The Chazz

And as I mentioned yesterday, that loss in Hobart, Viney played and didn't get in the best 6 Melbourne players on the ground, and Jones didn't play at all. People are questioning Jones' leadership on this thread/forum, yet are frothing over what Viney brings. Yet in the game that was easily our worst loss for the year, Viney is immune to any criticism of leadership whatsoever. Remarkable.

Not at all, Jim. I generally try and have realistic expectations, but am as guilty as most for getting caught up in hype at times.

As soon as I received that finals brochure a few days after the last game, I knew that this was way above anything that Goodwin had control over.

I think then ENTIRE club need to learn from the last two weeks, from President and board, to the CEO, coach, players, and us. Every single person got well ahead of themselves.

Go over to the "Should Nathan Jones step down as captain" thread. Not as universal as you'd think...

Think you will find that when Moloney was hard, most supporters loved him. The umpires used footage of his game during their preseason when they tried to wipe out the heavy hits. This had an impact on how Moloney played for a couple of years. Once he got his game sorted, he was a favourite again, until he had a run in with the coach, which turned most sour. Silvia was one of those players that everyone wanted to love, but it ended up nothing more than lust. He wasn't hard, he was a gifted footballer that couldn't be bothered taking it to the next level. Similar to the Moloney footage comment above, I also know for fact that Roos showed his new assistant coaches plenty of footage of Silvia about work rate issues. Why was it only Silvia? Because he, like us, knew that there were plenty of players on the list with potential, but were content with being on a list. There aren't many supporters that wouldn't love Nev Jetta. He goes when it's his turn, he crashes packs, he puts his head over the pill. He's not a superstar, and doesn't get the external accolades that most in the team get.

For every Hodge and Selwood that have often dragged their team across the line to win a game single handedly, there are players like Nick Maxwell, Tom Harley, Easton Wood/Bob Murphy, Tex Walker that have captained their sides to premierships by leading their sides in totally different ways to the aforementioned players. Trent Cotchin has played two cracking finals, but how often has his leadership been questioned in the past? Now he's some sort of messiah.

Absolutely and I've acknowledged that in my previous posts. Are you suggesting that injuries played no part in us losing some games?

We rarely see eye to eye Bub, and we're at it again. The injury front is not a furphy at all, it's fact. Look at Sydney's start, they had a number of their better players out, and the lost every game. Look what happened when they got those players back. We're not talking about injuries to the likes of Kent, Tim Smith, Joel Smith. We're talking Gawn, Viney, Hogan, Jones. How you can't see that these injuries cost us games is beyond me. And as I've mentioned in a previous post, it's not only the injuries, it's when they occur. We played a half of footy against Richmond with 18 fit blokes. You can't replace them mid-game. This impacts structures, rotations. We were in front at 3/4 time in this game - we were always going to run out of puff. Similar story with the Geelong game. By claiming "many of these games were there for the winning", yes, that's a fact, the game was still being played and we still had a team competing against another team. But there are so many other elements attached to that which you are clearly dismissing.

Thanks for that clarification. So you are basing your decision on that small window of about 2 1/2 hours per week, and form this view with such certainty. Says more about those that think he should, more so than those that don't.

Thanks for posting those links. As I said, I presumed that the decision had the playing group having some say in. Clearly not. And another "thank you" for the links that gave us this... “This is the model we think we might have for a number of years going forward,” Goodwin said. “This model could last for three, four or five years; it could last for ten years.” “We are not sold on this being a one-year thing. I’ve seen the model work at other clubs ... we feel we have the right two guys for the now, and for the future.” So, based on how it would've been "sold" to Jones, does anyone really think he will be stepping down in 2018?

I'm presuming so. Would imagine that the playing group would have some say in it? I may be wrong. Point is, you highlighted that because 50% of people are voting to keep Jones as co-captain, that it's hardly an endorsement for the bloke. I'll flip it over - the fact that 50% want him to remain in the post means that said 50% aren't necessarily satisfied that Viney is ready to go it alone. While I am in favour of Jones remaining in the role, I really have no care. Mainly because either way you lean, we are in no position to know the full extent of the role. We are exposed to what we see on the ground, and what we hear in press conferences. We don't have ears in the huddles at training, in the dressing room, in the midfield meetings after an opposition goal, etc, etc. If Jones initiates the stepping down, then that's fine by me. From the very limited exposure we have, I don't see the need for him to do that. If he is tapped on the shoulder, I hope it doesn't throw a bad egg amongst this culture we are trying to create (that egg could also come from other senior members of the playing group, and not driven by Jones).

