pm24

Fair enough.

Could Sellars inclusion mean one of Garland, Frawley or Tom Mc are carrying an injury??? Sellar's inclusion guarantees we have another Key Position defender in that case. Also, it appears that Dunn will most likely play through the middle in a run with role from some of what Royal said in the team chat. So given Garland usually plays on one of the small forwards, maybe they wanted to have the extra height in the backline to give us an advantage for when they might do the long bomb into the forward line. We are fortunate enough that Frawley and Garland can play on bigs and smalls, so maybe frawley will pick up a mid-sized forward...... In reality, who the hell really knows, apart from the footy department.

Sorry, I realise I've just reverted back to logical and rational thought....back to the corner I go.

If you listen to yesterdays presser involving Dawes, Neeld is quite clear on why Trenners and Grimes were selected as captains. Because after the internal peer review process, which involved the players, they were ranked the top 2 in leadership ability. Jones was no.3. It was quite refreshing to see Neeld have a go at one of the Journo's who then followed up by asking why Jones wasn't considered. He basically said, "because Trengove and Grimes were ranked as the top 2 leaders. Jone's was third. Why would the 3rd ranked leader be selected against the top 2 ranked leaders??" It's pretty obvious that they have a list of attributes that players are measured against when determining leadership. This is why they were selected, despite their age. Because they are the best leaders in the club. Obviously in Neelds view, having the right leadership attributes was more important than the games experience when it comes to leading a team. As for going backwards as a team, explain to me how a team that started 0-10 last season has gone backwards when we are possibly going to be 2-5 after this week.....Not to mention that this team is less experienced than the one that one we fielded last year. Aside from the first few weeks, I think the team is ahead of where it was last season. The last three weeks have seen the team play with a greater level of competitiveness than we saw for most of last season. The first two weeks in particluar were atrocious. We then played one good half against West Coast before winning (as expected) against GWS. The game against Brisbane was competitive, and though we lost to a team that isn't all that crash hot, the team never gave up and plugged away until the final siren. In that case, it was the third quarter that killed us. Then, against carlton last week the intent was there to pressure, the desire to compete, but the execution of skills failed. Given last season, with a more experienced team, we still had a 0-10 start, and failed to show much all season, I think this season we are progressing better than last. Particularly when you factor in that we have only had clark for about 3 weeks, and that we have had only a make shift forward line for most of the season. We haven't seen how this team would be with Dawes and Clark both fit yet, and that is important to our ability to score. All in all, I think the team is showing an end to the bruise free football it has played in the past, is getting fitter and better as playing as a team, which lays a solid foundation for the rest of the season and beyond.

Just to clarify, your view of Neeld is based on a statement made after round 1, where Neeld was surprised by the performance of the club against Port when all the key indicators throughout the preseason and the NAB cup pointed to something else.......like the team playing with greater competitiveness. They would have gone into the game knowing that the experience levels of our team vs port adelaide wouldn't have been too far apart, but it was the way in which the players competed that surprised them. And Neeld and Co have always, since taking over, highlighted how far back the club was in its training standards and other areas of development. They have always maintained a line that this is a journey and that it would take time..... Maybe you should be analysing your own posts and try and recognise the faults in them before posting, because you're obviously quite skilled at applying such an approach to anything Neeld or the club say.

My apologies, I should know better. I will now go into a corner and repeat to myself 100 times...."there is no place for rational and logical thought on this forum", "there is no place for rational and logical thought on this forum".....

Charlie Dixon is now out of the game. I wonder how that changes the odds given he's been their most damaging forward this year.

