Choko

You have very vividly explained what happened against WCE AFTER THE EVENT. Why don't you put your kahoonas on the line mate and tell us what will happen on Sunday - without the aid of the retrospectoscope. Let's see if you're right.

I agree re Roos - I am getting a strange sense about him too just from his frequent comments on us and the knowledge of our list and his body language.

I think Daniher was protective of his players and very much backed those he liked and shunned those he didn't like. His gameplan was to back his players to take the game on, which in late 90s and probably the first half of the 2000's was valid, though not particularly sophisticated. Bailey is really more a teacher and developer, with a clear mandate from the club to do that. He gives very little away, so you rarely get insights from him on what he is actually thinking. Certainly some (I can't say all) players are quite intimidated of him.

It's a myth that Danners and Bailey are "nice guys". They may be nice people, but they are both strong personalities, let me tell you. Anyone who dealt with or was exposed to Daniher in particular and saw how he coached and managed the MFC knows that all too well!

Honestly, I cannot believe the stupidity of some posters. I went looking for a Bradbury flag. I couldn't find it. You know why? There is no such thing. It's absolutely ridiculous that MFC supporters can discount any coach who wins his team a flag. No-one fell over for Hawthorn to win the flag, they evolved a game plan (albeit an ugly one) that could beat a brilliant side on its day. They played to their strengths, and more went right for them in 2008 than has gone right for us in almost 50 years.

Agreed. I would be interested in how everyone reads this, but this to me is a very worrying sign about where we think we are at. A president's role is non-operational, and that's for very good reasons. Don't get me wrong, because it's Jimmy, I have every faith that he will succeed in whatever he is trying to do, but it is a massive slap in the face of the footy department, and maybe even the MFC management generally. I think CC would have to be on his way out. There must be some punches in the consultant's report about the structure and personnel of our FD. I really think the past 6 months there have been some really worrying off-field signs.

I did realise some were going to find reading between the lines so hard. that's why I gave the translation for first graders. It seems that too will not suffice. Honestly people, GET A LIFE. Firstly, it's absolutely obvious what's being said - just being said nicely. Secondly, it is absolutely inappropriate for an employer to slag off its employees so you can get off on feeling connected. Finally, it is a good initiative by the club to give us a cursory appraisal of all players.

I thought it was a good report. As said, it is inappropriate to bake players on the website. However, you could read between the lines, so I have done so! Rohan Bail: Injured, learning, smashed Clint Bartram: Honest Jamie Bennell: Jamie’s in the team to tackle and chase and he isn't. No impact on the game. Aaron Davey: Not working hard. Lynden Dunn: Played role. James Frawley: One more week of his current output and he will be dropped. Colin Garland: Col was probably our best player against West Coast. He played in front and provided some great rebound off half-back. Brad Green: Enough runs on the board to be patient. Jack Grimes: Jack had a solid game. Jordan Gysberts: Bad game. Not into body contact and needs to be more involved and more fluent. Mark Jamar: Workhorse. Nathan Jones: Starting to pay attention to team imperatives. Liam Jurrah: No work rate. Stef Martin: Too tentative. Brent Moloney: Bad game. Cale Morton: Bad form, not working defensively. (Will be dropped is how I read that, for sure). Jared Rivers: Jared was solid, without being outstanding. Colin Sylvia: Inconsistent and butchers the ball too often. Luke Tapscott: Luke was solid. Jack Trengove: Jack was good. Jack Watts: Jack took a big step forward. Austin Wonaeamirri: Unfit and lazy.

There were 16K at Etihad for Nth last week. There were only 33K at the Essendon game. Ours is on Mother's Day, so all in all 25K + would be a good result IMO.

Yeh. Go at Gysberts. You're a big man! By the way, Bailey or not, the list is the list. The way you are talking we should be "great" already. So if you think the only thing between us and immediate success is Bailey, you are going to have a few more of these rants yet!

I never said the Board. Administrators are not the Board. I am not critical of the Board. You are drawing a long bow re CC and Todd Viney. They are career footy people. CC was more involved at Freo than at Melbourne. The fact that he is currently employed at melbourne does not mean any more about his competence or passion for the MFC than an employee who has had no history at the MFC. And I don't think that it's as simple as you saying that supporters are hitting the club at a low point. I think those same supporters, in general, have been very patient and loyal for a long, long time. Everyone has their point where they feel their emotional investment is far outweighing the club's.

