rpfc

If there is a suitable, in-form replacement. Absolutely. But remove him for the sake of removing him mirrors the sentiment that led us to having a generation of kids that never earned their spots and were gifted games.

No, best 22. If there is a player at Casey better than Byrnes, that can play his role and is in better form - absolutely. Otherwise, Byrnes can keep his spot and the players at Casey can continue to learn the right habits and earn their spot.

Call me crazy but I would like to see how Watts reacts from this point against Adelaide. He could absolutely be dropped but this would be the first time he has been so chewed out by a coach that there is nowhere to hide from. Paul Roos told you your efforts weren't good enough - there was a bit of fire in his eyes and he came out and responded somewhat in the last term (his look was more promising than Howe's bewilderment). I would set him the task of redeeming himself this week in the AFL in lieu of the VFL.

I just hope that chat with Howe and Watts is backed up during the week. Don't care if they are dropped, I want our impressive leaders to tell them that there is no sympathetic ear for those that don't listen to what their coach tells them. Paul Roos is your coach - get angry and embarrassed, not indignant - you were doing the wrong thing.

There are threads devoted to the Casey alignment if you wish to search for it.

Jesus Christ Roos knows how to clog up a game... He knows what he is doing. It isn't pretty but...

Looked very promising...

Well, actually, in that particular year Jones went down less than 1 disposal, and Brent down almost 8 disposals. So no, I am not going to agree with that assertion at all.

They are the first numbers - he decreased his output by 2.5% in losses in 2011.

This took me 15 mins to do, Stuie. Please don't make yourself seem like such a pill when you tell me to have a hobby - you are also on here quite a bit, I just like to back up my comments with evidence. And I am hardly bagging him out, I am saying his input diminished in games we didn't win, for whatever reason, and I found that unacceptable for a senior player who was also our best midfielder. The notion that 'Neeld ruined him' is the fallacy here - Moloney had consistency issues - as I have proven here, well known behavioural issues, and defensive intent issues that Neeld was so ill-equipped to help him with.

Is it? This is the same argument used at the time. Let's have a look at how much Melbourne in 2011 fared with this statistic: 2011 Melbourne Disposals in Wins - 383 Melbourne Disposals in Losses - 336 Percentage Decrease - 12.2% Moloney Disposals in Wins - 28.5 Moloney Disposals in Losses - 21.1 Percentage Decrease - 26% If I was to be mean and include 186 where he was ill and couldn't play more than a couple of minutes, his percentage decrease jumps to 31.5%. As a measure, Nathan Jones in 2011-14: Melbourne Percentage Decrease in Losses - 12.2%, 16%, 10.5%, and 9.5% Jones Percentage Decrease in Losses - 2.5%, 15%, 15.5%, and +7.1%. I am not going to give Moloney an out for his game diminishing by a quarter of his output in games we don't win.

Credit where it's due? But none to Moloney for his own failings? I have gone over my views a couple years ago when it was relevant, if you are interested enough - go for your life: http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/29309-brent-moloney/ We needed him to stand up in games we lost, did we not? 21 touches (I took out the Geelong game when he was ill) in losses and 28.5 in wins in 2011.

I would agree that there is a difference between the fundamentals and the gameplan, and that the first is what Roos is looking for before anything, but I would disagree with your last 10 words there; your list should evolve to suit your plan. Look, if we are talking tactics - yes, kick it long fat side to Hogan when he is up and going. But the game plan has to be Roos driven - and it should surround how he thinks footy games will be won in the near future. Designing a game plan around a faulty list is fraught. Constantly changing the 'system' as your list changes would be frustrating for a player looking for consistency and predictability. Roos has already said the players were amazed that they will play one style for 100% of the game they have been thrown so many different ideas in the last few years. I see Roos having a clearly defined game plan surrounding possession footy if quick movement forward is not possible, I don't think that is suited to this list, but I don't think we should be making concessions for this list - there will be another turnover at the end of 2014.

Where is that happening?! Maybe I am skimming over posts from certain posters...

The problem was not that he didn't know good systems or gameplans, Neeld's problem was that he couldn't sell it. Roos has proven he can and that is what I mean in the OP when I say that talent will not get you a game, persistence with the system and the fundamentals will get you a game. He could have chosen a style of play more accessible to this group but I am glad he didn't.

Such as? I find it funny how people are reacting to how bad we are still because they thought it was all Neeld. As for Moloney - he was averaging 10 touches less in losses than in wins in 2011. Neeld was a terrible coach but he didn't wish Brent ill will, he tried to tell him how to expand his game and he didn't want a bar of it. Neeld wasn't the right messenger to say the least but the song remains the same as we have seen with Roos; he is also making defensive fundamentals the cornerstone of our 'system.'

I don't have kids, but from discussions with them at cricket training (I used to coach juniors) the experience of the footy was mainly about their dads, uncles, older brothers etc. and how they felt/reacted about the game. ie. 'I don't like going because my dad gets really angry and sad.' I went as a kid as saw plenty of losses, one out at Waverley when Lockett went nuts sticks in my mind, but I still remember it fondly because my dad got me pie and let us stand up where it was hard to see undercover (it was raining). I don't want this to come off as some sort of childless know-it-alls rant about how you behave at the footy - only that your boy loves your team because you do and he just wants to got to the footy with his dad. (Until he is a teenager and then he will go with his mates and he will become a little sheet...)

Why do you have Daniel Ricciardo in your avatar? He's had as many posium finishes this year as he did last year when he wasn't with Red Bull...

But give 'em hell Shannon! Woo!

Lovely. Or someone who can't play in the cold I presume?

He had one kick, it was an absolute ripper in the first minute of the game against NM at Etihad.

With due respect to Beamer who played some good footy against bad teams, if those were the choices I would leave empty handed.I loved the Moloney that played with us for 5 years, then he played against us for a couple, and then he went to Brisbane. He is welcome back anytime, but Neeld wasn't wrong to ask for more, he was just the wrong person to be asking.

You do realise that Hogan's career is not over? Or do you think Dr Barrett is onto something? He's injured, deal with it.

If you wanted to get games into players would you 'carry' them against good teams or play them against bad teams you look down upon as a backwater of football civilisation?

Another team bringing back underdone players against us. At some point we are going to make a team pay for this BS.