DeeSpencer

Here's what I'd take from it Guys coming back from injury too good for VFL - Dawes, Dunn Gun youngster ineligble for AFL - Hogan Very promising young players developing their games - Kent, Taggert, Toumpas Mid level player trying to prove himself - Strauss Dominant at VFL but probably not AFL level - Spencer Young talls establishing themselves - Fitzy, Davis Dominant at VFL but ineligible for AFL midfielder - Couch, Magner Plus the actual Casey guys are better than average VFL players. But mainly we've got talent on all the lines, very good structural players in Hogan/Fitzpatrick/Dawes but more than anything a dominant midfield formed by Spencer/Magner/Couch and supplemented with others. Moral of the story is we've got something to come through and guys who are learning to be successful and play a good style of footy. Here's the flip side though. Spencer, Magner and Couch form the bones of this team and I'm not convinced they are good AFL players. So our youngsters are supported by playing in a side which will get first hands to the ball and win the midfield battle. I'd be over the moon if the Casey midfield was Gawn/Fitzpatrick with Toumpas, Taggert and Kent. However we've got Gawn/Viney/Trengove in the AFL learning already to be parts of our midfield comibination. So we just need these peripheral guys to learn how to play Neeld's brand of footy and an AFL brand of footy.

By we I mean the club, and don't we? Started as a forward. Neeld arrives, plays him on the wing with mixed results. Around May last year trials him as a defender, mainly as the loose man again with up and down results. He gets injured then comes straight back into the team as a defender and is poor. Starts this year with a promising NAB cup as a defender then struggles in early games. Goes forward against Essendon then out of the game. Again starts the Brisbane game with a nice mark going back with the flight, after that he seems way off his man until he moves forward and leads up a couple of times but really doesn't do anything spectacular then is injured and out of the team. Moral of the story have we actually established what position this guy can play? Is it back or forward? Has he ever put a dominate stretch in the reserves in one position that will show us he will own that position in the AFL with development.

No signing up this forum does unless I break the rules. And maybe we won't be a poorly performing team when we stop handing out special treatment letting a number 1 draft pick bounce around positions and never establish himself as a player.

No one is celebrating. Other like myself just don't think Watts is best 22. I bet everyone would rather him playing either in the VFL or AFL than injured. FFS the quicker everyone sees Watts as just another player rather than a special case the better.

What are you on about. Get off your high horse. If we can't talk about players who are underperforming and call it how we see it then what's the point. And I've got no idea what age has to do with laying a tackle or putting your head over the ball you can figure that one out for me. And what about culture. The culture of the MFC and the culture of this board are completely different things. I go to games and cheer the guys on to give all they have. I pay my membership and vote if i feel the need to vote on the board. I know you were impressed with Watts when he went forward and think the rest of his game was good. I disagree but you can't argue his game against GWS was poor or any of his other games this year have been outstanding. Watts has every tool required to start the year just like a Dean Terlich has. Instead he's floated around and genuinely not played at all well. I never said I was happy he was injured. I wanted him to have yet another chance this week to impress me and failing that go back to the VFL. But I don't want him injured.

Starts to look good??? What? A couple of goals in a half of footy from chest marks, one was out of bounds when he marked it. Got dropped after getting subbed the other week. I'd hate to see bad if Watts was looking good

Um maybe they don't want to always give the opposition a free ride. Ok Viney cops a knock and is saw but can still play the next week, do you go and tell the other team? As for Clark's foot there was obviously some soreness in there that they weren't completely sure what was going on, whats wrong with calling it a sprain? They told us he'd have further scans and see the specialist. Now this Watts one is slightly disappointing. But maybe they were hoping it was only a very very minor strain and therefore wouldn't report it unless he was likely to miss time. But I'm not overly concerned about the club not giving us straight away details about a guy who is a fringe player lucky to get a game. The club has every right to be selfish and give us an injury update each week with really good details about the players they do feel ready to comment on. Remember this is the players livelyhood and the AFL don't have strict mandated injury reporting rules like other sports.

I can see about a million negatives in Frawley forward. I'm also not sure how watts not playing or Dawes for that matter is devastating. Taking a line of form through Adelaide where Brisbane pushed them hard at the Gabba and with a bit of luck they wouldn't have been out of the game against Carlton. A loss is heading our way but we shouldn't fear Carlton will completely destroy us. Personally I don't rate Watts at all. But even if you do the silver lining of playing another midfielder will help against Carlton.

Stick with Gawn, Pedo and Howe up forward and Dunn and Strauss come in down back. A running player on the chop ping block - Rodan/mckenzie/blease/Davey earns a reprieve. I don't think Fitzy is ready and whilst we are playing 2 rucks I'm not sure we need another big awkward body forward.