I was also puzzled by the failure to elevate Magner, but given we only lost the clearances 38-36, and the mid's against Carlton showed good intent, I'm actually starting to question whether including Magner just because he is a big body, would have been the right move anyway. Looking at the team from a positional basis and I'm finding it hard to see who in the midfield Magner would have replaced. He would have played in the Centre, but the other players who played those roles last week, played well. I'm thinking of Sylvia, N Jones, Evans, M Jones. Has Magner done enough to bump one of them out of the team?? Then look at the other players that were being talked about as shouldabeen ommissions....Bail and Nicholson. One plays on the wing to use his speed (bail), the other plays out of the backline (Nicholson). Would Magner have been more effective than either of those two at those positions?? The Footy Department has always said players will have a role that they are expected to play. If the players that played a similar role to Magner (e.g. N Jones, M Jones, Evans, Sylvia) hadn't played well, maybe he would have come in, but looking at the structure of the side, I'm now not convinced that there was an automatic drop to make way for Magner. This is the same reason Sellar and Davis have been selected instead of Fitzpatrick. Sellar and Davis play as backs, but Dawes was included to fill the vacant spot in the forward line. All of this sounds to me like the Football Department is very clear on the roles certain players will perform, and that Magner, though playing well, hasn't done enough to replace those on the team who also perform that same role. The club obviously felt that with the loss of Grimes (a mid/back) and Trengove (a mid/fwd) that it needed to bring in another forward and a defender, not a midfielder. Seems reasonable to me. I think this approach has actually come from the Neeld/Craig led footy department, and is a smart way of going about things. It's the only way to emphasise to players that you need to play your role, and you need to play it well. With more clearly defined roles, the footy department can focus the development of players on fulfilling roles, and the players have some clear direction regarding what's expected of them. The results may not be coming yet, but I believe that the process is working. Neeld and co should be given our support, and be given time. This club is no longer in a similar position to Nth Melbourne and Richmond development wise, we have rebooted and are at a similar stage to Western Bulldogs, Gold Coast, and GWS. It's tough to accept that as a supporter, but it's reality, and a new coach, and change of the footy department is not going to change that.

Then you may as well suggest that St Kilda also has an equally inept list as us given GC beat them in round 1. But let's not that fact get in the way of an overreaction shall we...

You beat me to the punch PJ, I totally agree.

I think many on here have unrealistic expectations on where we should be at, and therefore because they think change should happen overnight are suggesting Neeld and Co should go. I think this completely unreasonable, and it is because of the following: Offseason 1 - FD clearly said the players were a long way away from AFL required fitness levels and it would take 3 years to reach that level. Offseason 2 - FD said improvement has been made but that players were probably only at around 60%-70% of the required level. Clear messages that improvement in player skill and execution was clearly linked to fitness levels of players, as skills would fall away late in games if the required fitness level were not achieved. Games experience is clearly recognised as one of the most important factors in determining team success. We have the third least experienced list in the competition. The FD identified early in the piece that we needed to bring in players who could play the roles needed, and that we did not currently have players that filled those required roles. Therefore, players were moved. That every player would be expected to become a two way player and would spend time at Casey to develop this part of their game if needed (see Sam Blease). That Neeld wanted us to become that hardest team to play against. This is still what the team is trying to become. It won't happen overnight. In all of the information coming out of the FD, the messages have been consistent and appear to be based on facts and figures that are being gathered by the club. That there is a clear path they are following and that they will not be swayed from it. There have been no false expectations promoted by the club. The message has always been, we are on a journey, we want you to join with us on this journey. The club made the most comprehensive overhaul of our list in the last free agency/trade period. It got rid of players who did not fit the mould (Morton, Bennell, Gysberts) despite having obvious talent, and brought in tougher more ready made bodies into the club (Dawes, Rodan, Byrnes, M Jones, Kent, Terlich). This was all done with the "plan" in mind. So in short, the Neeld and co Football Department have been consistent with their messages to the supporter group, they have also been clear about where they saw the team list and that it would take time to get to where it needed to be. The never created false expectations, that is something that we as supporters have done. I think the club is on the right path, and that it will take time, and that we are much better placed than we were at any time under bailey because the right groundwork is being done to help this club become successful for the long run, not for just a season here and there. So rather than tearing down Neeld and Co, look at what they've said and what they've done. They've shown integrity and strength through everything that has happened over the last 18 months. That should be applauded. They should not be crucified because we as supporters have had unrealistic expectations. That's our fault, not theirs.

