rpfc

What does this mean? We have won 11 games out of the last 60. Surely you jest. They receive our plaudits when they do well, but when they play like they did in that first quarter people are well within their rights to criticise. Especially when the offenders in that first were our 'senior' players, or 'leaders' - if they could be described as such. I'm not a doomsayer when it comes to this club but misplaced (or not) criticism from fans would be the least of its concerns.

Oh, please. Some on this thread don't like her because they don't think their footy should be called by a woman. Frankly, I don't have time for most commentators and she has got a problem with her cliches and stating the bleeding obvious but would there be a long thread like this for a male just starting out? And I stand by my Michael Christian comments, he is awful.

List management, player development, and player protection = tanking. If you don't think we should tank, but think we should play people out of position, bring in more youth, and send off injured players for an early start to 2010, you're a hypocrite. That is what tanking is. But don't feel bad, we have been tanking since halfway through 2007, why stop now?

Be careful not to break an ankle coming off that horse... We have been 'tanking' since halfway through 2007. Players have been retired early, youth has been given games they didn't deserve, and the injury prone have been wrapped in cotton wool. Why the eff should we stop now? Our 54th loss against St Kilda since the start of 2007 will 'reward' us with an extra potential star, a 53rd loss against St Kilda will not give us that extra potential star. You sure are uppity about one win against Richmond on the 2nd of August...

I really enjoy her writing but on this occasion she has written an article that would best suited for about 6 weeks ago. We are where we are, and that is losing against Sydney, NM, Carlton, and St.Kilda to finish the year. So it becomes 4 or 5 wins to finish the year, I would prefer 4 and a loss to Fremantle (not a likely scenario) or Richmond (a must at this stage). This will come to a head, not against St Kilda like Emma wrote in her article, but against Richmond on the 2nd of August. If we win that I will stop talking about the priority pick, because it would have been gone. PS. And BB59 - I'm getting sick and tired of 'anti-tankers' looking down their nose at me for 'wanting to lose' and then implying that 'list management' and 'protection of players for 2010' is not tanking. That is how you 'tank.' I guess some of us just don't want to live in a fool's paradise where we can say we are not tanking and only 'list managing.' You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I would put the challenge to McLean to perform against Sydney or they'll rest him for a couple of weeks. Or if he's injured, get him right for 2010. His form had been better of late but Saturday was a disaster. Robbo out for Newton. Bennell stays. PJ in for Martin. I prefer Martin but form is form. Batram gets a decent run. Valenti in if anyone is under a cloud. Wheatley? For whom of our backline?

I smell some mysogyny... It was her first game. And Ten employs Michael Christian... Enough said.

We have a dearth of leaders at this club, and I don't mean people who are good at standing up in front of the media, I mean people who stand up when they need to. Grant Thomas is an arrogant tossbag but he was on to something with the rotating captaincy. It puts short-term pressure on to those who might need some focus and drive. And rewards the hard work of the dedicated. My view would be to give Davey, Moloney, and McLean the job over the next three years and in 2013 reassess. Those three would be a chance and so would Watts and Grimes.

Motives are rarely unselfish. I don't begrudge him that attitude - all players should have that sort of ambivalence to the issue. Clubs and players can be poles apart in their priorities, let's hope they are for the final month and a half.

Hey, everyone, Scully is a good player. It would be nice to see him play for the Demons. But this isn't about Scully. it's about getting two players of high skill and potential. And all we have to do is lose our 54th match since 2007 against St Kilda...

Freak, Freak, Freak. Let me hazard a guess and say that you're 'posting rate' diminished over the past two weeks? Hopefully, the mods can check on that... And it was PA and their 'leaders' that screwed up. They should have beaten us and they didn't. They were awful. But you are probably right though... That Richmond game isn't going to be fun one for me to go to...

So you have gone from thinking we have a good enough team to beat Geelong at the cattery to wanting to trade Brock McLean? The two hours of footy I saw wasn't that bad. Reality people - we only beat two interstate sides on the G, who had their best players out (Cox and Kerr) or out of form (Cornes, Tredrea, Burgoyne, and Pearce). Our only possible wins to finish the year will be against Richmond and Fremantle. Let's hope one of them turns up on the day and we finish on 4 wins.

We have had the cue-in-the-rack since half way through 2007, anyone remember the the banishment of stalwarts like Brown and Bizzell and the chances given to Newton? Our cue has not been out since, and why the eff would we get the cue out now? The season's done. Let's see if Valenti, Newton, McNamara, McKenzie, etc. have a future, let's see if Grimes can play RR, let's see if Jetta can play HBF, let's see if Bennell can play FP, let's see if Morton can play CHF etc. Let's make sure that Rivers, Jamar, Moloney, and McLean get a head start for 2010 if they are carrying anything. Scully might be a good player, I couldn't give a flying - that's up to BP to decide. All I know is that having two picks in the top 4 is worth losing 6 more games. And if you think there is more honour in going 13 and 53 over the past 3 years rather than 12 and 54 then you have some abstract principles. I have put up with too much sh!t from this footy club over the past 2 and a half years for them not to take the opportunity offered to rabbles like us.

To be honest with you, the only thing I hear from friends of mine who are keen footy supporters is that they reckon we will finish on 5 wins. You know what they do after they say this? They laugh. And ask how we could possibly screw this up. 6 more losses and they'll respect us when we are beating them.

