Nasher

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.

Sorry, which of those facts are you disputing? It sucked, it hurt, and we should have won. We couldn't capitalise with our dominance of the ball, or our huge number of f50 entries relative to theirs. I know all that, and it burned. I had an hour trip home after the game and I seethed the entire way. My heart still starts thumping again just thinking about it. But the last quarter was a slog, and we were unable to outslog a team better and more experienced than us, on their own poo pile. We're young, we tried hard, and it was in Perth - you can be sick of hearing it all you want, it doesn't stop it from being fact, and significant factors in the loss.

How about I just close it? PF knows enough about the forums not to make a new topic for every thought that goes through his brain.

Cos it was wet? Come on man, did you only see Melbourne players out there? West Coast were the slip over, fumble the ball, turn it over kings. Top 8 side, apparently. Wet game, olisik moans about about players slipping over. FMD.

I am distraught over this result, but this is garbage.

Came in to this game with no expectations, so was as cool as a cucumber. Now I'm a nervous wreck. Keep the intensity up, we can and will win. Come on boys!

Because emotion has trumped reason.

Yes we should.

No, that's not at all what I meant. If anything, that's what you've done, and I really hate it when people do that.

I think ol' can't follow instructions Lynden could be considerably worse than Dawes, yes. We need Dunn to be a good key defender again I think. Let him concentrate on that.

Listening to Roos' press conference, bringing in Dawes is clearly in response to Hogan's frustration on the weekend. Of course it should be expected that Dawes contributes to the team in his own right and if he doesn't he'll be dropped again, but I think that's the context. It's been said numerous times that Hogan finds playing the game easier when Dawes is in the team - and specifically Dawes (same not true of Pedersen, for example). We know Dawes won't kick 10 and may not even kick 1, but if he plays an adequate game where he contests, competes, tackles, and lifts Hogan by 50%, he is worth having in the team in my eyes. Either way, we had to bring in a key forward. The alternatives were Pedersen, who is coming off a lengthy layoff from illness and by all reports was average for Casey, Hulett who is not ready, and Weideman who is less ready. In the long term Weids or Hulett need to step up for this role, and pretty quickly because I think both Dawes and Pedersen are on borrowed time, but I'm comfortable with Dawes filling the role in the mean time.

Judging by the responses I've had, I expressed my point very poorly. I don't begrudge people their long term frustration, of course that's understandable. I suppose I see some of the complaints in this thread in a very similar light to the "we've been rebuilding for 10 years and we still suck" argument. I see it differently - I see this as the third consecutive rebuild. It's a subtle but important difference. As disappointing as the Bailey era was and disastrous as the Neeld era was, I don't allow my frustration from those failures to deliver cloud my judgement in assessing *this* era. This is where the lottery analogy comes in. The outcome of the lottery is independent of past lotteries; the outcome of this rebuild is independent of past rebuilds. This is something that is application to all generations of supporters. I didn't intend it as an attack on the older supporters. Anyway, I don't feel like I'm making my point any clearer, so I'll stand down from this topic. I often wish I was as articulate as others that I read posts from.

Nor will it be to me, when I'm 60. That's my point. Besides, it's not as if 32 years (or at least 25 if you discount the years I was too young to really care) is a short amount of time to wait.

I am 32 - that makes me Gen Y. I'm willing to bet that if I'm unlucky enough to still be waiting for a flag when I'm 60 or whatever (let's hope not), I'm still able to objectively assess what's going on at the time in isolation, without conflating issues by raising the irrelevant past. I guess we shall see.

While I have some sympathy for people who have been waiting a long time for any kind of success, I find the I've been waiting 50 years for a flag! argument is a bit like complaining that you've bought a ticket in the last 1000 lotteries, and because of that, you should/deserve to win the jackpot this time. False dawns, disappointment at previous failed attempts, and your ever diminishing patience don't change the fact that these things take time, especially when coming from where we have. Nor do they change the fact that this time looks very promising, for the reasons outlined by ProDee above.

Did that guy ever get Rohan Bail's signature tattooed on his forehead?

Regarding him not getting enough of it: his possessions-per-minute on the ground put him in the top 3 for the game this week. It's hard to rack up possessions when you spend more than 1/3 of the game on the pine. This will not be a concern at all when he's playing midfielder-level minutes on the ground.

Yes, I know it wasn't good enough. I wasn't implying that it was. I don't agree with your assertion that he did not look behind the pace of the game though. Besides the event in question (and I don't recall one in the first quarter, but others do so I will take your word(s) for it), I thought his ability to compete for the ball and use it cleanly and quickly was a feature of his game. To me he looked a totally different player to the one we saw earlier in the year, but I must have been the only one to see it that way.