RalphiusMaximus

Why do we not have a "report post" button anymore?

Nail through the foot isn't that bad. It only hurts for a few minutes.

I quite liked Blease's game today. Thought he worked much harder defensively and was a constant threat in attack.

6 - Garland. Think most will agree on this one. 5 - Sylvia. He really fought for us in the first and continued to be involved. Also almost pulled out Harry O's dreads. 4 - N. Jones. Stuffed his disposal a few times, but continues to be the hardest working mid in the side. 3 - Trengove. Worked really hard. Fell out of the game in 2 and 3, but kept working and two goals to top it off. 2 - Pedersen. Was solid and got plenty of the ball. Much better as a back than a forward. 1 - M. Jones. Plenty of ball, kept working at it. Needs to work on his judgement. Also happy with Davey, Watts and Kent who all showed us a fair bit today.

Interesting point raised by the commentators today. According to them this is the sixth season in a row we've made it to halfway at 1-10. I'll be very curios to see what happens after the bye.

It's the same thing every week. We have a crack and look ok fighting for the ball, but every time we look like scoring some muppet kicks the ball behind their target, or sends a high floater into the forward 50 and hopes the forward can somehow mark it anyway, then the quick turnaround while we're out of position and a score at the other end. Why do our opponents get so much run out of defence? Because they know we can't hit our forward targets properly and they will in all probability have the chance to get back and contest if they play a little loose on their man. If we can teach our mids to kick low, hard and AHEAD of their target so the player can run on to the ball, we'll be more than half way there.

I'll let Jake Niall respond for me.

Positives: Kent, Fitzpatrick, Blease, Toumpas, Terlich, and Jones all showed plenty. Our youth look like they can develop into the core of a really good side given time and games. Nate Jones continues to fight against the odds. Sylvia and Davey are showing some of the best form we've seen from them in years, in Sylvia's case ever. Jamar got involved and beat Jolly both in the ruck and around the ground. Watts had a real dip although he lost enthusiasm as the game wore on. Still did some very good things and should have had two goals. Garland fought a great battle against Cloke. Always undersized, he nevertheless took it right up to the big guy and can be proud of the way he went about it. Negatives: Silly turnovers in the middle of the ground. Twice kicking across goal to a small target when Harry O was lurking. Consistently poor delivery to our forwards. Letting Tommy Mc Kick the ball. Getting sucked in to having two tacklers, allowing the opposition the extra man to run free on the overlap. Not looking for, or finding, the open man on the wing all game. Poor co-ordination between players leading to slapstick-style errors and turnovers.

2 things really hurt us there. Kicking into our f50 and some disgraceful umpiring.

I read the first few bits, but it's basically a rehash of every "They mishandled Watts" article that's been published in the last five years or so. Nothing new or original that I could see.

I would argue that our defence is as good as it ever was under Bailey. We are still holding the key forwards and still getting smashed by the crumbers. The difference is the amount of opportunities we are giving our opponents. I would love to see the number of opposition goals being generated by turnovers for instance, because that has been one of our biggest issues all year. The reason we are giving up big scores is because of our inability to hold our own in the middle, not because our defence is falling down on the job.

This guy's been reading my posts on here. I particularly like this line:

The fact is that we were a rabble under Bailey. We won a few more games because his mantra was "attack at all cost" and it cost plenty. Our players were soft and undisciplined in defence, and they were being exploited by every team that could run the other way. Neeld is the opposite. He wants them to be accountable and disciplined first and foremost. The said right from the start that he would not be focusing on how to attack. I think this mas changed somewhat since he first arrived, but it is still evident in the low scores we are producing. Personally, I will take Neeld's approach over Bailey's. What Bailey was teaching them would have gotten the team to the first week of finals, but no further. What Neeld is teaching has the potential to take the team all the way if they can get the attacking side of things right.

