Nasher

It's not weather or not he would have played, it's whether or not his body was cactus or not, and as he would not undergo a medical with us, I don't see how taking this risk was viable at the expense of a top 20 pick. Then again with our leadership the way it is then maybe it was, but how could we have known that at the time, and how could we have known he wouldn't have retired after one season - or even immediately, if he really didn't want to play here? We're in real hindsight warrior territory here, with a splash of revisionism tossed in for good measure.

What do you propose that we should have done about the problem of Ball not wanting a bar of us?

Yes, he's played a total of 12 games for them so far in two and a bit seasons.

The lack of skill could also be a function of the fitness and confidence, old dee. There are only a handful in the vicinity of our current side who I'd consider to be genuinely poorly skilled (Bail, Nicholson and Bartram), the rest I reckon will look better as the side starts going better. I guess what annoys me about the other posts I've challenged (not yours) in this thread is when people resort to unmeasurable intangible vagaries like "killer instinct" after dismissing the more obvious and logical reason.

The talk from Neeld and Misson as early as January was that our fitness levels were diabolical, we're apparently being smashed during the week at training still, we're playing a style that requires more hard running forever, then a match day symptom pops up that could obviously be attributed to poor fitness? Nah, bugger that, their fitness is fine; it's just because they lack the ever elusive "killer instinct". Sure thing.

You're right. It wasn't that we weren't fit enough, it's just that we didn't want to win. Yeah. I could really tell by the boys body language as they walked off the field that they were pretty relieved that they didn't win.

I really doubt that they do.

Big Jim, I agree that members have the right to question the CEO. I disagree that they have the right to bring up their bothersome agenda in to every single thread when it has no relevance at all to the topic at hand. I can't blame Jose for getting agitated. Where's a bloody mod when you need one?

I can't help but feel if we traded him we'd see him go on to dominate for another club, then we get to spend the next five years looking like complete idiots. Then again it could prove to be another Travis trade. So glad I'm not the one who has to make these decisions.

That story made me feel sick. The things footballers have to do sometimes!

It's against their constitution, apparently (or was that Collingwood?). Never understood why the AFL didn't have the balls to veto that since they're so rigid on the clash strip rules, especially since our clash with Essendon is probably one of the worst in the whole comp. One rule for one club, one rule for the 15 or whatever others.

The club doesn't make Watts the main problem, that's just the supporters. I haven't seen anything from the club in the press at all about Watts. As for why does he get dropped - what do you mean? He got dropped once, and that was when he was the only one in the team that didn't lay a single tackle; that had to happen. Other than that I'd say the club has more than backed him in. That Sellar and Dunn keep getting games (both have been left out of the side at least once as well, by the way) - that's a separate issue. Sellar out of necessity, and Dunn out of something that I haven't figured out yet.

Come on, you've got to admit that's pretty funny

You're not telling me we (18th) might get flogged by Essendon (2nd)? GET OUT.

Exactly. We start winning some games, suddenly he'll stop giving a crap about all that other stuff. So will you and I, so will everyone.

It's probably because people keep responding to it and bumping it to the top, just like you did.

I'm really struggling to see the relationship between this and Viney temporarily filling the hole as the chief recruiter. Is Todd temping in a boring off field role the reason why your old man doesn't want to go to the footy any more, WYL?

It kept me amused for five minutes; time well spent I think.

Spot on, Robbie. The only type of people around at the moment as those who like to pee on us, and MFC supporters. In some cases, the two are one and the same.

Just out of pure boredom I thought I might give you some feedback as to why these ideas are absurd: He's barely played, and struggled when he has. I know beating up on Watts is fashionable and he's got issues with the contest, but you're kidding if you think Cook can't be worse. He can, and would be worse. You're messing with an area of the ground that is working just to squeeze in a personal favourite. I've said a few times now that when our defenders are dealing with a reasonable level of pressure (as opposed to the outrageously unreasonable level we've seen recently), they'll look just fine. Lo and behold, this week the midfield worked hard for three quarters, and suddenly Rivers, Frawley, McDonald, Grimes and even the bog ordinary Dan Nicholson had good to excellent games. As for Petterd - there's definitely a spot in the side for him: Lynden Dunn's. Come on, that's setting the bar ridiculously low and he's not meeting it as it is. If he can't oust Dunn for a spot in the side then he's not worth a cracker and should both will be on the heap at the end of the year. I want Petterd to make it, but he has a hell of a lot of work to do before he waltzes in to the side. To what end? He's not getting near it as it is, so push him further deep where he's even less exposed to the footy. I love his hardness but at the moment he's not offering much else, I really can't see him offering salvation to our small forward problems. Grimes has been, is, and will be fine. He occasionally butchers the ball, but he adds so much more that he's easily a net positive. As for Trengove - if he's labouring then he needs to be rested. I can't see his current issues being solved by time in the VFL. There's a spot in the midfield for a tall like Martin, it's called "the ruck". We've seen he can effectively play as a true midfielder with the ruck responsibilities. If he was playing well in his time in the ruck, there's no reason why he couldn't be afforded more time in the middle, but to date he's been crap and crap up forward as well. He's no worse an option than Sellar though. This is just hot air and won't accomplish anything other than give the bottom feeding journos more stuff to talk about. The players who are struggling should be aware that they are and it doesn't take a lot to join the dots and see where your career is going. It might make you feel better if Neeld did that, but it carries all sorts of risks and adds nothing to the process.

You said your definition of soft was not going, I said sometimes he doesn't go. I'm not sure what's got you so staggered.

The wider football community uses the wrong word then. Lynden Dunn, especially circa-mo, making an art form of shitting his pants and flinching when in contests is what I'd call "soft". The infamous Bennell, Davey and Morton shirks were soft. Those boys were afraid. It might be a subtle difference, but that "not going" is different to Watts' style of "not going". FWIW I agree that he sometimes doesn't go when he should, so this discussion is probably purely semantic.

I've been trying to work out all year what Dunn adds to the team. It's not toughness, hard running, good forward pressure or goal kicking. What the heck is it then? 87 games to his name now; there's enough rounds left in the year to become the worst ever player to play 100 games for the MFC, just in time to be delisted.

At risk of being inappropriately personal, Freak, I decided very early on in your posting career here that I was glad you weren't the coach, and not much has changed.