RalphiusMaximus

Don;t bother. It's not just that they are incapable of providing an analytical post, but that they think the comments they are making are in fact valid arguaments. I've tried to explain that their complete and utter failure to provide any evidence to back up their claims is basically conceding the point, but they respond with "Neeld is crap and we keep losing" and not much else.

The Pies have a hard midfield core, but not a lot of pace in their veterans. I'd think Magner for Bail is about right. I don't think anyone on the park this week deserves to be dropped.

Hugely encouraged by what I saw today. Yes, the scoreline when taken in isolation is damning, but it in no way reflects the game. That is some of the best football I've seen us play in recent years, let down by poor disposal when we were attacking. Why was the score so bad? The inability of many of our players to kick properly to a leading target and the fact that when passing to a player running past they tend to pass it TO them rather than AHEAD of them. The number of times I saw these two things mess us up is astounding, and they often don't even count as clangers, because they do reach their target, but in such a way as to destroy their attacking momentum. TWO THINGS to fix and we would have seen a more competitive score today. I'll take that over some of the other games we've seen this year.

This is my point from earlier. We went toe to toe with them and for long periods broke even, but we never had the ascendancy and never hurt them on the scoreboard. They on the other hand took full advantage of any lapse on our part to score. I mad a sandwich at one stage and came back to find three goals had happened. The margin really does flatter them and says more about our poor F50 entries than it does about their domination.

Agree, but he has a nasty habit of sprinting to a contest and then hovering over it rather than trying to win the ball. This could be an instruction, as in be the outside receiver and use your good disposal once someone like McKenzie has won it, but it looks really bad. I also question his chasing. A guy with his pace should be able to run his man down.

6 - Dawes. Worked hard all day and gave us a chance at getting useful F50 entries. 5 - Frawley. Held Franklin. Had a couple of unlucky calls or it would have been Thrashed Franklin. 4 - Garland. Had an awesome battle with Roughhead, who has been in very good form. At worst broke even. 3 - Jones. As always, he kept fighting no matter what. So influential they used Sam Mitchell to tag him in the last. 2 - David Rodan. Easily the best he's played for us. Hada real influence on the game, even if he did make a few poor decisions. 1 - Jeremy Howe. Was in everything, taking good marks, getting the ball, smothering. One of the real shining lights this year.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever been more encouraged by a 95 point loss. We matched them for periods, but they kept it up constantly and whenever we slipped off them they scored in bursts. Had our usual problems getting good forward 50 entries which translates as a low score, but you would expect a loss of that magnitude to be far worse than it actually was in terms of the play. Of note: Dawes really stepped up. He worked hard and gave us that vital link between HF and wing. 21 disposals and 12 marks is a huge effort. Nathan Jones continues to be the man carrying our midfield. 28 Disposals, 16 contested and 11 clearances. So good they used Sam Mitchell to tag him in the last quarter. Col Garland and James Frawley can both take a bow. They were awesome on the best forward tag-team in the competition. Not only did they hold the twin towers, but they got involved the other way as well. Dean Kent showed a bit today. He is going to do very well for us in the next decade. Love his confidence to step around some of the stars of the game and take them on. This is his third game people. I wish Fitzy hadn't looked so nervous. Had a chance to take a few telling marks and fumbled them. Could have had a few goals if his hands had been better, but he did enough to keep for another week. David Rodan had his best game in our colours and probably his best in a few years. Burnt his teammates a couple of times, but he was heavily involved and had an impact.

Defensive involvements I think.

I tend to think bring them in against the weaker sides and see if they can make a difference at all. Much better that trying to blood new players against the Hawks or Pies.

It would be pretty awesome to see Blease and Taggert coming into the side after the bye.

Can I just add to this. GWS just lost by 94 points! OMG, THE SKY IF FALLING!!! SACK SHEEDY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

According to THIS article on the AFL website, Melbourne are the 9th best side at winning away from home. I just find this funny.

I think perhaps the relationship with the City of Casey has been more harmonious than that with the football club.

I guess it's time for Voss to go as well. His team just isn't putting in any effort. Game was over by Quarter time.

So you show the players how you value their opinion by having them fill out this survey and then ignoring the results and appointing whoever you like? GREAT move.

You mean the damaged nerve he got having his face broken? Classy bringing that up as an argument for his sacking. It was not particularly obscure. Anyone not Parroting your opinion is a Sheep. That is basically what you said.

You appear to define Sheep as anything not a Parrot.

The question I have is Are the players letting the board know how strongly they support him? We could very well come full circle and find the board at odds with the playing group again if they decide to move on a coach who has the full backing of his players. I really hope the board don't make any hasty calls here. If they are considering sacking him, they need to canvass the playing group to find out what the feeling is at ground level before deciding. Ignore the media and the online community (ie us) and get all the information from the people who actually know what's going on.

So it's not that the issue is not being addressed but that it is and you don't believe them. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Maybe he had a minor niggle and they figured he could do with a break. Please note that this is nothing more than speculation and not to be taken as fact in any way.

Actually, that has been addressed repeatedly in this thread. I'm not entirely sure why you refuse to acknowledge that. Neeld told our intrepid volunteers that the inexperienced players go into their shells and start playing defensively under pressure when they need to be holding to their structures. He said that they are improving, but they need to do it as a matter of course, not have to be reminded of it during the break, and that will come with more experience. This looks to the observer like a lack of effort when they are playing reactively and not proactively running, spreading and attacking.

"To spruik on the interior dynamics of player relationships can hardly be reliable for he is speaking of what he has been told" You don't think that reporters are simply speaking of what they have been told? That maybe they have a bias towards doom-saying because it makes a better story? Would there be a similar feeding frenzy if they were all reporting that Melbourne is in good hands and on the right track? Hell no. There is more mileage in overstating the negative than there is in accurately reporting both positive and negative sides of the story. That is why you need to regard anything reported in the media with a hefty dose of skepticism. The sports media are not employed to tell the truth, they are there to sell their brand. How often have we seen a rumour started by one reporter be cited by half a dozen more as a source and then these half a dozen used as corroboration to establish it as fact? This is the game they play to create the news rather than report it. The less weight you place on the words of the Barretts and Wilsons of the world the better informed you will be.

Very happy with the final ins and outs. It gives us better disposal and some decent pace out of the stoppages. I'll be interested to see how they set up the midfield for the opening bounce.

I don't have a problem with this at all. He took a massive hit for the club, and it is doing the right thing and looking after him in turn. He's not going to be involved in the FD, so no concerns with any influence on the team. It's a good outcome.

I have little to add at this point but I would like to take the opportunity to thank the posters in this thread for sticking on topic, avoiding the trolling we've seen in so many other threads and giving us a very interesting and informative read. I really appreciate hearing about the function and what the internal thought processes of the club are as compared to the sensationalised media version of reality. While it doesn't make the on-field situation look much better, at least in the short term, it gives me a great lift to have confirmation that there is method behind the madness and that the club is still moving in the right direction.