old55

I heard Ratten thinks Sylvia is a dud

That's a good point Nasher.

C'mon Bobby - get with it! That approach will surely net us a coach who fits all the right criteria and will: - get the players to give 110% for 120 minutes - be happy with the 4 points - dot the i's and cross the t's - take it one week at a time, and not get ahead of ourselves ...

Wow! That's insight? Yze has a contract for 2008 and is untradable. Godfrey has had his best year and will finish top 5 in the B&F.

I know Smithee, real men just pluck it outta their arse ... They're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. If they weren't consulting people with football experience we'd have 100 posts on here asking what do Gardner, Philips, Bickford and Harris know about footy. Yeah Walls is an idiot and Alves makes more sense, but Maclure (sp?) has a clue and I really like him as a choice. The sub-committee has got the testing (criticised elsewhere - big surprise), the advice and they are going weigh it up and make a decision. I'm fine with that. Posters here and at Demonology carry on as if we are consulting Steve Irwin via Doris Stokes and inspecting the applicants poo for a sign from the Lord.

I see some discussion about ruckmen. This thread is principally about development of forwards. I re-read your posts and don't see any specific mention of key forwards developed at other clubs who were available to MFC - maybe I missed it. It's very difficult to find KPFs, we're not alone there. I think we're well placed with Bate and Newton now. I'm very keen to hear about other club's success compared with ours in this area ...

We've failed relative to whom? Who are the key forwards that other clubs have developed who were available to us?

Which tall forward was Bizzell playing on?

That team already has 9 talls (altho Bate and Frawley are mobile) and 13 smalls (including Bruce), so it's a pretty tall line-up anyway. On that basis Dunn couldn't come in for Brown and Pickett shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with that selection, it has as much youth as you can go for, the only smalls not playing are Weetra and Neville AFAIK.

One interpretation is that Ratten is saying "I'm ready for the Carlton job" without actually stabbing his boss Denis in the back.

Could well be seeing: 2006: Frawley Petterd 2005: Jones, Buckley 2004: Bate, Dunn, Newton 2003: Sylvia, McLean, C.Johnson That's be good!

It'd be an interesting 2 hours if you lined up on Byron in his last game. I'm sure he'd want to go out on a high note as the perfect gentleman. But it would take a steady mind ...

Which one is the "Didak"? Or is that what both of them are called? I guess he couldn't let Chris Tarrant upstage him.

I think Tim Lane got it pretty well right http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/tenyear-...2624171113.html The right decision has been, at the right time. I understand what Neita feels but he would have been better off not expressing it on the radio.

Well said Bob. Neale has been very good for MFC and I have always supported him for exactly the reasons you articulate. Thanks Neale and all the best for the future!

I think Neale should coach his last MFC match on Friday - perfect job application for Sheedy's job! There's nothing particularly dignified about ND coaching the year out, he needed to make that offer when he resigned but we should come to an agreement and pay him out. He's done the right thing by the club (as always) giving us plenty of time to get our footy department structure and new coach right. Bomber Riley should take over for the rest of the year and someone on staff needs to coach the forwards in his place.

Perhaps you should run for the Board Sickto, speaking of smoke and mirrors - put up or shut up. I'm happy with their perfoirmance.

Unlike most, I think Caro generally makes sense, but she's off the mark here. She obviously doesn't read Demonland or Demonology.

That is correct. For example in 2001 Freo traded PP1 (and pick 20 + 36) to Hawthorn for Trent Croad and Luke McPharlin and Hawthorn selected Luke Hodge (and Sam Mitchell with 36 - ouch!!!).

It's completely understandable that you and Clint are unhappy with our poor execution of our new gameplan. I'm not too happy with our season either. But note that Geelong and West Coast have the lowest kick to handball ratio in the AFL at 1.2 and are placed 1 and 2 on the ladder. Geelong are 2nd in handballs per game and 12th in long kicks per game. Geelong have gone from 1.5 kicks per handball in 2006 to 1.2 in 2007. They've made a change in gameplan. We were never going to progress beyond the 4th-8th ceiling without making a change and I strongly support that. Just because we have been unable to get it right doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

A review is the right place to start the process, we need to benchmark exactly what we've got if we're going to get something better.

That's not the entire list of flag coaches, just a short list of coaches who have coached the most game. Roos, Worsfold, Williams, Joyce, Jewell, Jesaulenko, Nicholls, Coleman, Davis, Sutton, Hughson, Diggins, Bissett, Clymo, Chadwick, Rankin, Barker, Belcher/Elms, Howson, Holden, Clark, Parratt, Angus, Ricketts are all missing.

The real question is not comparing the angles but keeping the angle the same - how much further back do you have to go to clear the taller man on the mark. We're looking for distance not hang-time - 45 degrees would give good hangtime but I'm guessing the launch angle for distance is something more like 30 degrees - someone may have some real knowledge. 1/TAN of 30 degrees is 1.73, so for every cm taller the guy on the mark is, you've got to go back 1.73 cms. So 200cm compared with 185cm, you need to be back 26 cm further (maybe a bit more if the guy on the mark has longer arms and can jump higher). It's not a huge amount, but there are plenty of balls touched on the line or nearly on the line - see us vs Adelaide at Carrara last year and vs North this year. (I knew that trig stuff would be useful some day - hey I once even used simultaneous equations!)

That's complete rubbish - has never happened and I believe it never will. That's been one of Daniher's greatest strengths - always puts the club's interests ahead of his own.

Fair enough Champ - good research. My explanation for why he played "well" in that final at Subi is because the ground suits him, the fact that he didn't play well there before does not necessarily negate that - he may have been playing in the backline on Pavlich or just played poorly at CHF - not unusual for him. I'm happy for you to come up with an alternative explanation - one I don't buy is that it proves he can play CHF generally.