Nasher

6. Hercules Watts - and thank godfor him. 5. Tyson 4. McDonald O 3. Vanders 2. Frost 1. Stretch

I refuse to look. Even I felt like having a big old sook about everything today, so I hate to think how the match day thread regulars went.

Nah - was worse than that today. Worst game in the red and blue by far. Hardly touched it and wasted it so many times.

Four points. Watts. *MEMORY ERASED*

Vanders redeemed himself late in the Q after a putrid start to the game. This is why coaches pick good players, even if they're out of form. You never know when they'll suddenly click.

That last 5 minutes of cohesion was very welcome after what has to be one of the worst halves of football I've seen all year. It's definitely been a race to the bottom so far. Brayshaw and Petracca looking in really good nick. Hopefully after this game I can update my avatar with a pic with both of them in footy jumpers, finally.

Got a spring in my step, tempered by that slightly nervous feeling in the pit of my stomach that only a Melbourne supporter would have when looking at this game on paper. No excuses for not smashing this rabble today. Contested possession is our strength and they don't have a midfield. Get the job done boys.

Haha, mate, did you think I was WYL or something? I didn't need you to explain to me that you weren't suggesting Michie is an unrequited star - I know things aren't black and white. I doubt our views on Michie as a player are very far apart at all. I just think if I were selecting the side and it was my ass on the line, I'd have a hard time selecting a player I didn't rate over a player I did. Good players are always allowed time to find their form in the firsts if the coaches think the upside justifies the risk. It's easy to argue when it's a player like vandenBerg who seems to be getting the armchair ride, but what if it was, say, Viney who had had a horror stretch of 5 games? I think you'd agree that it'd ridiculous to drop Viney and select Michie instead - this obviously hurts the team in the long run. Where each player fits in on that spectrum (refer Roos "margin for error" comments) becomes very subjective of course, and we could argue about that endlessly.

Yep. Considering that early last season he was overweight and barely on the draft radar, and lost the weight by basically stopping eating - it's understandable that he's well behind the pace in the fitness stakes. This is where Misson will really earn his pay over the next few years. Oliver is probably the most exciting prospect on the list, with some strong competition. Waiting for him to get to AFL standard conditioning is going to be like counting down Christmas from February when you're 5. Please let him come back near it in season 2017! If he gets injured this pre-season, I am in danger of actual tears.

Yep - as I said in a previous thread, there won't be a lot of time in between him sitting down with Goodwin who will say "thanks for trying, good luck after footy" and winning the Casey B&F, which he should do by the sounds. I know you (and others such as P-Man) believe he's been hard done by; I just think he's an unfortunate victim of the harsh reality of professional sport: if those behind the steering wheel don't believe in you, you won't get a lot chance to prove them wrong, and failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are only 22 places in the team and they're always going to pick the team they think is best, that's their job at the end of the day. Either way, there's not much justice in the world for players like Michie. Best of luck to him. Edit: and for what it's worth, he's got some pretty good company in that boat with two former MFC captains.

It's rhetoric that the so many supporters live by, that senior coaches haven't lived by in years. Seconds form is but one input in to selection; the coaches don't just put a list from best to worst VFL form and select from the top down. Neil Craig shattered the illusion of "rewarding seconds form" when James Magner had a 50 touch VFL game, was already a promoted rookie, and still wasn't picked. Roos made a comment about Grimes saying he had "no margin for error" - that says to me they won't pick Grimes unless he is at absolute 100% form and fitness. Obviously he feels vB has a much greater margin for error. The coaches pick what they think is the strongest side - if they feel an underdone and in poor form vB is more likely to contribute to the team than Grimes or whoever, I'll just have to take their word for it. They are far more qualified to judge and it's their backsides on the line, not mine.

It says "we think he is a better player than you". Harsh reality of professional sport: some players are better than others, and selection will sometimes be accordingly biased.

Key forward, with underdeveloped body, tires as season goes on. Everyone panic!

Reminds me of the conversation Cam Pedersen apparently had with Todd Viney after the first year of his three year contract, where the intimation was that his contract wouldn't save him if his second year looked like his first.

So hard to fathom why you'd do that (edit: bite someone, not call your son Myke, though that is hard to fathom too). Definitely deserves the book thrown - not cool. Haven't seen Oliver that angry before. Not much hint of the laughing kid from the country. Reckon he'll be a pretty scary unit when he has shed the baby face.

Heh, that was the first thing I thought too. Epic logic jump.

Which are the hardest ones and most important ones to get right though, surely. Those picks are where recruiters really earn their coin I would have thought.

I hadn't seen that before and it made me shudder. Concussion just gives me chills in general - I suffered a severe one when I was young (8 or 9?) and the feeling of complete confusion about everything that was happening around me was terrifying. I get reminded of it every time I see things like that. I accept that some will see it as being a bit touchy (and I couldn't GAF), but I agree that there isn't much funny about it and jokes about it are in poor taste.

I think diabolically stupid is harsh (yes I know, good for me etc) - but the fact that Watts is now playing in the ruck is indicative of why it was well worth a shot. I think there's no doubt that if it had succeeded we'd be far better off; a capable forward/ruck is more valuable than a key defender; the upside made the risk worthwhile to me. I agree the idea should probably have been abandoned sooner, though.

Same. I also used to think of Sandy as a separate club who we were in a mutually beneficial alignment with, therefore assisting their success should be one of our goals. For whatever reason, my view of the Casey alignment has evolved past that. They're our vehicle and nothing more. Their coach is an MFC employee, with a clear mandate to develop our seconds players. They play our game plan. They're marginal financially and probably don't have much future without the MFC. So in answer to the question: do whatever is best for the MFC. I think just from a being supportive of players point of view I'd let the players who have been playing there all year and who clearly won't be at the club next year (Grimes, Terlich, Newton, Michie, Trengove? etc) compete in the finals, but for the rest I'd treat it on a case by case basis. Certainly I'd expect the younger players such as Oliver to be put on ice. All that said, it would be nice to see Casey round out a solid year with a strong finals campaign, but it's secondary to me and I don't care if it doesn't happen.

Of all the things that have happened, *this* is the thing that makes you angry? It's ancient history. Let it go.

Being able to understand opposing sides of an argument is a strength of mine, but this view is incomprehensible to me. Production of the "Goodwin era" is precisely what Paul Roos was for. The development and coaching systems and playing list in place for Goodwin to inherit were put in place by Roos, with staff hand picked by Roos, including Goodwin himself. I can't see any logic in taking credit away from Roos for this.

I know, we don't *yet*, and it gives us all greys. The question is though, are we on the right track, do you think?

At the end of the day, when you have two teams desperately wanting to win, only one of them can. You'd think that if both teams went in at 100%, the better and more experienced team will win. Hence... You're right on all points below, it's obvious that we need to improve. I think the majority of improvement will come from within the list though. I know as Melbourne supporters we're well aware of the follies of a "she'll all come good when our young players play more games mate" attitude though, which is why there's always room for good players from other clubs to help us improve quicker - this is what the Melksham, Lumumba, Vince, Garletts of the world were for in the past and why we're all over Hibberd this year.

West Coast, the team 3 games and percentage clear from us, and at the opposite end of the experience spectrum, and at home, also were required to dig deep and find a way to win. Working out how to win is great, but in this instance the opposition were doing the same, in a situation where they have a clear advantage (age, experience, location). You seem to ignore the fact that there is also opposition out there. And I tell you what, nothing makes my blood boil more than the implication that because some of us see reasons for things, it's because we want to win less than others do. Seeing things through this lens doesn't stop me (personally) from feeling filthy about these type of results, I assure you.