So based on that the players clearly didn't play for Bailey or respect him either. A question, if you so adamently feel that Neeld is the problem, do you also believe that our levels of fitness where at an AFL level? Do you also believe that the list we had before Neeld took over would have had success by now if the practices within the football department was left as it was? Do you think we would have attracted guys like Mitch Clarke or Chris Dawes or Byrnes to the club if Neeld and co weren't here? The only thing that is evident from the last 18 months that Neeld has been in charge, is that the club, from the moment Neeld took over, which Neeld identified, was not up to scratch with its training and preparation, and that a lot of work was going to be needed to get it to where it needs to be. It is also clearly evident that with the personnel changes that took place pre-Neeld, that we have lost a hell of a lot of experience from the club, including guys who could have been used to mentor our younger players. Think of McDonald, Miller (he wasn't the best player but he was a good clubman), Matty Whelan, Bruce, McLean. We also have the third least experienced list in the league, only greater than GWS and GC. All of these things clearly indicate that we should not be expecting miracles, and to be playing finals football. Watching the game on the weekend, I was actually pretty happy with the intent shown by the boys. The execution and skills were not there, but the soft football that the club played under Bailey was no-where to be seen. That to me, demonstrated that the players are buying into Neelds approach. Guys like Sylvia, Jones and Garland have shown improvement this year, Watts actually showed courage in being prepared to get crunched to take a mark in the game against Brisbane. This again, to me, indicates buy in. But feel free to continue to feel that Neeld has lost the players on .......... what, perception???

So Tony Sheahan is Mike Sheahan's son. Not sure if that makes me feel like I should give his wordpress article more or less credibility....

The one thing that I find to be a major inconsistency in some of these arguments about Neeld losing the players etc etc, is that many of the players have come out and shown how they support Neeld and Garland even recently complimented Neeld by saying he was coaching better than ever. To think that the reason we are still struggling is solely due to Neeld being unable to coach is just rediculous. By making such a statement it completely disregards the lack of support and strength in the footy department pre-Neeld but under Bailey, it also completely underestimates how bad the culture may have been and how much a change/shift in culture was required. Such things can not be done in a short space of time, and if you also consider what has been said by the coaches and players alike regarding the training standards of the club pre and post Neeld, it is obvious that the club faced an uphill battle just to get the players at an AFL fitness level. I also find it unlikely that successful AFL types like Neil Craig and Dave Misson would continue in their work, given they are obviously well regarded in the league and would be sort after, if Neeld was an absolute basketcase and they felt they were wasting their time. Just because some on here are getting annoyed that we are still losing does not mean that Neeld has gone about things the wrong way. Out of the players that have recently left the club, only Moloney and Petterd have been playing regular games. Stefan Martin is still getting injured and playing as above average athlete with below average skills. And for those criticising the game style being implemented, watch the Craig report video, and the passage of play highlighted as the way the team wants to play makes me think of teams like Sydney and St Kilda (under Ross Lyon), who constantly harass and pressure the opposition to win the ball. All of us here are naive, myself included, about what is actually happening in the club. None of us have all the information, and to just say "sack the coach" based on perception while also disregarding relevant information is rediculous.

Kent missed the set shot, then kicked the second one on the run. The club website has the footage of his first goal in the AFL, and you'll note that it is not the one where he was legged.

As soon as I saw this article in my twitter feed I promptly responded with the following: @AFL @barrettdamian how about coming up with an original article rather than just copying Robert Walls' opinion from sen yesterday. Lazy. Unsurprisingly, no reply has been received. Seriously, the fact that he is one of the key reporters for the AFL is embarrassing.

Fitzy in over Dawes???? Really. I understand the concerns about having 3 ruck type players, but I don't feel that Gawn is ready to play mainly in the ruck yet, and I reckon the club want to ease him into that given his injury history. I've got no source for that comment, but it's just my gut feel. As for having Blease/Toumpas in, I tossed up on whether they've done enough to get back in, as they have not had consistently strong performances over the last couple weeks. Though, it makes sense to have McKenzie out with one of those two coming in, but I just think that to the footy department is just so high on McKenzie because of his tackling (which he again lead the team in), and therefore it is unlikely he'd be dropped. I reckon I'd alter my original line up and have Viney as the sub and McKenzie on the bench actually.

