Jaded No More

I'm sure the peanuts on this board will moan and [censored] about what a traitor he is, but I would be absolutely thrilled to see him win the medal, or at least get close. Am genuinely looking forward to this week's game against Adelaide for two reasons: Brock McLean slightly fitter and the opportunity of seeing Scott Thompson at the MCG again.

Judd is above the law, there is no doubt about it. He is protected by the umpires, the media, and the entire AFL community. That is the benefit of being the best player in the AFL. But lets face it, he is hardly a dirty snipper, and to sit through a Brownlow night where, in all likelihood, the top 2 vote-getters are ineligible to win the medal will be farcical.

I think you are being FAR too negative. Even with all of our deficiencies, an injury-free list would get us into the top 8 for the next 4 years at least. Whether we go any further is another issue, and one that I believe needs to be solved through list management, delistings, drafting, as well as a face change(s) in the coaching box. But to say that we'll spend at least 2 more years in the bottom 4, or that we need to do that in order to fix our problems, is madness. We have a lot of natural improvement to come, when you consider that most of our ball winners are under 23 years of age and still developing. Our spine needs a bit of work, with the ruck and FF positions soon to become vacant, but if we just get ourselves right mentally and become a bit smarter with the way we use the ball, we will play finals for quite a few years yet. I certainly believe that our list is better than the Kangaroos, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon (who rely on a lot of older players) and at least on par with St.Kilda's. I agree that we can't afford to bottom out, at least not for a sustained period of time, but then again, we are hardly alone. There are plenty of Victorian clubs who wouldn't survive a long stint at the wrong end of the ladder.

Just like they learnt from their game against the Dogs and Port. I don't disagree with what Jeff White said, and that is exactly the problem. We lack leadership, and our senior players consistently go missing. They don't lead the team like they should, and yet we see the same type of players in the leadership group every season. Why?

That's as far as my computer knowledge goes... that and 'throw the computer out the window' trick I used to have the AFL Melbourne site as my home page, but it now takes so long to download, I don't bother.

As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't be hearing the same reasons week after week, season after season. How many years have we had to put up with non-performing leaders? Why are we still over-possessing and over-handballing at Round 9? Why did we not learn from our mistakes in Round 6 & 7, and hold onto our lead on Sunday? What have we been doing at training if we still don't have a decent kick-in strategy? There are just so many questions that keep coming up every single year, leadership being one of the main ones. No club can win a premiership without solid leadership. You can win a flag with strong bodies, or with flooding, or with running and carrying, but show me one premiership side without a strong, committed, and disciplined leadership group. Like I said in the original post, maybe we are not meant to see success until our young brigade take over and change the attitude and mentality of the group.

Yes, yes... absolutely! I've been on his bandwagon for years. He has always had the right skill-set to make it, and the only thing holding him back was his body.

Try doing a hard refresh.... Ctrl + F5 That seems to work for me.

As I've already said (but I guess you don't bother to read past the first post), our coach should be able to control all of these factors (injuries aside). There is obviously nothing that can be done about players going down with injuries, but why do we recycle the same excuses (especially the one about the leadership, which has been floating around for something like 5 seasons), instead of fixing them? All I ask for is a little bit of originality. Just something to spice up the monotony of mediocrity.

Don't worry, I'm sure we'll lose all these guys to injury at some stage It is getting beyond a joke, and while we can't convincingly blame the new fitness regime, surely the club will have to look at it closely come the end of the season. In all my time supporting this club, I don't ever remember having so many injuries.

Somehow, I don't feel bad for Nathan Buckley. I know I should, but.... nothing. Robert Harvey on the other hand, that poor bugger has had the misfortune of playing for probably the most unsuccessful team ever. How can such a winner get stuck with such a bunch of losers?

*cough* soft receiver *cough* :D

On Footy Classifides last night they highlighted the set play which allowed Swallow to get his goal. Firstly, Nathan Brown was on him, not James McDonland as stated elsewhere. Secondly, both Lyon and Carey said that it was basic football knowledge that the defender should always stand goal-side of the pack, so that his player can't run past him. They also noted that Bruce, who was playing as a 'stopper' was probably too far away from the action, despite being unmanned. Well if Lyon and Carey know this, why don't our players?

If Brock plays every game from now until the rest of the season, he'll win it, or at least come top 3. I would have given him votes this week if I was doing them. He has been out of the game for 7 weeks, and played just half the game and still picked up 22 possessions and 9 tackles. Amazing!

