rpfc

I think he has turned the corner. So YM is right... But he gave a bloke a roundhouse just for being a Selwood. Ok, maybe that is just cause but... You're right WYL he should go back and give RR some company and earn back a little respect.

AoB - Are you seriously trying to tie up H with the notion that he wanted to win the flag 'at all costs'? You are putting words in his, and my and others, mouth if you are implying that having a 'sole purpose' indicates moral bankruptcy - that we would cheat to win that flag. The sole reason for the existence of the MFC is to spend sh!tloads of other people's money and try to win the AFL Premiership (and adhere to the rules of the competition as per required of every participant). And everyone can enjoy the ride as we try to achieve it.

That supporter is an idiot. Player's don't tank. Miller is a hardworking player who puts in an enormous amount of work on the ground and off it but has badly lost confidence and form. He has teased us numerous times and I can understand the frustrations of the fans. Newton may have turned the corner, I don't know, but we won't find out in these last few games where he will have some good games, some bad games, and some middling games. We will find it out next February when he comes back from summer training with a body that a dedicated KPF should have. If he has defined arms, and shoulders that are wider than his waist than he really has put the effort in that he hasn't in the past. And he deserves no free rides from the fans. Morton is a fine young player, but to play him on Adam Goodes was a surprise and a risk. It pays off even if Goodes gets 35 touches and 3 goals but Morton showed Bailey something that he hadn't seen before. McKenzie and Valenti ran with with McVeigh for a lot of the game - a teachable moment for both on one of the hardest working and underrated mids in the game. Miller started as a floating wingman-type that got a few kicks in the backline but looked lost across the middle. No-one was told to curtail the run of Mattner. Our best tagger - Clint Batram went ball hunting. There were plenty of positional experiments and why shouldn't Bailey employ them? He has got to build different aspects of his player's games. And you do that by challenging them to things they aren't used to doing. I beleive this to be PR if this official was in the Footy Dept., and if he wasn't in the FD - he wouldn't know anyway. Unless you have a good mate in the FD who trusts you enough to let his guard down and tell you the truth. We really don't know. My belief is that Bailey can see what is on offer to be 4 and 18 instead of 5 and 17 and he will try, and I stress try, to engineer or ensure losses in the next two games. Then they can go hell for leather as Freo is an easybeat, and Carlton and St Kilda will be too strong for us at our very best.

If losing is an infection we must be on death's door - this weekend will see our 51st loss since 2007.

Yeah, who cares about Tom. I want Dana... She can de-bunk my work any day of the week... (And, no. That wasn't dirty. Avid watchers would know the joke.) (It was a little dirty...)

So I require vengeance because I think Newton should play games at the end of another losing season, or that Miller should be given games to resurrect his career? Newton is lucky we are 'list managing' - he gets to play a game. And if you are alluding that I, as a 'tanker,' thought Newton and Miller missed on purpose you are way-off. Bailey will go into the game as he is about to, as young as he can, and will try people in positions they are not used to, he will put the kids in the important positions, at the important times and if they still win he will say "Oh, well. I tried to do what I had to do but we were never going to lose that game." And BTW, the only poster that I can recall that alluded to Newton or Miller missing on purpose (not tongue in cheek) is a NON-tanking proponent True Believer. Apparently, she loves the club so much that she accuses players of missing goals on purpose for draft picks.

Some people are way off track here. The MFC is a footy club in the AFL. There are 15 other clubs competing in the league. A flag is the prize awarded to the best team. Each club enters the league with a desire to be that best team. It is the sole reason for its existence. If it isn't - it is a social club that plays some park footy. But we don't play park footy - we pay millions to be apart of, and try to win, the AFL Premiership. The elite league of Aussie Rules. I enjoy the rollercoaster of emotions too, but it is in pursuit of that flag that we feel those emotions. That Jeff White goal against the Dogs 'kept the dream of September action alive,' the excitement of the Freo comeback let us hope that perhaps this Wonaeamirri fellow was the FP we haven't had since 2001, and the ease of the Port win got us going because two 20 year olds kicked 8 between them and won the game. The emotion comes from the belief that what you are seeing is the beginnings of a team that could challenge for a flag at some stage. A flag that is the sole reason for the MFC's existence.

It sure is. And, yes, go and find these 'incidents' where a first year player didn't show complete comittment. It'll be groundbreaking... The kid is doing fine. He's courageous and he has impressed a lot of people.

He's 53 games away from that. Cheney and Grimes should be ahead of him in the backline. E: Spencer Whelan Sylvia

So you are the saying a reason for the club's existence is to provide you with an emotional experience? That's fair enough. Me too, I just know what I want to experience. A fracking flag. I want to experience what it would be like to see the Demons as better than the rest of the AFL. These emotions are a by-product of the journey to capture the sole reason for the clubs' existence - a flag.