I think putting Magner in for Grimes is almost a no brainer if Grimes is placed on the LTI list. Outside of that, you would have to think Dawes is a certainty to play his first game for the MFC. I'm also sick of us persisting with guys like Bail and Nicholson, particularly when Nicholson is meant to provide a burst of speed out of the backline. Well, if he could kick it would work well, but he's just to inconsistent. We need to keep Tom McDonald in, because his pro's as a defender to me, outweigh his 2 or 3 brain fades a game. I was very disappointed with Strauss' game, as I think we really need him to get more of the ball so that he can use those superb foot skills he supposedly had. Just checking the game stats, he had a disposal efficiency of 100%, but that meant little because he only had 7 disposals. I also agree that we need Jetta in. His toughness and disposal is a better combination to have than Nicholson's speed and not much else. Fitzpatrick has probably earned a call-up and Dawes would appear to be a certainty. I think Spencer should stay in, and we continue to rotate Gawn into the ruck, and let Fitzpatrick just stay in the forward line. Unfortunately I think Kent, wasn't ready for promotion, and though he kicked a reasonable goal, he probably needs a bit more time at Casey. But then again, the numbers for all of our forwards was well down given the poor delivery into the forward 50, and the fact that we only got it in there 40 times. So I reckon we go with the following: In's: Magner (if Grimes LTI), Dawes, Fitzpatrick, Jetta Out's: Grimes, Nicholson, Bail, Kent FB: Garland, Frawley, Terlich HB: Strauss McDonald, Dunn C: Howe, Sylvia, MJones HF: Trengove, Dawes, Tapscott FF: Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Byrnes FOLL: Spencer, NJones, Magner INT: McKenzie, Jetta, Evans SUB: Viney (struggled last week) EDIT: Swapped Viney to the sub vest, with McKenzie on the I/C

I've gotta say, I'm impressed with the size of Tynan. The photo of him funning with Blease and Barry suggests that his spent sometime building up his upper body. Trenners seems much leaner. Could he have been running with his sister???? Bode's well for this season.

Of course there are also those. On another note, for those wondering how Gysberts is looking you'll be very unsurprised. Nth have got photo's of their training on their club site. Bottom one on the page is Gysberts looking very familiar: http://www.kangaroos.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4912/newsid/150484/default.aspx

yeah, finishing running the tan.

I run the Tan quite regularly (when not injured as I am currently). The tan is 3.8kms and has a steep incline of about 800m up Andersons St, it also has a lot of little inclines and declines around the track that really test the muscles. The only enjoyable part about it is that there's a slight decent for about 800m of the last 1km which means you can really get up a good speed to sprint across the line.

There could be a number of reasons. Green is more of a mid-sized lead up forward or a wingman, but he does not have the speed we want out of those positions. Byrnes and Rodan can play midfield and forward and have the speed we needed/wanted. We are obviously wanting to give the young guys opportunity, and if we have younger players that play the same role that Green filled (guys like Howe, and maybe Taggert) then Green would have been holding back there development. Given the height we now have in the forward line, I can understand how Green would be on the outer. I couldn't see him getting a game ahead of Howe that's for sure. It all seems to come back to this premiership model that this group of coaches etc have brought in. He possibly didn't fit in it, or had players ahead of him in the pecking order which meant he wouldn't be a regular. Not the first time its happened to a player i'm sure.

If you consider that Watts finished with Rodan in the time trail, and it sounds like they weren't near the back, I would say that he has made ground. Blease running with Bail is fantastic news. Buildling up a strong endurance base takes more than one year so we should be expecting him to be at the front. Also, some guys are just natural runners (like Tom Mac) so we don't need to have everyone finishing together. Someone always has to be near the back. The important thing is whether those who were near the back are now quicker then they were. If the whole group is quicker and ahead of their times from last year then all is good. The fact that there were 10 pb's and many more at the required level or just below is much better than last year. After the first run last year Misson and Neeld made it very clear that our fitness was well below par. By the time the NAB come starts I would expect us to be well placed to be able to run out games next season.

I might be in the minority here, but i actually think MacDonald's disposal improved quite a bit as the season went on. I might need to take off my rose coloured glasses but I think he was far more accurate with his disposal in the second half of the year. However, the one reason he should be retained is because of his courage in the contest and ability to spoil and make a contest. You can never have to few guys with those attributes.