The Chazz

And in defense to Matt Warnock, so he bloody should. Read my post DC - I questioned the logic of his opinion of Warnock.

Would be fair to say that Moloney would be currently sitting on 12 Brownlow votes for the season. If we win enough games, and he continues his great form in those winning games, could he do it? There was an interesting article on the weekend saying tha twe needed to put him back in the leadership group. I don't think we do this straight away, I think we'd be better to say to him that this will be reviewed mid-season. I still believe tha tthere will be room for he and Jones come 2013-ish. I'd think Jones at this stage would be in our Top 3 B&F so far. But I don't expect many to agree (only because his name is Nathan Jones).

Highlight for me was the Watts goal from 1m out. The "old" Jack would have softly kicked it through, the "new" Jack appeared to be making a statement. He's ready, his last 2 weeks have been great, and is getting better. I'd be surprised if he doesn't have a BOG game this year, kicking 4 or 5 goals. On the telecast, they mentioned that he runs at 90% efficiency. He is a very smart footballer, and one of our best user's. Good on ya Jack!!!

Poor Warnock. Jones obviously played well so people need someone else to whinge about with absolutely no justification. I laugh how you wrote he holds on every week, and it's something others do when they are out of form. So you know, this was Warnock's first game for the year, and he was picked due to excellent form at Casey. Anyway, as someone else said; No Change unless Grimes is injured. Bate needs to improve this week, he played pretty woeful in a team that won by 96 points. He did enough one-percenters though to give him a 2nd chance.

I'd love to know what players don't get along, and I'd also love to know why certain players don't like the actions of the FD. Firstly, we obviously miss Jnr's leadership, but I will not believe that him playing htis year would have been a smart decision. The only thing he would've brought to the team this year was his leadership, which in hindsight, may have been worth its weight in gold. However, I think he would've been a liability. He was slowing down terribly last year, and his body was struggling with the demands of modern day football. He took 6 or 7 weeks to get over a hamstring injury FFS. If anyone watched the last game against the Kangaroos last year, you would have noticed just how far behind the benchmark C Bruce is. He wanted 2 years, we only wanted to give him 1. To me, if he had've had faith in his ability, and pulled out a Top 5 finish in the B&F, he would've gone close to getting an extra year on top of that. He wanted insurance and we weren't willing to offer it. Smart decision by the Club, and as it turns out, smart decision by Bruce as he got the 2 years he wanted. Now that he has done his knee, he'll possibly scrape through the 2nd year of his contract, as he will have played a reduced season this year. Based on the events of this year, we wouldn't have offered him an extra year. It will be interesting to see how long it takes him to come back from this 6-8 week injury (see me point re. Junior). Miller failed to live up to the early hype, and had ample opportunity to perform at senior level. If playing Watts (based on draft pick number) over Miller (prove to not make any impact at senior level) has created a bad culture among some of the senior players, well, who is accepting mediocrity? Us who think Watts needs game time, or those who think that Miller playing a few good games at Casey here and there should be elevated with the continual results of underperforming at the next level. Reading between the lines, I would think the senior players with the concerns would be Flash and Green. I'd like to think Moloney plays for the jumper regardless, although his recent lack of judgement shouldn't be made by a player of his experience. Sylvia I don't think is in this category either. The concern for Green and Flash is that they are approaching 30, and if they continue to play ordinary football, they will get hit with the same bullet that Bruce, Miller and Jnr got hit with. But let's have a good think about one thing, will green and Flash help win us a flag playing the way they currently are? Absolutely not. The whole team needs to lift, moreso those 2 guys. Without being in the inner sanctum, I think there is a strong culture at the footy club, but it's the guys that have been there for 4 years or less that are building it. Jones, regardless of what you think of his ability, is a big driver of it, and it appears has great respect from all age levels at the Club. Then the likes of Frawley, Garland, Grimes, and Morton, they need to step up and ensure that the following 2 years of recruits are aware of the attitude and endeavour required to be accepted in this group. Bull Tapscott already is building that bond with the draft picks of his year by meeting once a week for dinner at their homes, and I believe this group is growing in size? I'm being quite harsh, and I have no doubt that people will disagree with a lot of my comments (especially early on in the post), but, regardless of if DemonWA's post is true or not, it has really annoyed me. I ask again, are we accepting mediocrity by not playing "older" players who have had ample chance to prove themselves, for what return??? If it's blokes like Bate and Newton that are being treated unfairly, then I honestly don't care, and it may appear that the coach has a similar theory. They have had ample opportunity to consoldiate their spot in the 1's, but haven't taken it. It's now time for the kids to be given the opportunity to consolidate their spots by giving them the 50-odd games at the top level. But, some will argue that playing juniors that don't deserve their spot is also accepting mediocrity. Very, very fine line that will always upset some people. Would we be better off having Bruce playing instead of Tapscott? Or Jnr instead of McKenzie? Bailey didn't know Jordie was going to be out for as long as he has been this season when he tapped Jnr on the shoulder. How about if we had've been playing Newton and Bate instead of Jurrah and Watts? Wait until guys like Cook, Howe and Fitzpatrick start playing consistently good footy for Casey, then I would like to think that the players they could replace will go to another level. Edit - Put the last paragraph in!