Who said anything about 'best' players? They contributed more than the kids who replaced them. I can recall vividly an On The Coach quote from Mike Sheahan saying that Nathan Brown had finished in good form and that the Demons could have kept him on, if not for the rebuild they were about to embark upon. This has been the policy of the Bailey era: to, at the expense of the current day performances, build a team for the future that might become a top 4 team. That policy continuing in the last 7 weeks should be encouraged, not discouraged, as we are 3 and 12 an another losing season. It may apply to Wheatley, Robbo, and Junior. It has meant Grimes playing ahead of Whelan in the backline, and I love Grimes as much as the next red-and-blue blooded Australian but a better defender than Wheels he ain't. You don't have to think about it, I have already, as many others have, said that player's don't tank. And I'm not in favour of dropping perfectly healthy players who are in form. What I am saying is that if Brock or Brent or Jared are carrying injuries then what is the point of playing them for these last pointless games? Give them a head start for 2010, considering that season is now our focus since finals in 2009 are out of the question. We embarked on this rebuild in the October 2007, and just when we are nearing the end, people are losing their nerve.

At their best - Johnstone (at intermittent times - to say the least), Bruce (2005 - pre-guerra), and Woewodin (2000). Overall careers - McDonald, Viney, and Yze. I cherish hardworkers like Viney, Woey, and Macca. But TJ at his best was orgasmic, Bruce unstoppable in 2005 (until stopped), and Yze was the best wingman in the game for about half a decade, with the sweetest delivery into our forward line.

I'm a big fan of the shock treatment for Colin. That roundhouse was the dumbest thing he has ever done, and that's saying something. Roost It is being more than a tad flippant, but I would be very suprised if DB and CC don't do similar things leading into the Richmond and NM games. And Jack The Ripper, Bailey seems to me to be very comfortable. Even before the WCE and PA return to some semblance of form, I wanted Bailey to have an extra year put on his contract at the end of this season to give him two years to bring the Demons up the ladder. He will try to do what's best for the club.

Yes, I love being horrible. It's fun to be torn apart by fortunate F/S selections Ablett and Scarlett. It makes me giddy. I love the fact that we have lost 48 games from the last 59 since 2007. I thought it was great when we lost 7 games last year by 10 goals or more. It is fantastic that the most exciting days for my club in the past two years have been in November. I have not jumped down throats, and I have been respectful to those who wish to win as many games as the club possibly can, but this is absurd. Frankly, I don't care about the No.1 pick - whatever WCE does is their business. What I care about is my club doing the right thing by its own future and getting it's 54th loss since 2007 against St Kilda, so that we can get 2 picks in the top 5. I have put up with too much crap from the 'Demons' not to see them standfast to the 'Bailey-era' policy of youth development and rebuilding throught the draft.

Player's don't tank. Those that want to ensure we finish on 4 wins NEVER expect the players to compromise the two hours they spend out on the field with the jumper on. Fevola, inadvertantly, described tanking very well while trying convince everyone that tanking doesn't happen. He said that he never went out there to lose in 2007, but he wasn't out there at all... They sent the pratthead out for surgery to get ready for 2008...

The club paying out Nathan Carroll made us less competitive. We got liam Jurrah with that extra spot on the list. Nathan Brown, Clint Bizzell, Jeff White, Adem Yze, and Ben Holland were sent to Sandringham even though they would have performed better than young players that replaced them. They were also moved on at the end of 07 and 08 with more to give, to create space for youth. Thus making us less competitive in 2008 and 2009 respectively. Jack Grimes, Colin Garland, Cale Morton, Neville Jetta, Jack Watts, Jamie Bennell, Jake Spencer, and Liam Jurrah arguably all got elevated to the seniors for unwarranted games in 2008/9. This also made the 22 weaker. The 'Bailey-era' has never been about winning games, instead it has revolved around developing players and building a list that will one day challenge for winning on the last day in September. Has the 'Bailey-era' been unprincipled? If not, why is continuing the policies of the last 18 months 'damaging to the club'?

Are motives are similar. He's only played 18 games, I question his committment because of the fact that he hasn't put the work in the gym that others have. Bate is bigger than him in the shoulders and arms and he spent his forst couple of years as a mid, while coming to the club in the same year, at the same age. Giving him opportunities at the end of this season is concurrent with 'tanking' though. Robbo is a better player but we are 3 and 12 and should be looking to the future. If you want to play him, you are a lot more tolerant of 'tanking' than you let on...

We have lost 48 of the past 59 games. What's another one against Richmond? The differences between losing 53 games over the past three seasons and 54 games are meaningless until you look at what the club's draft position will be in each instance - then it gets a hell of a lot of meaning. With that said, I don't blame Bruce or Green for our spectacular failure. They are great players for this footy club and I have, and will, enjoy watching 18 and 32 running around. Many milestones have been met with failure over the past three years (this weekend will see another) and Brad will get over it after the Richmond game.

That isn't an answer. If you condone them, and they bring us to 4 and 18 at the end of the year, is that 'tanking'? Is it wrong? If it is, tell me why. Should DB and CC use these techniques?

I wouldn't say great, but they have improved over summer. In fact, the whole team has improved their handballing compared to the awful displays of 2008 where every second handball was to ankles and hitting the deck. I have only seen a little of Scully but he has Scotty West type vision and execution with his hands. Would suit Bailey's gameplan to have the premier midfielder an excellent distributor by hand that's for sure.

I would like to think that I am one of the more restrained posters on here, and I always try to back up opinion with argument. With that said - I'm still waiting for someone to articulate why the above mentioned player development, giving of opportunities, and protection of players is so wrong. We have ended careers early in the past couple of years with an eye to the future, we have played people before they were ready, we have giving opportunities to an enormous percentage of our list. Was this 'tanking' for draft picks? Or building for the future? If we continue in the next 7 weeks with the policy of the 'Bailey era,' is that 'tanking'? And is it abhorrent?