RalphiusMaximus

Mods, can we delete this post as it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. There are enough threads attacking the club without trying to hijack one about a specific player.

That is almost exactly what I said, although I did ramble on a bit about changing the interpretation to Significant contact rather than any and all contact above the shoulder and threw in a small dig about them not paying incorrect disposal anymore. My favorite was actually to back the new rule against sliding into a players legs. I think it not only deals with a tactic that has been used maliciously by some players but also takes away one of the avenues players have used to milk cheap free kicks in the last decade or so.

I doubt if we'll see him play a game until next year some time, but he seems to have pace and a pretty good short game. I haven't seen him kicking many long balls, so hard to tell what he's like at 50m or so. I've loved some of his clever passing which shows that he has a pretty good eye for spotting a teammate in traffic. My one concern there is that AFL is much faster and his little chips could be intercepted if he isn't careful.

I suppose nobody else has read this. Puts it all in a bit more perspective. As I said earlier, the article saying Watts wants out is nothing more than speculation citing other speculative pieces as sources. It has no real value other than [censored]-stirring. Typical bored lazy journalism at the HS.

Probably the most worthwhile comment on this thread today actually.

I rather like the mention of at least eight clubs interested in the lad. If he does tell the club that he wants out, we can auction him off and get some good compensation for him. I'd put Gold Coast in the box seat at this stage given the other rumour that Prestia wants to come back to Victoria. Of course, given that this article relies entirely upon unnamed "sources" saying that Jack wants to be traded and backs itslef up by citing other HS articles, I don't think it actually has much factual basis other than the fact that Jack is out of contract. I note with interest that they mention that we haven't re-signed Frawley who is not even out of contract until the end of 2014. Poor research does not make me take this article seriously.

1. In the above post you have pointed out issues with the board and with the former CEO, and that is all very well, but if you are placing so much fault with those entities, how does this support your case for sacking the coach who is not involved in any of these areas and indeed came to the club after many of these issues appeared? 2. I accept that people are frustrated with the club, and indeed I share in that sentiment, but to blame Neeld for the fact that you had your high hopes dashed before he even came to the club seems a little over the top. It's a lovely quote, and applies very well to a number of posters on these boards, but sadly not so much to the club and it's situation. I have some others that I would like to be able to apply to posters here. Sadly, too many people on here seem to think the way to succeed is to quit halfway and start again. And again. And presumably again after that. I can all too easily picture the thread in 2015 demanding that Paul Roos be sacked. "He never wanted to come here, we should have recruited someone with more interest." "He's had his time, his ideas are stale, he's too old." "We should have tried to recruit X assistant from Y club, he's supposed to be good and he'd be more motivated." I saw an old man today wearing an old Demons jacket, and I complimented him on it. He said "I've barracked for the Demons since 1946, and I'm not changing now. They'll get there."

I keep saying that the doggies are in worse trouble than us in the coming years, but they still have a bunch of veterans who regularly carry them over us. Murphy, Gia and Griffin have a nasty habit of lifting against us. I really want us to win both of these, but in all hnesty I think I'll be happy if we take one of them. Two losses would hurt.

It will be an interesting study of Col's character in some ways. Yes, it's the professional era which player managers have interpreted to mean having no loyalty to anything but the big bucks, but in most sides Col would have bee offloaded long ago because of his back problems. Melbourne stuck with him for years and finally figured out a way to get him playing regular football. I have to wonder if that fact will enter into his thought process or if the lure of a flag will have more value to him.

Switched at half time? It happens in our practice games.

I may have missed something, but I don't think the scoreboard ever said "we have no confidence in Neeld." For that matter, unless the players are genius cryptologists I don't think the stats say that either. They say the team isn't playing very well. Does that count? I do seem to recall a number of players saying that they have full confidence in the coach and the problem is in their ability to execute rather than what he is doing. Is that code as well? Why does anyone think that the five years mentioned starts now? We're already a year and a half into it. Again, Neeld's timeline has not changed from the moment he took over. He told us all that it would take time to get the players up to standard and weed out the dead wood in the list. I too had hoped to see more improvement from the team by now, but let's face facts. Port Adelaide surprised everyone. We didn't get beaten by a crap side, but by a side that looks like playing finals this year. Do any of you actually think the other results were hard to predict? Yes, we were poor against Gold Coast, but any objective look at the match would have told us it was a 50/50 shot given their list and the talent they have through the middle. Which of the other games were we going to win? Brisbane at the Gabba? Optimists could have had that as a 50/50, but realists know how badly we travel. Thrashed by Carlton? Again, it's nothing we don't know will happen. The simple fact is that this season has gone pretty much exactly as most people expected. We have lost to teams who should beat us, we have shown improvement in the areas that Neeld has focused on, and we have a very clear notion of what it is we need to do to improve and start winning games. On top of that we have seen a couple of the new recruits secure spots in the starting line-up and we're getting games into some of the guys who have been missing in action for the last few years. Yes, we all hoped to see quicker progress. In all probability Neeld hoped for that too, but to blame him because our results have been exactly as they should have been and demand that he be sacked when the team is tracking exactly how he told us it would? Idiocy. People need to stop blaming him for their own inflated expectations.

