iv'a worn smith

Anecdotally, it would seem that even players are engaged in being "tedious broken records"

Well said Robbie57 and welcome aboard. No post/argument is perfect on this forum, but your motivation and thrust of your post is to be commended, not denigrated. Once again, well done.

How so??

I think you're confused with the Sydney Won Casey. Our Ron never spoke like that. I was there that night with the cheer squad. i remember, if the ball went up to the left hand pocket at the members stand end, you could not see the ball for the shadow in that pocket. By the today's standard, the Lake oval was a shocker, but I still loved going there.

Generally speaking, you cannot blame "external circumstances" on collision injuries, except in the case of Sylvia, who in my view was unfairly taken out. Hopefully the match review panel see it this way as well. However, it seems to me, that "unsuccessful" clubs - that is, in terms of on field results - always seem to get more than their fair share of serious injuries. It is like a downward spiral, where the more your on field performances wane, the more unlucky you seem to become with injury. Of course this can be put down to young bodies not being able to adjust to the speed and physicality of the game at the highest level and inexperience also contributes. But I still wonder, if confidence is low, does natural footy instinct diminish as a result? Do naturally gifted players begin to doubt themselves and therefore 2nd guess what they would otherwise do as a matter of instinct? With confidence at a low ebb, do players lose their sense of what is around them and lack confidence in teammates, so that a player in possession does not take the first option? Where a playing group does not have a winning mentality, do they forget how to make space and where they should run to? Does the team plan simply go out the window? If this has some credibility, then does such a "curse" become contagious within the entire playing group. If this does have any substance, then I wonder how it has come about, and what is being done about it. I am not presenting these scenarios as a matter of fact, I simply pose them as questions to ponder,

And possibly without Rioli, Burgoyne and Clinton Young. At the very least, there are very large question marks over their fitness.

The answer is no and my original position remains. Sound business decisions are based on measurable outcomes. By any measure, we're nowhere near it yet. If you simply want to rely on the "excuse" of a young list and inexperience, then look outside the club and see examples where having a red hot go is not confined to seasoned campaigners. If you don't subscribe to that, then you're welcome to your Magical Mystery Tour, but if we disagree with you, it does not mean we are any less connected or committed to the club. Quite the opposite actually.

Us and them And after all, we're only ordinary men. May as well shut the forum down then. Sheez, obviously we should just accept everything, sight, unseen.

HT, as for post #57, if that is the case then the club should just announce it and puts us all out of our "misery" and we can move on to some other "informed" discussion.

Why would we have to re-build? Are we suddenly going to find ourselves in a position where we have to jettison our recent draft picks? I don't think so. The proposition I and others are putting forward is to simply wait, measure the results and if there is incremental improvement then DB deserves the job. If not, we then embark on a search for the best available. Under that scenario, I fail to see why we would have to have another player clean out, other than those who will almost certainly go at years end anyway.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. We're simply asking for a "sound" business decision. .............And footy is a business nowadays, let's not forget that

Yeah, Ok Ok, we have the youngest list around - no other club has had to do it as tough as we have had to in recent times --------- no not at all. It wasn't all that long ago Thompson was being touted as the first coach sacked during a year, nor was it that long ago Clarkson had real problems with Kennett. Eddie Magoo refused to endorse Malthouse and said all positions in the football department will be reviewed at season's end. I hate to admit it, but Eddie made the right call then. Laidley jumped before he was pushed and the apprentice Scott came in and stamped his brand on the youngsters almost immediately. All I am I saying is, it is prudent to wait for any re-appointment (extension) and evaluation process, before locking into an arrangement that could also be very harmful to the overall welfare of the club. I can think of no other enterprise in life, where such a decision is made, before necessary performance measures can be taken. It simply makes good sense to wait.

Agreed.

Why are Mike Sheehan's comments out of order? Whether we agree with him or not, he is an "opinion" piece writer and within his profession, a respected one at that. Sheehan writes as he does because his opinion pieces usually generate debate and as a result, they sell the newspaper he works for. Hence this debate on this forum Apparently, according to some, those of us to have the temerity to question DB are seen as being "hysterical", yet Sheehan writes a piece that supports one school of thought on the forum, and suddenly conspiracy theories abound as to his motives. Guys, it works both ways. Again, I ask what I consider to be a reasonable question. If an extension is considered the appropriate thing to do for DB, how long should we give him - 1, 2, 3 or even 5 years? If the strategy implodes, can this club, in particular, cope with and afford the ensuing collateral damage? There is potential for some serious fall out if we go into any extension, without fully thinking it through. A mid season review, as with any club, is the best time to look at this and not before. It is imperative we adopt caution with this issue.

