nutbean

It is interesting. I thought we helped Collingwood's cause - they scored a fair few goals through our turnovers and errors. Then I relooked at the replay and it confirmed this - however the same could be said for Collingwood - they gifted us goals due to their turnovers. Then I read the Monday paper and like every other week - the most scoring by all sides is caused by turnovers and the reason in simple. The minute a team gets the ball, players leave their man and spread hard ( or at least should !) - if you turn the ball over - miss a target - you are dead - mark it down as a goal. Games are now decided on who is most efficient by foot or hand.

Pretty simple to me. On our day we should be able to beat anyone. Cold hard logic ( on a limited data - 4 matches) If the below teams play at 100% or we allow them to play at 100% they should beat us. ( this is based on first 4 rounds of this season so certain teams that were highly rated prior to the season have come back to the pack) Hawthorn, West Coast, Adelaide, North, Bulldogs, Sydney. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teams I consider us competing with for ladder position - Suns, Giants, Fremantle ( prior to the season I had them down as a much better team), Cats, Richmond --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teams I think we should beat ( if and this is the big if - we must turn up to play - note Essendon game) - Saints (better than I thought) , Blues, Brisbane, Collingwood, Port (unsure about them - normally a competitor but have looked horrible), Essendon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So by my reckoning, if we continue to play well and beat the teams we should beat and do well against our "competitors" we will end up anywhere from 7th - 13th. We have lost to a team (just) that most would have considered a loss ( North ). We beat a competitor in Giants, Beat a team we should beat in Collingwood and lost to a team we should have beaten in Essendon (ugh). The huge if - how we play. We need to beat teams that we should beat.

That will depend on what we bring to the table. North loss - disappointed. Essendon loss - disgusted.

I like it - i have been to a few drawn grand finals and apart from the very hollow feeling on the day the replays just seem to lack something. Very happy not to have replays. ( however if it happens and the pressure that will bring with it - I am tipping you will see footballers reputations enshrined in folklore for both the right and wrong reasons)

He ain't quick..he hasn't got a massive tank..he is nice by foot and hand. I would call him honest - you pretty much know what you are going to get and that's not a bad thing

I am great believer that if we give a hard at it, four quarter effort the scoreboard will usually take care of itself.

Whilst I am more than happy with the outcome his behavior was completely different. In fact the three you mention above actually have one thing in common - they said next to nothing in their final year. None of them looked down the camera and said - "I want to be a one club player and have an expectation that that will be the case". None of them when straight out asked by the club president stared him down and lied ( in fact Ablett upset Bomber Thompson by refusing to say anything at all about his contract). None of them had their managers on National TV say "if you are a Melbourne supporter I would have some reason for confidence" ( this was said by Lynch about Scully re-signing) - these comments and more were made after he apparently had already made arrangements to go. I have no problem with players moving for fortune or fame and that goes for Scully - I have no problem for players wanting to leave the cesspool of a club that was Melbourne during that time. It is how you do it. I have moved on. I have no problem with players making lame excuses ( i want to see where the club is headed ) - I have nor problem with a player saying they want to test the FA market and I have no dislike for likes of Rivers, Frawley or Howe - they come they go. I have a problem with flat out liars and whilst I don't lose sleep over Scully I do take joy in him failing. (maybe I have only partially moved on..)

I think that was Chad Wingardium Leviosa.

close - Jetta is hard as nails - Whelan was plain suicidal in his attack on the ball and player.

I got lots of love for the captain but I thought he had a real mixed bag on the Sunday - lots of good stuff but uncharacteristically quite a bit of not so good - the missed goal which he would nail 9 times out of 10 ( that shot must have been the 1 out of 10) and quite a few handballs to the opposition. The short pass to Brayshaw coming out of the goal square was a gem though and some really nice clearances.

I'm actually not struggling with it. We are getting lots of good press on how we have improved and the direction we are headed but didn't we hear the same thing after our GWS win to go on and lose to a very ordinary outfit in Essendon. I get disappointed when we lose as I was after the North loss but we gave it a red hot go so I took some solace out of the loss I get bitterly disappointed when we play like we did against Essendon - I took nothing out of that loss except that so much of football is played above the shoulders and we were found very lacking in that department. So here we are again - no different to how we were after the GWS game - the choice this Sunday for the players is to have learned what minimum effort is required against all teams after the Essendon game debacle. I am backing us to have learned but also understand Pickets skepticism - as Ronald Reagan said "trust but verify" ( he also said "my false teeth have fallen into my oatmeal")

How close must he have been to getting the chop...and now look at him. He is rarely the best and rarely the worst - he just seems to do his job every week.

