Slartibartfast

It will be interesting to see if he gets it.

If we'd had better they may not have played at all as you say. If they had been part of a good team they may have developed into much better players. Tom Rockliff commented last week on the negative impact it had on him being captain of Brisbane last year. The impact on Grimes and Trengove would have been profound and Garland as a senior player over that period would also have been seriously effected. Chicken and egg. Grimes particularly was fantastic early under Bailey.

I don't agree. He brought it up to support his comment from the previous week that it's a problem which many dismissed. And it's a valid point. Are you suggesting you don't want Salem to improve this part of his game? For the record I really rated Salem's game. I thought his use of the ball was first class and his decision making under pressure was excellent. I was pleased to see it as his form to this point was underwhelming.

Should have got more to send a message. It's not tough to do it it's actually cowardly to go an injured player. I don't want my Club condoning such things.

I can never understand why people get so boorish about being either right or wrong. We're all amateurs at this, we see players in brief compared to the professionals who see them continuously. And the professionals get it wrong regularly. It's not an exact science. This year alone I've been totally wrong on Hunt and Wagner. Who cares, I don't. What is frustrating is those that try to continuously shout down others opinions and also the way some almost show a vindictiveness about a players shortcomings. The expression "he's a spud" fits comfortably into this category. Like you Dazzle I couldn't see Hunt making it and thought he'd be a liability in defence. Thought the same with Wagner. I was wrong but who cares? I don't. I do feel for Grimes and Garland too because the success of these two consign the two G's to support roles. Very sad for two guys who were so loyal during the inept years of our club and it must hurt so much that they are not now part of the resurgence.

1. Viney - four quarter effort and willed us to victory in the last. 2. Gawn - exceptional first half 3. Tyson - goal kicking mids are gold. 4. Vince - silk 5. Garlett - creative 6. Salem - terrific first half and good second half. Creative use by hand and precise kicking. Very good decision maker and hurts the opposition when he gets it. Underrated game. Apology: T Mac. He would almost have been BOG but his turnovers hurt. Just misses a spot in the six.

Rest AF. Thanks for your input.

1. I hate the fact that the Stynes McLardy Board made decisions that hurt the club so badly. I don't hate any of the individuals. 2. There are lots of inequities in the AFL but as a rule the well managed AFL clubs do well and the poorly managed ones do badly. We've been poorly managed. 3. IMO we are under AFL management in the sense that our Board did not appoint Peter Jackson and we have not appointed our Board. The AFL appointed Jackson and then the Board was changed with no input from members. We are under the management of people appointed by the AFL. BTW, I'm happy with this as I don't believe the members know what's best for the club in terms of voting Board Members onto the Board. 4. I read very little of this site and didn't see that you thought my comment on Jimmy's death was in poor taste. I apologize if it caused offence. Red I respond to you because you're a respected and influential poster. I disagree strongly on some of the stances you take and I particularly dislike the view of history that we copped an unfair deal from the AFL. Of course I realize that it's much easier and more comforting to blame someone else for our decade of failure but my view of history is that it was mainly of our own making. We have dined at the banquet of our consequences. I respect your position but we differ at times. I post for balance and no longer raise these issues myself. I do think it's important that both views get expressed so people can make up their own minds.

This is the same AFL that bailed us out of the tax assessment in the bottom draw of the desk fiasco and when finding us guilty of bringing the game into disrepute (or whatever euphemism they used for tanking) then gave us enough money to pay out contracts granted to Connolly and Schwab (and Neeld?) to restructure ourselves and get us back on our feet after the Board led by McLardy and Stynes had taken us to one of the lowest point in our history and put our survival at risk. We are now in the best position we've been in for years, and guess what, we are under AFL management with both a CEO and Board of their choosing. I'd be hesitant to blame the AFL for shambolic management in our position. Pot calling kettle black and all that. I don't find playing the victim edifying. PS: Red, you bought this up, I didn't. I have my views on why Scully left and you know where I'm coming from. I'm not persuaded by Blisterings views but he has his reasons for his position and that's fine. Scully didn't leave for one reason. There were factors in play from many quarters. He may have left regardless but our management of his situation was awful. I cut some slack to a 19 year old in a horrendously difficult position and you and many others don't. To me that seems to be one of the main differences. And regardless of any AFL involvement and responsibility for his leaving we were granted the same compensation for him as Geelong received for Gary Ablett by the AFL. Many would see that as shambolic.

What is your source?

And now this: Why on earth would you say that. What about "if we play our best we believe we can win". It's such a negative message.

Track and Garlo rested before tomorrow nights game....

Did Goodwin know that what he said was going to be posted on Big Footy and beyond?

I've deleted my comment!

