The Chazz

This thread, like cliches, should be avoided like the plague.

So you're saying that after you get your technique right, then you have to have the commitment to the tackle? So, the line I quoted, about teaching people technique but not being able to teach them the "want", is different how? I still disagree about work rate. Watts makes many contests, his technique is fine when they stick, it's just that they are "nice" tackles in that they stop a player. Compare Hawthorn's tackling - they have this obsession to impact every contest, with the hope that they create a loose ball then back their inside mids to clear it. That's the mindset that coaches can't teach. You need to tackle hard (*different to aggressive) in the AFL otherwise players get their hands free and clear the ball, or if you're lucky, they create a stoppage. If you tackle hard, you have greater chance of creating a loose ball, a 50/50 ball, or a stoppage. Don't worry, Watts isn't on his own in regards to tackling ability. Can't remember which game it was earlier this year that Neeld said after the game about how many tackles we attempted and compared it to how many stuck. That's commitment, desire, hunger...not work rate. It's been years since we've had a team that had more hard tacklers than nice ones.

What are you talking about? Not sure why you're being a clever date, rjay, but go your hardest if it makes you feel better. I attended a training session, where a message was passed on by the (recognised) facilitator of which they received directly from a source (which I claimed may have been the Storm tackle coach, but the more I think about it, it may have been the Wallabies tackle coach), which helped explain a certain thing they (the facilitator) were trying to teach the group (which included me). But, the know-all that knows f-all, rjay, is trying to tell this forum that I didn't attend this training session, and even though he didn't attend, he knows what the message was and how it was intended to be understood by the group, which did actually include me, and interestingly, the entire group had the same understanding as what I have got. Rjay, I couldn't give a rats if you or anyone else doesn't agree with my opinion, I have contributed to the topic (which was in reply to RPFC believing Watts' physicality can be developed). How about you try and do the same. If you want further clarification, please feel free to PM me, so that you don't take the thread down a similar path to where Stuie steered it.

I'd like to think I've seen enough footy, played enough footy, and run enough coaching sessions to be able to read what's going through the mind of players. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I'm confident in my observations. Where in Queensland do you live?

Rjay, no disrespect mate, but I don't think you were at the training session that I was at, therefore, you wouldn't have heard the context that the coach put it in. But, my preconceived ideas have nothing to do with me questioning your comments about work rate. I'll make it easier for you, if a player with the ball runs directly at Watts, what goes through Jack's mind? At the moment, it's "I have to tackle this guy", rather than "I want to tackle this guy". See the difference? It's hard for someone to teach someone to "want" to tackle, especially when that isn't their mindset. FWIW, at the end of said training session, you could still sit back and work out which blokes had to tackle the tackle bag and get the ball out because that was the drill. You could also cleary see which players wanted to tackle the bag and get the ball out, which wass also the drill, just a different mindset.

How you come up with work rate in regards to that comment has me buggered. I think the message from the tackling coach is pretty clear. Perhaps you needed to hear it directly from a coach to get the real message.

Was that Junior's age prior to the tap on the shoulder?

Not yet. Not doubting his leadership ability, but think at this stage he is best suited in the leadership group, and maybe earn the role of deputy vice captain (if they still have such a title?!).

Don't get agression and courage mixed up. Courage is what will help take a mark running back with the flight. Agression is what makes you want to drive someone in to the ground when you tackle them. Agression isn't something you think about, it's just something that is in your nature. Courage is something that you do have an option with. Green was a far more courageous player than agressive. I never once thought he had an agressive bone in his body. I have the same view of Grimes, but the opposite of Trengove.

Saty, can you please tell me how a player can change his body shape in 9 weeks? Especially given he was O/S for at least 2 of it. I appreciate the still have gym's in other countries, but I just don't believe they'd go to a different country and do a solid 3 or 4 hours a day in the gym. I have no doubt they go for runs and do the odd weight session.

Sorry Binman, not really sure what you are saying, although I can see that you're no agreeing! The comment that was made by the tackling coach is something that makes perfect sense to me, and something I totally agree with. A player needs agression from the start, and if it's there, it can either be developed or fine tuned, depending on what level the player is at with it. If it's something that is virtually non-existent (like in Watts' case), then you are far better spending your time developing other areas of his game. Don't get me wrong, I love Jacky, but I'm not expecting Roos or Stone to develop something that aint there. I do however expect them to develop him in other areas to become a very good footballer.

Disagree. Was told about (I think) the Melbourne Storm tackling coach a couple of years ago stood in front of an AFL team and said "I can teach any of you how to make a tackle, what I can't teach is making you want to tackle". But I do agree with the next bit. If (let's face it, it probably isn't "if") Watts' issues is agression toward player/ball/contest, then instead of expecting him to play as a clearance player, let's play to his strengths which is his disposal.

Jesus Hardtack, don't tell me there are higher notches on the MFC blowtorch that haven't been tested yet?

