nutbean

I thought Lars came across as more of a [censored]. ( he may be a good knee surgery option but boy is he a [censored])

Pendlebury on Saturday night - ran hard at a ball that fell short of him - he picked it up effortlessly on the half volley, spun on a penny and rammed a pass down Daisey's throat who kicked the goal - now THAT was elite.

My take. I am pleased to see our players push up agressively to the opposition when we dont have the ball - I havent seen that in too long I am pleased to see our mids winning clearances at the centre bounce and at stoppages - I havent seen that since 1904. Winning is better than losing. Thats about it.

I'll keep it simple. I like what I saw mid season last year This season, I want to see progress on his good mid season patch last year. I will not write him off after two NAB cup games.

Captain Retrospective takes to the skies again. You wont let this go.So I'll give you yet another chance. Please show me anyone - a hint will do..even an inkling who suggested that we should have taken Martin before Scully prior to the draft. Waiting.... I dont criticise the Watts vs Niknat debate because at the time the experts couldnt split the two but this obsession that we should have done better with our number one pick is rear vision mirror gazing.

Forget new game plan - the above comment will be the biggest change of direction for our club.

It has to be so - with the NAB rule that if the ball goes out of bounds off a foot ( irrespective if its on the full or not) then its a free kick against - it would make you rethink the hugging the boundary line philosophy. These games are purely to put new ideas, structures and game plans into action.

He had a completely blank bat for "that" innings but not for long - http://www.pacificinsider.com/2012/01/05/it-just-aint-all-cricket/

The "Michael Clarke's 300 run innings bat" club

I never thought it was because we defended too far back ( partially true). My view is we didnt defend agressively enough. As soon as Collingwoods opponents got the ball the Pies were immediately in your face. Never gave their opponents a second no matter where they were on the park. We did not go nearly hard enough to stop our opponents moving the ball around. I guess that equates to "we werent up to the job". edit: the most interesting stat is how goals are scored. Most are scored from turning the ball over. My belief is we did not make our opponents turn the ball over by pressuring and we did wayyyy too much turning over ourselves through pressure ( and bad skills)

and free agency - if Jamar came out and said now - "I just want to concentrate on footy and all contract talks can wait until seasons end" = free agency gornski ( when did I become so hardened and bitter ???)

this thread has really struck a (extension) chord with me

I said similar about Scully - if he plays well then his value will go up with MFC. If I was ScullyIwould get more runs on the board and you will get an even better contract out of MFC. This WAS common before GWS and GCS. But GWS are on scene and offering money . So my "learned the hard way attitude" is - any player who says they want to play out the year and concentrate on footy - no hurry to sign anything before the end of the season - GONE-SKI

Away from the puns - did anyone watch AFL 360 last night with Hall and Mooney ? They talked about KPP's and especially as forwards and how it took it both of them until 23 until they really could see what was coming at them from down the field and how it took that long until they felt comfortable in the position. They also mentioned that players like Franklin and Carey who matured very early were not the norm. I understand that and my expectation is that the improvement that Jack made in the middle part of season becomes the norm and his better games improves further than that. My criticism of our players is that they may show us something quite early on what they could be but dont continue to improve and take that next step. At various stages Sylvia, Bad-mo-boy and Bate to name but three have shown plenty and then stagnated or gone backwards. I'm putting it out there - I am not convinced we draft poorly - I think we have failed to develop players.

STOPPPP !!!! (sorry to amplify)

I seriously question what you node and what you think you node.

Once bitten twice shy. nutbean pre Scully - "it is a players prerogative to wait until the end of the contract to negotiate - if i was a manager I would be advising my clients to wait" nutbean post Scully - "if you havent signed by mid season - gone-ski"

Interesting to see if they are buying "American" planes. I have been zooting around China since 1986 and it always amused when sitting on the old 737's people in the seat next to me would say they felt safe because they were on Boeing rather than fly on Russian or locally produced planes. The Boeing 737's for China are made in a factory outside Shanghai in a JV with Boeing.

There are lots of good arguments for adopting the different interchange and sub configuration but I was more interested if everyone agreed with the end result of going down the 2+2 path. My original idea of posting this topic was to get a feel for the belief of Roos, Neeld and Buckley that if we go down the 2+2 path recruiting philosophy will change as to the type of player who will and wont get a look in. There are lots of players these days who cannot run out 100 mins of a game. So my question remains - do you agree with Roos, Neeld and Buckley that if we go down the 2+2 route that super athletes like O'Meara would get a look in before say a Cyril Rioli - who is burst player that gasps for air after one or two efforts ?

Disagree vehemently. He is not starting to lose it. Long gone already - kooka la munya - away with the pixies - relevant nutjob (I say relevant because unfortunately the nutjob is on the rules committee)

Paul Roos commented that this rule would see a fundamental shift in drafting players favouring those who could run. Neeld and Buckley have essentially backed up what Roos has said. I am not sure you can dispute (as Bartlett and Mark Robinson have done) the premise of the argument. The more you restrict the interchange, the longer players will stay out on the ground. A fundamental necessity is to be able to run out 4 quarters of football. Players who have the big tank and can run all day are therefore surely favoured by this as opposed to your burst player. Therefore if you have your turn at the draft and you cant decide between a big motor and burst player at the same pick would you not lean to the big engine ?

I have little knowledge in this area but wouldn't noticing something amiss be dependant on a player turning up to training/a game/football function high ? Could you get yourself blasted on a Wednesday night but be fine for Friday training ? Just posting question i dont know the answers to.

I will make three comments - 20 years old and developing . Did I see strides taken during last season in his development ? yes ...... Having said that - I expect more development this year or criticism is justified.

What I liked about his NAB cup form is that whilst he may have fumbled a bit due to the conditions he got himself to where the ball was to provide a contest. Getting to good spots is half the battle.

Whilst not being privvy to Neeld's teaching, if he is a good teacher I suspect he would have spent one meeting laying out his expectations of the players on the more mundane aspects of team/club discipline, made sure everyone understood and then moved on quickly to "football". A teacher who "desperately" tries to maintain discipline is usually symptomatic of a bad teacher. Also, we are not privvy to how late Sam Blease was or his explanation. I suspect the explanation of "the dog ate my homework" would meet with a different response and discipline to "the dog ate my family".