Maybe most of you are reading far too much in to the whole story. The Club is at a stage in the set timeline where in 2012, it is expected that we make the finals. Things were going fine last year - the Coach was doing his job, the players were playing some impressive footy in patches (as much as could be expected in their development phase), the debt was gone, every thing was travelling to the letter of the script. Season 2011 was/is always going to be one of the biggest years in our history, as it will show us how we are progressing according to our premiership model. The Coach will be out of contract at the end of the year. If he can achieve/succeed the goals set, he, like I believe Lyon siad this week, can set himself up as the MFC coach for the next few years. I think that Stynes' decision to be involved in this capacity is a proactive approach, rather than a reactive one. He started it late last year, and I have no doubt it was to be some kind of insurance should this season not go to plan. So, as we currently see, it hasn't, and Jim is there NOW, rather than waiting until half the year has gone and there's no coming back. We still have plenty of time to get this season on track, and Bailey has plenty of time to secure his future as the next Melbourne premership coach. At present, it aint gunna happen, but I can assure you one thing, if this ship gets moving forward again (I don't think it has turned around, may have just stalled slightly), and if Stynes' closer interaction with the footy department reveals that it's more player attitude/execution of the game plan, rather than Bailey's issues, this would lead to another contract extension. The next 6 weeks will be up there as the most important month and a half in this Club's proud history. Everyone at the Club has the opportunity to stand up and take us to that level most were expecting at the start of the year. A handful of players, I'm talking about Grimes, Watts, Trengove, Frawley and even Jurrah, they have the opportunity to stand up and say "we're not going to accept this anymore, we want leaders at our club, well, we are it". Those players MUST have the attitude of "come with us, or bugger off". Scully and McKenzie would have been in that list if they weren't injured. If I were Bailey, I'd be going to them first and foremost. If he has them 110% committed to the cause, the entire football public will think that the kids are playing inspired footy, and that's regardless of how many we win or lose in the next 6 weeks. And for those blokes, there's no better time than while every area of the Club in being put under the mircoscope by the media, AND the president.

It's good they made him do it. It's not good he needed to do it.

Sorry 99, not sure what you meant by this! If we bottomed out, but then traded for ready made players and a current star, then I too would be happy to win "a" flag. Fact is, we have been sold this "team of the decade" scenario, and recruited some of the best junior talent in the country, while getting rid of some of the older players that wont be around. Of course I want to see us win a flag, but I'm hoping for multiple flags. A "mate" of mine who barracks for Carlton will be calling me in the next week or two, as he does at some stage every year, and sings Happy Birthday to me ([censored]!). As I keep reminding him though, look out when we win 1, becuase history shows, when we get 1, there are a few more up it's backside!