And he's getting used to 50 point thrashing as well! But seriously, it's a big credit to him to be playing U18s a year early and from the sound of things he's grown a bit too. I really hope he works out as a FS pick. It would suck if someone underbid us and he had to play somewhere else.

Scott Thompson Stephen Powell to a lesser extent. Brock McLean is starting to look that way Brent Moloney? We'll see. Happy that the other one is just average.

The reason we have such a differential in uncontested possessions is simple. We get the ball in the back line and begin what should be a chain of half a dozen possessions, but wind up turning it over after two or three. The opposition then work the ball down with half a dozen or so clean passes, our defence takes it off them, and we begin again trying to move it down and falling apart after a couple of passes. It's our inability to effectively move the ball through the middle of the ground that is killing our possession counts and our scores. Almost every time we try to bring the ball into our HF area we turn it over and the whole cycle begins again.

But didn't someone say earlier that Wines wants to play for Carlton and nobody but Carlton? I'm confused, which informed opinion do I believe?

We all know that the club has been cursed since the 60's. Why be surprised by something like this?

I think this is a lot like the people claiming that Hawthorn shouldn't have taken Hodge. It was probably the strongest top 3 ever seen in a draft that year and all three have had successful careers. Hodge may have taken a little longer to find his feet at AFL level than Judd, but nobody at Hawthorn would ever suggest that they should have gone the other way. I firmly believe that you have to wait until the end of their career to judge whether a player was a good selection. These two have barely started theirs. Edit: Oh God, looking at our drafting back then. Luke Molan! Did he even play a game for us? The only one we got any use from was Miller at 55. Shocking drafting.

It is very refreshing to see that Nate Jones is no longer getting the six points very week. This isn't a reflection on him as he continues to produce week-in week-out, but rather on the fact that there are now others in the side who are giving him a hand and working hard as well. This as much as anything is a sign that things are improving for us.

I don't think Nev knew he was coming. Howe comes in from the side and cuts across his field of vision. I don't have the right to argue whether he had any business being there, but once he committed to going for it he had to take the mark. I don't think anyone can dispute that his involvement is the reason Jetta dropped it.

Q1. 22:15 Jetta kicks poorly allowing Cotchin to intercept. Cotchin kicks to a leading Jake King. Jetta had the option of cutting in front of the lead but instead stood to one side and poked an arm at it. King's kick fortunately hits the post. A double-whammy for Nev in less than a minute. Fortunately he pulled his socks up after the first and started to play some better football.

I'm pretty sure it was the first quarter he had two passes under no pressure that fell short and pinpointed an opponent. The marking contest was right in front of Richmonds goal about 40m out. He had the chance to cut in front and spoil, but saw the leading FF coming at him and stayed out. Once I have the game DLed I'll be able to give you the quarter and time if you like. Edit: As Redleg says, the dropped mark was not his fault, so I don't see how that can be counted against him. The pass was clearly meant for him and Howe should have stayed out of it. Edit Edit: The marking contest resulted in a point so I can't get it quickly off smart replay. It'll have to wait until I have the whole thing DLed.

I think it may be worth noting that while he says it will take 5 years, he doesn't mean that we'll be at the bottom for that long. He's saying it will take 5 years to get the team at a level to contend for finals, and a chance at winning them. That's not an unreasonable timeline given the base we started from. It's not like at WC where they had a dozen or so premiership players they were leaving out of the side for some mysterious reason.

Jetta had two howlers and squibbed a marking contest, however he also made space where there was none on several occasions, broke tackles, stuck tackles and left himself wide open to create a turnover out of nothing that resulted in a goal. All in all I think he came out ahead this game. If he could get those silly errors out of his game he would look much better. I also don't understand the attack on Nicho. Normally he's a shocker, but today his kicking was well above his usual standard and he generally made the right decision. My one query on him today is that he didn't register a tackle, and given his combative nature that seems odd. I thought Strauss was decent today too. As has been mentioned, he needs to get more of the ball, but his defensive game was very good and this has always been the biggest question over him. If he is winning his one-on-ones and his opponent isn't having an impact then he's improving his weaker areas. More than a few times I saw him use his pace to beat multiple opponents to the ball and force it over the side, which is a win that doesn't show up on any stats sheet that I know of. I will however agree with the ratings of McKenzie and Bail. Bother were largely ineffective today. I did like the number of time Jordie got frees by attacking the ball in close quarters.

Nicho was ok today. Better than Jordie by far. However I think we need them both to play negating roles next week, so probably not a big chance of dropping either one. Freo have too many good mids to leave them out. Obviously we have to make at least one change to replace Toumpas (and he was looking ok as well before he did that ankle), and for mine we need speed. That would mean either Blease or Watts to come in. A case could be made for both, but I think Bail's endless run keeps him in the side out west where we will need it. As such, it looks very much like it will be minimal changes, with Toumpas out and either Blease or Watts in.

Nicho was good today. None of the usual kicking issues.