A lot of rich, resilient people Old Dee! I'm in the other category of "I don't smoke so I might as well waste my money on something" category! I do have to ask, and it is a serious question... Our break-even crowd is approx 25k for a home game. If we got the 25k, and every single person in the crowd was a member, does tha tmean we still break even? Or do they budget for a certain percentage of the crowd to be non-members? Hope tha tmakes sense, and while I'm sure a lot of "experts" will "know", I do look forward to someone posting who actually does know what they are talking about.

Highlights the soft culture that a lot of our Melbourne-based supporters have created or helped maintain.

When I lived in Victoria, it took me around 1 1/2 hours to get to the MCG. I went to most home games to get value out of my membership. I went to a few away games. I can assure you of one thing though - whenever I had the opportunity to go to a home game, the last thing I cared about was the day and time it was being played, and I couldn't give a rats about the opposition. Sure, it was pre-kids, but I still worked full time, and still made the effort. This year, I don't get to see any games in Brisbane/Gold Coast. Disappointing. It won't stop me from flying down to see a couple of games in Melbourne. I actually like going to Etihad as generally the roof is closed and saves us Northerners from the Victorian (winter) elements!

So are you saying that Geelong shoudn't have got rid of Chapman so he can contribute to the flag tilt next season, but then are saying that Geelong made the right choice to get rid of him because his hamstrings are a risk? I come to this because Pods isn't a champion, and I rate Chappy ahead of Josh Hunt. Joel Corey is the only other champion they got rid of.

Mirror? Oh dear. 3 years of sustainable income (my opinion) vs a bandaid attempt (your opinion)? And you think I'm the one that's not clever!!! I'm quite proud how I didn't even bother pulling you up on you questioning Peter Jackson's decision making. Others understand your view? Yep, they are shouting from the roof in support. Good day Beelzebub Barrett.

I have heard that we have a number of potential sponsors coming on board, but we are currently doing a criminal check, filtering through various facebook accounts of their management, getting reports from the ACCC, and waiting for their credit rating report to come through. It's just how we do things now at the MFC. All I will say is that I'm thankful that Peter Jackson will know our true market value, and will secure sponsors that are willing to invest at the appropriate price. Come at me B59!

Not many posters, if any, waffle on as much as you. Your argument for playing games in the NT is that it limits the value of being a member. I've proven this to be [censored] by the fact that you get it reimbursed. It's simple logic yet you claim it isn't all it appears to be. What else is there? The MFC are acknowledging the fact that we are playing 2 home games interstate, so they will recompensate by giving you entry to 2 away games. You claim playing more games in Melbourne is better for the Melbourne-based fans. Of course it is. However, given that we will end up playing atleast 15 games in Melbourne anyway, whether home or away, I'm sure we are still providing these fans plenty of opportunity to see the team play, which will help continue to maintain/build our brand in our home town. The reason why I'm overlooking this is because the evidence clearly disputes your argument. Want the evidence? Look at our home and away crowd figures from 2013. Even when Melbourne-based memebers and supporters have had the opportunity to attend a game (ie any game that Melbourne plays in Melboune), only few have. So you think the solution is to offer more games for people to potentially not show up at? Smart business move. You claim that playing more games in Melbourne will grow the club more and improve its bottom line. Hello, what part of Peter Jackson's comments regarding us losing money when we have poor crowds don't you understand? That means that we don't get as much as we budgeted for, which means our debt increases. How can we pay for the development of these players when we have no money? How can we pay for the likes of Paul Roos' Football Department, who will be capable of taking our playing list a lot higher than they currently are, if we are in debt? We need income to fund this development, playing in front of 15,000 at the MCG doesn't provide that. You claim that the NT "cash grab" is a bandaid. Clearly you are out of your depth again. It's an income stream, something that we need more of. Is it sustainable? I believe it is when you have an agreement in place with the NT government. I'm quite sure PJ will be more than happy over the next 3 years to know that there is $600k coming in from "selling" 2 home games. He'll be a lot happier with the bottom line when that's in the profit column, rather than a $200k loss by playing a game at the MCG. And before you get the chance to put words in to my mouth, something you do where possible, I'm not saying every home game at the MCG costs us money so no, I'm not suggesting we sell all our home games. The NT partnership is more sustainable than the Foundations Heroes fundraisers. You claim you want commitment from the club for its customers. I think that's a two-way street. But given what the customers have put up with, especially over the past 7 years, I think the Club's end of the agreement needs to start happening first, that is the onfield performance. This is what will sell more memberships and bring more people through the gates. B59, do us all a favour and go to sleep for the next 3 years. When you wake up, you will notice that we will be playing most, if not all of our hopme games at the MCG, we will have home crowds in the 30,000+ range every game, and our membership will be well over 40,000. If you're not willing to do us that favour, sit back and understand what the club is doing, and how what it IS currently doing IS for the long-term benefit of the club.

