timD

If he was going to play down back it will require a huge amount of specialist couaching and effort put into developing specific skills to complement his attitude. Not impossibe, but pretty hard Ithink. That said I reckon it is a worthwhile project.

My father was born in Adelaide and as a child barracked for Norwood (or Sturt - however has Melbourne socks). He came over to Victoria when he was eight years old and followed the team with the same socks (I think Norwood are the redlegs - anyway the point is that he followed the socks). Mum kinda liked the bumbers, but in a general way, not really interested. SHE decided that there would not be football rivalry between children, and Dad decided upon the team. My interest in footy really flaired when dad started taking us and we started winning (1987). THe beginning was the last game of 1986 though. A primary school friend took me to see the melbourne/nth game. From memory we pounded them. Signed, sealed, delivered. The perfect trinity: dad's enthusiam, mum's rule and a bloody good win.

Congrats to Jarka and Mrs. Jarka. I hope mum and baby are well. My first was born 6 weeks ago - I'm hoping to sign him up on Monday (wouldn't do it until we had a win!). Also, have you seen the infant merchandise section of the MFC site? Soem very very cute stuff is there indeed!

YM, are the club officials still talking to you when you wake up? I have something for that, just 'PM' me.

Jarka, I'll disagree about the 'contest winning' vs 'negating'. Maybe these two things are really just a matter of degrees from each other anyway. I'd argue that macca and godders are more negating; wheels and bartram appeared to me far more able to beat their opponents and hurt the oposition, rather than just break even though negation (though it is a bit of a big call re barts). However, I think our mids have been routinely exposed over the past 4 years (03-07). When the big man Hannabal was posting around, he consistently argued (from memory) that our greatest strength was our 'outside' mids. When they were on song, we tore teams apart. When they were pressured and not winning their own footy, we looked terrible. The rest of our team was break-even (backs) or dependent on supply (forwards). Until the hard mids issue was addressed, we were not goingto improve. Sylvia, mcclean, bell, moloney, bate, jones and maybe pettard have all been selected to fill that hole I think. Bartram was a speculative pic. So, sylvia hasn't worked as a midfielder to date, niether has bell. Moloney is chronically injured. Jones is a baby, McClean is regualrly injured and perhaps injury prone. You're right to see disaster in our midfield because it is there IMO.

I don't think I've expressed well what I meant. I said that I think those players are ball winners in contests. Are you saying that whelan doesn't win the ball when he contests for it- that Bartram doesn't? Sure both are defenders or run-with, but their abilty to compete and win 1vs1 is a huge asset that too may of the other mids don't have. I agree that our midfield is unable to hold its own under strong pressure consistently. Wouldn't that be due our contest winning players being out or few in number? So many of our midfielders (bruce, green, TJ, macca, godders) are o.k. with either tagging or ball use. Not so great with ball winning. So when those that can are out, we look poor - hell we can be terrible! Given Mcclean, moloney, bartram and wheels injuries and jones' age, I reckon that we can see why our 'mids' are regularly crunched.

Jarka, would you agree that Jones, wheels, mcclean and bartrum are all ball winners in contests and therefore allow the "skilled' players greater chance at time and space to use teh pill? If so, then the absense of said players means that those people not best at winning their won ball are under great pressure when they get it, IF they get it. WE don't have many other pure 'contest-winners'. Davey, maybe. Bruce, as long as its not a brute strength contest. Bell, as long as he's running straight. Sylvia if he is no focused only on tackling - and even then he frequently falls over.

RR, I agree about the questionable value of mid-season sackings. The footy dept has had a horrid year, and we need a calm, rationale and 'ruthless' process of decision making around coach and players. Heads rolling now does little but make a bad season worse.

I have thougt about this a bit. It is time to change coaches. I think that the only reason that holds for me is about 'mental state'. For years players have used the excuse that they have not turned up ready to play. I am sick of it, it is sad and really unprofessional. I have to turn up ready every day - I'm a psychologist and frequently people I see are suicidal. Do I get a chance to rock up only 80% ready? What would I say to a coroner, or a family member: "Whoops, look, I'm better than that but I just didn't get 'switched on'? We need someone who might be more able to galvanise a particular mental approach. Now, I am not saying that Danher is fully responsible - in my view it is largely the players job. However, that doesn't mean that the coach could not have a bigger effect - or a more affective effect. THe 'no plan b' myths, the 'no risks' myths, the 'no rucks' myths, are all garbage. IMHO the only reason to change coach would be to eek out that next 5% of playing capacity that we only see inconsistently. I think that Sheedy may be able to do what danners cannot. Now I feel ill.

