sue

Agree. Can anyone point to the coach of any AFL team that says anything truly surprising and informative in one of these 'fill-the-media' interviews? Sure there will be the odd example, but week in and week out it's all blah blah blah...

Oh dear. I fear you have heard what you want or expect to hear. Please read it again.

There are 42 in that list if I counted right. With 18 clubs, on average there would only be 2.3 from each team. So we seem to be average with 2 and it's hard to find 0.3 of a player though some might say some on our list are worth about that. (Lots of development would be nice too).

What were the numbers in the first half when we did seem to be good enough to keep the scores almost level?

Worth a shot. Just because he gets left behind by forwards doesn't mean that he can't leave them behind. Maybe as a back he focusses too much on his oppo rather than where the ball is going and thus gets lost.

I didn't read pages 3 to 6 but the earlier negative comments are really laughable. Some posters just enjoy being miserable. Here we are 17th playing a premiership favourite team in hot form. We lacked 2 of our best defenders, and no big forwards and yet kept with them till it rained. Most expected us to lose by a huge margin. Where's the evidence Richmond were playing in second gear - it's easy to say to fit a narrative, hard to prove. In fact they had lots of motivation to thrash us but didn't. Yes, we made errors in the first half. But it is not as if Richmond missed shots to keep us in the game. Sure they may have run over us even if it had't rained, but we don't know for sure - many of the people saying that were also saying we'd be run over from the first bounce (as many of us expected), but we weren't. It is also clear that the style of play we had in the first half does not work when it is wet. So not surprising Richmond took advantage. Obviously this is something we have to fix (along with much else). But in contrast with many posters here, I just hope the players look at what they were capable of in the first half and take some confidence from that.

Yes we are at that point. Anyway, for us it counted in R22. I think you have dodged the question. At least others pointed to WCE missing players.

How to you explain our victory over the Eagles in Perth a few weeks earlier in R22? I suspect things are more complicated.

Both obviously

Not disagreeing about having a reboot of the game plan, but why do you think our player's reluctance to shoot at goal is related to the game plan? Seems to me it speaks more of a dramatic loss of confidence. Are you saying that is a result of the game plan? While it could be a factor, I doubt it explains it all.

If all that talk about a 'brand' is a just a synonym of 'winning', then talking about our brand adds nothing to the discussion. I presume that most people who talk about a brand have something more in mind, like a 'never say die' brand etc. And I doubt very much that there are any of those which mean much.

thanks for that, but I asked for a list of the 'brand' of winning teams. Does you dodging the request indicate the list would be fatuous as I suggested? I'm still happy to be proven wrong when I see your list.

Ok. How about producing a list of winning teams with their brand. I’ll be surprised if most entries are not rather fatuous but happy to be proved wrong.

No, there might be a 'brand' (in the sense of style/gameplan intended by the coach) but it is just imperceptible,, lost in a tsunami of turnovers etc. As for the other meaning of 'brand', I doubt it matters if you win lots of games.

Terminology is important. Some posters take it to mean 'style of play', others something more intangible like the above post. I prefer the former definition since it really means something. Unfortunately, as I posted, if you can't do the basic skills, it is hard to know what the style/gameplan is, let alone if it is any good.

I don't get this 'brand' thing. When you are missing targets, handballing to the opponent and kicking randomly, then how can any brand (whatever that is) be apparent to the observer? The fundamental problem is not lack of brand. It is lack of skills and confidence (and dare I say it, lack of uninjured players doesn't help either).

Agree 100%. The different treatment of Preuss and TMac is clearly justifiable .

November was stated. I trust he (or Mission} will give each player a regime to work on between R22 and his taking over in Nov.

Not agreeing with the idea of May forward, but were we tanking last year when TMac was put forward?

My apologies for donning my rose-coloured glasses, but I suspect the main aberration is the position on the ladder in that it doesn't truly represent as much as many of us are reading into it.

With most of us expecting a loss, probably of an embarrassing size, I can't believe how negative some posters are when we almost pinched the game against a top team desperate to get into the top 2. BTW, the umpiring in the curtain raiser was far better than the that served up in our game. '

But are the people who peddle that adage conspiractors trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or have they stuffed up?

the option to boycott them is not available to me either

Ha. To whom? Should I boycott McDonalds, Toyota, Harvey Norman, Betting companies until they lean on the AFL to ask for fewer ad breaks?

Disagree. Past players are naturally of interest to us. All OK as long as it's not abusive or gloating about the player being injured, and I read quite the reverse of that here.