4 rucks in one team I love it. And I thought my tebow thread was crazy. So with no other tall forwards besides Watts if you always leave a ruck on the bench you don't even get a proper mismatch. If you keep 3 in the forward line you will but you could line betts, yarran and Garlett on them because the ball is never coming down! You might be able to play 3 of them - 2 and Fitzy up the ground. 1 in the ruck and 2 (of which one is Fitzy) forward. But no way can you get away with 4!!! With the 3 I just mentioned in the team what on earth would Spencer do!

You have an interesting definition of excellent. Moloney has been the usual Moloney. A few clearances but a lot of pointing and not much standing up when they are losing. His greatest help in staying is that he wouldn't have torched us in Brisbane, otherwise I wouldn't worry. Morton is shot, he didn't pick up athletically in the fact he doesn't have elite running or pace that he was projected to bring. After that happened with his up and down skills even if he was tough he was hardly worth it. I would've loved to keep Petterd but I get the feeling he was jettisoned to send a message to the boxing day rat pack even before boxing day happened. I can't say Martin isn't better than Sellar or Pedo. I can't say Martin isn't more talented. But I'm still confident Martin was a perfect bloke to trade away. Sellar and Pedersen might never kick the goals he kicked but Martin wasn't ever going to make it as a ruck and could never do the one percenters in terms of contesting and bringing team mates into the game. He was a one man occassional highlight but very often screw up. He was dropped for Sellar at one stage last year because even with Sellar's shakiness he was a more hearty performer. Martin was high maintenance. The one game we didn't get torched this year Pedersen kicked a couple. Lets see how he goes. And if they ever decide to give Sellar a proper shot as a defender I think he'll be good depth.

He can skip jones and Clark. Whilst Spencer can refuse to testify on the basis that no coach could make him a good footballer

I think you are kidding yourself if you say culture held these two teams back. The dogs lost very close prelims mainly because they didn't quite have the cattle on the day to compete with the very best. They had an elite midfield and great flankers but didn't have the talls. And the saints drew one grand final and without a nicely placed Scarlett toe poke might have lost the other. In fact I'd say divine intervention even conspired against them, they had Geelong on toast and it started raining on the best wet weather footy team. Fair to say Geelong are also in running for best team of all time with 3 flags in 5 years.

I understand Neeld's theory about not wanting to waste everything by giving away the gameplan but to me gameplans don't really win games of footy. Good smart and tough footy players do. So my current criticism of Neeld is that the players are just completely confused and held back by his game plan. Otherwise how could a team get so little of the ball week in week out and look so bad defensively week in week out. Surely a more simplistic plan would build confidence, increase results and there drive success. Also at training instead of focussing on ball movement patters lets just drill the basic skills. Take a bunch of time to teach kicking under pressure and basic defensive tasks like tackling and close manning of an opponent. Carlton beat Adelaide on the weekend without one contested mark in their forward line. In fact I think their 2 talls didn't actually take a mark inside 50. You can't tell me Malthouse won that game due to his long kicking to tall forwards structure he employed at Collingwood with Cloke.

Yes I'd rather us play more like we did against Essendon than the hawks version. What I'm saying is Carlton publicly embarrassed us and we never responded. I don't want to see us brawling but I think Neeld is yet to establish a basic hardness standard and this would be a great week to do it. Look at Freo under Ross Lyon. He's there for one minute and everyone knows what is required. I would implore Mark Neeld to make this round his statement on the toughness of Melbourne. If that means we go over the line to establish it then I'm fine with that.

How does the number of scoring shots he has equal whether he is blazing away? He played some of his early games as a defender and in the midfield. The scoring shots don't count the number of times he kicks it OOB or OOTF or it gets marked by a defender. He blazes away and burns team mates and he does it most games. Even goals he kicks sometimes were the wrong option.

Don't think it was right to shepherd. You can't shepherd a ball coming across goal when you are at the top of the goals square. No way you know it goes through. But if you look at then Bail gets the ball if he immediately straightens on his right and drills it to Petterd he probably marks and goals. As he does he wheels around on his left and delivers it very nicely but sensing pressure from the side Petterd goes hard at the ball and ends up under it. What really needed to happen was for that player infront of Petterd to drag his opponent forward to leave space for Bail to chip it over for an easy Petterd mark in the pocket. So its a team thing. But I can't say at all that win a man in the goal square by himself that Bail should now learn from that to have more shots on goal. He should keep refinining his skills on both sides of the body and whoever our forward coach at the time should talk about unselfish running and opening space behind for Petterd. Alternatively when Bail gets the ball he has Davey on the inside. Davey does the right thing trying to come for a shepherd but doesn't get there in time. If he couldn't make the shepherd what should've happened is davey loops back into the 50 and gets a handball and then runs in from 30 out. All in all in the last minute of a close game we lost due to a touch of bad luck as much as bad decisions but there is always heaps to learn.

