Jaded No More

Yep, it is officially time to jump in the bath with a toaster. On the bright side, he won't be missing out on any finals action

I see where you are coming from Rhino, but let me ask you this... 10 years ago, Daniher took over the club. Since then, we have had a new board, new president, new assistant coaches, new captain and most importantly new players. Everything has changed since 1997... everything but Neale Daniher. So when he is the only constant in a premiership-less period, who else can we look to for answers? I don't think it is misguided to want Daniher gone, although I agree that a mid-season sacking achieves nothing but further turmoil.

You think the Victory and Storm would be happy with that?

Maybe this is where the problem lies. You see him as a back flanker, I see him as our number one medium defender. Carroll and Rivers take the talls, Whelan the small and Bell the medium sized player (but can also take smalls like Williams). Just because he doesn't play CHB or FB, does not mean that his primary job is not to stop his opponent. We have too many loose flankers who let their opponent do as they please, and considering some of the big jobs Bell has had to do this year (i.e.- stop a red hot Mark Williams), I think it is insulting to think of him as just some back flanker similar to Ward or Brown.

While we're on the topic of who is to blame, I thought this article was pretty relevant. Mark Robinson makes some good points, both about the players and the coach. Sadly, he is spot on when he writes that "over recent years they have been brilliant and collectively hardened for one week, at times for one month, maybe two. But as quick as we are to praise them, they let us and themselves down for being flaky, individual pushovers." You can read the rest of the article here

I don't think that anyone with any sort of footy knowledge sees Daniher as the sole cause of our problems. Of course he isn't, and he is certainly not to blame for the horrendous injury run of 2007 which has no doubt affected our season to date. If you thought we'd finish about 7th, but the club thought we could challenge for a flag, than obviously they see the list differently to you. Did the club over-rate the list? And furthermore, do you think the club has tried to overcome the faults which you admit we have, by implementing yet another new game plan to be carried out on a ground that we have never had trouble winning on before? The reason I ask, is because I am genuinely interested to see where you stand. We don't hear from you nearly enough these days. Injuries aside, what else has gone wrong this season, and who is at fault (if anyone)?

I'm sorry, but can you explain to me why Bell is unreliable, given that this week was the first time all season that he has conceeded more than 1 goal. A defender's primary job is to stop his direct opponent from kicking goals, and based on that, Bell has been our best defender all year. Carroll and Whelan have both been demolished at least once this season, yet Bell has never conceed a bag of goals, not even when his opponent had 10cm on him. His disposal has improved dramatically this year as well. Certainly I'm much happier to see the ball in the hands of Bell, rather than Carroll or Ward.

And Geelong haven't won a flag since 1963, and I bet you they won't win one this year either. As for Eade, he has got the Bulldogs' list much further than many other coaches could. They have a good, midget list, which he worked around by implementing a quick game plan. If the Doggies took as much time as we do, to deliver their ball to their key forwards, they would never kick more than 10 goals a game. Nobody is saying that Daniher is completely at fault, and of course injuries have ruined our season. But you cannot be so naive to think that if we had everyone available that we would have beaten Sydney, or Geelong or St.Kilda (when we had a full list!) and especially West Coast. We got smashed in those games fair and square, and not McLean nor Rivers could have made any difference. You can't take much out of pre-season form, but it was clear to everyone that we were over-possessing the footy. We were learning, and if ever there is a time to stuff-up, practice games are it. But how could a 10 year coach, let his side walk out onto their home ground in Round 1, and over-possess and over-handball the footy? I understand perfectly why we needed to implement a faster game plan when we played interstate, but why at the MCG? And confidence may have a lot to do with our poor skills in Round 8, but what was the excuse in Round 1 and Round 2? And why can we come out fighting like mad in Rounds 6 & 7, but collapse from the first bounce in Round 8? Yes, we were playing the premiers, but gees, we gave nothing. We played 10 minutes out of 120, and that was after Daniher specifically said that we needed to be switched on for the entire 4 quarters to win. So either his message is no longer getting through, or our players need to have their hearing checked. I admire your support of Daniher, but you have far too much footy knowledge to not realise that our faults and our cracks are much deeper than our injury list. We needed everything to go right for us to have a real go this year, and that hasn't happen. However, I still think that without all those injuries, our new game-plan would still be flawed, and our skills still lacking.

Maybe they don't want to get on the AFL's bad side again?

