jimcor

And me except that I don't think he's aggressive by nature. I would liken him to James Hird who was sublimely skilled and extremely competitive rather than aggressive. At the moment, JW doesn't seem able to show his competitiveness and maybe comes across as too nice. I still have no doubt that he will be able to show the required competitiveness in the not-too-distant future. He's too smart not to.

A mactastrophe! Trade them both and Fitzpatrick - it will help my posting.

On reflection, Bennell seems to be making his case for a recall to the firsts. I think he normally gets used as quick defender who can attack but maybe it's a chance to try him again as a forward who can defend instead of Dunn??

Oops...and I took so much trouble in previous posts to get Joel Mc and Tommy Mac right! Just shows I can be confused when there's only one Fitz..... Apologies to Jack if he's masochistic enough to follow any of our threads. I really do know who he is.

It's certainly becoming more of a challenge. At the start of the season I was saying that we (the supporters) shouldn't make any judgements until at least 6 weeks in. So, here we are and I think some things are becoming clearer. 1/- The players are getting better at implementing the game plan week by week. We are many times let down by our disposals which are often buttock-clenchers. 2/- Players that have been identified as 'core' will get more than one week to show their worth. However if they consistently fail to deliver, they will be dropped. 3/- The coaching team have been able to extract better performances from some 'core' players but are struggling with others. 4/- We are not currently the team that other clubs do not want to play against. In fact, we (the oldest club) are ranked with the two newest clubs. It's going to be a bit longer than we'd hoped. Changes for next week, I don't think any of the core players should come out. I think it's down to the 'fill-a-gap' group that would be under scrutiny e.g. Sellers & Dunn. But, then again, I didn't think that JW should/would have been dropped! Wrong!! In: Fitzgerald (has some of things that Sellars lacks like speed, endurance & ability to take a contested mark. Has a shocking kicking action but hard to compare with Sellars' as I can't recall him getting a kick). Deserves a shot. In: I don't know who else as the only player who seems to be consistent delivering at Casey is Couch and I don't think we can fit him in. Having been dropped (and we don't need to panic just yet), JW needs a week or two more to show that he's learnt what's required and LJ (a walk in when he's fit) is not. Looking forward to a great contest and not to be embarrassed (hopefully) on national TV.

6 - Clark (Just imagine where we'd now be without him) 5 - Morton (Again, hard to watch me typing this but I thought he did a lot of very good things today) 4 - Frawley ( In spite of some probs with his disposals, did the job on Hawkins) Don't really think anyone else stood out beyond just doing their job.

Agreed. What struck me about Geelong's obvious superiority was that their players kick and handball to where their teammates are going to be rather than where they start from. So our receiving players are still learning where to run to and the delivering players don't currently seem to know where to pass the ball to. On top of that, we are still not consistently able to deliver the ball to the receiving players - even when they are stationery! Sometimes we handball four or five times within a 5 meter radius to little effect. Definitely no general improvement today, Geelong looked like it was a training exercise at times today and that might have impacted on our mindset. No excuses. Morton & Clark were stand outs I thought.

Sorry LT, I should have queried this as well. I agree that it's just wrong to impose different standards on players simply because of ones' own unrealistic expectations. As I've said on a few posts, I don't think we have a more talented (and I'm not even saying 'potentially talented') player than Jack Watts and his continued development is crucial for our future success. On the other hand, I think that in the absence of extreme circumstances, any dropped players have to earn their place back by demonstrating the required levels of consistency that the coaching group demands. Otherwise, it sts a poor example for the rest of the squad and at the end of the dat, the squad is everything.

A couple of seasons ago, I went to a night game against Geelong at the 'G. It poured all night and the one memory I came away with was that they played as if there wasn't a drop of moisture in the air and we played like a team unused to playing with a wet ball. We were soundly beaten. I hope there's a strong drying wind today or that we've developed a few more wet-weather skilled players.

I agree. Having been dropped, in the absence of a disaster in the ones, I think you need to earn back your place with a couple of 'best' performances in the twos. Consistency of effort needs to be demonstrated, I think. P.s. it's a contact sport and broken jaws are always a possibility. I don' t think our injury list is any worse than a numb of other teams. This season we at last have some depth from which to choose.

Anyway, the deed has been done and it's now up to Watts to demonstrate that he is up to the challenge or not. I would think that he should be expected to excel over a couple of weeks at Casey before returning to the firsts. Neeld is the coach and you can only assume that he knows what is necessary to help JW develop into a first class footballer.

No contradiction that I can see. First sentence says that I don't understand how Jack was dropped purely on last week's form and the second says that,in my and others opinions, there were other players who had under-performed over longer periods. There is no speculation rather a simple question about what would be the reason for this, could it be disciplinary? I have no secret source, just an enquiring mind.

I find it really difficult to believe that JW has been dropped purely on last week's form. As has been pointed out, there were others that not only didn't deliver but had not delivered as well as Jack had in previous weeks. Has there been a disciplinary issue of some sort that we might not be aware of? The fact that he wasn't even included in the emergencies is mystifying.

Well then we are unanimous apart from those that disagree!