Brock McLean is back, therefore 11. Yes ok, I'll get help...

I think you'll find that Brock McLean did. He declared himself an option in the papers last year, and then went on to back it up every week on the field, and in the finals, and yesterday when he picked up 22 disposals in half a game. We do have leadership at the club, but it comes in the form of a few inexperienced kids.

Source? The soft tissue injuries are mounting...

And apart from injuries, we should be able to control and fix all of these 'indicators', instead of coming out every week with something new to add to our list of problems.

This is the current injury list, taken from the AFL site: Colin Sylvia - Hamstring - Test Matthew Bate - Hamstring - Test Adem Yze - Groin - 1-2 weeks Matthew Whelan - Foot - Test Clint Bartram - Knee - 2-3 weeks Ryan Ferguson - Thumb - 3-5 weeks Jared Rivers - Back - 1-2 weeks Brent Moloney - Groin - 1-2 weeks Isaac Weetra - Wrist - 1-2 weeks Hopefully we can get Whelan, Sylvia and Bate back, but it looks like Rivers, Moloney and Yze are no chance this week.

As per usual, the weekly Monday excuses and blame games have been rolled out. This week, Jeff White fronted the cameras to let us all know that the senior leaders of the club are to blame for our loss and indeed our poor form. So far this year we've had: -Injuries -Players letting the coach down -Not being ready to play -Having a losing mentality -Losing concentration -Over-possessing -Not running and carrying enough -Running and carrying too much -Senior players not putting in -Everyone not putting in That is an impressive list of excuses. Now, just back onto the leadership issue. This is hardly the first time we have had problems with a lack of leadership. We've had players like Yze and White leading our club for years, because they were good players, not because they were good leaders. Apart from Neitz who has been a consistently good captain, but who can only do so much from FF, we haven't had a really great leader at the MFC for a long long time. The fact that we have to consider Bruce for the role says it all. He might be a good player, but he does not have the sort of leadership traits that makes someone a great leader of the pack. He is also not a big-game player. It seems that the players in our side who show most leadership, are all 23 and under. McLean being the obvious one, but also Jones, Bell, Rivers and even Bartram have shown the determination that all leaders require. So maybe, just maybe, we are not destined for glory or success until these players mature and are given the responsibility of leading the club. Because as Jeff White said, our senior leaders are not pulling their weight, and that is hardly news.

Godfrey punched himself, twice Judd has been suspended for a week. Who is the new Brownlow favourite now?

Try 22, with 4 clearances and 9 tackles in only 56% game time, with about 60% fitness. I know that my obsession with him is bordering on unhealthy, but gees that is some good stats. He is a star in the making! He also makes Jones better.

Harsh? Try completely idiotic. I would have expected Daniher to have an opponent or at least some sort of a plan for him in mind, before he put him in the side. As it was, we went in with too many defenders and Frawley wasn't given a job or much of a run. Hopefully he gets a job next week and is played for most of the game. We can't judge him until we see him play his natural position, which is down back destroying forwards. The worse thing that can happen now, is for him to be dropped. He needs at least 2 or 3 more weeks just to get used to the pace and what is required of him.

Ok, he never lays a proper tackle, except for yesterday And being a poor defender and unaccountable, is not a sign that you are soft. Brown is both, is he soft? For what it's worth, Green should never have played on Grant to begin with. He is not a defender, at best he could play as a third man up. I also specifically said that neither Green nor Bruce are soft, so your argument about his tackle count is irrelevant.

You just made two mistakes 1) Saying that Bruce is our most damaging midfielder 2) Calling Green soft Both are just preconceived ideas that are mentioned on this board far too often. Bruce is a receiver 95% of the time, therefore he needs someone else to win the ball for him. That means that our most damaging midfielder is someone like McLean who goes in and gets the ball to Bruce in the first place. Also, Bruce will never be truly damaging until he learns to hit targets and take the right options. He panics under pressure. And Green is NOT soft. His great tackle yesterday in the last which got us on a roll is an example of this. You can't call Green soft and then bring up Bruce. Green puts his body on the line far more often than Bruce (and neither are soft). Nobody is advocating that we trade Bruce for a Kent Kingsley or another Ben Holland. But if someone like Judd or Pavlich were up for grabs at the end of the year, we would be foolish not to go after them, and to get quality, you must trade quality. Bruce doesn't reach the heights of Judd or Pavlich and never will, therefore trading him for one of these players will be beneficial to the side, which is why you trade to begin with.