Playing games here Bub. Presuming the captaincy required the players to vote on it (which led to the appointment of co-captains), 50% of the playing group didn't think Viney should be captain. Hardly a resounding endorsement from those that actually matter.

I don't think many Essendon supporters would agree, and were only too happy with what they got for him. I remember a comment I heard about his best years being those that were the final one of his current contract. These same people were full of praise for Hibberd. All that said, I was very happy with the 2nd half of the year from Jake. The run in the 2s mid-season did him the world of good, as did giving him a specific role that he was capable of playing on a consistent basis.

Interestingly... Freo - Neither Viney nor Jones in the best Hawthorn - Viney BOG, Jones 5th best North (1st time) - Viney not in best, Jones 4th best North (2nd time) - Viney not in best, Jones did not play Brisbane - Viney DNP, Jones not in best (had 32 possessions) Collingwood - Viney DNP, Jones 5th best The game that without doubt we are all pizzed off the most about (or at least should be) in 2017, the North in Hobart game, Jones didn't play and Viney didn't get in the best. But oh no, we can't go crook at the "newbie". FMD.

Ah, the old "natural leader" line. We'll have people getting on here in a minute claiming that he goes surfing too much to continue with the captaincy. Only have to look at the best players in some of our close wins this season. Jones appears quite frequently, as does Viney. They are often joined by Lewis, TMc and Hibberd. Hence why I don't think it's very accurate to say we have gone backwards in our leadership (as the OP has stated). I don't think there's any argument that Viney will be a long-term captain of the MFC (I'm more concerned about his foot injury, but that's a different thread). I think the co-captaincy worked in 2017, and expect it to continue next year. 2019 is when the change is complete.

I don't think it's accurate to say that our leadership went backwards this year. I think that it was more a case of our expectations increasing. This is a healthy thing. It could be argued that there games that we won this year because our leaders stood up, Jones included, and dragged us across the line. For this reason, I'd like to see him remain co-captain for another season. He still offers so much in terms of ability, maturity, experience and leadership. As the younger guys hopefully get more consistent in 2018, I think Jones will show how important he still is for this team.

In a season where we continually fielded the top 3 or 4 youngest teams week in, week out, and to be in the finals with 5 minutes to go of the entire season, I think we have probably performed above where we are at. Might only be a level above, but still above. This season was one of the most peculiar and even seasons I remember. Yes, we definitely had some "Melbourne" losses, but we also had some very "un-Melbourne" wins. The domination of Adelaide in Adelaide, and the way we fought back and beat West Coast in Perth are two that I was unfamiliar with. The Hobart game, as frustrating as it was to lose, I just can't see how Goodwin gets the blame for this. We played well with the wind in the 2nd quarter, does anyone really think the directive in the last was to change the way we played it? The players just did a "Melbourne" thing - thinking they just stroll out and it happens. It doesn't, and it didn't. Reality is, none of us were in the huddle at 3/4 time to know what was said, but I think it's an easy way out to lay blame on the coach. Watching the Brownlow last night was good to revisit some of the bizarre results from season 17. Geelong lost to Collingwood, the Gold Coast then Essendon in consecutive weeks. Adelaide got flogged by North at the very venue that we lost to them at. Sydney lost their first 6 games, half of which were against sides that finished in the bottom 9. Just on the Sydney start to the season, they proved more than anyone just how much impact injuries to key personnel can hurt. It's no coincidence that when they got continuity in their team, and their better players were fully fit, they started performing well. We, more than a majority of teams, need a clear run with injuries, and there is without doubt a number of games that injuries cost us the game. But further to that, it wasn't just the injury list, it was when those injuries occurred that killed us. We were clearly dominating the Geelong game before Gawn went down. We had 18 fit blokes for a half when we lost to Richmond. It's not only the time of the game when we lost these guys, it's also the position they play. Injuries are part of the game, and happen to all teams, but it's easier to cover an in-game injury if it's to a mid-tier midfielder, or a wing, half forward, etc, but when it's a key player like a ruck (which happened in both the Geelong and Richmond examples), it really stretches your structures. Again, I think in these situations, the coaching staff worked admirably. I won't cover the suspensions too much, other than to say that there were 2 or 3 games that I think would've gone our way if we didn't have them. Goodwin's challenge in this area is making sure that the players continue to play on the edge, but understand how much room they have got on that edge. Goodwin easily gets a pass for mine. His next challenge in my view is to reduce the amount of "Melbourne" losses next year. I can easily think of 6 games that with an ounce of luck (whether through injury, suspension, or having those "Melbourne" moments), we should've won. We don't have to improve much for those results to go our way next year, but fortunately, Goodwin will be striving to improve more than that. I do acknowledge that all teams are in that same boat. While the pain of 2017 is still burning for me, I look forward going in to 2018 with an expectation of playing finals, and knowing that if we can get a reasonable rub of the green, that anything is possible.

