Choko

Yeh, I could wear dropping them both. I would still drop Newton first. I think Bate potentially offers more.

Very frustrating mate. Medhurst was more physically and mentally prepared than Blair. O'Bree was more physically and mentally prepared than Beams Presti was more physcially and mentally prepared than Goldsack. You're measuring nothing.

Yes. Richmond is meant to be better than us. Accomplished means the same as physically and mentally advanced. There. I get it now.

I'm more developed, physically and mentally. So what? Spider Burton was a bigger ruckman than Jeff White. So what? Tapscott is more physically developed than Chris Judd.... So what? And it's interesteing that you have changed from use of the word "accomplished" to physically and mentally advanced. Back up the bulltish truck mate.

I did leave out that I would either replace Davey with a first gamer, or make him sub. I think Davey has earned the right to attempt to redeem himself on the Friday night stage. But as a sub.

Oh come on. Nahas was looking like a one trick pony before Hardwick demanded improvement and for him to get more strings to his bow. White, Graham, Derrickx, Morton, Thursfield and McGuane wouldn't get a game at 12-14 clubs. They picked up Miller. I wouldn't be swapping with Richmond, but the notion that they are advanced of us is simply revisionist carp.

Anyone who doesn't drop Newton is not fair dinkum. There is zero justification for him wearing a Melbourne jumper ever again, even if the jumpers are pink! Out: Newton, Tapscott In: Morton, Wonna

The comment that I was responding to was that we brought more youth in to play St Kilda. In fact we didn't - we brought more dead wood experience in for the game, plus Evans. We brought in too many forwards that can't/won't defend. We also totally mucked up the sub. The youth discussion is overplayed anyway. Collingwood improved dramatically when it gave up on a whole lot of experience and replaced it with youth. Medhurst, O'Bree, etc... out for Blair, etc... And as for injuries, Freo have performed far better under adversity this year than we have, even in relative terms. So you can see it both ways.

Mate, useful to get your facts right! Newton isn't more youth. Bate isn't more youth. MacDonald isn't more youth. Rivers isn't more youth. Neither is Warnock. We probably had our oldest side out there that we have had for a very long time. We weren't held back on the weekend by our youth. We were held back by injuries, lack of depth, poor leadership and some senior blokes who have been retained but cannot deliver and are not part of our future. I don't blame Bailey for the injuries. I don't entirely hold him to blame for the other factors, partly because he inherited a lot of them. But the fact of the matter is, we should expect more than a 50 point loss to North and 20 point loss to St Kilda. They are both no good. Not convincingly beaten is hardly an endorsement... other than for the ignorant.

I am absolutely positive we will beat the Bombers. They are massive pretenders and will not make the 8. There, said it.

I wasn't disappointed with the endeavour in the Saints game, but let me tell you, we should be ahead on metrics, they are woeful and passionless ATM. I thought that the elevation and selection of Newton, not just his performance, was disgraceful. Look at the elevation of Evans - there has to be another rookie out there that is better than a known failure. Also, Jurrah, Petterd and Bate have not really worked on their defensive side, and have not been asked to in the sense that Jurrah in particular gets away with it and gets selected week on week. You can't get away with that in the 18 man press any more. I also thought the selection of Bate as sub was plain lunacy and was rightly roundly criticised pre-game by many. How do you beat the saints? Run and spread. Speed. If we were going to play Bate, who is a touch player, surely the plan should have been that we should have started him on and subbed off one of our tall forwards at some stage for a runner. Positives were the continued improvement of Martin, Gysberts' game and McKenzie getting a run.

Which bit?

Well, that's partially true. But we haven't seen any desperation, change of tactics to account for the lost players, etc... The improvements haven't been as great as they might have been. So in a sense, Bailey may well be unlucky, but you do make your own luck in this game.

Spot on. I reckon this is what will and should happen.

I have to say, I thought it was a fair article. It said that 75 games in as coach, we still don't know if Bailey can coach, and in Ralph's view, Bailey had better prove it or he will likely be gone. I think that's all correct.

LOL. It's Juice, Michael and Oxygen Thief Newton

Good games, bad games are one thing, but the contest he squibbed on the half forward flank was as bad as it gets. I'm sorry, but a first gamer gets excused. A vice captain? Bye bye to Casey. No other choice. If we don't, we're not fair dinkum.

I think this is unhelpful. We have a captain. It's not an open position. Support your captain.... as you would want him to support his players and be supported by his coaches.

That would make a lot of sense actually!!!

Just to help you out, the reason you are copping a basting is that you are saying you don't know what culture is, but then saying you don't believe in it.

You know that do you? You know that the medical staff has exacerbated the injury? Can I have an appointment, doctor?

I don't think you can point to the decision to force the retirement as culture - that was just a poor decision IMO. The culture aspect is two fold. One, some cultures will back their captain to make a decision in everyone's interests without intervention. And two, the lack of/poor communication with Junior and resulting bad blood is indicative of what we could generously term an evolving culture.

Hawthorn is probably a better example than Collingwood for the reasons you say, but there is of course more to success than simply culture. Resources, luck, injury management, list management, etc.... all are major factors. You can keep chipping away at culture, and I think the admin has been doing that for quite a few years. A few examples that come to mind are engagement with supporter groups, re-integration with MCC, Casey community based work, some key appointments (CC is a great example), etc... But yes, we have a way to go. If you need any more example that we are not there yet, look at the way we treated James McDonald. That was human error underpinned by cultural issues.

It took Collingwood, with and despite all its resources, the better part of 10 years to re-build its culture into a winning culture.

Culture is a reason or an excuse, depending on how it's being used and whether it's being abused. It's no more of a copout than injuries or youth. The fact of the matter is, as Laidley said about GWS, culture is defined and is very hard to re-define. What WA is missing is that we all agree that if culture was as simple as a good, no, inspirational, president, we would have remedied it. Having Stynes at the helm is not proof that we have a good culture, it's proof that a sub-par culture is hard to fix... Culture has to do with our roots, our legacy, our size, our decision making frameworks, our tolerance of mediocrity, the number of our supporters who are prepared to purchase memberships and attend games, etc... Does anyone think that, for example, Melbourne and Carlton would look at the same problem the same way and solve it in an identical fashion? I don't think so. And despite WA's ridiculous comments about Dunstall and Brereton's vested interests in our failure, they would actually be in a fantastic position to talk about culture, because the HFC has a brilliant winning culture and a premiership record over the past 50 years of which we should be jealous.