Vogon Poetry

Corey Maynard: Sorry, forgot him which is a pity because he was probably the one that I was most interested in seeing as I'd not seen him before. Corey was workmanlike playing as an inside mid. Clean with the ball and used it quite well but nothing to get excited about at this stage. He's not played a lot in the last few weeks so with that in mind I'd give him a pass. TBH jnrmac it was a game I came away from thinking we have a couple of depth players at Casey but not much else. In the past I've gone to see Casey and there were always interest in the young blokes but there is little interest this year. I was disappointed in the standard of play and didn't see much to enthuse. Sorry to be so negative but that's just the way I saw it.

I went yesterday and here is a quick summary of the MFC players. Just a quick observation on the game. The conditions were perfect but the game was just a scrap. There were very few good passages of play with ball use generally poor and nobody seemed to be able to find space. This may or may not be a valid observation. I usually watch games from a reasonable elevation and I watched this game from boundary side and I think that taints things. I wasn't a great example of Aussie rules. Trengove: I hardly noticed him in the first half but his second half seemed very good to me. Got a fair bit of it and used it well and was clean. Smith: Very quiet. First game back and just couldn't get into it. It was a perfect day for footy yesterday and it was disappointing that none of our big men were able to take a grab. Keilty: I thought I might have been standing next to you yesterday Drunkn because in the first few minutes Dec dropped a chest mark and the bloke standing next to me just said "Oh Dec". He moved into the ruck in the second half and was pretty useful and he did a few nice things around the ground but overall I was a little disappointed. I saw a fair bit of him last year and thought he was very good and I was expecting to see a big improvement now he is a full time footballer but neither he or Smith have taken a step IMO. Keep in mind this is my first match of the year for Casey and one game doesn't define a season. Johnstone: Unsighted in the first half but worked into the game very nicely and showed some good speed and intensity which created one goal in the last quarter which was good return for effort. And boy can this kid kick it long! He's a mile away from a game but I reckon yesterday's second half showed why he was drafted. Kent: Our best player in the first half but faded in the second. Showed his strength and speed at times and played a bit on ball. Is he a tweener? Too good for VFL and not good enough for AFL? He's got some serious competition for a spot in the seniors. Stretch: Like DJ I was a little underwhelmed and Billy is one of my favourites. He couldn't seem to find space yesterday but he used the ball pretty well when given a chance and ran and worked hard. Weideman: Looks completely out of form and touch to me. Couldn't clunk anything and couldn't get involved in the game. He went into the ruck in the last half and at least got to run around a bit but he played the same way in the VFL as the AFL. Looks a mile away at the moment. White: Strong and servicable and a bit good for this level but by the same token isn't pushing for a game in the seniors. Kennedy Harris: Played midfield and got a lot of it in tight. Judging by his stats he was very busy but there weren't many highlights in his play. There's no way I would have thought he got as much of the ball as the stats say but I'm glad he's had such a prolific game. IMO he was promoted to the seniors far too quickly which did him no favours. Would be interesting to see how he goes in the seniors when in form. Kennedy: Was a typical Kennedy game except he kicked it well for goal. He was tough in the packs and used his pace well to find space a few times. Hulett: I've always liked him but yesterday was just a game. Couple of quick goals were good but just not involved enough. He is a nice kick and can take a good grab on occasions. Anyone else? Let me know. There were a couple of likely types for Casey. I liked 25 particularly - Gordon? Had a touch of the Michael Johnson's about him. Tall and rangey with a good left foot that occasionally let him down but promising nonetheless. One to keep an eye on. Oh, and a note. Don't join MFC/Casey as a ruck. Gawn, Spencer, Flipper, King all gone and poor old Gach Nyuon did his ankle in the first quarter, had it strapped but couldn't go on much after that.

Mitch White was 41. JKH got it a lot but didn't look like 47 to me. I'd go with 27. He was busy but not all that damaging. Good game though.

Pretty sure Mitch didn't play DJ.

Pretty sure Mitch didn't play DJ.

Yes, misplaced comment, it wasn't meant to offend and if it did I apologise. I just find comments about "mental weakness" offensive when the person making the accusation has no idea what the mental state of the person is. The point I was making is I don't think Jack is mentally weak at all, in fact, quite the opposite. But again, apologies to Alex, I wouldn't wish depression on anyone.

I loved watching David Neitz play and think he was a champion but he is underrated by many in the football world. The link below recognizes how his teammates saw him. David retired when a neck injury ended his career. He was entitled to a career ending injury payout of several hundred thousand dollars at the time but didn't claim it because of the Club's dire financial situation. I hope we've paid him now that we are financially stable. He's up there with my three favourite players and deserves his own thread after being inducted into the MFC Hall of Fame. Congratulations Neita, loved watching you big fella, one of my heroes. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2017-05-31/what-they-said-about-david-neitz-

And if you want to talk about mental toughness just look at Alex Fasalo. Jack Watts would be one of the most resilient players I know. The pressure of expectation coupled with an inept football club and almost unparalleled media scrutiny would have ended the career of most. That he's stayed the course, has shown loyalty and is now producing consistent good footy deserves our thanks, not harping complaints. You don't have to love him, you don't even have to like him but at least support him, he plays for your team. Not that Pro would give a stuff!

