Mel Bourne

There’s being entitled, and then there’s being honest with yourself and doing what’s best for the club.

Yes, or “conjecture” as I said Anyway, the story will either be told in time, or most likely, remain the stuff of further quiet conjecture among supporters for some time to come. I will never understand the Hibberd decision though. He was named as an emergency, so not injured. No doubt carrying a niggle (as many would have been) but would have played out if his skin in his final match, and in turn given us a permanent forward in Smith, rather than MacDonald, who’s inclusion was nothing but a “Hail Mary” in a synagogue.

Contracted till 2028, so no effin’ way.

God help us.

The fact they haven’t announced their retirements is frustrating. It is certainly what they should be doing.

Problem is, you have plenty of media citing his non-selection in finals as “the final straw” or “salt in the wound”, and in general a lot of conjecture about how this fractious situation began in the first place. The selection of the team that fateful night does have question marks all over it. Not only the Schache call, but the non-inclusion of Hibberd (which could have freed Smith up to replace MacDonald). It would be nice as a supporter of the club, not only in spirit but with wallet, to have some clarity around the thought process rather than just have to “have faith”. As for [censored]-shows, turns out we got one anyway. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Agree with a lot of what he says. Comes off like a bit of a prat though (is our playing group smug any more or less than any other team?) But hey, it’s The Roar. Hobby journalists.

Whoa. That’s a strange and disturbing pattern.

https://reddit.com/r/AFL/s/zJf2qowFyA Can’t think of any other way to share this, but anybody who perseveres with it will be greatly rewarded.

I guess when I say “kicking straight” I should have said “kicking to the intended area”. You’re right. It isn’t always shots on goal, however, it certainly was a problem in the Qualifying Final, and the reason why we ended up having to play last week.

A genuine question, which I’m keen to get people’s opinion on. The reasons elude me as to why players who have proven they have the necessary skill and technique to nail shots on goal, suddenly (and collectively) begin to flail at this most basic aspect of the game. Is it because it is a neglected area in training? Is it because bad habits creep in? Or is it purely a psychological phenomenon?

I only highlighted the first part because it’s something that’s accepted as a truth by many (your second part was more a personal take, which I happen to concur with) and indeed was by myself for a period. I think that period of blind-faith is over for me.

Have read plenty of condemnation for both Port and WB. The Cats get off the hook because they’re both a senior list, and have given the league a dynasty. The Demons were being touted by many in the press as flag favourites for a good chunk of the season, but our finals collapse has made the pundits who backed us look weak in their analysis. Cue their payback.

Why? Because we have no choice? It wasn’t even the Schache/Grundy selection that made me ask questions. The decision to field Tom MacDonald a second time (or even at all) was even more “faith-killing” for me. Bringing Hibberd into the team and replacing TMac with Smith would have given us an extra player. I guess the reasoning was that Tmac would “come good”. But based on what? He was ineffective all year.

If there isn’t more to the story, then it’s just basic stupidity. So you either make your reasoning clear, or let your supporters just assume the worst.

I reckon you made your point with the first comment. It’s just a comment on a supporter forum. Honestly, this whole “never question the club” attitude that some people here embrace is so sycophantic, bordering on idolisation. Goodwin and his selectors mystified a lot of people who support them financially. An explanation as to why it was an non-activated Schache on our bench, and not an All Australian ruckman, is not unwarranted.

Yes, he is.

Let’s not get carried away here. It’s not like we recruited Bertrand Russell.

A lot of people here talking down Grundy’s forward craft, and completely overlooking how little he was offering defensively too. My take is that this latter factor played a very large part in the abandonment of the “Gawndy Experiment”. But my main takeaway from this fairly embarrassing blunder was that Goodwin made a poor call in deciding to recruit him in the first place. A bizarre attempt to fill the Luke Jackson-sized hole with a player who was never going to provide the same qualities, and who would neither have been comfortable as a rucking understudy. The lack of vision is concerning. The final crescendo in this symphony of mistakes was placing him in the grandstand for a semi final where his presence could have made all the difference. Or at least a helluva lot more difference than the inactivated-sub that was Schache, another player who’s recruitment makes as much sense to many here as Chinese algebra. None of this exactly fills me with faith. The end of an error.

If this is the case, then it doesn’t exactly fill me with hope. I must confess I never fully understood the thinking behind drafting Grundy, and with the “luxury” of hindsight, my confusion was justified. And if it was a Goodwin-led move, then I’d suggest him getting deeper-involved with our drafting is bad idea.

His legacy will be enduring. Really could have used one of his famous sprays at three-quarter time last night.

Except in his first game back?!

Have never been overly-impressed by him, but he is only 23. Best possibly yet to come.

That’s quite the reductive misrepresentation of what I said.

Clearly you don’t believe in the “Forward Fairy”.