I'll fess up - playing kick to kick in the street I used like to be referenced as Andy Moir - which meant two things I would jump on mates heads to take a speccy - successful about one in ten - like Andy Moir I would get the ball and baulk, shimmy, blindturn and sidestep - without an opponent within 20 metres of me - also like Andy Moir

I have no great love for Dusty but I think this is a harsh analysis - he has a very nice mix of inside and outside and is not afraid to get his hands dirty. ( and by all reports is lobbying hard for Richmond to be the team to play Port in China as Dusty is already an expert on Chinese culture and in particular, the correct use of chopsticks)

I'm nervous because I have newfound confidence in this side....

I don't think they are forcing Petracca to earn his spot - simply, he has not been fit enough for the rigors of AFL football. But I agree with sentiment and suggest that the seniors are making those in the VFL work harder to get a game - Neal Bullen has been tearing it up the last two weeks but can't get a look in. Having players playing well in the seniors means the likes of Garland, Grimes, ANB, White and Michie have got to keep producing to get a gig and all the guys in the seniors have got to keep producing because we have players in the VFL whose form means they will be looked at. The big shift - we have gone from who do we promote to who do we drop...

look what i found ! http://demonland.com/forums/topic/8544-the-andy-moir-club/

I may have missed this before but in an article today I read the Andy Moir was Jayden's uncle. Does anyone remember the no 29 from late 70's early 80's ( he ended up at North). He was a live wire half forward who could take breath taking hangers - but was highly inconsistent ( sound familiar?) For five minutes he was going to be the next big thing - alas - it didn't happen ( also sound familiar ?) I do have fond memories of him and what could have been (god, that sounds familiar)

I also think the percentage of game time can be misleading. Brayshaw found out ( as did the selectors) that the inability to go flat out for sustained periods whilst you are on the ground will cost the team at AFL level. Oliver has had limited time but his time on ground has been at frantic AFL pace. From reports of last week at Casey even at limited time Petracca was struggling in the last quarter - which means at AFL level he would be shot. I want Petracca to play as badly as the next (Melbourne) man. There is no knock on his ability, there is confidence in his knee - they just need to be sure that he can go hard the time he is on the ground. There is no substitute for game time in your legs and that is exactly what Petracca is getting at Casey.

Kennedy - works hard Howe - lazy

Key to me - If you look at our back six on Sunday - Hunt, Wagner, Dunn, Tmac, Jetta and H - of those there was one only (Dunn) who was did not spread and run and try and create. I know he polarises but I like Dunn - usually makes good decisions and he is the one to go the gorilla's who don't move. The way the game has evolved ( even more so this season) you need attack from defense. You can probably afford one non attack defender in Dunn ( and whilst he doesnt't run, his kicking can be an attacking weapon) that is about it. Garland needs to bring some hard running in his game and quick offense. On Grimes - I like his attack on the ball but as a defender he does suffer from what Garland suffers from - that is slow ball movement when he has the ball in hand. On Lumumba - watched the game again - he will stuff up but he was responsible for setting up at least three goals. Gets the ball and goes - and his game looked good to me as our forwards know what everyone knows - he will get the ball and go -and when got the ball our players got on their bikes and moved - but the players this week gave him long options AND short options and he took a few options shorter options this week - two passes on the chest to Hogan and Watts 40m out - when i was expecting a bomb to the goalsquare. A good game from him.

I think she is a very clever journalist as this has always been her modus operandi - she mixes fact with opinion without demarcation and then presents you with summary that can only lead you to one conclusion but doesn't actually articulate the conclusion herself.

I think it is interesting that you accuse Caro of overreaching and yet you claim that Caro's stance is that Clarko will be coaching Collingwood next year. I heard her speak and I just read her article and all she is speculating on is the longevity of Buckley if Collingwoods continue and further suggested that Clarko is not Hawthorns coach until ink is on paper. She has always been clever as she takes a series of facts ( or in many cases opinions) and points the way, allowing the reader to draw a conclusion, which is exactly what this poster has done without actually voicing that conclusion herself.

Simple answer - 3 completely different types of incidents May was a bump where both feet left the ground - 5-10 years ago absolutely fine - now it is clearly outlawed - he will get multiple weeks Mumford - a front on tackle - no problem Merrett was a clumsy spoil that should have seen him rubbed out as well. I can see maybe why you would query May vs Mumford but the Merrett incident has absolutely nothing similar to the other two and is just sour grapes ( FYI - I still have the bad taste in my mouth from that one too)

I think that's jockeys