Akum

By the way, expect Pratt to get far less weeks off than Dunn. By the time the MRP is finished with Pratt's hit, it will be a mere playful slap. While Dunn's will be just this side of a decapitation.

Oh, I don't know - Frawley or Warnock or Green to CHF, Maric or Tapscott on the ball. Keep the forwards in position. "Just do something! Don't just stand there ... do something!!" Bailey seemed to give up without a yelp too.

Lots of good points here, for now I'll just take one. As a group of players, I think we are pretty good, which is why we do well against sides that don't bother to tag, like Adelaide & even Collingwood. We're just not good as a TEAM, and it's this lack of team structure that clubs with inferior players (who have to do the team things better to cover for the inferiority of their playing group) are able to exploit. That's why I'm so critical of the coaching - it's the coach whose job it is to turn a bunch of good players into a good team. North & Richmond are examples of inferior group of players making a better team. We won't improve on this sort of display until we play better as a team.

Joeboy, normally I think you get it pretty close. Today, very kind to senior players - Green, Moloney, Davey & Dunn. Very tough on new players - Martin & Watts in particular. When are we going to start to blame the senior players for debacles like this, and not the younger ones???

Absent captain goes with absent match-day coach - a perfect match!

Oh for god's sake!! Still don't expect them to give up without a yelp.

Well, if it was a Bailey move, he undid it again just as it started looking good.

As a Gysberts fan, I was really disappointed with the number of his turnovers today.

And I'm afraid it had to be said; MFC badly badly lacks a match day coach. It's definitely not DB, and it would seem that none of the assistants has the capacity to bail him out. Once we get behind, it's left up to the players to get themselves out of trouble, because the coaches aren't capable of doing it. What annoys me most of all when we play North is that we make them look so good. They're a well-organised and well-coached side, but very very ordinary players. They have a coach who can get the best of his players by his structuring and organisation. Again and again we get smacked by sides like this - West Coast, North, Carlton - but they are the type of sides we should beat easily.

You are absolutely joking if you're going to lay it on players like Jetta & Bennell!! This is when a side needs its senior players to stand up. Green looks totally lost out there. Moloney seems to need it shoved down his throat, because he was SMASHED man-on-man by Swallow who was probably BOG. Dunn is simply not AFL standard. For a start. Does Davey have a hammy? He doesn't seem want to kick it over 30m. He was great today in getting the ball, but his disposal was the worst I've seen. And why was Garland, who could hardly run, kept on Edwards for so long? Stupid stupid stupid. Ridiculous to blame what happened today on Jetta & Bennell.

Yep, Anderson & Demetriou would be rapt about this. Shows what they can do to any side who tries to buck the dictatorship.

It's because they are so well-organised, and drilled in an almost military fashion for set plays, and because they prepare and plan and structure so meticulously for us. Where we always seem surprised to find that our usual strengths and our main playmakers are all covered, and they've stifled our "better brand of football" and made us play on their terms. And each time we play right into their hands - dumb dumb dumb! We can expect: * Davey & possibly Sylvia to get hard niggling tags * Plenty of tall timber in their forward line, who will get most of their goals * The corridor crowded to the max * Lots of blocking & shepherding (& holding) in close to allow their runners to get free at clearances * An extremely disciplined total forward press at our kickouts, and a number of equally-disciplined set-plays to clear it from their kick-outs * Us to be totally surprised by all of this, and to take at least a quarter to find our feet, but to keep turning it over in the corridor all game What I can't work out is why we're always surprised at how badly Norf want to beat us, and at how hard they work & prepare for it. I'd like to think that in amongst all the upheavals of this week, somebody at MFC has done a bit of thinking about our last 6 or 8 games against Norf, and can anticipate what's going to happen and even work out how we're might surprise THEM for a change. It has to happen sooner or later.

In fact, I'm starting to wonder whether the AFL might not be giving us a way out here. Perhaps they're starting to realise (maybe in discussion with the AFLPA behind the scenes) how much disquiet has been caused among the whole group of players and coaches from all clubs, that what seems to be a "perfect tackle" results in a 3-match suspension. The AFL want to avoid MFC arguing that Dangerfield contributed to the impetus of the tackle by swinging his leg so (unnecessarily) hard at the ball, or that the impact of the tackle was made worse by the fact that he'd been dazed in an earlier incident yet allowed to continue playing. But they'd be OK for us to argue that the general player reaction demonstrates that at the time the tackle was made, every player & umpire & coach & bootstudder in the AFL would have considered it a legitimate tackle and are now shocked to realise that it results in suspension. Furthermore, there would be considerable player disquiet that the definition of what constitutes a legitimate tackle has been made very unclear by this ruling of this particular tackle. If JT got off, it would then allow the AFL & AFLPA to make a statement that from now on, where head injury is the consequence of a tackle, it doesn't matter how "perfect" the tackle is, it will result in a similar penalty; this is a similar circumstance to the Maxwell bump, where he got off, but clarification was made after the event to prevent any further incidents of that nature. In other words, in the case of head injury, the consequence WILL now be taken into account to determine the penalty, not just the "conduct". They can call it the "Trengrove ruling" (or the "Dangerfield ruling" - that's actually a much better name for it). The situation to apply from now on will then be perfectly clear, and everyone will be happy. I still believe "beware the crusader deprived of his kill". But if it's the AFL doctors leading the crusade, they'll be wanting to prevent further incidents of this type, more than to extract their pound of flesh for this particular incident. It's just interesting that this is the first place I've seen or heard of the Maxwell case being raised, and for that manner analysed in some depth, and wonder if they're aiming to get a similar outcome and giving us a nudge and a wink. Redleg?

