Slartibartfast

For all the negativity about the ability of our fitness staff at the beginning of the season our injury list this year has been exceptional.

Watts is completely overexposed I reckon. Jones, Dawes, Frawley, Cross or others could have done it. Watts did an interview with Mike Sheahan last year, he's been on the Footy Show and he's been the subject of newpaper articles as well as other media focus. I'm thinking enough is enough. I don't think it's a biggie, I just think it was a mistake.

I'm surprised you're not joining the dots. You did with the Hogan deal. I remember Roos saying "the media focus on Watts is much greater than the MFC focus on Watts, he's just one of 22". Hence my opinion that Jack shouldn't have done the interview. It's not that he did it badly because he didn't - it was just bland, but while he's moving from fair player to good player he should just concentrate on that and not do media IMO. Chris Dawes would have been a much better interviewee as he's very well spoken and could have talked about both Collingwood and MFC, done comparisons including MM v PR. It would have been more interesting and stood us in a better light. TBH player interviews are usually pretty bland whereas when coaches are interviewed they can say more.

Scared of an independent view BB?

He must have other significant issues because on the face of it this is an overreaction. MFC had significant intel on Nathan Carroll when they tried to sack him but it's very difficult. It will be interesting to see what the players association do. This is the tip of the iceberg...............so to speak.

Class act. Should have been on "On the Couch" instead of Wattsy. I'm a big Watts fan but Chris would have represented us better and been a lot more interesting. I also reckon Jack should stop doing interviews like that and just concentrate on footy.

What do we do with Grimes. Simple. Coach him and improve him - just as we're doing for the other 43 players on the list. The pack mentality around "Grimes can't play" is seriously misplaced. For those wanting Grimes dropped and traded I'd suggest you rethink your position because it's not going to happen.

I'm not sure, perhaps a mod can advise.

It's a shame Ben doesn't post here any more. He backed Pedo although as I recall he went off him reasonably quickly and has probably lost his bragging rights.

Oh dear. Mods?

Richmond are a long way from MFC circa 2011. But IMO they have made a fatal mistake which MFC did between 2007 and 2013. They have failed to recruit genuine midfielders. I think we all pretty much accept that footy is won or lost in the midfield. For all Roos has been wonderful on the field it's the list management that has allowed him to succeed. From a midfield last year that had one mature mid he added Tyson, Vince, Cross, Riley, Michie from trades and then Salem and JKH from the draft. We also have Harmes. Now Salem and JKH are not genuine mids yet but that is without doubt where they will end up. We are now competitive. Richmond recruited Cotchin and Martin with early draft picks but in the last few years have used their earlier picks on Vlaustin, Lennon, Conca and Ellis. Only Conca is a genuine mid with the others "flankers" who can run through the midfield. Richmonds success last year came from an extraordinary year from Cotchin backed up by Deledio and Martin. Cotchin and Deledio have been shadows of their 2013 form and Richmond have no other running midfielders. That is very simply their issue. If Deledio and particularly Cotchin come good they will be very dangerous because they win ball and feed it to damaging running half backs. Richmond didn't learn from MFC. Our early picks through the Prendergast years were awful. Blease, Strauss, Tapscott, Bennell and even Trengove to a degree were not genuine mids. They were all good TAC players but they weren't the genuine mids like Shuey, Beams, Redden and Sloane who were all available to us. We now have a glut of midfielders. Riley, M Jones, Michie, Evans and McKenzie are all fighting for one or two spots. And it will get harder as Toumpas improves and Salem develops into a mid. And if JKH continues the way he is he'll be a top notch mid. Riley, Michie,Evans and McKenzie who are all very fringe for us would all get games for Richmond. In any one week at least 2 or three would play. Roos was both very good and lucky. Vince became available and because of Roos was happy to come to MFC and Roos was willing to pay reasonable compensation to Adelaide. Roos was happy to do the Tyson deal where many wouldn't have. Cross was available for nothing as was Riley. For all that Neeld is criticized for the Rodan's of this world I don't think he had the same opportunity as Roos. There just wasn't the same talent available for Neeld nor did he have the lure of Roos. As for Richmond they need to do what we did last year and get a midfield. I'd be surprised if someone like Jordie didn't end up there.

Have you actually got anything to add to the thread?

Beautifully put GV's. I'm taking longer to recover than you and go to every match thinking it's us that is due for a downer! But it's fun again. Bar a GF I don't think there is a better or more exciting time to support a team than when it's genuinely on the improve where every win is glorious.

Yep, if the Swans didn't have these two we'd have won the flag this year!Don't you ever get sick of whinging and blaming others?

What I object to, and have since the start, it the public nature of the comments. I'm trying to remember the last coach that publicly individualized about a players poor form in the way Welsh has about Georgio. Say it in house, that's fine, but we need to be united in public.

