Chook

I provided a real world example of a player who told his team-mates plainly and simply that the way they were approaching the game was not good enough. I am still talking about Melbourne, since I'm relating an example of a player's brutal honesty (and the way it spurred his team into action) to our club, where for a very long time "bleeding red and blue" was seen to be enough.I'm not defending anyone who wants to pot loyal Melbourne players, but I do think there is a place for harsh criticism of Moloney's performance this year. It is warranted.

We've just been destroyed by injuries today. How deflating.

Like Paul Chapman was? Honest criticism should be welcomed in any workplace.

SAMMY BLEASE WILL BE AN ABSOLUTE GUN!

If you're being tackled, it appears you can simply drop the ball and you'll be fine.

Did alright just then, although the kick did't look great.

Bail repaying the faith the club has shown in him by playing him so much this year.

It goes without saying that this quarter has been our best of the year.

My man Sylvia goals off one step. His confidence is sky-high today.

Predicting a monster game from Sylvia today. He's looking great!

He's saying that Brownlow counts don't matter. I don't think Jose "hates" Moloney - or any player for that matter. It doesn't do your credibility any good to respond to a reasoned argument with such a blanket statement like that. I can't understand you you can be "disgusted" at people's "hatred," yet you aren't willing to debate them on reasonable grounds.Certainly, there's no need to debate people who say "Moloney's a hack and needs to GTFO," but there is a need to give some sort of a complete response to anyone who puts time and thought into their criticism. If you don't respond to reason with reason, then everyone's opinion becomes worthless and open inquiry and debate become impossible. Even if a person's argument is (in your opinion) totally idiotic, if they've attempted to back their opinion up with facts, then you owe it to yourself as a thinking human being to give them some kind of reasonable response. Failing that, you should not respond at all.

No BnFs, and 4 Brownlow votes all up, but I don't think that matters. The question is whether Moloney is going to be valuable for us in the future. Mark Neeld doesn't care about previous years, and therefore neither should we. Based on his performances this year, I say Moloney deserves to be dropped."Bashing" players is not on, but criticising them is, so I suggest you toughen up and look at the facts as they stand this year. Moloney should be playing better than he is, but I and many others believe that the way he plays footy means that he probably will never return to anywhere near best and fairest form. I could see it after just Round One. Pretty much everyone can see it now. When will you see it?

In comparing Moloney's stats with Morton's, we see that Moloney averages more tackles and more inside fifties, but morton averages more kicks and more marks. So it would seem that Moloney's better at the pressure side of the game and Morton is better at the run and spread side of the game. Since both of these aspects are very important, it looks like both players might be a little flawed. To me, it looks like maybe neither of them will be good enough to take us forward. But while Moloney is unlikely to change, Morton very well could improve his contested game quite a bit as he matures. It remains to be seen what Morton may accomplish, but I feel like Moloney's game style is a little bit outdated, and that he contributes to our overwhelming "slowness" as a footy side.

The fact is that we've been shocking since Morton went out of the team. Perhaps that's a coincidence, but the run and (believe it or not) good footskills he provides has been sorely lacking this past few weeks. Clearly the fact that Moloney's remained in the side for three months and Morton's been in and out suggests that the Football Department views Moloney and Morton more like you than like me, so from that perspective, it seems likely that my opinions on the pair are wrong. But that's just going on the idea that people inside the club know more than people outside the club (and make better decisions because of it).I'm willing to accept the fact that I may be wrong about Moloney and Morton, but I don't really see any evidence for that in the way they're playing. My only basis for saying I'm wrong is the fact that more educated people than me evidently hold Moloney in higher stead (up until this week at least). I still reckon the 90% estimate is pretty accurate. 9 out of 10 comments on a player are based on some sort of evidence or observation. Mindless bashing of players does occur, but since it's far more noticeable than reasoned opinion, you tend to notice it more.

I've been calling for Beamer to be dropped since round 1. Glad to see it's finally happened. And for Stuie, I'd like to ask how you'd classify people like me, who rate Morton and don't rate Moloney.90% of the time, people don't just "bash" players for no reason. There's usually some sense behind it.

Delivery to a forward line is usually much better when there are multiple targets inside that actually know what they're doing. In a way, Cloke would help our midfield more than any individual midfielder would. What we need is four really good midfielders. Failing that, I think Cloke is a damn good option, especially since we won't have to trade to get him.

If the penalty is over a month, you should get no dispensation for good behaviour.

Making a diamond is a question of effort, not time. It can be done in an instant under the right conditions. Of course that also means that under the wrong conditions, no amount of time is sufficient to forge a diamond.

You can't polish a turd, but you can compress it into a diamond.

Tough as nails, smart and a brilliant leader. Still can't see it?This might help: http://www.opsm.com.au/

Spencer was better than Moloney today.

I'm going to stop arguing with you because it appears we're discussing two different things. Robbie and I are saying that we'll cross the bridge of judgment when we come to it. You are saying that not only is the bridge here, but that we are wantonly ignoring it. I have no idea what went on up there; nor is it my business. But you profess to have inside knowledge, with which you intend to bait and tantalise us all.I do not brush away your comments dainfully or disdainfully. I merely state that there are those who would like to maintain the image (or illusion, as it may be) of innocence until we can do so no longer. Consider a man visiting his dying father. "I just want to spend time with him while I can," says he. But you retort that "If you knew medicine as well as I do, you'd know he'll die. Your dad shouldn't have drunk so much as a young man." As accurate as that may be, it is neither helpful nor necessary. That's how I see it.

Robbie still loves the guy and doesn't want to start saying negatives until he has to. What that has to do with the fact that LJ made the decision to go up there and that he must "face the law" is beyond me.

Your reply has nothing to do with robbie's post. Why must you continually state the bleedin' obvious as if it's some brand new discovery?

You make a very good point. It is folly to assume the same approach will bear anything other than the same results. The only thing I might say to allay your fears is that the way Neeld is teaching us to play is different than the way Bailey taught us to play. Although we may have similar performance records, the statistics show that we are a significantly better contested football side than we ever were in Bailey's tenure. It is commonly understood that winning contested ball is a vital part of winning finals, and that in finals, kicking skills typically fall away considerably as the pressure mounts.While I'm concerned that our kicking is very poor, I'm comforted by the fact that the one aspect of the game that is held to be most vital (contested ball) is being well-looked after under Neeld's regime. Only further evidence will be able to tell whether we will continue to develop in the areas we need to.