What you've done in your post is reverse engineer. You've seen the result and you've sort to explain and justify it. It doesn't seek to address what would have happened if another path had been taken. I'd argue Roos can be legitimately questioned on two counts: failure to introduce an AFL quality game plan to the club until this year. In doing so he virtually said to the players "you aren't good enough to play AFL footy". publicly stating either directly or indirectly that we were/are hopeless and we've got a long way to go. He's done many good things which have been discussed continually. I also think he's made mistakes.

Then don't argue I've got "a bee in my bonnet" to support your argument. Of course we had an option. You think it would have been the wrong one and I accept that's your view. It's not mine and we'll never know. By the way, we haven't proved anything yet. Beat GWS by 2 points, lost to Essendon and beat a terrible Collingwood team. Like many I'm very optimistic but I think too many are going too hard too early.

It depends on what is causing the PA decline. If you think it's the methodology of introducing the full game plan in year one you have a point. Personally I don't think footy is that simplistic.

What is frustrating, and I didn't think you were part of it, is the concept that we can't question Roos and the assumption that if Roos does anything it must be right. I've not got a bee in my bonnet about Roos but I think it's arguable that Roos is an old style coach focusing on defence because that is what worked for him at Sydney. I would present the same issue (a three year introduction of game plan) regardless of who our coach was. Daniher took a basket case, changed the game plan in one year and made a preliminary final. We've taken three years to progress this club from no workable game plan to a modern game plan. Bolton is doing it in one. Beverage did it in one. Hinkley did it in one. Leppa went the attacking route. Richardson developed the whole and did not take an incremental approach. Worsfold is not just concentrating on defence. Roos is the odd man out. The time taken has cause a lot of pain to the MFC but has also provided benefits through low draft picks and that is impacting now. I finished my other post by saying we'd never know, obviously this issue is moot. But the argument that "we were worse than any other team" is a cop out to the issue. Even if we were worst it doesn't mean the other approach wouldn't have been better. It's not been until we've introduced an attacking game plan this year that we've played AFL quality footy. We won a few games last year but we were just terrible for long periods of the season. After the Essendon game everyone here wanted Roos to step away and let Goodwin take over. After a win against the Pies few want to question if Roos took the right path. It's inconsistent emotive thinking. I've raised this issue for months now, it's nothing more than an interesting discussion predicated on having taken a different path to all other clubs and has nothing to do with a "bee in my bonnet" about Roos.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting Roos could have turned things around like Beveridge or Hinkley but I think the interesting debate is whether we needed the process we went through or whether we should have introduced the "final" game plan from day one. People forget how poor PA were when Hinkley went there. He decided that rather than going to Roos route of defence first he'd go all out attack. He's probably the father of today's game plan in a sense. He said that in order to get the best out of your players they need to have fun and that kicking goals was fun. We went the other way. We didn't kick goals and it's hard to argue with the fact that the players didn't enjoyed their footy. You only need to look at the difference in the MFC players demeanour now compared to even last year. Roos is an old style coach who had success 10 years ago with a particular game style. Malthouse suffered the same fate and it will be interesting to see how Eade goes. Lyon is now struggling but Longmire is adjusting. Bolton has gone to a Carlton list that is arguably as bad as MFC was when Roos took over but has them playing the entire game plan now and they look much better for it. Did Roos waste 2 years? We'll never know.

I don't think Old could have explained it that well.

Rather than knock Scully perhaps we should have paid more attention to him. He left because we were a dysfunctional and unprofessional club run by a bunch of half wits who took us to depths rarely seen and he wanted better. Now there is a shooting offence. He accepted a once in a lifetime offer to secure the future of his family and particularly his sister. What a shocking person. He delivered us Hogan - I'm looking for the downside here. His behaviour regarding leaving was no different to Ablett, Dangerfield and Franklin. Really, life is too short to carry on with this sort of stuff so long after the event. It was a massive win for us. The way you're going on Red you'll blame him for Jimmy's death soon.

I think he's toast. The FD seem to have him behind Wagner and Hunt in defence and I think he'd also be behind White who I really like. As a winger (if that role exists) or high half forward he'd be behind AVB, Vince, Garlett and Petracca (when fit) and most probably Trengove. Your point about damaging kicks is very good. For all Matt Jones has played well this year he doesn't hurt the opposition. I think he'll be a casualty if we get fitter than we are now.

Wagner was terrific yesterday but he was marginal to poor against NM in my opinion. You've got to play your first game some time and you're unlikely to play that well in it. I just don't think early in the season is the time to play those players when you are building your season. I'm still a Grimes fan, you're probably not. I saw Grimes play yesterday and he was a class above but I know that over the years playing in terrible sides and being a part of a disfunctional club has taken it's toll and many have deserted him. The FD seem to be part of that desertion. But having said that Wagner was very very good and much better than I thought he could be. Interestingly it was his competitiveness that stood out not his kicking. When he gets more used to the pace of the game and he can use his kicking skills we could have a good player. But it's early days and one swallow doesn't make a summer.

ANB leather poisoning

Would explain both Pedersen and Frost playing.