nutbean

I am serious in saying "why would you be expecting a perfectly formed, instilled, implemented and executed game plan after 4 weeks ?" Unrealistic expectations of the highest order I am disappointed in the effort not in the very dodgy execution of any semblemce of the game plan.

Just read the HS over my coffee and was interested to see that 52.8% of our possessions were contested. Last year the cats went at 39% and the kings of contested foot, the Swans went at 44%. This tells us that we are taking the message to heart of getting our hands dirty (The contested footy must have been everywhere except at the clearances). What we arent doing is working hard enough off the ball. Run and spread, give and go, presenting options, hard leading. And we saw the end result of that with lots of long bombing. Aaron Davey, who I was less than impressed with went at 73% contested possession ( with the limited possessions he had). Whilst I admit I am one to scream at him to go harder at the ball, if he gets another crack I will yell something different - work harder to make space. We do not want Aaron Davey getting 73% of his possessions contested - thats not his game and nor do we want it to be. Jeremy Howe (who I do love) goes hard at a contest also needs to be constantly pushing up hard to make a lead. He needs to take more chest marks out in front. He is not providing his option enough. To anyone who says " I've been watching 4 weeks and I dont know what the game plan is" I will counter by saying, its 4 weeks old - what do you expect.**** ***for the record -I don't accept the crud we played on Saturday and whilst I expect the adherence to a cohesive game plan to take a little time, I expect a better effort to take no time at all.

Firstly, in the words of Malthouse, it can take 3-5 years for a game plan to be perfected and adopted by players. Having said that, it is my belief (at least I would hope)that this long bombing is the "get out choice" of the game plan and we are just not seeing the balance of the plan being executed. Collingwood for the last three years have gone boundary but only use the bomb when all other options have dried up. We saw the last two years that the options rarely dried up. Collingwood players worked hard on the lead up. When we do not work hard at leading up or we do not honor or pull the trigger on a good lead up then it only leaves two options. Chipping backwards or long bombing forwards. Long bombs used frequently to stagnant contests are too easy to defend and the only time they should be used is when you are moving the ball really quickly and you can kick it long to advantage like we did with Stef Martin in the 2nd quarter. Neeld strikes me as an intelligent man and I dont believe for a second that long bombing to a stagnant contest is the master game plan.

Agreed. On Saturday, ignoring the fact we bombed, we never had anyone done when we did bomb. Playing Green on the forward line, he should realise that when you have Clark, Martin and Howe all going to fly, your job is keep your feet on the ground. Dumb

You are letting the players off the hook and whilst we continue to focus on everyone else ( the coaches***, the recruiters,) but the 22 players who pull on the jumper we will continue to be a mediocre. Have we learned from Jim Stynes - how did he get to play 264 games ( i hope got that right) win a brownlow, AA's and best and fairest. Who exactly should we credit with his success ? Jim Stynes thats who. Our best player on Saturday has been at the club two minutes. Are Neeld and the coaches responsible for him having a kamikaze attitude towards the ball ? No - its Magner who is responsible for Magner. *** I will concede that I believe that the desire to be the best must come from within the player however the coach should be able to positively encourage the player to display correct attitudes to footy and in equal measure send strong messages for non performance.

First time I have smiled all afternoon

Ash Mcgrath decision ? ugghh The two marks in the forward line that the ball both times clearly hit the ground. ugggh The ball that bounced of Macdonalds hands and was grabbed by his opponent and called a mark . uggghh The shepherding off the ball by MacDonald. ugggghhh The Magner second goal because a [censored] push in the back as the ball is on the way to the centre - uggghhh The umpires continually being caught on the wrong side of the pack and still paying not getting the ball even though they have zero idea of where the ball is . YOU ARE GUESSING YOU IDIOTS. They made no difference to our performance but the incompetence upsets me.