If you think it was 8kg of muscle, you didn't see him last year. He was slightly overweight, and he struggled to run out games. He hasn't lost any of his power, but he can now run all day. The alternative is to make him run all day while unfit, and put too much stress on his legs and groins, which leads to OP. As far as Jones is concerned, he needed to lose the extra weight and it has helped him.

Yes, and so did the club. Otherwise, they wouldn't have tried to copy the premiers' game plan. Old, I agree that additional run was necessary, but that could have easily been done by introducing extra runners to the backline like Bell, Green, Bartram (who granted, is injured). The over-handballing, over-possessing rubbish that we've seen since Round 1 makes no sense, especially when implemented at the MCG. We've won all but 1 of our games at the G' last year, and yet we messed around with a winning formula. If it's not broken, why fix it? We have been a kicking side for years, and yet we can't hit a target this year. Players who used to be great users of the footy, no longer are. What has happened there?

Have you got any statistics on Moloney and Sylvia? I'd be interested to see whether they were made to lose weight, in order to reduce the stress on their groin, which would make sense. I think Jones was on the plump side last year, and he needed to lose the weight to gain endurance. He was struggling to run out quarters last year, now he can run all day. My issue is not with the weight gain or loss. Big-bodied players will always be just that, big-bodied. You can make Moloney or Bell lose a few kilos, and they will still be powerful tanks, whereas Bruce will always be on the lean side. The real worry, is that we chop and change and adapt our game style on a yearly basis, but our list doesn't change. Now, of course it is easier to change the game plan, and not the players, but in making tactical changes, you need to work with what you have. Instead, we are working with what we wish we had, which is leg speed and superior skill level. When really, what we have worked on all summer is endurance, and getting our players to run all day. Can you really make better endurance players while increasing their leg speed at the same time? And in doing all this extra training, weight loss, etc etc... we seem to have forgotten the main thing that wins sides games, and that is our skills level. We were always a good kicking team, who have spent all summer working on handballing, and when that failed, have completely forgotten how to use their feet. Something has gone horribly wrong, and we can't just blame the injuries. In the next 2 weeks, we should be close to having our best 22 out on the field again (give or take Bartram and Pickett). We will have no more excuses, but we will still have a game plan that doesn't suit our players, and a fundamental lack of skills.

People are, quite clearly, losing the plot. I've read that we should drop Dunn and Jones, and yet everyone is screaming at Daniher to play the youngsters. I've read that Neita should be dropped so that Newton can get a game. Now Bruce and Green? How will we get their trade value up if we don't play them in the senior Y_M? Everyone needs a strong drink and a lie-down I think.

Well done KD, you are spot on. Daniher has spent years trying to copy other teams' success. First by getting hard-bodied players like Brisbane, then by shifting the emphasis to tempo, pressure footy like Sydney. Now it is all about the run and carry that teams like Freo and West Coast implement. The problem is, that we are not Brisbane, or Sydney or West Coast. We have different strengths and weaknesses, and one of the main weaknesses we have is our inability to come up with a truly unique game plan that suits our players, and our players only. We become too predictable too soon, or we fail to emulate the successful clubs altogether. Like in 2004, when teams quickly realised that we would go through the centre corridor at every opportunity. Copying other sides is a true sign that we lack vision. Rodney Eade went from introducing the flood at Sydney, to quickening the game at the Doggies, yet we have never had a truly unique game-plan that leaves other teams struggling to catch up to us. For once, I want to see other clubs copying us. I'm sick of always doing the chasing.

There isn't a single good reason to drop Dunn. He is learning to play the wing, and doing a good job. If Robbo, McLean and Rivers are fit, they will come in for Miller, Brown and Ferguson who is injured. Frawley should debut in favour of Ward, or Rivers if he isn't fit. Newton won't play.

1) Absolutely. I hope they promote Neave at the end of the season, and try and grab another tall ruckman in the draft. Not sure I'd be keen to use a first round pick on a ruckman, not unless they are seriously special. And remember, being tall is not enough. They need to also be mobile and able to either play up forward, or make serious impact around the ground. 2) Bartram, Petterd, Bell, even Buckley can fill that role. Not crucial 3) Lets wait and see what we have with Frawley. I think that if he proves to be as good as we hope, that we'll be ok with Rivers and Carroll as well. Frawley should eventually play FB, with Carroll taking the third tall. 4) Don't let the Newton lovers hear you say that 5) Agreed. We need leg speed, and we need more quality midfielders. You can never have enough players in your side who can use the footy I would also add to this list, a small crumbing forward and another small defender.

