dworship

One of the things I'm most happy about is the belief they will get coming back from 33pts down.

Yeah, thanks Jack, maths was never a long suit

And how exactly is that currently effecting the development of our players? I didn't see anything today that was a detriment or would be better in a stand alone team. They will stay afloat as long as we need them

Thanks Stinga, I thought all of our young'uns continued to show signs of improvement. I'm a fan of Dom Barry and JKH in particular. JKH didn't get a lot of possessions but he harassed and tackled all day (for a guy who was "rested" I thought he worked really hard) Mitchie was good for 3 qtrs Tapscott was great in the first half and just couldn't get into it in the second I thought Gawn played well but must admit I didn't see a lot of him in the last 20mins. Agree with everything said about Strauss recently and can see him delisted at years end if not contracted. Mr Bean did well defensively but that was it. Blease did what he does, will be interested to see how many disposals he actually had today On a different note, have you ever had a beer at the Queens Head?

I was busy typing away and didn't see your post, thanks for helping make my point

Obviously you don't, I didn't say I enjoy the Scorps, I'm from Ballarat, but my affinity is with the Zebras and before that Dandenong (The Redlegs and the Frosty Miller era). My point is Casey appear to be following the same plans, structures and training as the MFC (14 MFC players ran around today). What observations have you made from directly watching Casey games that indicate a stand alone VFL Demons team would perform better? We could create a new VFL Demons side, employ a new coach, but we would still need to find some fringe players to make up the numbers. From what I saw today, it wasn't just the Casey listed players or the Casey coach that contributed to the loss. As a counter point to what your saying I'd argue that the Casey team is doing exactly what it's supposed to do, that is; provide a vehicle for the improvement of MFC players. I think this is evidenced by the INs this week and shows how players have been allowed to work on their deficiencies/ development at Casey and the successful ones have earned a recall. Casey winning games is not necessarily the only measure of the value and purpose of Casey.

So that's what you decided to take out of my post Bub, my case rests

I was at the game, spoke briefly to Brad Miller and Rohan before the start and asked if they had fixed the last Qtr fade outs , answer: "hope so" Listened to 3 qtr time address: all I heard were Roos philosophies " don't think you need to win the game on your own", "take the game on, but if no options go down the line" etc, etc The previous 3 games were mentioned and effort and intensity challenged. Lots of RA RA RA but I left the huddle feeling that they were jittery. Result: saw a number of players try to do to much, particularly Casey listed players, saw a lot of MFC listed players go missing and saw the breakdown of the defensive effort and structure that was so prevalent, effective and Roos like in the 1st half, go missing. Analysis: Considering the number of MFC listed players in the side and the number of MFC employed coaches I think there is nothing wrong with the Casey alignment and all I saw was a desire to replicate the plan and execution of the MFC. What I saw was the inability of Players to follow instruction, execute plans and deliver skills in the final quarter and ultimately they were overrun. I appreciate everyone's right to an opinion and obviously the above is my own. I don't often post but read threads on a regular basis and have to admit to a little dismay at some of the posts on this site that appear simply as emotional feeling based responses without doing some direct observation and research. I didn't see Bartlett in Ballarat and would think he would rely on the advice of his Senior Coach in relation to this matter. If Roos thinks the alignment is holding us back then fair enough, but I didn't see any of that today

This is exactly the kind of point I've argued earlier ( actually, I don't think I've found anyone to argue with yet but it's DemonLand so there is a possibility). Sorry I digress, based on the current muddy thinking; whoever kneed Jessie in the back needs to be rubbed out for at least 6 weeks. Look at severity, avoidability, impact, negligence in that case, I think it's warranted. Sanitize away you AFL cretins. Just as well Matthew Whelan isn't around, wouldn't want to break anybodies leg in a smother, is the smother banned yet? Bloody dangerous the smother, could ruin a career.

Forgive me if this has already been raised but there seems to be some very muddy thinking gone on in relation to this "issue" which has resulted in a confusing and perplexing finding. I have one question to put to the tribunal and that is "is it the intention of the AFL through the Tribunal and MRP to penalize friendly fire incidents also? eg if Jack had of been wearing a Crows jumper would the MRP have referred the incident? The circumstances would have been the same ie negligent etc If you want to sanitize the game then it has to work both ways or we could just go back to accidental contact. In my opinion they have said it's a bump because of the wider AFL view about protecting the head, but your never going to see head clashes eliminated from the game coz some of them are friendly fire or ACCIDENTAL

AAAAAHHHH been overseas and Supercoach is back, got to get my priorities sorted. Anyway Roys Boys have logged on to the group Oops forgot, THANKS Choke

Small hiccup DV my team name in AFL Fantasy this year will be Roos Boys, some SOB has taken my old name

Love your work DV, please include Roys Boys again

The problem with this, like the David Hookes case, is that Jury's are inherntly stupid and inexperienced in this environment. They don't understand that legal defense often relies on misrepresentation and arguement to muddy the waters and create doubt. In this case and the the David Hookes case the victims were trying to leave and yes there was verbal abuse. In both cases the perpertrator CHOSE not to return inside and defuse the situation but to strike out and cause PHYSICAL harm. I don't think I need a lot of evidence and legal arguement to determine where guilt lies. Let the Judge determine severity and mitigating circumstances.

While I don't like what is going on, this thread has given me some perspective. The thing I keep going on about is how will we be better? ( ie win more games with an interim coach for the rest of the year and then we have a new coach next year and the whole process will start again. ) What happens next year when we don't win a single game, sack the coach again? How destabilising would this be for some of the players - 4 years, 5 coaches - Bailey, Viney, Neeld, Interim, New

Ok, I admit I've been on the fence with the Neeld must go rants, but I think the Magner axing has pushed me over the edge. I have one question for anyone willing to support Neeld, who has come into the side to replace Magner?

No he wont, it will be down to the backline with him to "stem the tide" 10 minutes into the first qtr.

And how many times did the ball go into the forward line last week?

Answering my own question, coz he didn't win a Prem? But, still a coach I'd like to have IF! we sacked Neeld

why is Ratten not a candidate?

What's your source for this?

That needs some "Thinking" about

"How does an administration let that happen?" I've often wondered about CS's perceived interference with the football department, but if the questions he was raising were about this kind of issue, then it's no-wonder Bailey went and Cam stayed.

Anyone know if there is a radio broadcast of the game? I'm at work all day but would love to listen in

Thanks DV, I've joined up and Norm Smith League is kind of apt. I was born in 56, what a year.