bing181

Define "best player". PS Thanks for your eloquent response.

Kidding yourself. We were NOT better last year. Apart from an unconvincing win against GC, we lost 6 of the last 7 games, including some real thrashings. And better list? Maybe on paper - but take out Jurrah, Sylvia, Gysberts (good performer in our few decent wins) and Scully (see Gysberts, ), take out the likes of Bail, McKenzie and even Grimes (playing, but coming back from longer-term injuries and still off the pace), and we've had many of last year's leading performers effectively off the park. As an example, look at our Richmond win last year. Of the 12 leading possession getters that day, the following are not currently playing: Scully (26 disposals, 5 tackles), Sylvia, Gysberts, Jurrah, Green, Martin, and Nicholson, and on top of that McKenzie has been off the pace through missing the pre-season. That's 8 out of 12 out or underdone last week, though it's 6 out of the top 9.

We'll take him, whatever happens. It's not just about getting the best players, it's about getting someone who has red and blue blood, the son of an ex-captain. It's about "culture", that word that's thrown around here increasingly often these days.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/134070/default.aspx "Essendon coach James Hird says a pre-season bulking up players may be the reason for so many soft-tissue injuries" "Hibberd was the club's ninth casualty for the season and the seventh Essendon player to suffer a hamstring tear this season. "

Once again, every f*ing thread gets taken over by this mindless rear-view-mirror wisdom. It's the nature of drafting 17 and 18 year olds - some turn out great, some don't, some surprise, some don't, some come on quickly, some don't, some rise to the challenge, some don't, some adapt to the rigours of AFL, some don't, some get injured and never quite recover, some don't, some deal OK with leaving home, some don't, some come off the rookie list to captain clubs and be champions, some don't etc. etc., blah blah blah. Get over it. We took who we took. in any case, these guys need at least 5-6 years before any kind of assessment, and I for one don't have any problem with Cook over Darling, which was a sensible, logical choice ... AT THE TIME.

Truth? Be great to have some actual information (e.g., facts) to back up your assertions?

As do the other players ... who voted him in.

We haven't got worse since then - we played some shocking games in 2010 and in 2011, and to pull just about our one really decent game out of the hat as a measure of what we were doing is misleading. To put that famous Sydney game in context, we'd only won two of the preceding 11 games, and lost 3 of the remaining 5 - including to Port Adelaide and North, teams we should have beaten if we were anything like a good side. Even the two wins, against Brisbane and Richmond, weren't exactly resounding triumphs. In any case, let's wait till season's end before we start summing up this one.

The widely held perception, both outside and inside the club, was that we were "soft". So, we got the hardest coach going. Fair enough I would have thought, and no amount of "right game plans" would have dealt with the central problem. Agree with some of the posts above - seems over-simplistic to assume that because we were seen to be following a Geelong-type game plan, that we should have got a coach from Geelong. I also come back to one of my ongoing themes - we should give Neeld a year or two before we start talking about "Neeld game plan". Just feel that some are jumping to conclusions based on a few games. The Sylvia situation says more to me about Neeld than anything that's been going on on the field.

... which completely contradicts what Jones himself has said about how the new approach suits him to a T.

Yes.

During the 4 years of Bailey, except for one or two games, we NEVER matched it with the best, in fact, we were regularly taken apart. No point mentioning Collingwood 2010, we lost both those games, and they walked through us in 2011. When was the last time we even matched it with Hawthorn, Carlton, Geelong - or pretty well any team interstate? This idea that we've gone backwards this season is incorrect ... we lost to both Brisbane and Richmond last year for example. I also have trouble with the idea of "Neeld's game plan" being an issue. The issue is that we're NOT doing what Neeld and co. want us to, not the reverse. Some of those shots of Neeld holding his head in his hands in the coaches box tell the story.

Injury List is up. This week's mystery is a double banger: - Is Taggert now available, if so wonder why they don't mention it - when and how did Tynan get a 2-4 week foot injury? Be good to see Jurrah and Sylvia back, wherever they play. Liam probably needs at least a couple of games at Casey. Round five injury list Mitch Clark (neck) - test Michael Evans (back) - indefinite Max Gawn (knee) - season Brad Green (finger) - 3 weeks Jordan Gysberts (ankle) - 2 weeks Neville Jetta (ankle) - indefinite Liam Jurrah (wrist) - test Stef Martin (hip) - test James Strauss (leg) - 1 week Josh Tynan (foot) - 2-4 weeks

... or to attract decent serious players from opposition clubs, especially when GC and GWS were able to throw their checkbooks at them. We would never have got Mitch Clark in 2010 ... "come and check out our facilities Mitch". As for the famous Sydney win (and a couple last year, Essendon, Adelaide), they weren't our benchmarks or typical games. We weren't playing like that every week, far from it, we haven't necessarily gone backwards over this season, and there's nothing to say we won't have a "Sydney" game this year. Let's remember, only 4 teams finished below us last year.

After 4 matches, we 'know what Neeld has done'? I don't believe we are even beginning to see Neeld's game plan, and won't until the players get a year or two into it.

No, you are with threads like this.

No way we'll make all those changes when according to Neeld we're improving. We need stability as much as anything. Grimes and Sylvia in, one or both of the Mc/MacDonalds out - unless there are other injuries. Shame there wasn't a Casey game, perhaps Fitzpatrick for Sellar.

Ridiculous.

FWIW, Morton had the highest Dream Team score today for the Dees (96). On Supercoach, he was third behind Rivers and Bate. 21 Disposals, 4 marks, 6 tackles (only Jordie had more) and 1 goal 1 behind. Not bad on paper - though those glaring mistakes don't look good either!

Bit of hyperbole there. Dogs aren't the worst.

According to Leigh Brown, he provides "run and carry". Presumably he's in the team because he fills a role better than anyone else available or worthy of selection.

If only ...

Morton can play back/sweeper, and with Grimes out ... though maybe that's why MacDonald is included. Couch, Magner and Moloney is too one-dimensional, we need speed and spread. Would be surprised if those 3 play together all that much. Gysberts or even Blease would have been more useful if they were available or worth their spots. Ah, this is where we miss Scully, sorry to say.

Hard to see Couch coming in if Moloney does as well. Only outs are big (Martin) and back (Grimes).

And every club has "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" supporters like you. There are two sides to every discussion.