Bit precious there Jaded. Not sure how anyone is this thread has degraded Cale. I too think he plays the free running, (way) out wide wing position, and does need to add some form of physicality to his game. He has shown that he can find space going forward and kicks goals. If he adds some hard, defencesive pressure to his game, he will take that next step or two that we need. Until then, in my view, he is too much of a sheep dog. That's not degrading, that's honesty. Good to hear they did that to him at training (if true). This is a man's game.

So, in 4 years time when we should expect to be serious challengers, we will have half the team over 30 years old? Might win us 1 flag (if we're lucky), but the clear objective of the football club is to build a team of the decade. Your idea is a kneejerk reaction and will not happen so you better get this out of your head otherwise it's going to be along few years for you!

I'm glad you brought this one up again HT. And this post may sound like I'm changing my tune slightly. The biggest thing with our leaders is the consistency. When things are going well, our leaders stand and deliver. Moloney would go close to having 9 Brownlow votes next to his name already, but none of those votes from our defeats. So, does this mean we have a leadership problem, or does it just highlight what level our leaders are at? The thing that irritates me the most is that a handful of our players have a title "Leadership Group" after their name. I'd love to get rid of the "leadership group" title, or expand the group to the 22 blokes that wear the red and blue every week. Each week we have some form of leadership, generally led by Jamar. Watts took on some leadership against the Eagles - he was the one walking off at half time revving the boys up. It is the perfect oppoturnity for some of these younger kids to stand up and change the leadership culture at the Club. I said it in another thread, but this is where Scully has been a massive loss for us this year. A few times last year he acted like a leader of the Club, and that was in his first year. Look at Martin with the Tiger's this year (in his 2nd year), Scully could have given us that drive, and let's face it, he has the ability to do (obviously there is no facts to say this could have happened). From the outside looking in, I think Grimes has been the biggest disappointment this season. As a much publicised future leader, why hasn't he stood up and taken the game by the balls by moving himself in to a position where he can have a big influence on the game? Coach's instructions? Maybe, but I'm sure there are a handful of players in the league that have that licence. Maybe I'm 3 years early for this criticism.

Beautifully trumped Nutbean! Love the sarcastic way you added the word "learned" numerous times in tha tpost too. Mr Belzebub59, our resident Elnglish professor, would be ripping ones hair out reading your grammatically incorrect posts!

U r unblvabl sumtimes B59. N E 1da ur posts irrit8 me wen u tri & put urslf above evry1 else.

I want Scully in, but that aint going to happen. Not sure if it has been mentioned sicne the debacle last Thursday night, especially with the amount claiming that Richmond have gone ahead of us. But I ask one thing, how would Richmond be travelling without Dustin Martin in their side so far? Scully may or may not have taken that step forward like Dusty Martin, but there were games last year that you could easily see Scully had the potential to rip apart. There is absolutely no proof that says he would make a difference, but no proof that he wouldn't. You could also compare it to taking Judd out of Carlton, I think you would find they would struggle a lot, but they would be a lot more competitive considering Murphy and Gibbs have been in the system for some time now. Am I saying tha twe are a one-man team? Maybe, maybe not. While Jordie Mac has been an obvious loss so far this year, I wonder if Scully could have been in a position to take games by the balls like Dusty. Perhaps if he had been playing we would be sitting higher on the ladder praising Bail's? Just food for thought!

There's not much difference between them and us! So, we are going from wanting to have the best in the business as our senior coach ie Malthouse or Roos, but doesn't it generally mean that they are the best becuase they have tasted the ultimate success? I think Melbourne know very well about the fact that a past premiership doesn't assure you of one at your Club, if it didn't they wouldn't have passed on Sheedy 4 years ago.

And of the Clubs that have such coaching combination in place, or expected to next year, who are the "old cluey minds"? Mark Thompson, Mick Malthouse, Mark Williams (is that what he is doing at GWS?), and to some degree, Paul Roos did it. Laidley is doing it at Port, hasn't helped Primus (also a newbie). Also, he has one noticable difference compared to that of the abovementioned names, he hasn't won a flag. If you are going to bring in another newbie, for example Todd Viney, and if we so desperately need this older person that has been there and done it, I want someone that has won a flag, not someone who is technically good with the players.

