bing181

FFS .... he's entitled to his opinions, same as everyone. FWIW, I for one agree with most of what he says, as well as a few others above as well, and it's a refreshing change from much of the impatient, knee-jerk, simplistic posting we inevitably see here after every loss. To start rabbiting on about "agendas" ... it's a forum, nothing more. By the way, where were all you people bitching about Bailey and game plans and whatever after the Essendon game?? From what I recall, there wasn't a single posting criticizing Bailey last week. Short memories.

Petterd a definite - two solid weeks at Casey, including a BOG earns him a place. Tapscott and possibly Garland if fit. Strauss to stay for mine, he wasn't the worse and needs the experience. Evans, Nicholson and possibly Jetta to make way. But the big question ... Jurrah. Would be a big call, and he had some pretty shoddy service today, but you start to wonder when enough is enough. Howe is showing more, which is saying something.

Was going to say that ...

"our club" ... what "our club"? Weak post from weak supporters who spit the dummy when the going gets tough. Outclassed and outplayed by arguably the best team in the comp, certainly the most disciplined. Out-bodied in both the back line and the forward line. Get over it. Moving on to Freo.

Good summary.

As per link above: "Defender Colin Garland is not without a chance of returning this round, after injuring his ankle in round eight. Garland was set to miss a greater time period, but has progressed better than expected in his recovery."

From the MFC site, he's still a week away. On the other hand, both Garland (!!) and Bartram could be considered if they pass fitness tests. Whatever happens, the assumption would be that all 3 (Tappy, Garland, Bartram) will be available for the following week against Freo, with Jamar and Bail possibles for the week after that against Richmond. Not too shabby ... as long as we don't lose any more.

The same ridiculous and rhetorical question that you and your ilk pedal round here all the time as some kind of justification for your short-termism and myopia. No-one has ever posted here that they're "happy" after a bad loss or mediocre performance. The win against Essendon didn't just come out of nothing, it was built on development and work, albeit with little to show for it. It's a process.

The crux of the matter it seems to me. If we can get 3 of those under our belt, and maybe pull a surprise in that run of 3 against the top 4, anything could happen. But ... lots of chicken-counting in those assumptions.

Yes, noticed that, but thought Bailey was only talking about the longer-term injured. Or something ... Bartram was "test" last week, so with an extra 9 days, surely he'd be ready - though you could be right!

The Dean we caught a glimpse of last night is, I suspect, what those at the inner sanctum see and get all the time. Good thread, credit where due, both to Dean and to the original poster.

Glorious afternoon in France, in front of liveafl.tv ... just waiting for my wife to get home, ahem ahem. It's a grand old flag ...

No you're not ... you enjoy it.

OK, so here we go again ... where (for example in this thread) is anyone standing and applauding everything and everyone at the MFC? Same old spurious BS from you. You have no arguments to support your position(s) - so you just make them up.

This has nothing to do with what I think or what I look at. A specific claim was made about Bennell not backing into packs. I (for one) am still waiting for specific instances to support that specific allegation. If none are forthcoming, then the original (and false) claim should be withdrawn by the poster. The straw man in action.

Ok, but then if it's true, once again, when has Bennell not backed into a pack this season when he could have?

FFS, drop it. On the one hand, there's a difference between brave and stupid, and on the other, when - for all his sins - has Bennell not backed into a pack this season when he could have? More mindless rhetoric.

Nice theory, but McDonald is a back. So far ...

Dunn will come back - he's the only one who can play forward and pinch-hit in the ruck. Whether under normal circumstances he would be considered is another question!

Not disagreeing with you, but I would have said that Dunn offers a bit more of an alternative - certainly can take some hitouts in the forward line, and was even playing down back in his last game. Also, though he has been fairly undisciplined with it, does offer a bit of the grunt and mongrel that everyone here has been clammering for. Unfortunate though that we should be here discussing who to include from Bate, Petterd, Newton and Dunn, when in reality, the answer we'd all prefer is probably "none of the above". Let's hope Cook and Howe come on sooner rather than later, hard to see where else we're going to get a forward line from, the usual suspects have been consistently found wanting.

Yes, going to be some gnashing of teeth when Bailey is reappointed. Pointless, just pointless.

Good point, even the central point. Wasted around here though ...

Well, thank god for this match ... at least something to look forward to this weekend.

Same as the (possible) Watts/Goddard scenario? Juice was needed to have his turn in the ruck, as simple as that. Ruckman resting forward ... new concept for you? You're like a dog with a bone here, taking one tiny remark out of context from a lengthy interview, and using it to justify a point that wasn't even made. I'm with some of the other posters, hard to see how that interview shows Bailey in anything other than a favorable light.

Really? How do you know what an "effective coach" would have done? Why move a player who's playing well, as Watts was? This is being taken out of context. Bailey was talking about the work he puts into his own coaching and that of his team. As part of that, he reviews the match-day coaching, including listening to audio tapes from the box. The Watts situation was one that he picked out as something he (they) could learn from. It's easy to be wise in hindsight. And criticise. Not to mention if Watts had been moved on Goddard and pantsed, you would have been one of the first here citing it as an example of Bailey's poor decision-making.