It's a process B59, and one tha tyou want to fast forward to the last step without reaching milestone periods in the journey. Members ultimately want a premiership. In 2014, we are highly unlikely to achieve that. History shows the premiers will come from the Top 4 at seasons end, again in 2014, we are unlikely to achieve that. For us to be successful, we have had to get the right people in the right roles. We have achieved this, but we have had to pay for it, with money that we don't have. Playing 1 extra home game "away" is going to contribute to the ability to pay our bills. Playing this home game at home is not. We can use relationships like this to help continue fund this new Football Department. In 2014 we will see improvement onfield. It'll be enough to encourage more members the following year, which in turn will see crowds grow in 2015. Ideally, in 2017+ when we may start challenging for that Top 4 spot, then we can look at the impact of a NT home game, especially in the week after the game. Until then, we use this as a source of funding the development of our team. It's a form of sponsorship from the NT. And again, you continually use this Melbourne-based supporters as your argument for not playing games in the NT. I'm sure a majority of our members would prefer a competitive team (which will come from our new Football Department, again, partially funded by the NT games), over going to watch 11 home games at the MCG getting smashed and showing no sign of improvement (because we can't afford to keep our new Football Department because most games at the MCG cost us money). Again, your argument is weak when you say less MFC games played in Melbourne for people to go to. FACT - even when we played in Melbourne this year hardly anyone turned up, enough to break even at least. Fickle Melbourne-based Melbourne supporters, most probably like yourself, have themselves to blame for an extra game crossing the border/s. It's locked in for 2014, but you and any of your mates can make a statement for 2015 by attending the 9 home games you have the opportunity to attend. An excuse is a powerful thing as it is one of not many things that if you look for one, you'll always find one.

So you would rather prostitute yourself to Vlad and hope that your empty bucket is filled by other clubs, than actually doing something proactive so that we hopefully can reduce to reliance of said handouts? The NT contribution isn't THAT big? I'll give you a tip, it's a bloody sight bigger than playing that same match at the MCG in our current state. Also, I'm pretty sure that when you buy a membership that the NT game is "reimbursed" with an away game at the MCG. So, you're not really losing any value in your actual membership. Reserved seating price, yes, I acknowledge that it's one less game. But, I'm sure the Club appreciates all memberships. I know you love your sayings, etc, I'lll give you an old one..."you don't go broke making a profit". Playing all our home games at the MCG and performing poorly WILL NOT make us a profit. I'm happy for you to ignore my views on this, but the fact that you're ignoring Peter Jackson's view on it is laughable.

Will he still host Dancing With The Stars?

As I said earlier B59, which you continually ignore (which in turn makes your argument weak) - we play the Melbourne vs Freo game at the MCG on a Sunday twilight instead of the NT, we need some 25,000 crowd to break even. From what PJ mentioned earlier this year, if we have 15,000 turn up to that match (10,000 less than what we need), we lose $100k-$200k. By playing this game in the NT, we are getting over $300k for it - that's nearly 1/2 million $ difference. Does that make us whores because from a business perspective we are better with $300k in the hand rather than writing off $150k? I'm not surprised you don't understand the financial and business aspect of it given your history. Clearly out of your depth. You talk about this crap of giving fish or be taught to fish. We are selling 2 home games. We have 9 other home games that will be played on our turf. 9 games is ample time to be taught how to fish, especially given we will be able to buy the best gear thanks to the NT funding.

Fanciful trip down Jurrah lane? In a lot of ways I'm critical of the previous admin given that they tried to milk as many royalties as possible from playing Jurrah. These trips by Stynes, Schwab etc to Jurrah's homeland were nothing but a PR exercise. All of a sudden, the NT government saw the "good work" we were doing and stepped in and offered us a few dollars to play a game up there. We saw the dollar signs, which we couldn't knock back at the time, and still can't. We had done a bit in the communities up there, especially when we had a greater number of indigenous players on our list, which made it a lot easier to be accepted. Then, when the shite hit the fan with Jurrah, it would've been easy for the MFC to walk away. The fact that a team, and in this case ours, has taken the time, and given the locals the respect of maintaining the relationship is a big positive for the club, and is giving us the right PR. It's a part of OUR country that loves anything AFL, a number of communities less fortunate than ours, and we are giving something back by playing a couple of games up there a year. In return, we are receiving significant financial benefits from doing so. You bang on about the short and long term damage to our "real" base by playing home games away. The damage to our "real" base in the past 7 years has been through on and offield performance, not through selling our soul to the NT Government. Simple proof is in the crowd sizes out our "real" home games at the MCG. And no doubt you, like some others, will use the fixturing as an excuse for low crowds for some games. You know what, that's absolute [censored], and actually, as a non-Victorian resident, I find it pissweak that our "real" base use this as an excuse not to attend a game, then in the next breath, they think selling games to the NT is going to have a longterm impact on the club. Here's the simple solution B59, you don't like us being the NT's [censored]? Well get off your arse and start going to our 4:30pm Sunday arvo games, regardless of our ladder position and opponent. Make sure you pick a few of your front-running mates up on the way to the G. When we start getting 25k-40k to those games, that's when we can walk away from the NT. From memory, weren't you one that mentioned about playing a game for premiership points in China during our China Experiment days?