Nasher

You know what annoys me? Losing. The difference between Watts and Gibbs is that Gibbs is in a good side and Watts is in a shit one. If we were at the opposite end of the ladder, I doubt anyone would even care if Watts was soft.

I still think soft is the wrong word, because I don't get the impression that he's afraid of being hurt or doesn't want to contest or anything like that that the word "soft" implies. I liked whoever described his performance as "limp" on the first page (Maldonboy perhaps?). It's like he just doesn't get that split second shot of energy that the harder competitors get when the ball is there to be won. He gives a considered attack where others give an adrenaline surge driven attack. That's just how it seems to me, anyway.

If it's useless then why is it depressing? I find getting smashed all the time so depressing that stuff like this doesn't even register.

It's not. Jackie used to post on here under the username "america de cali". Agreed - and his posting style is so obvious that you'd easily spot it if he starts posting here.

It's not RudeBoy "bashing". Given that he obviously has a strong LJ connection and he's not actually an MFC supporter, it's logical to conclude that his opinion (which as you've pointed out, he is entitled to) could be derived from his close connections. Of course he could just be making his own observations with no input from LJ and that's fine too (and FWIW it's what I assumed when I read his post), but surely you can understand why people are worried about it?

I couldn't agree more - I don't like seeing people get ultra personal either. Then again what they cop here isn't much different to what the neanderthals in the crowd yell out at matches (which I don't enjoy either). There's a good reason why players are told in no uncertain terms to stay away from these forums.

I don't think anyone is mad at Bennell for being picked in the side, hardtack. That he didn't choose himself doesn't make his selection or how he plays when he is selected any easier to swallow.

It, along with the subbing, tells me that Neeld thought Morton had a worse game than I thought he did. I wouldn't have taken either action but I don't have the same experience and the same information at hand - I'll bow to his judgement.

Heh, I did exactly the same thing. I landed on Essendon though as they need to be brought down a peg, I think they'd be the most disappointed to lose to us given their current big headed state and I like seeing opposition supporters hurt (is that mean spirited?). Carlton second preference - can't stand them and would love to see the riot that'd cause. Couldn't care less about Collingwood at the moment.

I think he won't. When we get flogged by 10 goals again at least once in the next three weeks there'll be another round of selection musical chairs, and when there is Morton should be back in. He wasn't great (hence the omission) but overall he's going fine.

It would've been PR poison five minutes after he got the flick. The AFL would've blown a gasket as well. Plenty has happened since then - the guy who killed him commiting credibility suicide being one - and time heals all wounds and all that.

As Chook said, I think Morton going out while Moloney gets to stay is bog, but other than that the outs are fine. So, so much yawn in the ins though. Macdonald - zzzz. Sellar - zzzz. Dunn - zzzz. Nicholson - zzzz. I thought Bate ( - zzzz?) might have been in the mix, and you have to wonder whose cat Couch must have kicked. Then again, at least we know Macdonald has a dip, even if he's not any good. Hope the final bench is McKenzie, Tapscott, Davis and Magner. Not much experience there though, but that's hardly a surprise. Would love to see Davis play game #1. Happy that the two chain draggers won't play this week - only one to go now.

Umm, no I didn't. Everyone knows Gysberts will be a good player. That's why his continual setbacks irk me. And nice research, OP. I support what Satyricon said - don't let the lack of feedback deter you; as it's generally only the contentious, controversial or outright stupid threads that get a lot of traffic (and the match day ones - they probably qualify as the latter). I don't reckon too many people will disagree with you on this one.

To what end though? You still haven't explained to me why I should GAF that Adelaide preferred Sanderson, because it's sure not obvious to me.

Big deal, ADC. And weren't you banned permanently? I might go dig up the archives.

No - as I seem to say a lot on this forum these days, the onus isn't on me (or anyone else) to disprove Rucci's statement, the onus is on him to prove his own statement. You make a claim, you back it up. He's done nothing of the sort. You can believe what you like of course, but to me that article comes devoid of any credibility. And I stand by my original comment that it's all just boring waffle that has no meaning anyway. Having a different preference on the senior coach isn't an indictment or a credit to either club. It certainly doesn't "say" anything about the MFC.

April 29, 2011 that is, so it's < 1 post a day. Also, there's already a thread on Garry Lyon's heroic efforts at saving the day (and it's on Page 1). Here:

Not really, just more verbal diarrhoea - with no quotes or anything to back up the "facts", no less. Who gives a rats about which party rejected who? It's just petty points-scoring from the pro-Adelaide Rucci - kind of like those "YOU DIDN'T DUMP ME I DUMPED YOU" conversations some immature couples have when they split up. Zzzzz.

That's a bit of revisionism I think Redleg. Many called in to question parts of his game including lack of tackles and questionable use of the ball last year. I don't think recall "many" or even anyone wanting him off the list. Of course you'll get the odd knucklehead who wants to trade for the sake of trade, but that happens every year with every player no matter their status.

Heh, can't blame him there. He does speak well under "normal" circumstances and he's intelligent. I always found that surprising - with his size and his rugged appearance I always expected Neanderthal man, just shows you can't judge by appearances and all that.

I really enjoy listening to Jack G speak. He's obviously a natural speaker - he's clear, articulate and nothing he says ever sounds rehearsed, trite or cliche. It's refreshing; it's been a while since we've had that.

Jones has thrived under Neeld. What a surprise that arguably the most professional player at the club is flourishing and backs the coach, and one of the least professional players is really struggling.

I'm not talking about replacing Moloney and Sylvia with kids, I'm talking about replacing them with Couch (who is no kid - make no mistake, he was recruited because he has a man's body) and Bate. I know it sounds a bit crazy - me from 2011 is currently wetting himself with laughter at the notion of replacing Sylvia with Bate, but I just want players who compete. I agree that it's not going to affect the result as ultimately you're replacing them with inferior players, but at least you get players who will put in the effort required and do the work required. It's just about setting the standard more than anything.

I agree with the notion that our young players need the physical support, but are they actually getting the physical support? I don't see a reason why you couldn't play Bate, Magner and Couch in the middle of the ground and have those bodies absorb the punishment that Moloney and Sylvia would otherwise cop. It's not exactly a Class A midfield, but I can't see it performing any worse than the one we've got going now. I also can't see how Sylvia's position is even remotely tenable in the current side and Moloney isn't far behind. The only thing that might change my mind is that we've got another run of top teams so perhaps we might spare a few younger players the psychological impost of being mauled by good teams. Man, I yearn for the days when Moloney was a flat track bully.

.Indeed. Stay away from the damn players, Don. If you want to know the mood of the players, do it through the appropriate proxy like Craig or Schwab. If the players don't trust Schwab either then show him the door. I fear we're going to end up with "we listened to the wrong people" all over again.