P-man

Inside 50s 12-1.

This is dross. Transition from defense looks staggered and uncertain. Just can't get it inside 50.

Max is getting an absolute bath. Goldstein having a field day.

He's definitively dipped the past few weeks. His numbers are down and frankly he's been unaccountable in defence. A break is a good thing.

Dunn on Black and Pedo on Tarrant are worrying match ups. To put it mildly. We will really miss Garlo this week.

jumbo won't fancy you leaving out the Geelong game. That's his ace in the pack for this ultra bizarre anti-Craig crusade. ...even if 80% of teams would get belted in a wet weather game at KP.

Seriously, what in god's name are you on about? He's an interim coach. His job is to get the most out of the group for the 11 weeks he's in the job. You're potting the bloke 5 weeks in, and on the back of performances that Neeld couldn't get near.

Okay, so you ARE a Neeld fan sticking to your guns. I thought by the "residual" comment you were not. You can have your shoulda, coulda, wouldas, jumbo. I'm going to judge based on what I see on the field, and I'm witnessing improvement under a new coach, with players publicly stating that their improvement can be attributed directly to Craig's influence (e.g. Watts and Fitzy). I'd advise you to move on from the Neeld fandom. He ma end up leaving behind a few good things for the club to build upon, but a competent senior coach he was not.

What is this "we"? Is this a club sanctioned project?

jumbo, I recall you being alot more reasonable than this, which is why I thought you're labelling Craig a disaster was a joke. I really have no idea where you're coming from. BECOMING non-competitive? What were we before? Does that include the game we won? Against an established side? The reality is Craig has taken a side from an incredibly low base, and in a few weeks has brought improvement in pretty much every single key indicator, whilst notching up a win and being in with a genuine chance of a second over the weekend. No-one is saying that the current state of things is acceptable, but I'm not sure what you were expecting over the past few weeks.

Fair enough. Few things: - No way was every post potting Neeld. I was, certainly, given the level of competitiveness was like nothing I'd ever seen before. But there were times where those who were "anti-Neeld" felt like stuie, myself and a scattering of others. Make no mistake, he had PLENTY of supporters on this site. Admittedly they began to drop away towards the end. - If Craig is deemed to be somehow tainted by Neeld, or "residual", then Rawlings is definitely residual. At least Craig has been a senior coach before with his own attributes and coaching mindset. - It's of course conceivable that improvement can be attributed, in part, to a greater amount of games together. Ditto to the quality of opponent. But this is once again getting drawn into a debate around how much of team performance can be attributed to the coach, or to games experience. THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE SENIOR COACH. If he gets knocked for the failures, he surely deserves the pats on the back for the successes. The team has improved. The stats show that. And to the naked eye, the effort has greatly improved, which entails chasing and tackling (blocking and shepherding is also about awareness which comes with time). You seem to be expecting a miracle turnaround under Craig. In the 5 or so weeks he's been at the helm, he's done well. Very, very few would argue otherwise.

We're discussing coaches, in particular your claim that Craig has been a "disaster", and now you've turned your ire onto the players. So essentially you're just angry at everyone.

You mean the club he actually played for? 100+ games?

So given you're not happy with Craig, who would you have had as interim coach who doesn't classify as "residual"?

It's just a song for god's sake. If you don't like it fine, but debating its "purpose" and feeling insulted by it? Won't be everyone's cup of tea but it's honest. The best we can hope for in the short term is for them to have a go and snag the odd win. Worst idea in the past 5 years? Worse than the bugler?

The song formerly known as "Grand Old Flag". It's now just called "Flag".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqma7f7ecxk Krusty could easily pass as a Demons fan.

This mob are the Jekyl & Hyde of the competition this year. Their best is literally as good as any team going around, and if they're "on" it will be a 60-100 point thrashing. If they're not however, anything could happen. A win is unlikely but not impossible. ..and if the game is in the balance at three quarter time, get on board.

Certainly been plenty of useless information on the radio, however, "I try and I try and I try and I try" hasn't always been true.

So...what's the harm in this again? Provided that the song isn't woeful and doesn't get played every time we kick a goal, ala Gold Coast. Chances are it will get played for a few weeks and then get shelved, rarely to be heard again. But it's at a unique point in the club's history. I like the idea, personally.

I don't know how much truth there is this, if any at all. He resigned at GWS citing family reasons. It was Sheedy who was granted the one year extension just prior to him leaving and now the succession plan is in place. I seriously doubt it would have been a clear choice of Cameron over Williams, and if it was, I'd put that decision down to Sheeds influence, whose judgement at this stage is iffy at best. It's also worth noting that the Giants have not won a single game since Williams left, in fact things have nosedived in pretty spectacular fashion. They were looking alright at certain stages last year with Williams guiding the young players.

One thing he has over Neeld is some form of success as an AFL coach, or even just a previous AFL coaching career, to back up the stern words. When you're telling a room full of players about your hard arsed approach to footy and advising them that no-one's spot in the side is safe, it doesn't have much resonance when everyone in the room is thinking, "who is this guy again?"

With due respect, you have previously stated that if Neeld's tenure was poor, Craig's tenure has been a "disaster", implying that Craig has been worse than Neeld. With that as your starting point, how can you be expected to be taken seriously on this subject? Perhaps you're a Neeld defender sticking to your guns, I'm not sure, but jesus man, open your eyes.

Not terrible but certainly down the pecking order.

Did lol.