Keyser Söze

This is incorrect. All AFL players make mistakes, even the best in the game. It's about limiting those mistakes, damage control when they do happen and making the other team pay for their mistakes. The game revolves around mistakes. I think I'm pragmatic. Ranting and raving won't do anything to help. I focus on the positives and the things that will make us successful once again, and I'm sure that's what the club does as well. Just because a player uses the ball terribly once does not make them somebody who must do it always. I prescribe to the same theory with posters - just because they may make a stupid post, it does not therefore make them stupid (obviously there are exceptions) It about assessing why that mistake was made and learning from it. This is what all of our young players are doing at the moment - making mistakes now so that they will make less of them in the future. I think the Daniher football dept failed in this respect. They weren't ruthless enough and quick enough to move on players that just weren't up to it. Poor decisions were made in a desperate hope to grab a premiership that was sadly out of reach but they didn't realise it. Topping up with mature players continually didn't help the matter. Nor did injuries/luck. Ok, if "it's more than that", then what is it? Which senior and middle-age players cannot compete? Does that matter? We are not building a team to win now, but in a couple of years' time. Building one for now is not possible considering our stocks.

A few things: - at the 5:15 mark it shows nathan jones' switch kick that was cut off; clearly it wasn't 2-on-1 as some posters have claimed, but it was a bad kick to a 1-on-1 that was anticipated by another defender who sprinted across 20m to cut it off. Mistakes happen. - The highlights mainly show Essendon goals and don't show our midfield dominance in the game or the many good passage of play we created throughout the game. Don't take these highlight to heart. - Quite often the bombers were able to find a loose man, and that in turn lead to a goal, rather than superior skills or play. I'll happily put this down to the youth and inexperience of the majority of the team. At one time, no one was covering the player who took a mark then the closest dee (looked like Bail) ran away from the mark to find another man, leaving the bomber with the ball free to surge forward. Mistakes like this will happen. It'd be unacceptable for a 120 game player... but how many of those do we have? Unfortunately a byproduct of rebuilding our list with youth the way we have means that they can't be judged by the usual standards.

Not sure I fully understand or agree with your scenarios. At the very least, these 3 are only a few of the infinite possibilities. Loyalty to a team in terms of who you supported as a kid is overrated - kids with a chance to make it learn very quickly not to get attached emotionally to any one club.

??? That's a big call - what have you heard? Although, I can hardly say it surprises me...

THANK GOD it looks like you might keep your petty vendetta to yourself for a bit...

Having watched the intra-club prac. match and the Essendon match live, and the Freo match on Foxtel, I can safely say you are wrong. These games have given me a lot of hope, and I question what you think the aim of these matches is? Some people seem to look at these NAB Cup/Challenge matches and think the sole aim is to chalk up a win as if they were a part of the home and away season. This is a short-sighted view and you would be wrong.

The thing is, these player payments aren't being made by the club, but by supporters or their associated companies. These payments aren't coming out of the club's pocket, so how can you police it? It's essentially a donation by a rich benefactor, made directly to the player. The club benefits from it only in that the player stays. Exactly - these payments aren;t being made by large supporter groups - they would be initiated by one or a few die-hard supporters that have access to this sort of money. Collingwood would almost be at a disadvantage in this area due to its stereotypically working class supporter base. With the stereotype of the rich, snow-going melb supporter, surely we'd be one of the clubs best-placed to find deals of this sort..? Now to find those people...

I was actually thinking the "THE FIRE" will be a continuing theme, with the "HAS STARTED" being interchangeable. THE FIRE IS SPREADING... THE FIRE IS ROARING... etc etc.

Honestly? 3 out of 6. Boom.

Perceived by who? You?? You've lost touch with the reality of the NAB Cup.

It was a good looking meat tray.

Didn't even notice the socks - what annoys me is the change-up of the font!

It was always burning..?

I'm happy with it. Will lead to a few "we put the fire out" retorts by opposition sides when we have a bad loss. But even that is good and puts our brand out there. As much as the "they know we're coming" slogan was arrogant, it still got the blues a lot of exposure and added to their story. Hopefully ours will do the same. Its also a theme I think we can build on in coming years as the side gets better.

I think its worth elaborating on this: It isn't a matter of knowing how to kick; it's a matter of knowing where to kick it to. A lot of turnovers aren't necessarily because the kick is going nowhere near the targeted player, but due to defenders being able to cover them when maybe at TAC level they wouldn't get there. The speed of the game at the next level and the greater ability of the individual players means that the decision making process needs to be retooled for AFL level. For some it happens quicker than others. Either way, having the skills to execute the correct decision is the important thing. Poor decision-making and poor skills both lead to poor kicking. Often the 2 causes are confused. In my mind a shank doesn't count as it is an aberration or confidence-related and will be fixed in time (eg. Maric of late)

After 12 senior games.