By golfing analogy I assume you mean this line - "Why does a golfer enter a tournament? Many famous golfers have often said that if they didn't think they could win a tournament then they wouldn't enter it." And you assume H equates a tournament to a season. Analogies are tough because they break down when you try and compare the analogy to the subject matter. 2009 and 2010 and 2011 may be successful years, they may not, but I will faithfully enter those seasons hoping to see the MFC develop a team that will attempt to win a flag from 2012 onwards. The analogy would be the young golfer who enters the British Open to gain experience for the coming years when he hopes to win the whole fracking thing, get his jacket and say "I am better than the rest of you...[censored]!" He might use more eloquent words than I...

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you average 10 posts a day... (It's best to humour him) You sure do get pinged, you sure do.

Yes. We entered those years developing a team to win the Premiership, just not in that year. It is this building for a flag down the road that keeps me going to games. Watching Garland last year, and Frawley this year, and dreaming about what they can do in the future is the reason I go to the footy. It's all about the flag at the end of the tunnell.

You are missing the point. And the bolded part is a cop-out - What other reason does this club have to exist other than be the best amongst it peers? The question wasn't - should a flag be the sole concern of the club? It was - is a flag the sole reason for its existence? Continued existence is a primary concern of any club, and you can't have a flag if you don't exist. But continuing to exist isn't a reason to exist. (For those who are confused, just take your time and you'll get it soon enough) Which makes the question you asked moot; if we were to merge we would cease to exist in our current form.

Jack can see alot of things for a blind bloke. His job in the mine: keep an eye on the canary...

Where does the .5 come from? Tee Hee.

I think some of you are overestimating the differences in athletic demands between each sport or underestimating the demands of NRL on the human body. I suggest you try to run full-bore at a pack of people after 80 minutes of running full-bore at packs of people and you will realise that Hunt is an athlete. All he has to do is remember how to kick and gain some peripheral awareness. Shouldn't be too difficult, he can throw a decent pass to blokes he barely sees. He'll do alright.

That's a parallel argument. H's question: Is winning a flag the sole reason for its existence? The club exists, therefore, it's sole reason is to become the number one club amongst its peers. You are saying that isn't true because people are more concerned with the club's existence over a flag. And that is a circular argument: "Another reason for the existence of the MFC is for it to continue to exist." Circular.

I would say, and many would agree, that Watts' output in the forward line next year would be comparable to Newtons' - and Watts can kick straight. Watts will play on a wing/HFF, but Bate will play HFF/CHF, and Jurrah FF/HFF, and Miller might be FF/CHF. If Newton can get a game in the forward line with Watts - fine. But Jack Watts will playing games he doesn't deserve, as Jetta has, as Bennell has, as Morton has, because that is where we are at. We are building for something beyond 2010. Does that mean I don't think we can win games? No, I have already said that 12 wins next year is a possibility. But we cannot win the 2010 flag, so we should be building a team to challenge in later years. If this means winning 8 games instead of 10 then that is the way it has to be. But Bailey has already said his primary focus is to develop players - Jack Watts is a big player in our future and his development will require him to play a majority, if not all, of his games in the AFL next year. And if that means we kick 1 goal 4 behinds less because Newton isn't there then so be it.

Just off the topic of the thread here but: you should have stopped when you said "I read this over at BF." There is no reference, that I can see, to a third year. If you have two years, in a row, of 4 wins or less, you will get a PP before the draft. That may be complicated by the compromised drafts coming up but BF is often wrong, and I believe they are wrong here.

Freo won't get a PP before the draft, but after the first round. To me, 1 and 3 is essentially 1 and 2 in this draft. There is one standout and about 4 or 5 even players.

I don't know what he got wrong (nothing that I can see), but you have our second round pick wrong. 1. Melb, 2.WCE, 3.Melb, 4.WCE.....19.Melb, 20.WCE....

I don't want to put words in H's mouth but I think he is equating those that want to win only one more game this year to wanting a flag over any other concern. Tanking or list managing gets us closer to that flag than not, so H sees it as a no-brainer. It would interesting to see if anyone voted A but hopes we don't tank from here on in.

OK. Now I want to change my NO to a YES. Jaded, any help?

To me, you are trying to argue that the club employs these iniatives to make sure it is still around in decades to come, but that, considering the question posed by H, would imply that the 'sole reason for the club to exist' is to ensure its own existence. You may not think you are arguing a circlular argument, but when applied to the question asked - you are.