I'm sure if you search previous discussions on this topic you'll find the answer. Most have their views and I don't think it's useful to go over it all again. Keep in mind there was a very strong cabal in place. It helps join the dots. Healy and Lyon weren't involved with the club in an official capacity at the time yet they visited Stynes. Go figure.

What was it about Jack's game that you found so upsetting? 20 possessions (9th highest and he's not a mid), 8 of them contested (equal 8th highest in the team), second highest for marks and contested marks, equal 10th for tackles (and he's not a mid) and equal top for goal assists. He's playing out of position because Hogan and Gawn aren't playing and he's played rucking for a lot of the season. Pretty half hearted rucking against people much bigger and heavier don't you think? I doubt this will cause many to change their view because those that criticize want him to do things differently but what surprises me is some who can't see that what he does is so very valuable to the team and he does what few can. The prospect of trading out these skills would reduce our chances of winning flag significantly. I think it's unlikely we win on Saturday if Watts didn't play and Jack Hill the blind miner can see he's playing very sore. I was at the game and thought he played just ok. When I read the criticism of him (and Oscar who I like) on here I looked closely at their games. I thought Watts was terrific and I thought Oscar had a mare. Those who want Watts gone miss the point that a team is made up of many different things and Jack offers some of those things in spades. And the things he offers are very rare. Trading him would be a horrendous mistake in my opinion.

You seemed to have missed my point AF and yes I agree with your comments on Hibberd. But prior to taking the field not many here thought he'd be anywhere near as good as he is. My point is you can still trade well and get good players without paying top dollar. Williams, Marchbank, Hill and T Mitchell are examples of what I'm talking about. I'd be looking at Dogs and GWS to see what we could shake out. They have very deep lists and we could perhaps offer opportunities to players they can't.

It also helps that we've played 4 of the top 6 drawing teams.

Which includes Alice.

I don't know opposition lists well enough but rather than back the truck up for a gun recruit I'd be looking for a trade in the Hibberd mould - value for money. If we can replace a marginal bottom 6 player with someone who is significantly better but not a gun we get a lot of improvement whilst maintaining early picks and salary cap. I don't believe we need to win the battle for gun players out of contract. We need sensible trading and then target a free agent. We have enough players with significant elite potential to not play a desperate hand for out of contract players. Good free agents will come if we are good enough.

?

Oh for heavens sakes. We all know the teams weaknesses and the coaches know them much better than us. We don't have to continually harp on the players weaknesses to "help the club". That is why Joeboys replay of " Suggestions like this are exactly why the club has stagnated for so long." is so silly. If you can't see that and you think we continually have to harp on the negatives to help the club you just don't get it.

No, not suggesting you do that, it just you said " but I've run out of ideas for describing in 3 words what are everpresent faults in Tyson's footballing performance over the last 2-3 years." I'm just suggesting if your bereft of ideas that are different to describe his faults look for some of his strengths. It's not hard Joeboy. Joeboy - just try harder.

Haha. The Mark Neeld of Demonland! Pretty silly response Joeboy, you're better than that.

And therein lies the issue. Perhaps instead of looking for faults you could look for positives. It's just an idea.

It's impossible to reconcile all those punches and Cunnington's seems to be at the more severe end. I'm glad the AFL has taken a stand, well overdue IMO, but really, wgif if Cunnington is suspended, it won't help us. What is mind boggling is that the free kick wasn't reversed. What is clear is that if you hit the head you're gone. Salem was dumb.

You're making a lot of assumptions and I'm still confused how Hogan and Lewis can be defended and Cunnington damned, but we'll just agree to disagree and leave it there.

I reckon you'll do better than cope!

Well it's pretty clear that if you're not perfect you're a dud.

We're going over old ground but really if you defend Lewis and Hogan who inflicted significant damage on Rowe and Cripps it's hard to sink NM in my opinion. NM went hard and frankly while I don't support that it gave us an experience we could well benefit from. Frankly I thought what Hogan (excused) and Lewis did was very significantly worse than Cunnington and while Cunnington should have been suspended he at least didn't go the head. Your assertion seems to be that Hogan and Lewis responded to words and Cunnington was supporting his team mate who was copping significant niggle from Vince. In my book Cunnington comes out ahead.

I'm sure that there are many on here who wouldn't have supported the sort of tactic NM applied to us if the shoe had been on the other foot. But I am surprised at your comments because you seemed to take a quite different approach with Hogan and Lewis when they were reported for punching Cripps and Rowe. If I read your comments correctly you defended them on the basis that something happen to cause such a reaction but I note you don't apply the same causation in this situation. Cunnington hit Vince and that he wasn't reported let alone have the free kick reversed is unacceptable to me but lets face it, Bernie has been known to play hard and "yap". I would assume if you defended Hogan and Lewis you'd by logical extension have to defend Cunnington. Whilst I thought Salem was unlucky he was silly to do it and seemed to be the victim in what was a spiteful match from both teams.