Curry & Beer

One thing I have been doing for a while is to look at the 22 prior to a game and count how many players I don't have full confidence in to play a game of AFL standard footy. If a player has had a rubbish season incontrast to seasons prior he still gets NQR cos its about form.This applies also if we are talking about kids who may very well look the kids but are unlikely to have a genuine impact. The higher the NQR factor the higher our chance of losing (obviously). This week, bolded NQRs: Colin Garland , Lynden Dunn, Neville Jetta Jeremy Howe, Tom McDonald, Billy Stretch Daniel Cross, Bernie Vince, Heritier Lumumba Aaron Vandenberg, Chris Dawes, Jeff Garlett Angus Brayshaw, Jesse Hogan, Jack Watts Max Gawn, Nathan Jones, Jack Viney Dom Tyson, Jay Kennedy-Harris, Alex Neal-Bullen, James Harmes That's exactly half at 11, which worries me about our future, even though 6 of the 11 are still very young

I would say we are still 5 short of our best 22 (inc. LTIs) and possibly 6 with Pedersen. However, this type of injury list is now about league-standard so we can't really excuse them too much

I tend to agree with you in that that is reason why this is happening I disagree however with the reason I would prefer to win matches and not contribute to a culture where peahearts get games for free The strategy worked a treat with Frawley but this is different

Really? Seems to me they have lost 7 on the trot and only won 2 for the year

as a side note, I count TWENTY SEVEN on that list who have either disappeared forever or gone to other clubs for modest-at-best returns of those 27, I count a grand total of ONE who has actually done any damage that would be stefan martin 26 out of 27 correct calls it would seem remember that, whingers, next time Martin plays a good game don't forget to mention the other 26 when you have your whinge

this x1000

Did we, or did we not, beat Richmond, Bulldogs and Geelong (and lose to the Saint by 2 points in ridiculous circumstances)? Seems to me that this is evidence for the defense in the case of 'do we stink or not'? Others choose to discard it as information non-pertinent to the narrative they have going

no mate, pale ales, and plenty of them as you may have gathered, I am not an angry drunk but a huggy drunk and a hell of a typist

interesting that you try to throw a positive bone out there, a bone that clearly has merit-rich meat on it, but some are so firlmly entrenched in their misery that they refuse to even nibble I don't blame you Just trying to help

classic example of club did <insert thing> we lose lots of games/finish down the bottom <insert thing> was the problem! Fix that and the pain goes away! Note: <insert thing> can be as small or large as one draft pick or sacking/hiring a coach point is that hundreds of things contribute our onfield (mis)fortune and pointing at one of them in the wake of failure is just plain folly

What the past two posters have conveniently forgotten is that our mood(s) were considerably different two weeks ago when we pulled off what was thrown around as the 'win of the decade' at the Cattery. We sucked this week, and it hurt - but what it says about our long term future is not in any way conclusive.

Melbourne lost to Essendon Essendon got smashed by St.Kilda Melbourne threw away a win to StKilda by 2 points Melbourne beat Richmond Richmond beat Collingwood, Freo and Sydney Melbourne beat Bulldogs Bulldogs beat West Coast, Richmond and Sydney My point? That it seems logical to despair and say 'OMG how did we lose to THEM?' but the fact is that footy, more than ever, is a game of one side matching up on another on a given day, and the past performances of side A vs side B has a limited bearing on side A vs C - because the injuries/selections/matchups, gameplans/strageies and heart/psychological state varies between opponents, and even between the same opponent on differing weeks of footy. Might seem obvious, but it's just a thought I had that made me feel a tiny bit better, and I hope it does for you too.

well no you're about 30 goals off there

I don't know why, but I am more devastated 48 hours later This really is starting to wear thin huh? Our record 2007-present 42-2-146 (23% win) 8.5 years of suffering what have we all done in our past lives to deserve this?

How many times in the last 16 years could we have made such an assessment after a loss. The club assumedly applies such boots, nothing changes.

Maybe if they were a pair of 2-3 year old brothers in a playroom, but we are talking about grown men and professional footballers

Yes but the exact antithesis of what you are saying is what others are complaining about: that we bombed long and aimlessly into the enemy's hands

I'm all for calling a spade a spade Its just horrendous how quickly the knives come out around here Maybe I am just more shattered by the fact that situation has been created in order for you backstabbers to come out so quickly Maybe it is the case that we as a club are completely and utterly incapable of taking the brightest talent and developing them History certainly shapes us that way

What part if it is innacurate? Whip the knives out you snivelling losers, cos we lost a match and the next big thing didnt save us

Here it is folks! Congratulations! After being lauded as the greatest thing in a generation to come to the MFC, 11 games in Jesse Hogan has offcially received 'whipping boy' status. Following the trend of Sylvia, McLean, Morton, Watts, Trengove, Scully, Toumpas and more, Hogan is now apparently worthy of becoming the punching bag for supporters upset after a loss. Well done lads! Can't wait to see who is next, must be Brayshaw, followed by Petracca.

No idea WTF you're talking about The rest of your post is also pedantic garbage unworthy of response Thanks for your time

are you serious you totally attacked me first. Anyway I was making a point about another posters' criticism of selection. For the third time, Tyson/JKH/Vandenburg in place of Bail/MJones/Michie obviously haad no bearing on the result so the criticism is unwarranted. That is all.

you're the effing joke who has never made a decent post ever. The other poster named 3 players that he reckons should not have played. I say the three that would have been instead would have made the result even worse. Its pretty bloody basic argument FFS.. unless you are a big fan of Bail, Michie and Matt Jones

again, when we lose, any hindsight hero can point at something and call it a negative. Who are you to suggest that JKH, Vandebnberg and Tyson omitted for Bail, MJones and geez.. Michie? Would have improved the result?

great post