bing181

Pity there's not a "delete this thread" button. Self-indulgent BS.

After a couple of early goals, Rivers kept Kennedy goal-less for the rest of the match ... and that when they were all over us. Team was flat, a bit like the North game. Not used to being favourites, and perhaps not ready to take on the responsibility of being winners. I almost get the feeling that they'd rather be losing honorably to Geelong every week. Very nervous about the next Richmond game now!

Pathetic.

Must have heard what's been happening at the G ... a few of the Dees playing for a place next week I'd imagine!

Weak effort .... from pretty well the whole team. PJ looked out of his depth, but there were quite a few others who seemed not particularly interested. Really good lesson for them. And Port away next week ... could be a few changes i would imagine. Watts did enough in a poor side, needs to play now to get experience/confidence. In the scheme of things, a weak loss.

Not done, we haven't even started! Backs are doing well, but under the hammer the whole day.

Excellent response sir. Keep up the great work, and looking forward to seeing you at the game in the leathers.

It's got nothing to do with objectivity. To start a whole thread based on one BS journo stirring the pot with a story which is not backed up anywhere else is just a waste of space - especially when there are plenty of JW threads already. Reminds me of the off-season, where we spent the whole time discussing hypothetical "what ifs".

Good to see Jetta in the emergencies, another one pushing ... maybe they're worried about Sylvia coming up. Thought we might have seen Gysberts there, but with our JW in, probably looking for more experience.

It not just looks poor, it is poor. To do a hatchet job on a player in the context of a team review is perhaps one thing. But to single out an individual given what he and the whole team did last week, and then to start a special thread about it, is really weak. Even the use of "another" in the title is unacceptable. It implies he's some kind of serial offender when there was a single incident a few weeks back. His courageous and committed performances since then would suggest that either that was an aberration, or he really was cramping at that moment. It's very easy to sit back here and pass judgement. Too easy perhaps.

FFS, don't we have other things to talk about? He takes the biggest, most couragous mark of the game in a pack situation, and you want to drop him to the seconds to teach him a lesson. This anal, microscopic dissection of every single play, looking for mistakes is bad enough, but then to propose "send him back to Casey" as some kind of solution to these imagined shortcomings is just mind-boggling. It's always like this mid-week. Sheesh.

For me, pleased to see that they're learning to play (well), and play together. Learning to win (when it counts) is still a little further down the road. Taking positives from a game that we lost isn't an endorsement of losing.

Eagles? Hmm. a) need to find a place and B) a certain NN would be asking for comparisons that perhaps Jack and the club could do without for the moment. But ... emergency perhaps? However ... Casey play on the Sat arvo as well, and then there's no Casey game the following week. So, if Jack was emergency, and then didn't play for MFC, he wouldn't get a game back with Casey till 2 weeks later and could start to miss out on game-time. I'd say he'll do another week in Casey, with a view to bringing him the following week.

Maybe ... not sure what you're basing that on. "beaten" is difficult to agree with without knowing the context. From the few brief mentions on the GC game, he also showed some flashes of class. From Whispering Jack: " he came back well when he showed some great composure kicking a vital goal and also having a hand in another. Late in the quarter when pressed up against the boundary line on the wing he didn't panic but took his time and gave off a nice goal." I just don't get what people were actually expecting with Jack at this early stage of his career.

Could be some easy choices at the selection table for next week ...

And what would a good defensive outfit do a VFL-level Watts?

2 months older than Scully, but what's your point? Everyone who's older than Scully should automatically be playing in the seniors because Scully is? Not all players mature at the same rate. Look at Jamar.

Eurosport 2 (in Europe at least, not sure about the UK), has a 1 hour highlights package that runs from Tuesday afternoon (of the previous week), plus they have the Friday night game live (on Friday morning/afternoon). Though also other games it seems, for example, Anzac day Maggies/Bombers this week. Also, look round the net, I think even the AFL are offering some kind of streaming for around $6 a game.

Depends on how long he can keep playing ... if it's only 2 or 3 years, might help get us closer to a flag, but perhaps not win one!

Well, the whole thing is stuffed, it's not just what has happened recently. It's ridiculous that there are streams and torrents that apparently work perfectly fine, but the AFL can't get it together to provide even a dodgy version. And don't start me on problems for Mac users. I'd encourage everyone to email the MFC, and get them to complain on our behalf. No point having followers in China if they can't watch the game. B

No point talking about how many years they've been at a club, without looking at how old they are. Jack's second year does NOT equal Riewoldt's second year, because JW was taken a year younger. Same with NN. Or to put this another way ... if our Jack plays less than 10 games beforehand, he would still be eligible for the Rising Star in 2011 .... AND in 2012. He's still a kid. Let's just leave him alone. For a few years at least. B

Just to correct, Watts is effectively in his first year, he's basically in the same age group as Scully etc.. The second year you speak of ... well, that would be 2011. If you want to compare Jack to Riewoldt based on age, then you would be looking across the 2011-2012 seasons. My take on it, FWIW, is that we took Jack because out of he and NN, Jack was the one more likely to become a future Melbourne captain. We have had a chronic lack of leadership in the past few years, on-field and off, and my guess it that they thought that Jack seemed the more likely candidate. There are no crystal balls, and even if NN turns out to be the greatest player the world has ever seen, and Jack becomes another Travis J, it still doesn't mean the footy department got it wrong.

But is he 100% - not carrying something? He missed those couple of pre-season games, and except against Collingwood, has seemed proppy and in/out of games. Still brilliant when he turns it on though.

.... and no sign of Rivers. B

What he said ...