Well at least that clears up 1 of the 50 appalling decisions. I said at the time he either has to be reported or it was a free kick to him. (On umpires - thought they were horrific for both sides. I state this every week but i will state it again - I have probably seen umpires cost a team 1 or 2 games in my 40 years following the game. However umpires are ruining the spectacle for me with continuous monotony - how do they get it so right in the finals and so wrong today)

Sas but it aint about being left out of the leadership group - its about their leadership. period.

Because 1/ We are lazy and dont work hard enough to present options 2/ When we do present options we do not respect the option and pull the trigger 3./ The long bomb to the ruckman should be used when all the hard working options ( which there arent any) are covered

Three things I learned. 1/ Magner is a magnet 2/ We were second to the ball the whole game 3/ Lions were prepared to run and spread - we werent. 4/ The long bombing or 2012 is the chipping the ball backwards of 2011. If we are not prepared to work hard and present options you only have two choices - bomb long or chip backwards. Until we are prepared to gut run and keep presenting and giving options, we will continue to disappoint 5/ I cant count.

I was not surprised the Blease was subbed. There will be a message sent loud and clear to him after today ( I hope). You are breathtakingly fast when you have the ball or a chance at it. Jogging at half pace when the opposition have the ball is unacceptable. Tynan I'd keep in - showed plenty. Bate - 10 possessions when subbed in ? Davey - wont run a straight line at the ball - its a shame Bartram - love his endeavour, love his heart - its a shame

6. Magner 5. Trengove 4. Martin 3. Jones 2. Bail 1. Watts

agreed modelling your game on someone is the highest form of flattery. trying to play for someone has a limited lifespan

Personally I dont like the idea. I do not want the boys to play FOR Jimmy (unsustainable). I want the boys to play like Jimmy (acheivable).

Under Bailey last year we got tagged with playing " uncontested footy". If under Neeld we get labelled " tough and hard at every contest" and these sorts of players get talked up by Neeld then I am all for "neeld players". However we have seen nothing yet.

two reasons We didnt present an option hard enough and quick enough. And two - even if we did, we did not enough confidence in each other to pull the trigger quickly on anyone presenting

I hate when the umpires are on the wrong side of the players and they guess.They see the player who originally dived on the ball but have no idea where it ended up. The ball often is clear of the original player but because there are 5 players on the pack and the ball didnt come out the original player is pinged. FYI - I sit on the ground level of the members. You'll hear me. Im the one who constantly shouts out -"you are guessing you idiot"

And good ball movement is dependent not on pace but on the desire to work hard and keep spreading and keep presenting options. I keep rabbiting on about Nat Jones. Definitely not quick but works his arse off to present an option.

So you think sponsorship investment in a football team during these tough times where the investment doesnt provide a suitable is a non argument ?

After watching a whole day of Jimmy Stynes games on foxtel I was amazed by the hardness at which players went at the ball in the late 80's and 90's. It made me think that the interpretation of the holding the ball rule - if you dive on the ball or drag it in and dont get it out (no matter how many tonnes of footballers are lying on top of you) then it is a free kick against. Do you think this has created a "lurker" mentality? Maybe not go in quite as hard. Be second to the ball and tackle instead of making the play and get pinged. I wonder how a Glen Archer would go in this day and age. Do you think this rule has made players assess the best option if the ball is on the ground( go in first or let the other player go in and then tackle) rather than the football of yesteryear which had players mind set on a single purpose - no matter where the ball is just go for it as the footballer making the play will always get the umpires advantage.

there are a number of really good key forwards who have either started their life on the wing or had spells there. Michael Roach, Paul Roos, Richo. One of the greatest full forwards I have seen ( Dunstall) started in the back pocket. If JW tears it up in the midfield, wing, backline or where ever I am not going to say "but he is meant to be a key forward". I am looking for Jack to make visible improvements on last year. What position he does that, I dont really care.

What a half back line that was - Sullivan, Hardeman, Davis. Couldnt win a game but what a half back line !

I like what he brings to the table - unfortunately at this stage he sits at the table 5-10 times per game. He needs to be around the 20 times as I see him as a line breaker

I like to think of it as a work in progress.