Easy to say. The fact of the matter is that supporters are exactly that, and administrators are administrators. They come and go, and supporters don't. We would expect administrators to be dictated by process, and supporters by passion. There's hardly anything wrong with that. There are some footy clubs where the culture amongst the grassroots and the influential supporters drives the standards, impatience, etc... of the Board and administration. Ours clearly isn't one of them! Yes, there are disadvantages to having an impatient/feral and influential supporter group (refer Richmond), but there are also advantages. Being down is one thing, but I don't know how well you expect supporters to take the (admitted) lack of effort from a team that has no right to put in such a low effort. I, for one, will not put my name publicly to a facebook campaign, because I think it's the wrong way to go. But hey, I don't mind that Bailey has external heat on his job, and let's face it, stunts like the facebook one assist in that heat being generated. But on the other hand, I am choosing not to spend money on a club event tomorrow night because I am so p*ssed off by the lack of heart that I don't think now is an appropriate time to prioritise spending my money on the club. Maybe I am doing the club more damage than the "lynch mob" you refer to.

It's funny cos it's true.

Mate, there are lots of things we all would RATHER be doing than watching MFC lately. On Thursday night, I would RATHER have been: - Sleeping - An Essendon supporter - Root canal - Getting repeatedly stabbed with a blunt object. Instead, I watched the West Coast game! And, I will do it again on Sunday at the G! As should you (after a lovely breakfast or lunch with your Mum)!

I agree on one hand with the suggestion that you play the same 22 to throw the gauntlet out to them. However, the reality is that there are members of that 22 who don't deserve their spots, and I don't think they should have spots they don't deserve. In: Bate, MacDonald (If Tappy suspended), Warnock Out: Bennell, Tapscott (if suspended), Dunn Green has so many runs on the board that he must be allowed to work through his form slump. He should spend more time in the middle just trying to regain touch. Agree with the suggestion to make Davey a sub - I think that's a really good mix between giving him a sting and an opportunity. I think we have to persevere with Morton for the moment, and I think he will continue to improve.

You do that. You're very important right now.

Oh come on. You have obviously never worked in an organisation. It is entirely appropriate for the club to work on a template response to members' emails, at least as an initial response. If, in the fullness of time, a member's email deserves a specific response, then that should happen too. The inference that a template response is inappropriate is naive at best.

Ha! Amen.

I like strawman - learn something every day. You don't want to know what I learnt yesterday! But seriously, the strawman is the relevance of the issue as to whether we are a top 8 side. That issue is utterly irrelevant to our performance last night. What I am saying is that we were better than that last year, and we would all presumably expect to be improving. So by "tempering" expectations and saying we are not a top 8 side, it's as if that is a justification or explanation for why we would dish up such a pile of turd last night.

Agree - the arguments being made here cannot be sustained because no-one can convince me we were meant to go backwards this year. We may not, still, of course. Especially because of our favourable draw. At this stage, we have gone backwards. The main reasons are: 1. Lack of improvement in individual players (as I have set out above) 2. Lack of modern game plan

Yeh - where was it more realistic for the Bombers to finish? The Eagles? Honestly, there is no point pretending like this was part of the plan. It wasn't. It isn't. We were disgusting last night. We should not have been disgusting last night. End of story.

Well done on a good post. BUT... you have contradicted yourself. You mention the teams we will not be in a position to knock out of the 8. That is conveniently putting the facts to fit your story. If Essendon was losing games, you could say the same about them. Instead, you lament how Essendon has now gone past us and is now going to knock one of the very sides we cannot knock off from the 8. How does that work? You are jealous of Richmond. They are theoretically behind us after the Wallet era. You say that we would be hard pressed to knock WCE off in a race for the 8. They were 2010 wooden spooners. They have apparently also gone past us. How does that happen? The sad reality is, we have gone backwards. That's the problem. Our players are not developing as they should, and too many of our senior blokes have not had the acid put on their weaknesses. Who has improved under Bailey this year? Martin, Tapscott (although probably natural evolution). Who has stagnated/same weaknesses? Jones, Jetta, Bennell, Dunn, Bate, Grimes, Jurrah, Maric. Who has gone backwards? Green, Davey, Sylvia, Morton.

Agree, except Bennell now has an opportunity to give us run on the big ground for 4 quarters. I think it's perform or get dropped for him this week. He needs to win the ball and put on defensive pressure in the forward line.

I would add a heavy body to the forward line too. If the best he can do is provide a decoy, I would take Petterd first any time.

Surely Dunn should have made way for Petterd. Who are we kidding with Maric? I have to say, on the other side of the coin, WCE's backline is very unimpressive, as is their centreline. Kerr is also not the player he was. We should really win this.