So is this the crux of your argument? You are impatient and don't understand what it will take before we are competitive once again..? Blind criticism will get you nowhere.

But they're only preseason matches!! Haven't you learnt anything about the preseason comp in all your years of watching football..? The results are treated a largely irrelevant by the coaching staff; young inexperienced players are put on the field before they are ready, to help their development; more mature players are often rested; experimentation with setups and tactics are rife. Cool your heels til Round 1.

That's a little bit over the top, don't you think? Personally, I still think we will win more games than we did in 2009. Probably 6-8 wins. I'm quite happy with our progress; whilst we've not had wins, we have still had young players stand up individually and show they have what it takes and more. So... what exactly was it that made that match critical? After all, that's what this thread was about. Are you contending that we won't make 31,000 members and that it is because we didn't win against Freo? The same Freo that has won its way into the 3rd round? Just trying to clarify what you are saying John. You know, otherwise you could be accused of being vague so that no matter what happens you can claim you were correct...

That match really was critical, wasn't it? Looks like the club is going to fall apart now. Where's that chicken little..? (Just for those that aren't too sharp -- I'm being facetious. Much like when earlier I said this forum is full of belligerent a***holes. I was referring to myself. But some aren't so quick on the uptake...)

For a start, our list lacks a two-time Brownlow Medallist in his prime.

Sad? Not at all. If only you knew...

It wasn't a criticism of Miller, so I wouldn't say he "copped a bit of stick again". He'll never be a Riewoldt or Barry Hall, but he does create a contest and do the 1%ers. People do tend to focus far too much on his deficiencies and ignore all the positives he brings to the table.

My synopsis of a few of the player's performances based on the final 2 & 1/2 quarters: Warnock: Solid yet unspectacular. A sub-par game compared to what I expect from him these days. Jones: Steadily improving still. His disposal and decision making is getting better, and it would want to. Bartram: Not up to standard in today's game where taggers are expected to be able to use the ball well. Made some very very poor decisions with the footy. Ran in a circle twice with the footy in the back pocket in the 3rd. Not sure what he was trying to do, but he looked overwhelmed. Gysberts: Nice handballing in traffic. Looks strange though, the way he turns on his side and sort of pushes it away with his support hand. Managed to find the footy. Looks a good size frame to build on. Miller: Solidly created a contest and continued to do the 1%ers. Same old story - not blessed with the greatest skills, but still gives his all. Frawley: held Mark Williams well. A beast. I don't mind him taking the kick-outs either. Only a matter of time before he makes AA. Trengove: relatively quiet game with the requisite flashes of brilliance. Coming along nicely. Morton: didn't do enough for my liking. Great courage going back with the footy when he was injured. Looked to me like he knocked knees with the essendon forward. We'll know soon enough. Needs to put on more size - nothing new here. Sylvia: Tough as nails, got a bit of the footy. Should have a good year. McKenzie: coming along nicely. I like his attack and his long raking kicks. I see him as our main tagger going forward. Petterd: great cameo up forward. Couldn't ask too much more from him at this stage. Grimes: drifted out of the game at times, but when he was in it he was dominant. Scary good. So much faster than I thought he'd be. Maric: Much better showing. Was really happy with his endeavour and ball use. Skill mistakes come from not being able to deal with the pressure but he's getting more and more comfortable out there. Bell: Kicked a goal. Not quite Max Rooke. Jurrah: strapped elbow, looked frustrated being played so deep in the forward line. Enjoyed moving up the ground when he could. Cheney: Fetta is hard at it and smart. I worry about his speed for a guy who will likely play BP, but it didn't affect his performance on this day. Rivers: Looked real good at stages. Struggled against Ryder, as did Warnock. MacDonald: Not sold on him. Not a bad player, but I can't figure out what makes him good either. Vanilla. Scully: Continues to impress. Got a lot of touches and managed to feed the ball off to teammates in tight spots when i didn't think he could. Tried to get away from Alwyn Davey and almost did, but was caught. Linked play beautifully a couple of times. Still adjusting to the pace of the game, but i think just as important will be his teammates adjusting to playing with a guy like him who can create opportunities like he does. Martin: was disappointed with his game. I thought he was our ideal backup ruckman, but I'm starting to reconsider. Jamar: Surprisingly good, not just in the ruck contests. Took a really nice pack mark in the backline. No question he is our number 1 ruckman (who'd have said this 12 months ago?) Bennell: Finds the footy, dodges and ducks and weaves but his disposal is letting him down. Finding a good option to kick to is a big part of it. I'm confident that with time he'll become much better in this respect. Bail: Nothing bad to say about him, but he just hasn't done anything to impress me yet. Strauss: Amazing footskills. Haven't noticed him do much else though. Fitzpatrick: What we would call a 'project'. Your Kosi-type. Will take a few years.

Just pointing out how incredibly wrong you were. Your anger wouldn't have anything to do with that would it..?