bing181

Maybe we could wait for the game to start before we start slagging the players? He's in the team, give him a chance.

But why are you presuming that that's not the case? Asking for the players to be more defensively accountable isn't the same as asking them to stop attacking. Whether they're doing it or not, or able to do it or not, is another question.

MFC are not making poor decisions. So no reason to make any excuses. Just one of the many fallacies in your superficial assumptions.

... and they all lived happily ever after. Even Dean. The End.

We don't have the same team on the park - or even the same list for that matter - and those wins were, in the overall scheme of things, meangingless. (Gold Coast, Brisbane and Adelaide at home, with Adelaide in particular a basket case ...). We haven't even played those teams yet this year. Already discussed at length around here - perhaps you missed it, or didn't feel like joining in? We're bad, and we've been bad for a while, we were going nowhere with our unaccountable footy, and thus the sacking of the previous coach mid-season.

It doesn't look like that to me at all. In getting - and in some cases stealing from under the noses of our competition - the likes of Misson, Craig, Leigh Brown (highly sort-after) and Mitch Clark, the actual results of our activities would indicate the exact opposite of what you're saying. We've been nothing if not proactive. So the idea that while we've been demonstratively aggressive in regards to the above, while when it comes to the most important FD appointment of all, the head coach, we've somehow rolled over ...well, it beggars belief.

I'm with RPFC on this. The press and the boards at the time were awash with "Crows miss out on Neeld" stories and posts. Now, out of the blue, an article saying they always wanted Sanderson, written by an Adelaide apologist. If it's true, why didn't Caroline Wilson include it in her article about the appointment of Neeld, an article which seemed pretty in-depth and well-researched (or at least trying to be), or why hasn't that information been made available up until now? For some here, supporting MFC seems to consist of p***ing on the club from a great height at every opportunity - and if no opportunity presents itself, well heck, we'll just make stuff up.

Weak defense. You're basically saying "I just made it up".

Never thought I'd live to see Demonlanders lamenting Morton being dropped ... though I share the sentiment!

Both Dunn and Bennell have done decently (or more than) over a couple of weeks at Casey, whereas Petterd hasn't done much - or enough - since being dropped. Not to mention, Dunn is the obvious replacement for Jurrah up forward. As for Seller, with Martin and Gawn injured, Spencer not ready, and Fitzpatrick having been tried and failed (for the moment), not sure who else you'd like to see to help out Jamar? Seller at least provides a contest - which is what many of us have been calling for. Not saying that any of those ins or inclusions are going to set the house on fire, but not exactly sure what/who the alternatives are supposed to be. Think we should also wait to see who makes it to the final 22, though with 3 rucks named, hard to see Seller not being included. Just re the Couch non-inclusion, he missed the last Casey match with illness, and regardless of any other considerations, may be lacking in (match) fitness. Probably some players a little bit stiff here with Casey having a couple of weeks off, which is just not particularly helpful to anyone.

Gawn

Cook has hardly played, and missed most (all?) of the pre-season. Not ready. Same for Taggert. Martin still injured and not doing full training. Petterd didn't do much last time he played, and obviously hasn't done enough since. Couch ... too similar to Magner, Jones, Moloney. Nicholson at least brings a bit of dash. Makes sense to me.

Seems that at training yesterday Davey, Morton and Sylvia weren't in the "firsts" in the match simulations. Dropped? If so, with Jurrah also out, wondering who'll come in. Tapscott would be one, but otherwise ....?? Soon find out.

Some small positives right there.

Ah, music to my ears. This "they won 8 games last year, now look at them" line is just so superficial and lazy. If people took the time to really look at those "wins", there was only really one worth writing home about, Essendon. And even then, we got them in their bad patch. Not saying we're any better, but we were seriously bad last year - which is why the whole FD has been sacked/changed/moved on.

It says that we got the coach we wanted. And that Adelaide got the coach they wanted. Presumably, as a postscript, both Footscray and the Saints got the coaches they wanted. And they all lived happily ever after.

Everyone had Scully and Trengove 1 and 2. Not a problem re Martin, get over it. Pysch profiling for Neeld? We did all that and more with Bailey and look where it got us.

As good an example as you'll ever find of being selective with the "facts". Those wins were not in any way the norm, or representative of our form or of our season(s). Not to mention, quite what beating a team that was rubbish last year but is doing OK this year has to do with anything ... we didn't beat any premiership favourites last year. Though ... Adelaide as a premiership favourite???

The discussion here, and Ox's comments, isn't about what's working or what's not, or what game plan we're supposed to be playing or not. This isn't even about training load. It's simply about professional football players giving a 100% each time they run onto the field. Which has nothing to do with the coaches. Ironically enough, perhaps if the players gave it a decent crack, and at the very least tried to do what they're being told to do, we might then be able to get to understand where the coaches are at. Which would expose them to criticism if it wasn't working.

I wish we'd had a few more who let us down as much as Watts did on the weekend. Having 22 thugs out there, all desperately looking for packs to back into, is not going to win us games.

Interesting article in the Age by Caro Wilson (the real one this time) re all this. Not sure what to make of it - my reading of news from Adelaide at the time was that they really wanted Neeld, but we got in first. Certainly that was the vibe on the Adelaide boards. Not to add, everyone had been calling out for us to get a "hard" coach after Bailey, and Neeld is at the very least all of that. Agree with your post.

Nice scenario. You make this up all by yourself? That report was acted upon - which is why we've had the complete revamp of the FD. And the CEO is answerable to the board.

Don't hold your breath.

.... and they all lived happily ever after.

Don't be a tease, it's hard enough being a Dees supporter as it is.