That's precisely it. After 7 years. The club was terrible before Neeld came on board. People are blaming him for things that happened before he was even here. People keep raising things that have nothing to do with Neeld as part of their reasoning for why they want him gone. As for the results we expected, the only one I didn't expect was the loss to Port, and that is because I rated them as a worse basket case than us. The magnitude of the losses has upset me, but I always thought we would see a horrible win-loss ration up to the half-way point. Before the season started I thought we were probably ahead of Port and GWS and a 50-50 shot against GC and the Lions. As it happens, we were further off the pace than that, but looking at the draw we've had I don't think any of those losses were not predictable except for the Port one. Did ANYONE have them improving to that degree this year? We have an easier run in the second half and I think, like last year, this is where we will see the majority of our wins. I was merely responding to the assumption that all those who want Neeld to stay are mindlessly repeating the same patterns without any thought. Goose, Gander, etc. Oddly enough, I like to think that there are people who are capable of looking at the whole picture and drawing logical conclusions, even if they draw one opposed to my own. I just don't see that from the majority of the anti-Neeld lobby on these boards. I see a great deal of poor logic and flawed analysis spurred on by an overly emotional response to a series of losses that many of us saw coming but few thought would be quite as heavy as they have been. I don't deny we are worse than I had hoped to see, but I see plenty in the team to give me hope.

Five from Five. Demons winning tomorrow will give me a perfect round.

Did you sack that negative bugger who runs the place? That'd be a great way to improve employee morale. Funny, I look at the anti-Neeld lobby and think virtually the same thing. Some people can't help but look at things in the most negative light and have just gotten into the habit of seeing the club as a failure. If only they could look at things objectively instead of complaining about the fact that we are getting pretty much the results we expected... Incidentally, could one of the absent Mods please go through this thread and delete the multiple off-topic derailment attempts? There is already a thread about why people want to sack the coach for them to post this rubbish in. They don't need to try to hijack a positive thread about why we need to keep him.

It's not so much that I'm more worried about spelling and grammar mistakes but that I can't understand what's being said. It's not merely bad, it's incoherent in places.

Without the expansion clubs we would have picked up Tom Lynch instead of Cook. We'd have better mids because they wouldn't have taken the best half dozen from the last two drafts. We would have drafted differently last year without the need to sell pick three to get Hogan (who would not have been available). I am 100% behind Neeld and want him to see out this contract and hopefully get the results next year to earn another one as well. I said well before he came to the club that we were unprofessional and that the people in charge didn't even understand how far off the rest of the league they were. He is exactly what I felt we needed for this to change and has done exactly what I expected him to do. I admit I thought we'd be more competitive by now, but I maintain that we are on the right track and that the results will come. After 50 years, I am willing to cop another season of pain to get the foundation well and truly set so that we can build properly.

Happy with this round so far. If this keeps up we'll beat the Pies handily

Oddly enough, it has been tried in other sports, although not in so professional a manner. There was a certain female tennis player whose mother was rumoured to have had a shortlist of professional athletes she could be impregnated by to have the perfect athlete child. When she made her pick she stalked him relentlessly until she got what she was after. And let's not forget that Boris "Boom Boom" Becker's swimmers were misappropriated and made use of in a highly dubious manner as well. Personally, I could see the Ox and Lauren Jackson producing the greatest footballer the game has ever seen.

Dion Prestia re-signed with them because he thinks they will have a flag within three years. I can believe it watching what they have on the park. The AFL have created a monster.

In this era Ablett has to have it by a mile. The only thing he doesn't have is a good overhead mark, but he is so far ahead in everything else he does it more than makes up for it. Next for mine would be Goodes. I love the way he plays and the fact that he can go anywhere on the ground and be a match-winner. Best I have ever seen is much harder I think. The great full-forwards of the 80's and 90's were amazing, and stick in y memory. Jakovitch as well, but of course he did everything he could to fail and ultimately succeeded. Jeff Farmer for pure freak-factor. Loved Tingay. I honestly couldn't say who is the best of the lot. Best for Melbourne would have to be the Ox in full flight. He was simply awe-inspiring. It still hurts to think what he could have been if his knees hadn't gone.

I want to see a quality opposing ticket. It looks very much like The Don is setting up to run as VP behind the new guy (Freeman?), but while it would give us a more forceful leader I don't know that it would provide a significant change in the style and direction of the board. If Jeff comes up with a decent group on his ticket I would certainly give him some thought, although I can't say that I'd vote for him unless he had some really good plans.

Don is stable and steady, but he was always more suited to being the "right hand man" rather than the boss. He did an amazing job as Jim's second, and then stepped up and tried to keep things on an even keel when he had to. Now it's time for him to step aside for a more forceful and outspoken leader who can push us through the difficult time we face.

I've been licking frogs. :D