bing181

Getting utterly ridiculous around here. Neeld didn't say he was happy to lose. By 5 goals, or any amount of goals. If you want a quote to sum up his attitude to losing, try this one: "But eventually, honourable losses, you get sick of them.”

Some very short memories around here. Happy that Moloney is gone. Was never there for us when it counted, and is the same at Brisbane. As one Lions fan remarked, after a month of OK but just bombing it forward Moloney performances "all we have to do now is convince Brent he's playing against Melbourne each week". It was his 150th game, against his old club. He was always going to be up for it, but he'll come back to earth soon enough. If not, good luck to him. He clearly needs to be in an environment where he's not top dog, and where there are other mids around him to keep him honest.

He was mentioned in more than just Caro's article ...

Given your close interest in club affairs, find that rather astounding to the point of being disingenuous. Anyone who has followed either this or the tanking saga (where his name also came up) knows almost certainly who is behind the story, and it wasn't Davey - or at least, it wasn't Davey alone.

Just re-quoting, in the admittedly probably futile attempt that perhaps through repetition it might start to sink in. We are 3 years away from being decent, and changing coaches will do nothing to that. The fact that Moloney managed 35 possessions yesterday says nothing about Neeld, but everything about the players he played against.

Some here should get into politics, the way they can spin and twist things. No-one said losing was a positive. In fact, no-one said anything was a positive. Neeld was asked about any signs of IMPROVEMENT, and the response he gave (losing by less than 5 goals and kicking 14 goals on the road) was technically correct. I would have also said that even being reasonably competitive and in the match into the final quarter was an improvement over the total train wreck of the first couple of rounds.

Trust Stuie to start a thread on something that we're not even doing: "The more footy you see at the moment, you see that zoning is out, we're not going down the path of zoning." (Neeld in today's press conference)

Just wondering how many here have actually listened to the whole press conference (or any part of it for that matter)? He didn't say what's quoted above. He was asked about seeing signs of improvement, and the 5-goals-on-the-road remark was one part of his response.

Another Demonland myth, unsupported by the facts: ""We sent a few players to Brent but couldn’t stop him."

""We sent a few players to Brent but couldn’t stop him"

Well, we don't have to worry on that score, because he didn't say it was acceptable.

Well then, who's accepting a loss? Where did Neeld say that a loss was somehow OK? He was asked, in a press conference, for positives and negatives, and responded accordingly.

Who accepts losing?

Yes, if you lose you lose. But it doesn't mean that within that, there can't be positives. Just as there can be negatives in a win.

Good players, especially mids.

Good posts Gonzo.

We always knew he could play ... when he wanted to.

Not worth a new thread. Or any thread for that matter.

McKenzie: off the pace and underdone. McDonald. Confidence shot.

They have more experienced players than us (over 100 games), and more experience and class where it counts (mids). Nathan Jones can only do so much.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/dealing-with-dank-20130426-2ik8y.html Update/summary in the Age, which includes: "A senior official at the club agrees that Bates' conduct is serious, but says that Demons officials are furious that the AFL has not publicly acknowledged that in February the club did pass on details to McLachlan about Dank's links to Bates and Thurin's planned review. Club insiders say that the AFL never requested a copy of this review and did not send an investigator to interview Bates until the day after 7.30 aired. That same day, Bates stood down from the club. Says the senior official: ''We are a football club, not an investigation agency. The AFL and the government have all the powers to do in-depth investigations and they keep saying that they know more than everybody else. To say that the club as a whole tried to cover anything up or mislead the AFL is a joke.''

Since Neeld took over, we've let go/lost 20 players. Of those 20, 1 is doing well (Rivers), 2 are doing OK in the sense that they're at least getting games elsewhere (Moloney, Petterd). Green retired, and Jurrah we know about. But there was still around a third of the list who weren't AFL standard, or fringe at best. Then, out of what's left, add in 4 long-term injuries (Gawn, Taggert, Evans and Clark), and hard to see how the (available) list could be seen as "not all that bad".

You're just being ridiculous. Viney 82 kg. Kent 82 Kg. Toumpas 79 Kg. Terlich 83 Kg. For comparison: no. 1 pick Lachie Whitfield: 75 kg. Jake Neade (has been more than useful ...): 67 Kg. And seeing you refer to Stringer at the Dogs, apart from Dom Barry, all of our picks were heavier than all of their other picks. Not that that has anything much to do with anything. Carlton's top goal scorer today is 74 kg.

Comparing like with like might give your point some validity, Stringer is a KPF and 191 cm. Pick a kid with muscle on his frame? Hogan: 97 Kg

Fitzy 3 for the quarter according to Scorps Twitter. Useful!