changes. How all three of Dunn, MacDonald, and McDonald, remain in the team, is beyond me. I don't know how much worse Dunn has to be to be dropped. He was insipid last week. So we're in for another match where he'll stand behind his opponent and give away repeated free kicks because he isn't in front, and the proceed to yell and point at everyone else to get into position when he is pretty much useless. Joel MacDonald was crap last week and is a liability with the ball in hand. How he kept his spot over Tapscott, especially when Grimes can play his role, is beyond me.

Frawley's defensive work is still OK but with the ball in hand he's a problem. In 2010 he gave us drive out of the backline and kicked quite well. This year he's fumbling by hand and not breaking the lines as often as he used to.

Also, I thought the umpiring today was as bad as can be. The Dogs would have scored 4-5 goals from either free kicks that weren't there, or free kicks that weren't paid to us. I have no idea how the Dogs player caught by Frawley in the goalsquare in the third quarter and dropped the ball was not penalised for holding the ball. I also have no idea how Dunn was not pushed in the back in the third quarter either. And I don't know why they removed that advantage we had which resulted in a turnover and a goal to them in the first quarter. We didn't lose because of bad umpiring, but for once I think I actually felt like it made an impact on the score of the game.

Trengove is not just slow. He's not getting the ball and he's not disposing of it cleanly enough. Those players you've named are clean users of the ball and get 20-30 disposals regularly. It's undeniable that Trenners is having a crap year. I wonder if it's got anything to do with the captaincy. Whatever it is, he's not playing well, and if he wasn't captain there would be far more scrutiny on his position in the side.

Out: Dunn, McDonald, MacDonald In: Grimes, Petterd, Couch(?) Dunn was utter tripe today. All he does is stand around pointing and yelling at others to get in position, when he himself won't. He was second to the ball all day, continually behind his man which meant in marking contests he kept having to try working the opponent under the ball, and he managed about 4 touches all game. Go away Lynden. You're useless. Tom McDonald has heart but he is a total liability with the ball in hand. He's young and inexperienced, sure, but he's destroying our backline with needless turnovers. He's not ready, IMO, and shouldn't be playing. MacDonald is a nothing player, and we're going nowhere with him in the side. The ins are much of a muchness, but if Grimes is fit he should return, and Petterd will at least touch the ball more than Dunn did.

This was clearly our best game for the year. We tried a lot harder, for longer, and we looked good. In fat, I would say that for more of the game, we were the better side. We just lacked polish in front of goal, and when they had their brief moments on top, they scored goals. We had to play catch up footy in the second half because we couldn't kick easy goals in the first, and that hurt us. If we'd hit the front, with a bit of confidence and the crowd support who knows what would have happened. Having said that, there are still a lot of problems. Our skills were shocking. Far too many players can't kick or handpass under pressure, and far too many players also can't kick or handpass under no pressure. We still seem to be playing to a rigid gameplan which we're not comfortable with yet, which removes instinct. And too many of our better players are still underpeforming (Trengove, Jamar, Frawley). Dunn, McDonald and MacDonald were all abysmal, too.

'Stay out of it'? This isn't a private conversation. If you want to post ridiculous things in public, be prepared for people to question your opinions. As it is, you have no idea what you're talking about. You were clearly generalising. I don't care if 'Joe' has had this coming. You're wrong. Good post.

You're an idiot. Do you realise the irony/hypocrisy of criticising MCC members for being classist or elitist whilst you stereotype us and do the same thing back? You obviously haven't been around MCC members much, as you are completely wrong in your analysis. The fact that some MCC members are polite, and not boorish and rude, does not make them any less avid supporters of the MFC than you, or anyone else. There is no correct way to support a club. There are certain times when I cringe and some of the things MCC members say about our players (e.g. constantly imploring a player to 'KICK IT' when there's no one to kick it to), but that doesn't make them worse than those who sit in general admission and have 'loud mouths'.

