Choko

How about a thief, public drunk or a single assault? Or a drug addict? Or a litterer? Where's the line? The point is, it's not for us, or the AFL, to be moral arbiters. And we are not proud of players in the HOF because of their off-field conduct anyway. We are proud of them for the on-field prowess. My point about Carey is that we talk about his criminal activity and draw a nexus between that and the HOF, but not his actions that actually devastated a football club. Hypocritical methinks.

I disagree totally with this thinking. It's illogical. The criminal law and justice system is there to deal with criminal matters. The Hall of Fame is there to deal with accomplishments on the footy field. Nothing more, nothing less. If we start moralising, where does it end? To put it in the alternative, if we don't let in someone we disagree with morally, do we therefore view the Hall fo Fame as having representing moral footballers? That's great! And gee we are quick as a society to point to people without looking in our own backyard and thinking about the way we actually act when confronted with similar situations in our own life (not referring to you specifically of course). Arguably, if Wayne Carey is omitted, it should be because of his off-field horizontal activity, given that that activity was football related and devastated his club.

I don't think people are saying his first game was bad. I for one don't think it was at all. In fact I think his senior games were promising and I would give them a tick mark. Separately, I think it is fair to say that the MFC threw Watts to the sharks. He did well in the circumstances, but he was used as a marketing tool, he was over-hyped (so could only fail expectations, which is one of the reasons why we read so much crap on here from ignorant people) and set up to fail. other than the Collingwood game and perhaps all his senior games last year, I think the club has handled him really well and continues to do so.

Well assuming Gotchy knows his stuff, it is indeed a bit concerning that effort is the main thing to keep working on. I never understand a lack of effort. I know every club has some blokes for whom effort is not even a factor (James McDonald, Cam Bruce are great eg.s for us), and every side has blockes who have suspect work ethics. I just don't understand it. If Watts is in the category of those who have suspect work ethic, then it is a concern he was picked up at 1. On the positive side, it is something that can be fixed and there are many examples of it.

Yep, beautifully said ralphy.

Yawn.

Let's put it this way. Your contention is that Grimes was constantly acting against instructions. That he was explicitly told to do something else yet looked, just this week, to defy team rules. If that's the case, then what would he be dropped to Casey for? Discipline? If, as you suggest in contradiction to yourself, he should be dropped to Casey to learn how to implement the game plan, how is that exactly going to happen at Casey? We have a lot of problems to solve at the MFC. Jack Grimes is not one of them.

Ha!!! How did Bruce skip this one? not to mention Darren Kowal...

No, he's right. Clueless. Both Bartram and Bruce. Clueless

One week is "his chance" is it? Even Juice got more than one week.

I disagree about Warnock. I thought he was poor. Petterd: Always playing behind Dunn: Too many errors

No they won't be, because people see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe, irrespective of reality. In terms of our team performance today, it was Cam Bruce...... daylight.....

Bailey was smashed in the box this week. North worked out not only that we run, but also that we like running through the middle and that we get our goals by running onto balls over our head. He covered them both. Bailey also selected extremely poorly by bringing in Rivers instead of an on-baller. We should have backed Garlan, Rivers, Warnock (who had a shocker!). The other thing was, he took was too long to put Sylvia in the middle - should have happened in the 2nd.

Fool. Seriously, if you have a brain cell, it's lonely.

Amen.

Yeh, I think the mailing list is pretty inconsequential in this case. We have the best coverage and conversion for our supporter base of all clubs in the AFL. We just don't have the sheer numbers of supporters. The main purposes of a 3 game or 1 game membership are to generate interest in strategic games (whether because they are marquee or low crowd drawing) and mainly to inflate the number of members you have. Higher membership numbers gives more "influence" at AFL headquarters, more sponsorship bucks and more likelihood of better TV allotment, etc.... Also, having supporters as members gives the opportunity to positively influence and up-sell.

Wins will be most important from 2012. But wins this year are important, because we only stand to gain from wins unlike previous years. Also, in a really even year such as this, if you take your chances, you never know your luck. Sneaking into the 8, though unlikely, would assist our players and the club in their development massively. And it's on like donkey kong in 2011 IMO. In 2011, Geelong and the dogs may be past it, St. Kilda and Collingwood still in the window, maybe Freo, but who else? Brisbane and Sydney thereabouts. Maybe Hawks. But it will IMO open right up. And as for Brad Scott's comments - fair enough. Yes they have had some picks too, and he would probably argue that they should be performing as well! But if it generates interest and rivalry, all the better. As for fattyhead stadium, I agree it's a crap TV studio with 0 atmosphere, but my definition of a really crap ground is the one Melbourne isn't playing at! Get there!

Believe me, it was a publicity stunt. Oh, and I have never called for Bailey's head.

So long as it's not my house, that's fine. Maybe Fev would like to go halves?

Agreed - I thought most contests Stef was involved in he did something encouraging. He needs to have more impact on more contests though.

Ok, I'll play. "It's about time Bruce and Bate played that way". Bruce has been one of our most consistent performers for, oh, a decade. Bate is coming back from an interrupted pre-season. He is a touch player, and is improving as he re-gains fitness each week. He also finished top 5 in the Bluey last year. So about time is simply wrong. Why would Bails have had a stern chat with them? Bruce has been given jobs to do in defence, and he has done them. Which one did he fail in to get a "stern chat"? Bate has been tracking exactly as expected. So again, on what do you base your assertion. You will continue to w[h]ine and moan - well, that bit's true. It's just that it's unjustified. But the main reason I said you have no idea is because this thread was to congratulate, and you managed to bag.

Tho it is nice to get good press, this article is a crock of dust. We played the corridor because Brisbane let us play the corridor. Yes, we wanted to play the corridor, but Brisbane refused to play accountable football through the corridor. Based on one week, we are the next Geelong? Basically, the truth us we have stockpiled enormous talent, and we are at the stage where that talent will start to show. No-one knows where confidence and momentum can take us, but when we get belted, which will happen, will we still be compared with Geelong?

Yeh Roos are more impressive tonight than I thought they would be. They are inconsistent, and I'm hoping they will have to ork extremely hard into the breeze in the final quarter Roos are getting crucified by the umps.

You've got no idea mate.