Totally support Binman's comment, trading Watts would be an admission that we are incapable of developing a player with sublime skills, a football brain and an admirable work ethic. I've watched him at training on numerous occasions and he always puts in. A lot of work he does goes unnoticed as does a lot of the attention he gets from opposition players. As he gets older, fitter and bigger, he will become a great player. Let him learn his craft for another season and we will reap the benefits. Btw, he'd get killed in the ruck at the moment and one thing we're not short of is potential ruck men.

Neeld would know that he doesn't have to say a thing about 186 because it will be at the absolute front of everyone's mind - regardless of what they say publicly. There are some games where wind-ups will not be necessary e.g. I expect Queen's Birthday will be another one where players know what will be expected and will hopefully be able to repeat the NAB Cup performance. It's easy to say but I continue to be insulted by other supporters' sympathy. It certainly doesn't equate to respect.

More a symilarnymophobe with pike

This makes so much sense to me. And, provided you have no doubts about their skills & commitment, for older players as well. Does anyone think there would be any serious calls for Nick Reiwoldt and Brendan Goddard to be dropped to Sandy because they were both beaten on the night by children?? I suspect they'll come out in the ones next week and want to make a statement. They have the experience to do so. Jack Watts will be a star - and hopefully for Melbourne, provided he doesn't read a lot of our threads!

One of the other factors that should perhaps be borne in mind is that it would be counter-productive to make multiple unforced changes while the team is learning to put the new gameplay into place. It's much more difficult having a lot of players trying to learn something new than it is having the odd new player coming in and learning how the rest of the team is playing. Unless players are not following instructions or not making the required effort, they should be given a decent run. If they're improving (and in my view, Davey definitely is) they should be supported. On the other hand, if they show themselves to be a dud, back to the twos. Footy players will make mistakes and I'd much rather that they stretch themselves rather than just occupy a space.

6 - Jones I used to think he wouldn't make it. I was wrong. 5 - Magner Very hard, never stops & has the sort of head that is just a little bit scary. 4 - Rivers What a great defensive game. Did everything well. 3 - Jordie Mc. How much fun was it watching BJ get more and more [censored] off? 2 - Tom Mac. Goes to show the value of working hard in the off- season and simply 'doing the job'. Nick Who? 1 - Bate. Just continues to look more and more like an AFL footballer. Can't wait for him to get more confident in his ability. Like many other posters, I would have liked to acknowledge a lot more players who did well but that's life.

I've reviewed my post and changed my mind. We should definitely drop either Joel Mc or Tom Mac because it's too confusing trying to work out who's being rubbished and who's being praised. As a default position, I assume all negative comments are aimed at Joel because he's been around for the longer period and has inadvertently attracted a lot of harsh (too strong?)critics. For the sake of clarity, we should insist that no two players with similar, but not the same, names be selected.

I'm with those that don't think Neeld should do anything other than find a spot for Clarke & Frawley. After having just re-watched the game, I even think that some of my reactions last night might have been flawed i.e. I don't think Sellars and Watts were that poor - not great but not that poor! What a great place to be in compared with the last few seasons. We now have players expected to perform to certain minimum levels before they are promoted. A miracle (almost). Apart from Dunn, I don't know who should be dropped. Maybe Tapscott who seemed to struggle a bit but was also very brave. On reflection, I can't even understand why so many call for Joel M to be dropped. IMO his strengths still far outweigh his weaknesses and you can't fault him for effort and hardness. Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing who runs out on Saturday because, if nothing else, it might give us an idea of who they think can be trusted to execute the plan and who can't.

Really interesting stat. From the boundary, It looked to me that the players were generally trying really hard. I think I might have posted that I thought that they might have been exhausted from 'aimless' pursuit and spreading because they hadn't quite worked out what they needed to be doing. This would also have also left them pretty well worn out as the game progressed. So, maybe as the coaching panel worked out who's confused and why, they're able to work on it. I was also a bit surprised at how quickly people began to condemn the new regime without giving them opportunity to demonstrate they knew what they were doing. Last year, after four full years of developing payers and a game plan, we were still unable to string together more than one decent game in a row. The law of averages suggests that a pot plant coaching us could probably have achieved a similar result over that period. For the first time this year in 'proper' footy,, I can genuinely say that last night I enjoyed a game of football that MFC was participating in. May there be a few more over the next 6 weeks.

Great game, even sitting in the pouring rain for much of it and in spite of the result. First half was almost exhilarating because the commitment was finally rewarded. It very well may be that they are learning where to position themselves so that their efforts actually get better rewarded. Still a few howlers to keep us grounded and I agree with an earlier poster who said that the rain helped us. It certainly had an impact on the cleaness of the Saints' handling and created a lot of turnovers for us. Jones, Rivers, all 3 of the Mc/Macs, Magner, Bate, Cole, Bartram, Grimes all delivered. I am glad they've all been given an extended opportunity to get up to and/or maintain speed. Jack Watts had a shocker (and I normally like everything he does!) and Dunn & Sellars didn't impress. Jamar also was really disappointing in that, apart from his tap work (unbeatable), he seems to have almost no influence. The St Kilda ruck men had almost an opposite result I.e. smashed in the tap work but effective around the ground. Ultimately, in my view, theirs was a better result. The bottom line: if we keep improving at this rate , a win can't be far away and a series of wins not tha much further.

My memory tells me that he was drafted as a KPF to be groomed to take over from Neitz. When that didn't work I think Newton was then thought of as the Neitz successor. But my memory might not be correct!