No, this makes me more optimistic. Maxwell got off because what he did was not different from what most players would have done, within the context of the game. Trengrove's case is very similar. I still think that the AFL is after blood, though. They'll be spitting chips if he does get off. Although, like the Maxwell case, a significant clarification of the rules followed the verdict, and maybe that would be the best result for all concerned here. In other words, the rules under which he has been suspended were not clear before Trengrove made his tackle, as demonstrated by the widespread disbelief from players of all clubs, so if he gets off it will give the AFL a chance to clarify the situation so that all players will be well-informed from now on. As the situation stands, nobody seems to know what is a correct tackle, what is "excessive force", and so on. But can the AFL be that sensible about it when they're on a crusade???

The AFL are so desperate to nail this issue that they'll do absolutely everything within their power to make sure he's made an example of. It would do the same for any player in this situation, it's just unfortunate that it's JT. If we really want to get him off, I reckon we'll have to go outside the jurisdiction of the AFL.

My opinion of Sam Mitchell has just risen enormously; that's really puttin' 'em on the line!

I think they need to be very careful how they argue against this. I'm beginning to realise thast the only reason that this instruction was given was not so that the tribunal members would abide by it, but in order to close an avenue for a later appeal. "They" (whoever the other side is in this appeal) will argue that the tribunal, in being instructed thus, therefore (after their thorough and intensive 4-minute deliberation) DID focus on conduct & not on consequence. If David Jones had not given this instruction, it would have been impossible at an appeal to defend against the argument that, as everybody in the football world knows, Trengrove is being punished solely because of the consequence of his action, and the punishment has nothing to do with his conduct (no concussion, no suspension). David Jones, anticipating this, gave this instruction ONLY for the purpose of closing off this avenue for a later appeal. That is, "the tribunal was instructed to focus on the conduct not on the consequence, therefore they did so". The instruction was therefore no more than a figleaf to cover what everybody knows to be an absolute embarrassment. Like I said in another post, there is nothing so inflexible as a bureaucratic mind on a crusade. The AFL are determined to make an example of this incident in their crusade (and there is certainly a crusading doctor involved, who may well have allowed Dangerfield back into play after an earlier incident and who badly needs to cover their backside), and they will leave no stone unturned until they get their man.

Furthermore, Dangerfield could have tried to just dribble the ball a few metres, with a minimal swing of his leg & foot, to avoid being pinged for holding the ball. For some reason he took a full-blooded swing at it. If he'd tried to just dribble it, he could have maintained his balance to a much greater degree and crumpled to the ground with Trengrove (thus, by the way, making it impossible for Trengrove to make the tackle on his teammate about a second later). It could therefore be argued that Dangerfield had greater discretion in this situation than Trengrove did, and that he chose the more reckless option by trying to clear the ball 40 metres downfield, and he didn't need to swing his leg as hard as he did, and that this choice contributed to them both being thrown off balance.

... and if so, the Adelaide club doctor might be in a bit of trouble!

It's the fact that natural justice seems to have been denied that makes a further appeal so tempting. Seems strange that the panel was specifically instructed to decide on the basis of conduct not consequence, when the consequence was 100% of the reason why the charge came about in the first place. If Dangerfield had not been concussed, the charge would not have been brought in the first place. The consequence is the one and only reason Trengrove has any suspension at all. The tribunal therefore seems to have gone against their instructions. On the other hand, perhaps those instructions were given just to create a smokescreen. It could be seen that if Trengrove was suspended, it would create a precedent that would be extremely difficult for the MRP & tribunal to manage (i.e. that the outcome was to be governed by the consequence, not by the action). In other words, the instruction was given to provide a fig-leaf to enable it to be said after the event that this decision was reached on account of the conduct alone, not the consequence, when it clearly wasn't. There is nothing as inflexible as a bureaucratic mind on a crusade about something (in this case, head injuries). The MRP was created in order to bureaucratise reportable incidents.

No, it'll be the St Kilda who play us, which will be nothing like the St. Kilda who got done ... etc. And then Essendon & Carlton ...

The key word is "legitimacy". A great win, especially as it proves that we're not as bad as we've shown up until yesterday. But to gain legitimacy & respect, the performance has to be there regularly. Great review as always.

Totally agree. But now they have to produce it against teams (like North & St Kilda) that won't let them play however they want.

Totally agree. This is not just a form slump, or a lack of endeavour on behalf of the players. It's a problem that's fundamental - a lack of any sort of structure or organisation. And it seems to be this way because DB considers it to be less important than "player development". If so, the next few weeks are going to get really ugly. Of course, the players might muster a superhuman collective effort and win, but they won't be able to sustain it in the absence of structure & organisation. By far the majority of teams that improve, do so because of improved structure & organisation - think in the past few seasons of Hawks 2008, Collingwood & St Kilda & Freo past couple of years, Essendon & West Coast & Richmond this year. We've deliberately chosen to neglect the usual way to improved team performance. And by "structure and organisation", I mean at centre bounces & ball-ups, at kick-ins ours & theirs, organisation & structure in defence (which we had last year & don't have this year) and forwards; it's not just the "game plan", it's all these things as well. If we start to see some structure & organisation anywhere under Dean, then maybe he'll hold on. But without it, as I say, things are going to get very ugly very soon.

Expected this thread to be about Choco Royal.