It's good you know why Michie and McKenzie were dropped and Riley was promoted but we don't. You have information that others don't so don't confuse your position with the point RPFC is making. And for the record Neeld's approach wasn't overblown. I also know both players and FD personnel and he was a disaster. You only have to look at how much happier the players are under Roos (before we were winning) to know how bad Neeld was. I'm over the Neeld bashing but let's not ignore what happened. And for the record I've never complained about previous player reviews being puff pieces but I'm against the frankness of Alison's reviews this week. And I'll retain my independence of thought about what happens at the club. That doesn't mean I'm anything but supportive of Roos, Jackson or Mahoney.

I don't agree Saty. I don't think we get an explanation as to why players are dropped from the seniors and we don't get a critique on how each senior player performs. I've little idea why McKenzie was dropped, or Michie. I don't know why Riley was promoted ahead of McKenzie. And I don't think I'm entitled to know. RPFC's point is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I agree but think the comments should be tempered. GRRM's comments are also well made. The perception that the senior players are scrutinized by the media and public in a way Casey players aren't misses the point. The critique by the media is worth an opinion but public comment by the players employer is in an entirely different bracket. Many supporters and the vast majority of posters here were in favour of Neeld's hard approach when he arrived. It was clearly wrong which some called very early. I think the directness of Allison's comments were a mistake.

I agree with your general thrust but you asking people to be less condescenting show a remarkable lack of self awareness.

I couldn't agree more that what is good for the Casey players is good for the senior players. There should not be two sets of rules for the same category of player. Where I differ is that the "frankness" of the assessment should remain in house for all. Rather than say Michael Evans defensive transition was "His defensive transition was non-existent and he just went away from the team things" it could easily have been reworded to say "dropped off" in the second half. Same message, much less publicly critical. If the club want to inform members that the Casey players failed to defend in accordance with team rules then make a general statement without identifying an individual. If someone like Jordie doesn't deserve that sort of critique then make a positive comment about Jordie, not individually harsh comments about other players.

For all the knockers here is Allison's review of Jordie Jordie McKenzie: Jordie played on-ball and half-back. He had 30 disposals and Jordie was clearly our best player for the day over the four quarters. His effort and intensity to win the ball, and play his role and use the ball really well, was very good again. He’s in pretty good form at the moment, so he’s just waiting for his opportunity and a role to open up for him in the senior side. Hope that sheds some light Steve. I doubt it will though. With this review I think we can put to bed the Welsh knockers. He's very much in sync with the FD at MFC.

I was there Saty and my take was completely different. I reckon Blease has perfected the "Adem Yze" run round the back and call for the easy ball and in the first half did this repeatedly to receive "unearned" possessions. He then tried to dazzle with every disposal rather than taking the first and simple option. FWIW I can't see him playing senior footy whilst he does that unless he's under specific instructions from the coaches to play like that. The Roos game plan is built around winning contested possessions. I thought he was a lot better in the second half where he did compete more and won more of his own ball. Allisons report will be interesting. I thought Jordie was clearly one of the best on the ground and I think of his 35 possessions most were in contested situations and most would have been handballs. Again the stats will verify this. His disposal was generally good but he still doesn't seem to find easy ball. That he wasn't named in the best was strange, he was clearly better than others who were. I listened to Walsh's three quarter time address and shook my head. I've been going to VFL matches for some time and listed to a number of addresses and haven't heard one like it. I don't profess to be an expert by any means but it didn't inspire me.

It wasn't a joke.

We know.

Fitzy played and did ok. He started at FF but moved into the ruck in the last. It wasn't a FF day with the quality of ball coming in, it was awful. He was very clean with his hands below his knees, marked quite well and was good when he went into the ruck against modest opposition. Kent looks closest to me and would be a step up from Salem or Toumpas. Michie, mcKenzie and Evans could all do a capable job in the seniors but where are the spots. Blease kept running behind the man with the ball and tried to dazzle with every possession..he failed. Having said that he did get some of his own ball in the second half. Nicholson and Tappy got a bit of it and Barry impressed in patches. Hunt is learning and Georgio had a poor game. Caseys problem is they don't seem to play team footy and a lot of the possession were like MFC in the preseason games. A lot of The Lions goals came when we tried to switch and turned it over in dangerous positions.

I can see what you're saying re ruckmen but one of the big reasons our mids are doing as well as they are is Jamar is giving them first look at it. Having Gawn in the team poses problems for any defence and he is a talented second ruck. Leaving him out hands back one of the few advantages we have over Port and we will look to bottle the game up and make it a stoppage affair. Gawn is a must for me. Salem and Toumpas are vulnerable.