Yze Magic you are serously deluded. Every week it is the same. Normally I just sip it, decide it just doesn't tase quite right and leave it alone. Today I'm getting a bucket full and treating myself to a heapin' helpin'. Bring on top four! P.s, when you're done with the antipsychotics, you can just slip me a little, yeah?

I agree Radar is a tool. I have stopped listening to SEN in the mornings purely because of him. I'd see him as an 'hysteric' - desparate for some sensationalism, flapping about in a apanic, but really very very shallow. Labaelling us as a 'disgrace' is funny, perhaps he's forgotten Carlton's record losses over the past three years under pagan? He can say nothing without using a 'hyped' tone and then says nothing with it. An empty vessel.

Lovely post Graz. I wrote something that picked up on one similar theme a while ago on demonology. That is, if the only thing you yearn for is a premiership, then somehow you get trapped and nothing satisfies. Those that want a flag or nothing will fail to enjoy the win against the saints last year, or that great win against the swans or geelong early on '06. Maybe they are missing teh pint about why you bother to supprt the football club.

I have sig. doubts about PJ. The only 'HOWEVER' is that he really hasn't had a sustained stint at AFL level to see whether he can get up to speed. REally his last game wa swans last year, so he may only have played like 4 games for the Dees at senior level. I reckon that it is too soon to write him off...yet.

I'm not going to really go into the effectiveness because it would take too long, and other posts have delt with it. Now, I'm not averse to responsibility being located with more than just the players. However, I find it hard to say that the attitidue demonstrated is neale's fault. I work as a psychologist. I can work with lots of people but there are some for whom I am not the right guy, and there is nothnig about it I can change. There are others for whom there is never the right professional. There are some who say the rigth things for ever and then never put into place what you tell them will work. Some people see you and then perversly ignore what you say (and pay you for the privilege). Some do wel whatever I say and sometimes the mix is perfect. It is always my job to get the message right. It is their job to implement. Engagment is a shared responsibility. So, with footy, it is Danner's job to be on message, and it is the player's job to implement. We should question the plan/message, but it is hard to see it when we played the way we did - is it poor plan, poor players or a combo? How do you tell? I'd argue that the ony thing that is easy to measure is attitude. And you can see it in many ways and ours sucks consistently. THat is the player's responsibility solely (IMO).

THe annoying thing about Brock's comments is that he had stuff-all effect on the game, got injured and now is talking up what we should have done - he is doing exactly what he said we shouldn't do. Neale is right - it is up to the players to show some bloody willingness to do things well. I have been amazed that Danners is being criticised for last week. Do the people that read and type here really think that he instructed players to be gutless and incompetent? Do you think he said "Don't play like last year, run around in circles, panic and be inflexible with your approach..." Really... He has been the same for some time - trying to encourage players to take charge of the game and understand HOW to do so. The problem is that those that could (Miller, Green, Bruce, Macca, TJ) had awful, weak or ineffective games. No, let's blame danners for poor efforts at the footy, failures in leadership etc.

Guys, be careful about the link between mental illness and drug use - it is very complex, not well understood and very hard to research well (hard thing to do random controlled trials with illicit substances on large numbers of young people and then wait to see if they develop a mental illness - but perhaps that is a good thing). Always good that someone talks about it - I have too many young people that i treat that will not talk about anything or confront their problems. A signficant aspect of that is stigma and fear. Maybe Hay's appearance (I did not see it) will start to help that? Who knows.

Thanks again for the considered response Dappa. I think that we are seeing the same variables but weighting them slightly differently. After doing that a bunch of times we get our various positions. We probably don't actually disagree by much on much. For what it is worth, I think that Green is the more deserving candidate at the moment. That may well change in two-three years from now. And I do not see that captaincy something to be daring with - hard-nosed, pragmatic and successful, yes. Daring - why?

