DeeSpencer

Mentioning Mark Neeld shows me she doesn't understand it. It's about bringing in the number 2 to get to know the plan and work with Roos then carry on that plan with some minimal tweaks as needed. Neeld was a failure when we appointed him in charge of everything based off some power point presentations and then he let the club go off on the direction he chose. Sure they will have to make sure they pick the right person for the job and there is some risk involved but mainly it's about keeping stability for the players. It's less than perfect but it was what we required to get Roos. The idea of hiring the assistant earlier is fundamental to it. Hiring Roos was all about him setting the club up with a culture, getting us competitive on the field, getting all aspects of the footy department up to scratch and then setting up a young coach with a side on the rise and looking at sustainable success. For the assistant 1 year is too brief which is why I hope Roos commits to the third year so we have a guy getting 2 years under him but it's the seamlessness of the transition thats most important. It's not going to be Malthouse to Buckley. It's really not that different than Demetriou handing over the CEO of the AFL to Gil McLachlan. As I said before I see no point trying to force Roos in to something his initial instincts told him he didn't want. If we get what he originally signed up for which is a turned around club in 2-3 all set to have the reigns handed over to an assistant who has the trust of the playing group and has desires to continue Roos' work then it will be a great result.

That's a nice thought. But it's not really her job is it? Roos has committed to giving his all for 2-3, I sincerely hope it's 3 and to have a the next man in place, trained up and ready to deliver. That's his end of the bargain and what we lauded PJ for signing him to. If we trust Roos to coach we kind of have to trust him to pull off his plan as well. What I would like to see is hopefully the correct successor in place at the end of the year and then Roos come out and say he's in for 2016 to give the next coach 2 years under Roos.

Me too. Although I'm pretty sure Damo Barrett's source for his article about Clark was demonland. One day there's mention of Clark excused from the season launch dinner to take personal time, the next day it's on AFL.com.au

Caro's thought. Don't appoint anyone so you hope Roos stays for longer and then you might luck in to a Clarkson or Lyon down the track. MFC point - hire Roos for 2-3 years, have him appoint a capable assistant who's almost ready to be a senior coach himself, have him work with the senior coach and then take over, thus guaranteeing the head coach position at MFC is set up for the next 5 years. Caro seems to just skip over the fact that Roos signed on with the succession plan as part of his thinking. She also forgot to make any mention as to how this handover from Roos to well regarded senior coach works and made no mention of the whole idea behind the succession plan which is it's some genius coach who gets results but steady planning and working to a plan. How or why The Age have agreed to give her opinion pieces is beyond me. Reporters should report. If I want an opinion I'd take it from a well regarded footy administrator like Brian Cook or a footy director like Dunstall.

How do you know that all his troubles wouldn't have occurred if he was in Perth. That he's gone back to Perth now is indication he has more support there but chronic injuries and other problems might have happened there as well. Alternatively he could've played 2 great seasons for us and not have a care in the world. Or played 2 great seasons and still be facing these issues now. So much of the Clark hate seems to be because he's well payed and a high draft pick. Well Lucas Cook and Gysberts were the same draft pick, they didn't do half of what Clark did for us. And add the money that Jamar and Davey have got off late, double it down with Bruce and Green, mix in some Cam Pedersen. Players get paid a lot, get over it. Those discussion might (and it's just a might) have some relevance come September or October but not now.

If Tapscott (who returned to games last week after missing 3 weeks with a medial knee strain and played pretty much injury free last year IIRC) needed time off for whatever reason and was injured anyway then I'd be all for it. Here's Geelong - you know that mob with the 3 premierships since 2007 - sending one of their players to Europe for a large chunk of the season last year: How crazy is that http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/geelongs-lincoln-mccarthy-sets-off-on-another-journey-20140306-34a93.html

By the way Sydney traded Darren Jolly to Collingwood when he was reaching the peak of his career. At the time some questioned it I'm sure even if Sydney got a first round draft pick for him. Last year Jolly revealed that at the time his wife was suffering pretty badly from Post Natal Depression and they had to move the family back to Melbourne. Roos didn't tell Jolly he had to stay he just told Jolly no problems, got the trade done, no leaks in the media etc. Jolly won a flag at Collingwood, Sydney have since won a flag as well. With what I've read here I can't help but think some would attack Jolly's wife if this was the Sydney board of whatever year that was.

0 and 22 or 22 and 0 I don't see how force an injured and clearly struggling in some regard player to toughen up and push through or would you rather take the advise of doctors and a premiership coach that says the best thing to do is for him to go home and possibly come back one day. Which one of those helps win games in the future? Which one of those helps attract players and sponsors and build the club as supportive and responsible work place. Which one of those options sounds like the Paul Roos way and which one of those sounds like the Mark Neeld way and who's the better coach of the 2? Tough decisions will likely have to be made on Clark I'm not saying that wont. But those decisions are for September or October when list management takes place. Until then I'd rather support a potential AA player to get him back rather than some foolish attack on him.