By any measure, it simply does not make any sense to renew any contract, until there is something to truly measure in terms of performance. We cannot possibly know the KPI's which DB is required to meet, but surely they cannot be limited to the extent that such a judgment can be made, with a 16% win record. Youth and lack of experience is a given. A sense of purpose, dedication and commitment from any playing group is a must. I have yet to see those things to a level which would serve to convince me that DB is the man for the long term. He may well be an astute developer of young men, but that on its own does not make him a good AFL coach. The jury is still out and it is reasonable to take as much time as it needs to make a final decision, before pre-empting any contract extension.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT!!!!!

So will I. Glorified Practice match? Tell that to the supporters of the clubs that won over the last 2 weeks. After the Kangaroos win, Daniel Pratt said this: "We've got a really young list so it's probably just more important to worry about what we're doing right now," Pratt said. "Brad has come in. He is new to the gig as well. It's been really exciting what we've seen so far, but I think a young team getting ahead ofthemselves is just looking for disaster. "We'll just worry about playing Freo this week and then we've got Port in Round 1 and we'll just keep working towards that." That's the difference between winning and losing a "glorified practice match" I suppose, but an interesting contrast nonetheless.

No the sky is not falling, but the earth isn't flat either.

No question about that, but if you want to "compete" in this cut throat and unforgiving market, you need to show more. Like I said, the longer we keep thinking we are somehow unique, the more likely we will fail. 2010 is not going to see us make finals, but I would contend we have a right to expect more than just platitudes.

Thanks HT, point taken, but I just feel we are using our youth as a crutch, when we should be forging forward. I think the tendency to see our situation as unique, gives rise to making excuses for sub-par performances. If the group's collective confidence continues to be shattered, the damage done has the potential to go right through the entire club.

Again, speculation as to who should coach this team is premature in the extreme. However and accepting our youth and inexperience, how long does anybody believe it to be acceptable to have a win/loss record of 18%? Another 2 years, maybe 3, why don't we say 5? Let's get real here.

It is patently obvious about the lack of experience and youth of our team, but we are not unique and we compete in the same market as the Kangaroos of this world, who gave their supporters a lot more to hang on to than our lot did. You might like to read my post in its entirety, rather than pick one phrase and assert that my argument is any leas valid.

It was the club's first real opportunity to give the membership drive a kick along with a convincing and committed performance. We did not see that last night. Supporters have a right to expect a better performance. Practice matches at Princes Park are not televised. Surely you accept there is a difference in the way such matches are marketed to the public.

I don't intend to make any comment about the coach or his staff. Only time will tell about that. However, it is well documented that we have been and continue to be severely financially challenged. There was, understandably, a lot of optimism over the summer, given the quality (supposedly – of course the jury isstill out there) of the young talent we have in stock. All the club's key off field personnel and the coach put a very positive spin on our chances of being more "competitive" on the field this year. But of course and as occurs with every club, we are continually told just how crucial our membership is to the overall, long term viability of the club. My membership is now into its 40th consecutive year and barring unforeseen circumstances, I intend to continue to maintain that unbroken allegiance for several more years yet. However, I have to say, I get a little tired of seeing very little in return for my membership, other than promises of an exciting future. For our first serious hit out for 2010, what I saw left me very disappointed. While I accept that we have a very young list, I would have hoped that there would have been a discernible and measurable improvement in the commitment of the playing group. Where does such commitment come from? I will leave others to judge that, but for a club that is at the lower end of the marketing and footy business spectrum, we had a real opportunity to give some real substance to the hyped expectations of an exciting future and provide a stimulus to our membership drive. From where I sit, there is nothing that I could take out of last night that would inspire. I wonder how a young person, considering whether to support the Dees or not and put their hard earned up for membership would feel, after witnessing what was evident last night. Sure, we are a young side, but there are others within the ranks of the AFL who have had to battle financial hardship, turnover lists and rally the troops. Based on what we have witnessed over the last 2 weeks of NAB cup games, other than Richmond, our performance was by far the worst. The time is over for excuses. I do not consider it possible to set the world on fire over night, but we as supporters and those on the fringe need to see more from this group of players. It is still early days, no doubt and that is self-evident, but we missed an opportunity last night and I can only ponder why we appeared so insipid. Unless we see some real steel put into this side, the current administration cannot be surprised, if we continue to languish in the increasingly competitive world – both on and off the field –that AFL Football has and will continue to be. I look forward to 2010, but the time has come to see real improvement and not just talk about it.

The Saints only won 5 games that year. The Brownlow voting history is full of aberrations.