Why do I get the feeling Dank is leaking to the ABC whilst Essendon are leaking to the heraldsun. For that matter our side in all this is spelt out in the age. Wouldn't it be nice if Trengove destroys his tube of cream and denies he ever used it and the rest of the Melbourne players got nothing dodgy. I feel sorry for essendon almost. So far it appears they've official drug cheated and endangered their players well being all without actually knowing they did it.

not the lesson I took from that piece of play. He over kicked that ball and Petterd just couldn't hold the mark. The lesson should've been practice and practice your kicks, do it some more the work out how to kick on your preferred side as well when pushed on to your left. I'd keep Bail this week but its his last warning on selfish play. I'd rather him turn it over trying to pass now than blaze from 50 out

cook yes. Be careful with the freo pair. They inherited a club Schwab made a lot of money for (2 team town in mining boom state I could've made them money). And they've spent it on a coach who fell short at st Kilda an now has left them staring at a dark hole when their best performed players are over 30. Now I love Lyon as a coach for match day but freos 2 best players are approaching 30 and recovering from surgery. They've got clever depth for sandilands but now with Kepler out who knows who is going to be a tall forward for Freo.

Just some comments on the goals vid 1. Whilst Dean Kent's goal was very good its appalling that he either doesn't give the handball to Fitzy or Fitzy doesn't provide a shepherd. We must learn some team football. 2. Hogans strong hands OMFG. Love his silly kicking action as well 3. Willy are an undisciplined lot close to goal! 4. Its always windy in Casey 5. Dawesy's 2 goals came from him putting on forward pressure. 6. Fitzpatrick has so much talent and still is all over the shop like a baby giraffe. He can be the next Stef Martin but this guy needs top notch coaching and he could be properly good. 7. Especially if we start to become more competitive at AFL level and if his form at VFL level can just pick up a bit I think we need to get Rory Taggert a game. I don't believe in handing out games but I do believe in playing kids if the earn a shot. There's something about this guys combination of size and clean skills that I really hope transfers to AFL level.

Depends doesn't it. I wasn't at the game but he might have had 15 lovely disposals and competed, blocked, chased and won his own ball. If so it will project well because in a good side this kid is racking up cheap touches with his ability to find space that was still evident but horribly underused in his AFL games so far. It's a good sign that he got more in the second half. I'd rather a player work his way into a close game than the other way around. Let's see how he goes for the next few weeks. Whats being lost in all this Toumpas bagging is that he's already showed he can play the game. He hasn't come out and stunk completely. He just hasn't looked comfortable at AFL.

No it's actually a vital role. He might not win us games short term but he's brought in to review the club and report to the board and AFL I'm sure. It's highly unlikely he'll stay long term but he needs to keep the business on track (as much as possible) whilst conducting a review into the club. He also has to deal with whatever Melbourne's immediate fallout is from this Dank stuff. His review should form the basis of the following decisions: - Who should be our new CEO and what role will they have in mangaging the football department and relating to the board. - Do we need a new board or more football experience on the board - Do we need a head of football, so far we have Neeld the senior coach, Craig with his corporate title and Mahoney the administrative head - Do we need a new coach and if so who/how are we going to get a new one Also if I'm guessing as to what he finds I'd say it comes down like this. Advises for more football knowledge on the board. Advises for a CEO from an astute business and sports background. Advises Neil Craig steps into a head of football department role that becomes on par with Mark Neeld who stays on. Advises Neeld and Craig report to the CEO and the boosted football subcommittee regularly and advises football department spending continue to remain as maximal as possible including finding more hands on experienced assistant coaches and a hands on head of player development. I don't know what job titles the lads have but currently Viney watches training. Craig conducts it like the senior coach. Neeld comes and goes into drills and Royal and Rawlings conduct lots of drills with Brown with the forwards. The development coaches all play a role on the field but seem rather limited in time with players in main training sessions. Something isn't quite right with the structure of the football department and that is reflected on game day. Neeld often looks like a frustrated artist. Like he thinks his painting a masterpiece but the brush doesn't hit canvas. He needs help in that regard.

The counter argument to that one is simple. If Mike Sheahan asked you what would you say?

We were very soft in round one against Port. Nicholson/Gillies/Pedersen ducking/Frawley, Watts and Garland not really comitting. Every time the ball went forward it was a matter of who'd jump out of the way first. It's got better. Tapscott has done a couple of brave things. Garland and Frawley are going much harder. Even Watts backed into a one man pack. I wouldn't have been surprised to see Davey drop his head when Tappy sat the ball up on it against GWS. But there is still so far to go. The tackline and the attack at the ball in and under (baring in mind the slide rule adding confusing) still has miles to go. Melbourne players seem to tackle because they have to. Besides maybe Sylvia (when he's in the contest), Tapscott and Trengove I don't know who actually enjoys a good tackle. It's a shame Jetta was suspended. Tell you one thing about our clearance work though, when big Maxy Gawn is buttering up for second efforts on the ground and the midfielders aren't its pretty horrible.