I understand I've just read enough to come to that conclusion. If I'm wrong I'll be sorry and admit it. Roos on 360 tonight and in todays press conference said enough for me. Maybe I should say mental concerns more than illness. You don't have to be sick per se to be in need of some time away from a high pressure situation. My point was more to m'kaay who seemed to think it wise to force a player to do something that would only make a situation worse not better. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2014-03-17/roos-on-clark

Except the ball would never get in his hands. 1. because Ross Lyon wouldn't tolerate a player with such shocking defensive talents and 2. because no Hawthorn defender would let him get the ball. He played enough forward last year to show he was still just a floating around forward who could occasionally get some space on a lead. Accurate kicks through half back and in to the forward line will create more goals than the benefit of Watts' accurate set shots.

Apologies to m'kaay this guy has now taken the lead as the biggest muppet. Where the [censored] is the compassion for a guy who knocked himself out one game and snapped his foot in half in another game and up until before christmas was training so well he was in the leadership group.

Wow of all the muppets you've gone to the front of the cue. Listen to PREMIERSHIP WINNING AND CULTURE BUILDING coach Paul Roos. We are giving him time away from the club (in which he wouldn't be playing anyway) for him to fly back to his family (probably on his own expense) to get his head right. It's the path recommended by Roos and club doctors. It's about getting him back so he can play and return on the investment. If he can't play again then locking him up at the club the whole time isn't going to help. Or are you denying mental illness because that's even worse. There is no MFC mediocre or otherwise without being a club of people. With the recent losses of Dean Bailey and Jimmy I would've thought everyone would realise that people can't be replaced.

What do you know that I don't? Did you know anything in 2012 beside that Clark was a guy who didn't have the greatest injury record (not many younger 200cm players do)? You didn't predict the lisfranc did you? I also knew Clark is a bit of different cat. Just look at the tattoos they are a dead give away. And he had a kid. But I didn't know of any history of mental troubles and that he walked in to our leadership group and trained and played the lights out didn't point to anything. I don't understand what exactly Clark has done wrong that has so upset you.

Stress at work and played out publicly (imagine everywhere you go getting asked when you'll be back paying), stress at home, stress in general being a father. No family around. Probably not that many friends given most dees players are younger and at different stage in their life, ie. don't have kids (Dunn's got one, Jones on the way, not sure who else if any?). Can't have too many beers. Can't load up and get high (not that I'm endorsing that). Can't even eat a block of chocolate. When you think about it you start to realise why if things aren't going well that being an AFL player can't be much fun.

Geelong have been the absolute professionals but Daniel Menzel's career is practically over before it started with what 3 or 4 knees. Nathan Vardy nearly had to stop playing with a hip injury and now has done a knee. Hamish McIntosh missed the entire of last year. Yeah you can draw parallels between Clark and Jurrah. Both struggling with injuries and other happenings and therefore both granted leave. But what I don't get is why you are so negative on the individuals. Jurrah was always a risk of things going bad. He came from a culture that was pretty much another country to Australia, may as well be another planet. Not to mention half his family was fighting the other half. Jurrah's actions post AFL have told me enough about him and his community that we did all we could. Clark himself may have been a bit of a risk with homesickness but ultimately pick 12 in a weak draft for an immediate impact key forward and leader. It was a steal. The injury happened. It was terrible luck. Whatever troubles he is facing now are massively contributed to by his initial injury. If he was playing for most of the last two years and ready to line up on the weekend I bet all the other problems in his life could be managed around footy. Either way I refuse to hold it against the club for making some decisions that took a bit of risk and I refuse to hold it against individuals who have troubles in their life for whatever reason that the feel they need to walk away from their employment. Take a deep breath, consider the individuals and move on. Plenty of other injustices to worry about.

They traded for Gumbleton. One a one year deal who's now had another injury. If they reach top 4 and fall at the last hurdle they will have to consider Clark. Wouldn't you in their situation? I don't expect a high draft pick or even one we'd use and they'd probably try and sting us for a fair bit of the salary. But if we've been at all smart his deal should have been front loaded. If Clark gets his mind right it's a long time until the end of the season and trade week. Enough time for him to state his intention to move back to WA at the end of the year, do some training and at least prove that his foot is fine even if his soft tissue injuries remain a big risk. If his mind troubles are able to be fixed by a month or so in Perth and a firm resolve on what he needs to do he's got plenty of time. Remember mental troubles are often treated pretty well especially when you remove the initial source. Home sickness, family conflict, unable to train and play. Fix those 3 things I'd be surprised if Clark didn't make it back.