There is a major problem with the MRP. In this instance, and in pretty much every decision they made today, their decision was made based in part (or fully) upon the impact to the victim. This is not how it should be done. The act which the AFL is trying to outlaw is the sling tackle. It should not matter if a player is injured or not as a result of being tackled. If Jackson had gotten up and walked away completely uninjured, then the MRP would probably have let Grimes off the hook. But this doesn't do the job that needs to be done (let's ignore the separate issue of whether we want the sling tackle in or out of the game). If someone commits an offence, be it a sling tackle, a bump, or a strike, they should be noted as having done it, but then their penalty should be assessed based on how severely they did it. Your guilt or innocence should not be determined by the impact to the person. Thus Ivan Maric should at the very least have been found guilty of striking (because that's exactly what he did), but his penalty should have been weighted based on how severely he hit McKenzie (which wasn't very severely at all). I don't like the MRP saying 'well, Jackson was injured, so it therefore means Grimes should be suspended'. You can tackle someone perfectly legally and they can do their knee in the process, but no one is going to call for you to be suspended. That's because it's not the consequence, but the action, which we care about. Rant over.

No idea why Harris was 'rested'. With Siddle out with back soreness, that opened the door for Beer as our second spinner. No need to change Harris (MoM in Barbados, and with good reason too) for Pattinson. He shouldn't need a rest. I guess he must be injured then, and they don't want to admit it. Slow day's cricket. Tough to score runs on this pitch it seems. Watson and Clarke were batting quite well until Clarke threw it away. Watson scored his umpteenth 50 that didn't make it to 100.

Well duh. We don't have to execute a game plan, however, when we don't have the ball. And whatever the game plan is, tackling, chasing and running into space will be a part of it.

We are a chance. We won't win, but we are a chance. This is our only shot at a win before the bye. St Kilda, Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney (in Sydney), Carlton, Essendon and Collingwood. Woo. Sounds great.

6 - Jones 5 - Clark 4 - Watts 3 - Howe 2 - Garland 1 - Sellar Grimes was appalling. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - he will never become the elite player he should be if he doesn't improve his kicking beyond the mediocre rubbish it is right now. Trengove not much better.

He did try hard with his running. But he would get the ball, take off, run too far, look around, see nothing (invariably because he was too busy running and not passing when he should have) and end up turning it over. I did enjoy his pace though. But not enough, for mine.

FFS. Watts is the least of our concerns. He played well today FFS! Neeld can start by explaining why he brought Davey back, why he played Dunn deep when he was on as the sub, why our players still can't kick, and why we collapse under pressure.

We were abysmal today. Not because we were any worse than last week (in fact, in parts we were significantly better). But because we were eventually dominated by a nothing side. Richmond is poor. Their skills are poor, their defence is shocking, they turn it over as much as we do. So to be so far behind them in a game of football is more than disappointing. It's unacceptable. Our midfield is as bad as any other side's. It's the reason we're losing. We are lazy and slow, we don't press or zone properly, we don't tackle properly and we don't apply anywhere near enough pressure. That's why we are conceding so many inside 50s. And that is in turn why we are getting belted.

Morton showed pace. But he didn't know how to use it. Not sure where I sit with him. We were too top heavy, one of the talls has to go; for mine it should be Martin. He was subbed off for a reason, and Sellar looked OK at times. McDonald was poor too. But shuffling the deck chairs won't get us anywhere.

I won't blame Neeld for most things. As the OP says, he inherited a terrible list and hasn't had long to work with them. However, I thought his gameday work today was poor. Why did we bring Dunn on and then sit him in the forward line during the third quarter rout? Stupid move. Our sub should have run through the middle or at least higher up the ground to give us some drive. We also resorted too often to a loose man in defence, which doesn't help us at all, and only helped Richmond. And we went in too top heavy.

Unbelievably good Test. It will undeservedly not get the praise/attention it deserves, not being an Ashes Test or a win against India, or in our home summer even. But to be so far behind in the middle of Day 4, and to turn things around like that, no matter who the opponent is, is brilliant cricket. Kudos has to be given to Clarke. Only the second time ever that a team has declared behind on first innings and gone on to win the match. I'm sure that's in part due to the total lack of captains declaring behind on first innings. It's hard to be anything other than mighty impressed with Clarke's captaincy so far. Not sure about our side for the next Test. Pattinson is a great bowler, but I can't see any room for him at the moment. Siddle is our 'leader', if you will, and it would be extraordinarily harsh to drop him after one Test, where previously we'd said we were grooming him to be our long term Test bowling leader. Harris and Hilfenhaus pick themselves, and we won't go without a spinner. Pattinson may have to sit this one out. I agree, I think Pattinson (or even Cummins) will be the number 8. Siddle and Harris aren't consistent enough, but their best is good enough to bat at 8. As I've always said, though, it doesn't fuss me much at all, and I'm confident that we will make enough runs whether our number 8 is more like Johnson or more like Lee, or worse than both.