Binmans PA

Young whipper snappers. Back in my day we'd keep coaches for three years, now they don't get to see out two years of a contract. Oh wait, Daniher, a coach serving during the early Gen Y days, is the longest serving MFC coach. I wonder if instead this has something to do with the dissatisfaction of a broad subsection of the MFC supporter base? Nah, it's just short-sighted Gen Ys. Anyway, I get it. You're disappointed your life has passed you by, you've probably bought yourself a flashy new car, a leather jacket or motorbike, so be happy with that, but there's no way you'll convince me this has anything to do with Gen Y.

Really good move this. I like it.

1) Actually, I thought the Carlton game was one of the first time's I've been able to decipher our gameplan. Perhaps that's because I took the emotion out of it this week? Our zone was working the majority of the time. The times it failed were a result of abhorrent skill errors and lapses in concentration (that I'm certainly not excusing). Our defenders were sucked into the contest a few too many times and goals resulted out the back. We have to be smarter about how we attack certain contests. I was merely happy finally seeing endeavour from our players. Week by week it becomes clearer RE: fitness. This is the biggest hamstring, outside of disposal and decision making, that our team must deal with this season. The zone seems incredibly taxing and they will not be able to sustain this consistently this year. But all I want is endeavour all year. Every week, every quarter, every minute. 2) And Trenners doesn't have OP. This was my opinion last year. I think it's his workload in the legs. He's lost some yards, because of the last two pre-seasons. But his seeming dedication to training and preparation tells me he'll make it. The skills at his disposal, along with his professionalism, support this.

You're going to need a more mature mid's name amongst that 2016 team.

Clark to Freo. Oh wait.

Cameron will be a gun, but fix the bloody midfield. Dawes and Clark are enough company for Hogan to thrive under for the moment. I'd look at adding crumbers to that list before KPFs.

Soft as butter.

Turned it over by foot, struggled to keep his feet and went missing for large patches. Still fails to dominate his opponent consistently for four quarters. Not a gun. Not a gun at all.

Right. Is that a question? If so, yes. It was pretty crystal clear today that the midfielders aren't fit enough. Their work rate was up on last week's standards and the zone actually worked a lot better today, but too often the midfielders didn't run hard enough to get back and help out the defence. Further, everyone up the ground failed to present options for our defenders to kick at. Admittedly, the kicking out of the back half was atrocious. It doesn't take a genius to work out that you can't leave opposition players unattended at stoppages. So yes, I have managed to figure out that our midfield coach is no good. He would have identified and then implemented some change in set ups over the last few weeks if he was capable. Neeld is in the same boat. It's taken until now to tighten up at stoppages though and we're still occasionally very loose. Royal, like Neeld, has to go. Simple. I find it difficult to believe you cannot see the connection between wanting the senior coach sacked and the man responsible for our woeful midfield too.

Agreed, Robbie, but I couldn't fault his endeavour and work rate today though. Really good inclusion.

Once again, today I thought it was our best game defensively for a long, long time. Our midfield's defensive pressure and at times our forward pressure was rubbish, but one on one, our defenders did really well. What did let them down however was their horrid disposal by foot, which cost us a number of goals. But yes, Rawlings is no Wellman.

Royal is rubbish, but I thought our midfield was pretty good today, considering the talent out there. Our midfielders didn't seem to be as static as in previous week's and I'm inclined to think it might have had something to do with Spencer and Gawn's ability to tap. We didn't seem to set up so loose today either. We had numbers on both sides of the stoppage, although there few a few exceptions that were glaring. Royal has to go, but I thought today our midfield was far more effective. I still fault them for a lot of the scores against. One on one, our backline was almost fantastic, but by foot they were atrocious. Once again, that seems to be a very taxing game we're playing. The midfielders just stopped running.

He's consistently been in the top 3 for hit outs over the last few years. It's what he does (or doesn't do) with it that counts.

To be honest, I think Spencer, Gawn and Fitzy all have great upside. I'd be keeping them all.

If Spencer doesn't get it done against Carlton, he may be the unlucky one. That would push Gawn into the main ruck spot and let Fitzy go to full forward and second ruck.

Yeah, I think Casey really has the potential to be a vital key to our development over the next few years. It's good to hear that Casey are implementing Neeld's apparent game plan. The culture seems to be building down there, despite today's loss.

Yep. I think the important thing is consistency though. It's all well and good to have a great game, but if you don't back it up the next week, it's pointless.

Yeah, Greene looks great. Not as solid defensively though. I'd take him in a heartbeat though.

That's fine. He's not ready for a senior call up yet. What I'm liking at the moment is that a lot of our VFL players are having to show a lot of consistent performance before getting a shot in the firsts. Good signs. Keep giving Jimmy a chance to build some confidence and consistency. He's got to play four quarters.

Interesting post. It'll be interesting to see how we set up tomorrow.

You also don't need credible sources in media reporting these days.

Too early to say. It would be hilarious though.

I've said before that a large portion of the "problems", I believe are rooted in poor work rate. It is up to the coach to energise his players. It is not a stretch to expect that a more experienced coach with a track recording of doing so could get our players working to AFL standard. It's not simply a lack of fitness. There's no intensity.

Seems a little convenient, Paul. And if he were to be sacked now, hypothetically, why would these changes he's implemented not work under a new coach? Are you saying they'll dissipate once he's gone?

Once again, you don't have to coach to point out a fault with one's coaching. I merely made the point that I coach because I've seen more inventive and constructive coaching sessions undertaken by year sevens.