It is because of the attitude that has crippled North for the past decade and a half. They haven't bottomed out, because they always finish around the 8th, 9th, 10th spot. They miss out on top draft picks, and while they may have the odd sniff of finals footy every few years, are generally bundled out straight away. I like your reasoning about getting a team up and playing out of their division, but I'd prefer to be in the top division and playing so. That's the division that wins flags, not the next one down. Obviously we are a long way from being in that division, but I have no doubt that Laidley has to take a considerable amount of responsibility for the fact the the Kangaroos are in the situaation that they are in. I did notice that you paired Viney with Laidley, and I'm still unsure of 2 things, 1. Why pair him with Laidley? and 2. Why pair him with anyone?????? There is absolutely no evidence that the director of coaching/mentor-type role is a success, as a matter of fact, to date there hasn't been one team that I know of win a premiership with one!

I don't understand why any club doesn't do this. It HAS to eliminate the press to some degree, as it will, as you said, make the defenders more accountable. The Eagles did it against us - how many times did they have forwards on their own in their F50? Not sure about anyone else, but this press crap really annoys me. It makes the game look very ugly, and that's not just becuase we can't do it!

Is he a relative of yours B59? I continue to taste sick in my mouth every time he gets mentioned, and bugger me, 99% of the time it's by you! I do not see in any way how Laidley in any role at the Club will be an improvement. I know you'll use the old card of his football brain being among the top echelon, but let's not forget that DB is meant to be one of the better player developers too. Means stuff all in my view. I have been in the DB camp since day 1, and only now am I starting to question if he is the man. That will of course add me to your fence-sitting list, but I don't see how anyone can make a true judgement after just Round 6. We are not a flag threat, and to be honest, I only rated us a Top 8 threat, not a Top 8 certainty. At this stage, I'm happy to leave DB there until the end of the year as it isn't going to harm us. Then reassess. If, and it's a bloody big IF, DB proves that he isn't the man, I don't see the harm in looking at Todd Viney. People on here are whinging about this "culture" and getting an "outsider" coming in, well, where did Bailey come from? Where did ND come from? Actually, when was the last non-outsider our coach? I think Viney has a massive amount of upside, especially when compared to Lyon. I wouldn't be too concerned about the father/son thing either, could get the son to a level that he didn't know he had. Ideal scenario for me, Bailey lasts til the end of the season regardless. If he can meet the KPI's that the inner sanctum have set, he almost has to get an extension (don't panic Bailey-haters, at this stage you would assume he isn't meeting them). If he doesn't meet them, then obviously the Club would have to consider Malthouse or Roos, but there is absolutely no guarantee that either will want the job. If not, then I would seriously consider Todd Viney. And, further to that, don't understand the sudden fetish of having a "director of coaching" or similar, but that's just me.

I just had a pidgeon turn up with a note saying that we didn't kick a goal in the first quarter. Can someone confirm this so I can wring it's neck if that's the case?

1. Jones 1. Watts 1. Garland 1. Trengove 1. Jamar That is all. For those that put Grimes in - didn't he play on Darling?

Watched him very closely at the Gabba the other week. He played a typical, old-style wingman role. Ran up and down the one side all day, picked up a heap of cheap possessions and kicked 3 goals. Is there a demand for that style of player in today's footy? I'm not sure of that.

We should just all turn up at quarter time. At least then we will have somehting in common with the players.

Our tackling in teh first quarter against the Lions was some of the softest I have seen this team do in recent times.

All good WYL. I just knew, in my opinion, that he did dominate against us in some games, but he is nearer the end now and not as much of a concern. Each to their own Deez. As I said above, in my opinion in a number of games he killed us, and stats can back that up. White always had him covered with hitouts, but around the ground, Fraser used to get a lot of the ball, regardless of what you thought his disposal. The game he kicked 4 against us from full forward, that was a pretty dominant display. The battle of White and Fraser wasn't as one-sided as you saw through your one eye!