Dear Dappa, thanks for teh considered response. I'm timD from demonology...if that's who you mean. I want to state just a few points. Age is a major consideration. There are two things to consider. first, maturity relates to age. Second we cannot judge his maturity. Third (i missed a point) i do not care how mature a 21 year old is - it is very hard to have someone of that age tell a 26 year-old to do anything. The age represents a limiting factor on maturity and particularly authority. It also represents a limit on learning how to be good when things are hard. Does Brock know how to stand up to BIg media and corporate attention (as he will be required to as captain) at 21? Will it impact on his footy. Need we risk that? "Just because he's been fairly regularly injured doesn't mean he shouldn't do the job." - umm, yes it does. Tell me, how to hamil go as captain when injured. Howe did the saints go? What about when hayes got injured as captain, or ball, or reiwoltd? It had a pretty clear impact on their team - in fact it still does. On that note, what does the St. Kilda experience of young captains tell you about whether it is a good idea? "Also your last point about "form that is far from consistant." I'm stunned at this. His form has been pretty darn good as far as I can tell. " It has been at times. There are also times where he has really struggled. The comparison with Judd is flattering. Judd has had a marked impact on games when heavily tagged. Brock has NEVER had to deal with this, and NEVER influenced games like Judd has. He may well in the future, but I doubt it. Lets compare like with like. "...he has won a number of matches off his own boot, including a final." Name another match he has won off his own boot. "Look, there's no question it's early for him to be captain. But that shouldn't necessarily be SUCH a big deterrent. " WHAT? - you'll risk increasing his profile, increasing his pressure, increasing his off-field committements and hope that he can carry the inside mid-role and not get injured (like he has every year) and do o.k., at his age AND hope that the added responsibility won't influence him negatively? I see a lot of potential downside and NO upside at all. " In my view, Brock is exceptional enough to be skipper now. " Based on what? One good final. A few excellent games...a good attitude over three years...that's all it takes? My argument can be condensed: The probabilty of Brock being too young is high now. We gain nothing from him being captain in 12-24 months. Let him earn it over the next three years. At 25, with 8 years of footy left, than he'll have a much better chance at being the captain we need. My prediction: Brock will be consistently injured throughout the year; by mid 2008 there will be many posters campainging for Nathan Jones to be captain, with all the same arguments Dappa...just you watch.

This argument is garbage. Of course age is an issue - it bloody well should be. I'll say this once more for the cheap seats: (a) Captaincy is earned - Brock hasn't earned it; (B) It is not the best thing for his footy - getting out in more than 70 % of the games is more important; © His form - and let's fact it, Brock has not BOG'd more than a few times a year - his form is not that great that often. (d) there is more to captain than good form - do we really want to risk compromising form that is far from constant to promote support hero-worship? Others have earned a right to get the nod before Brock. Let's see if he can string more than one good season together in a row. People on this site grossly over-rate what he's done. It makes me sick you're so desparate and used to mediocrity. He's got to earn it for god's sake - otherwise the captaincy is a popularity contest and you debased it horribly. AT 20 or 21 he would have to be exceptional to have done so - in my mind he is a long way from captain.

I agree with the assessment re: benefits of meditation for concentration. There may be a two-fold action - it decreases the impact of irrelevant thoughts/emotions and increases 'deliberateness'. That is turn may increase goal-kicking accuracy. Importantly, it may also help increase general awareness and help ward off the tunnel vision phenomena common when overly focused or anxious/aroused. This mightily depends on the type of meditation used - mindfulness meditatioh may produce this outcome in my opinion. Needs decent research though.

Rhino's just being provocative. The point about 'justified' responses is nonesence. I wonder what he'd think if a melbourne player didn't become physical after being shoved around. No doubt he'd be the first whinging about weak players. I've watched a few series, and my opinion in that the Irish are snipers and whingers. THey initiate a lot of cheap stuff, and then run away or dive when the Australians retaliate. It's like they want to initiate a low level of conflict and then the Asutralians just go straight to the hard stuff. That leacvs the irish with nothing to do but whinge, since they have n't got the size to go toe-to-toe. Tell you what, we'll make it no-contact (or whatever the gaelic rules are), but we play with our oval ball. God's we;d never hear the end of the complaining.