Turnovers are huge but we also have to move the ball fast enough and use it enough to get in to this new game plan. If we go slow down the line we will probably lose as well. I think each of our defenders besides maybe Georgiou and some of the mids had bad turnovers against Richmond. But we also controlled the pace of the game and won the contested ball. We can afford a few turnovers if we can at least move the ball how we want to against the saints. Every thing went to water against Hawthorn. Against Geelong there were patches where we lost the plot. If we lose the game purely on bad turnovers then at least we can fix or remove the players who are repeat offenders. If we get crushed under pressure like against the Hawks then nothing is improved.

Took me a while to work that one out. But now WC have what I think is a very good young coach who's much better than a passed his use by date I certainly don't think we are getting Shuey. Can you imagine free agent David Mundy turning down not only Freo but all the high powered Victorian clubs to sign with us. Yeah me nether but it would be nice.

Well that would be a good thing. Homesickness, partner moving or not moving (she studies at Monash Uni, maybe she couldn't stand the thought of another year of uni) it's better if it's just feeling sick of it all rather than actually mental illness. Even if there's a fine line there. Doesn't necessarily help us too much but so be it. Either way if Clark wants to move back to WA he'll have to forgo the final year of his contract and arrange a trade or delist himself and that would make all these people who whinge so much about the money and salary cap happy. Get his mind sorted even if his priority is to leave and his body might start fixing itself. A bit of mind over matter. Then when he comes back to the club (and presuming he does at some point) then he can at least be classed as a football commodity.

Roos ruled Gawn out today I believe. He'll be set to come in for round 2 presuming he has another reasonably performance for Casey this week. Whether he's in addition to or replacement off either Pedersen or Fitzy probably depends on how they play although I'm nervous about Gawn, Spencer, Fitzy and Pedersen in the same team. With guys like that often less is more.

He's not going to become Wayne Carey overnight. He's an ordinary footballer. All the coaching in the world isn't going to make Pedersen fast, skilled or smart enough to be a gun key forward. But I agree a good preseason of effort and some coaching can make him capable of doing a job. He did the job against Richmond, failed against the Hawks (but so did most of our forwards). He had Astbury on him against the Tigers and Gibson against the Hawks, that's a gap in class there. I'm not sure who the saints have for him, probably one of Delaney, Gwilt, Simpkin or Bruce. Sam Fisher's unlikely to play and Dempster probably takes Howe. He's got a reasonably simple job in running to space or towards the kicker depending on circumstance. Take 5 marks on the lead, bring the ball to ground if it's a pack or long kick to a contest (no one is expecting strong grabs), compete when the ball is in dispute, pick up your man when they have it and when you get the ball use it wisely. If he produces that without the easy dropped marks that plague him and silly free kicks then he can contribute. I'm just as worried about Fitzpatrick getting on the end of good work and taking some marks inside 50 and converting than I am Pedersen beng the work horse at CHF.

If I was having a bet I'd be on Roughead or Gunston from Hawthorn against Brisbane or Josh Kennedy at West Coast against the dogs. I'd love Howe to kick a bag but a realistic return is 3 goals and hopefully by drawing the ball that some of the other forwards can get in on the action as well against the saints.

FB: Georgiou Frawley Dunn HB: Grimes McDonald Terlich/Clisby/Strauss/Jetta C: Watts N. Jones Trengove HF: Michie Pedersen Toumpas FF: Howe Fitzpatrick JKH Foll: Spencer Vince Tyson Int; Cross, McKenzie Choice of: 2 from Bail/Byrnes/Blease/Matt Jones for last bench/sub spot That's my guess. Hope they play JKH for a full game. He brings energy that we need at the start of the game. Can't decide who I'd go with for the 6th defender but at least against the saints compared to against Hawthorn they should have a rotating midfielder who's a questionable forward more than a very good forward. If we win the clearances and use the ball smartly and quickly we can win. That can definitely be high possession and sharing it around but we have to do it quickly and confidently.

Fitzy and Pedersen between them - 2.5 Howe - 2.5 JHK/Byrnes/Blease/Bail/Toumpas between who ever plays as small forwards - 4 Midfield - Watts/Vince/Trengove/N. Jones/Michie/Tyson/Cross - 4 Fitzy last year showed he can be good for a goal a game at least when he's in form. He got one most games and kicked a few multiple efforts. Pedersen as a key forward might be just ok enough to get a goal a game if the midfield and backline provide something. Howe has the ability to have a 50 goal season if used close to goal in a team with solid ball movement. The small forwards and midfield goals will depend entirely on how well the team is playing. Play well and the goals will take care of themselves.

Watts has straightened up a side all of about 2 maybe 3 times in the best part of 50 games as a forward. I hate to say it but Pedersen is a better option in terms of a guy who can make a contest down the line. Fitzy as the close to goal forward. Howe as the guy who hopefully gets a lot of ball. Bail, Toumpas, Byrnes, JKH whoever the half forwards are will have to be leading well, kicked to accurately and mark strongly. If the midfield can't over come a saints midfield minus 3 of their best 4 players then we don't deserve to win regardless of who is forward.