Who said anything about getting McLean or Rivers back? Robbo is the only certainty for this week. We still don't know how severe Rivers' injury is, or what exactly is the problem.

I'd definitely play Bell and Dunn at opposite wings. CJ as a forward flanker. Frawley to FB, Rivers to CHB and Carroll as third tall. Matthew Bate to the centre square, alongside McLean and Jones. And for a really random one, Bartram up forward to crumb (leaving Davey to run off the half-back line). The kick-ins to be taken by Jared Rivers or Matthew Whelan ONLY. Nobody else is allowed to have a crack, and that includes TJ. And no more kicking inwards for the sake of kicking inwards, it is so bloody predictable. Also, I'd drag Miller everytime he handballed. He would be under strict instructions to back himself and kick the ball quickly to a leading forward. Who am I kidding, I'd just take all the boys on a bonding trip to the pub... they are more likely to score there, than if I coach them

Before the match they interviewed Daniher, who clearly said that Sylvia will not play midfield until he has plenty of game time in him, because of his history with OP. That seems fair enough to me, and completely justified. The last thing we need is to push the kid too hard and have him spend another 3 years recovering on the sidelines. As it is, he finishes games with his legs, and groins iced. Besides, I think that he is a unique CHF prospect who could really make our forward line dangerous and hard to match-up on. He just makes things happen up forward, much more so than when we saw him in the midfield.

I'm not against selecting Newton next week, in fact, I'm all for it, however... Robbo will play next week, as he should, which means that in the forward line we could potentially have Neita, Robbo, Sylvia and Bate. Assuming they drop Miller, which would be extremely harsh given our entire side has been terrible this year, you would have to play Bate or Sylvia at CHF, Neita and Robbo out of the square and Newton in a forward pocket. Dunn will need to play on the wing once again, which I'd be happy to see. My question is, will that make the forward line too crowded? Neita, Robbo and Newton are just forward, and we can't re-shuffle them. We could throw Bater into the midfield, and get Sylvia to play a more crumbing role, to allow for more space. I guess we could exploit the Roos by loading our forward line with a few talls, but it could easily back-fire. Still, we have nothing to lose at this stage and I'd like to see Newton get a game. Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen. Frawley will probably debut next week, and Daniher is unlikely to debut both.

Go you, fighting the good fight for our boy, and in under 10,000 words no less Is anyone going to mention his perfectly executed bump on a West Coast player to free Green? His great pin-point kick to Travis? Yes, he missed a tackle on Judd... like he is the first player in the AFL to struggle to get a hold of that man! He also got caught behind a massive opponent on a couple of occasions today, but Staker is 10cm taller than Belly. Talk about a stupid match-up! He also made a rare stuff-up when kicking across the goals. It was stupid, but he does not deserve to be classified as a shocking kick and a no-brainer because of it. Watch him go, watch him tackle and go in hard at every contest, then remember that he has only played 36 games (most of them under an injury cloud) and go criticise someone else.

I want to know what you think will happen if he resigns this week? Who comes in and coaches... Paul Williams? Please! I rather Daniher sees out the year, than get some clueless caretaker who will only do more damage to the club.

How is that any different to the way Gasper was pushed out? If some of our older players decide to retire, they should make the decision themselves, or we should not renew their contract at the end of the season. Making a special game where they can all play for the last time, is pushy and insulting. And besides, I don't want another Ferguson situation, where someone like Warnock, who did little wrong in the last few weeks, is dumped in favour of a 26 year old who struggles at AFL level and won't be on our list next year. Play the kids, and if the older players deserve a game, they will get it just like Brown, Ward, Yze etc... all have. If Bizzell starts to show something again at either level, he'll get a game. As for Holland... over Ferguson any-day of the week thanks.

More to the point, why didn't Daniher put him in the backline, when Ferguson was off and Carroll was getting his arse handed to him on a platter? He was finally moved into defence with 10 minutes left in the match, and did a couple of pro-active things.

Each to their own. Belly over-cooked one kick which cost us the turnover, but apart from that, all his passes were fairly spot on. He had some horrible match-ups, like Staker, but he kept his head and worked his guts out. He has been our best defender in 2007, and you can't really fault him. His opponent is yet to kick a bag.