Hardnut
-
Posts
1,091 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Hardnut
-
I bet you don't drive a Mustang either!
-
I think Stef Martin could be included on the good books PJ, however, in any case, the loss of the players you named doesn't say much for the MFC hierarchy's decision making! I love Beamer. Good guy, with that perfect amount arrogant attitude. When Geelong won their premerships I listened to a smart ass reporter ask him if he regretted moving - I respected Beamer immediately for his quick response (which was a resounding no). Its a shame things didnt work out: he went from such a great player to no effort. Best of luck Beamer. I've only ever said that you, Rivers and Petterd... and the exact opposite to Mclean, Johnstone and Farmer
-
For MFC's sake your comment may be correct RN, however, Clark's playing record isn't good when games per season are considered, and Dawes? MFC does have the easiest draw this year, so all opposition could be considered decent and I guess any win (or even two in a row) is possible under those circumstances, but it hardly says much about MN's performance!
-
Clearly you did not see his talent! Funny how he was also a B and F the year before! Perhaps you should be asking yourself why his game changed so significantly and so suddenly!
-
I miss Beamer because I liked his normal, natural game and his passion for MFC - he should never have been placed in a situation where he had to leave.
-
I understand what you are saying 'old dee', but two things concern me: 1 I can't agree with you on not 'winning a flag' when the chance is there in a GF; 2 'one bad bounce' is not how I saw that action - to me it looked more like Milne didn't do what he would normally do - attack the ball. However, I understand what you are saying, and I only offer the above comments in a philosophical sense of debate. Go Dees!
-
I believe that has been the case for a few years Dr - now what form of fitness training have we seen at MFC in the last 2 years?
-
An athlete can train for many different forms of fitness. Clearly, a general level of fitness is applicable to all of these. However, let me ask you a question - which form of fitness do you think would be most applicable for an AFL player?
-
Ever get the feeling we can't win Dr? We appear to agree on many more things than first appeared. However, I do believe Neeld should go asap, but I agree we certainly should not have another rookie coach. I also believe that if we replace the Senior Coach we may resolve any issues with the Assistants.
-
Thanks to the modern world of computers, we have crossed over posts Dr! With respect Dr, you are wrong, or have totally misunderstood my comments on Bailey and Geelong.Fitness, as I indicated in an earlier post, has many aspects, including how to obtain what is required for a successful modern AFL team.
-
I have been reflecting on our posts Dr Gonzo - I think we are saying the same thing, but seeing it through different eyes. Fact is that we performed better under Bailey and Daniher, but as I said, I am not interested in such comparisons as they have no current significance. MFC should be using a club like Geelong as their measuring stick, given Geelong's recent record. Personally, I put Geelong's performance down to skills development, apart from the obvious other factors such as fitness, team bonding and understanding etc., which all clubs should be aiming for. (Having our own VFL side would also help!). I don't believe Neeld has what MFC needs - I believe his appointment was wrong and nothing I have seen has changed my mind - IMO, MFC has no choice but to replace him, whatever the cost. (Keeping him will cost us more in the long term.) Cheers and Go Dees!
-
You talk about 'modern tactics' as though they are something new which Neeld has brought to MFC. I see it as the reverse, which Geelong has clearly shown - they play a simple, logical game which surely must be seen as the 'modern game' given their success. Neeld is out of touch. As for fitness, that is open to interpretation, but I'll take a winning score anytime as proof of a side which has their total act together.
-
So good Dr - let's summarise: I think we both agree that fitness is important, but I suspect we disagree on how to obtain that fitness and probably on the type of fitness. You claim Neeld is trying to introduce a modern game plan - I say it is too complicated and has only been used by one club (where Neeld came from) and even there it is being changed. I offer the Geelong style as a much more simple, effective and proven plan, but it does require very good skills - shouldn't Neeld be emphasising skills anyway? In the end it's all about scores - the team with the higher score on the day wins - isn't that what our game is all about and isn't that a reasonable measure of where the two teams on the day are at, in a relative sense, and including fitness, skills, coaching etc? Also, I don't have preconceived views, my position is based on observation and the last 18 months or so haven't given me any confidence in MFC. I think you can now see why I don't rate Neeld.
-
-
I'm glad you finally did your homework, but I'm sorry you chose to dismiss it so lightly - that's an all too common MFC fault. Why not consider the comments from some other posters who can see the issue - there is no easy solution, but lessons can be learned by observation.
-
Can we please not refer to players as 'cattle' - I'm not being precious here - I do believe it is a demeaning term. Having said that, I believe our playing group when Neeld took over was loaded with potential - to a large extent it still is, but Neeld has lost a few players that would have been of benefit with good coaching.
-
I have selectively quoted you Rusty, because I think this passage says a lot. I would add one more feature - skills, skills, skills... You have said it very well.
-
My original post you are referring to was that I was not inferring we should have kept Bailey. The fitness issue was raised and dealt with by another poster - do your own homework. Your comment on Neeld's game style is simplistic and only related to fitness - I expected more. I'm happy to be positive - I believe any modern day coach should model their 'game style' on Geelong - keep it simple, but skills training is crucial.
-
I said don't waste time referring to the Bailey era!Other than that, do you have any idea what you are saying Dr? All teams are running harder than ever and we have the rotation issue to deal with as well. I don't see any evidence to suggest Neeld is trying to 'implement a modern game style' (but then, perhaps you could enlighten us all on what ever you think that may be)!
-
+1 RTG, but with an emphasis that it was in a different era (just in case anyone tries a direct comparison!).
-
Winning the ball is the easy part - knowing what to do with it is harder - that's why I referred to Geelong and why MFC is where it is at the moment!
-
I did say don't waste posts on bring back Bailey lines! As for 'playing like' - I'll back Geelong any day. The Pies have a terrible 'win to opportunity' ratio. Geelong are genuinely 'the greatest team of all' over the entire football history, and they have always played with 'flair'. I, for one, would be rapt if we could play like Geelong - keep the ball moving forward. Sure, they do defend, but it's always an attacking defence! The game has moved on - get with it - we can only hope MFC will also do so!
-
I believe the issue of 'fitness' was dealt with in another post where stats clearly showed the players were fitter under Bailey and went backwards under Neeld - it was also indicated that training under Neeld was not helping 'game' fitness. (No, I am not inferring Bailey should still be at MFC, so don't waste posts on that line.) Reality check is that we had a welcome win, but I'm not convinced Neeld had much to do with it.
-
A little thing called reality tempers my pleasure with the win!
-
Whoa! Let's keep it simple fellow posters - don't 'overthink' it!