You should lose your accreditation to post "intel" on here.

Backpedalling? You goose. Our main problem (from reading between the lines), is how we prepare for games. Watts has been whacked publicly, by those at the club, about his preparation. He is a senior player - has been on the list for 8/9 years. It's unacceptable. Of all our listed players, Watts is by far the closest to what our main problem is. Yes, all players on our list can be better. That's not the issue. The issue is that, as proven by Oliver this year, with the right commitment, mindset and preparation, you can take significant steps forward. We want players on our list that are cut from that cloth. We especially don't want players that are of over 150 games of experience, that clearly can be match winners, not working their ass off. And you talk of infield leadership. Take a look at Jetta and Hibberd. Are they part of it? Not by title, but does that stop them from stepping up and putting it on the line when it counts?

Watts is a significant contributor to our main problem.

While acknowledging you said no particular order, the very first point, the failure to start games well, is more about player preparation than anything else. Which is exactly what Watts is being questioned about. You fail to start games well, you get behind on the scoreboard, you are under more pressure to catch up, which equals mistakes being made. You also give opposition, especially weaker than us, that momentum that can be hard to stop. Other issues that you mentioned can be put down to injuries, especially this year. The game plan worked well against Adelaide (the first time), against the Bulldogs. There's nothing wrong with it when executed by the 22 blokes named. Where it breaks down is when players don't play their role. Again, this can come back to preparation. There's not many games I go to and watch the players in the first warm up, and not know if they are "on" or not. That's attitude and preparation. Agan, when you see a 150+ gamer going in to games like that, it's not an ideal thing for those that look up to him as some sort of role model.

I think it's pretty close to it. Our current group of your (potential) stars have got 2 kinds of role models at the club. The type that prepare like Jack, who get to play 150+ games, mostly on talent alone, and still become long-term AFL players. The other type is that of the Viney/Stretch ilk - work your backside off, may get to play 150+ games, but won't leave anything in the tank getting there. You can see what happens to a kid that oozes potential, if he takes the right road. Oliver. Next season we need the likes of Petracca, Hogan, Salem, Harmes, Hunt, Kent and Brayshaw to do what Oliver did this year. Jones says something similar in the articles to show that it's clearly an issue (although he doesn't name specific names). I get the feeling that even Gawn would've learnt a lot from the mindset he attacked 2016 with, compared to the mindset of 2017. I sincerely hope that he regains that 2016 attitude. Goody has proven his disliking for poor prep vs top prep. It's why guys like ANB, and I'd even suggest OMc, continued to get games, while others like Kent and Watts were dropped when required, and the likes of Kennedy didn't get a sniff.

While he's not immune to having some of his ideas being questioned, I think PJ would know, given his record, if this decision is in the best interest of the club.

I don't understand how people are saying we don't deserve to play finals. If, by the end of tomorrow, we are in the 8, then we [censored] well deserve it. If we're not in the 8, we don't deserve it. As shattering as today was, we have to wait. We've played 22 games to get ourselves in to this position. Have we underachieved? I don't think so.