robbiefrom13

I am interested to see if the players are getting angry. This week, both Frawley and Jones said the same thing - they are getting sick of losing. That sounds like they've reached overload, can't actually absorb any more and go on putting it down to "learning" or whatever. I bet Jack Watts would express himself differently on the subject of losing now. In fact I imagine it's all through the club, like it is through the supporter base - we're sick of it. So, what will happen now that they've reached the point where they've had their fill of it? Will some players like some supporters find it too tough, and lose interest? Or, on the other hand, which players will individually get angry, and refusing to take it dig deeper, pushing themselves further, taking more pain, because they are fed up with the crap? Interesting to watch. Not every team is exposed to this level of heat. Some players may break, and we'll see them losing creativity and joy of playing the game; but others may out of this pressure get strength that cannot be had cheaply. So they feel it's come to a head, they're sick of it - good! Let the players' anger come fully into play. Maybe no reward immediately, but like the contested possession count, it will be building for the future. Beckett says, "I am alive still; it may come in handy later on..."

confidence = major increases in skill and speed. it does.

confidence = major increases in skill and speed. instantly.

apologies for my tone. still, I love the guy. I won't put my house on it, thanks for the tip. You won't get me saying the negatives before I have to, though

a funeral, as I remember it being said at the time. you know better than that do you? none of us has any idea what went on. the court will make a serious effort to establish that. why have any of us the presumption to anticipate (in our near-total ignorance) what the court will find? what motive can we possibly have for speculating along these lines, given that he is one of our favourite players?

wow! but what about the agreed-to team rules - unreasonable and therefore ignorable? trust, team loyalty, priorities - all these things are fundamental to culture aren't they? The ramifications of these guys' actual misdemeanours on the night go well beyond any actual physical or legal damage done, surely? "How far can it go?" - surely a bit further in context of a football club than in the context of an anonymous individual's private life..

Think Jobe Watson. He could always find the football, he was poised and strong, but in his early days his kicking was considered a real liability... Familiar? Off field as well as on, Grimes apparently exudes focus. This isn't "x factor", it's "c factor" - class. It's what Scully was supposed to have, and may still, though it's getting well and truly overshadowed by personality issues in his case. Grimes is the real deal.

all true - but what about the half-hearted chasing, the looking around and doing nothing about the Lions with no-one on them, and the missing-in-inaction (Moloney principally, but poor efforts from others who could see McKenzie, Sellar, MacDonald and others were busting their guts...)? points 1 and 2 with hindsight explain what happened on the scoreboard, but they don't justify the way some of our guys went through the motions. Whose fault should that be?

we are not a serious contender yet, and until we are we will have to put up with front-running umpires. It must require incredible strength of mind for an umpire to avoid anticipating the play flowing one way rather than the other, and real independence for him to see the line balls without prejudice, so that - when the split-second evidence is against all expectation and noise of the crowd - he will nevertheless instantly rule in favour of the surprise. I think front-running - think how Judd, Ablett, Lloyd, etc etc are umpired, as compared with the treatment given to a raw and tentative beginner - is understandable, and inevitable. In the end, not many games are decided by the 5% of advantage given by the umpires.

manning up = trying. when Brisbane had a kick-in, or went back with a free or a mark, all day we let players stand unattended, and wow! who'd have thought it? they kicked to their unmanned team-mate... All the way down the field like it didn't matter. I thought that crap was Bailey's game plan. I hope they don't bring that to a game I pay money to see. Perhaps we could ask for a whiteboard presentation on this strategy - if it is what they actually want, or at least permit, I'd like to know so I can do something else on the weekends. In the stupid old days, when you were getting beaten, you manned up and made them earn it. Now we have more experts and coaches than players, everyone's on their way to becoming a millionaire, and we have discovered that giving the opposition free use of the ball is going to help. Never does, but hey, in the end, we'll perfect this...

well after it. I thought he'd taken the train back to Ballarat. But the cops were fun

seeing Farmer and Barassi in 1963 at Kardinia Park - two best on the ground and absolute daylight to anyone else. Farmer got every hit-out and marked absolutyely everything anywhere near him, and Barassi sharked (it seemed like) every hit-out, and marked everything that went anywhere near him, as well as crashing every pack etc etc. I was awestruck, still am. They were giants. I once saw Barassi mark a powerful drop kick not ten metres from where it was kicked directly over his head. It would've gone 60 metres, but he leapt upwards and grabbed it. The ball poleaxed him like he'd been shot by a cannon - and he never let go even when he was slammed back into the turf. Flat out, arms above his head, still gripping the ball. Barassi always played like he really meant it, that's what I remember. Ferocious - and we'd call him "a little bugger" today - 5 foot 10and-a-half. Must be about 180cm. I got lost at the MCG when I was 10, picking up match-box labels (remember the smokers' haze, which meant that from the Southern Stand you lost the other side in the blue cloud on a still day), and eventually I turned myself in to the police. They took me to the station and were cooking eggs and bacon for me when my dad turned up. But, for me, Robbie's first game... By half time you could see, they just couldn't take the ball off him

The "tackler" who either holds the ball to the player he has tackled, or pulls the ball back into the player he has tackled, should be free-kicked mercilessly until this practice is eliminated from the game. It's plain as day who is responsible for the ball being held instead of having it come out and the game continue to flow. And give a 50 as soon as the "tackler" argues.

If we survive, 20 years from now we will look back on bits of this season with real pleasure - just as the last three years have their good memories (Jurrah, Wonna, the Sydney game, Jimmy Stynes) - think of Clark and Howe, and the early days of future stars who have not yet fully emerged.. Every game has some good bits, and supporters treasure them, and they only get better the longer you go on savouring the memory. The big things are for us to survive, to identify our problems and respond to them, and sit tight. Wrap the scarf around yourself, and settle down for what's turning out to be a cold winter. Hope like hell the Board get a handle on the solution to our current mess, and watch for it turning up. If it does, won't it be sweet!

We are upset, of course, but that doesn't justify being irrational. Obviously we are not in any position to say with honesty (or dishonesty) what the state of mind of the players, or of any individual player, is. Honesty only comes into play where one already knows, and we do not know what the players either individually or collectively are thinking. We really should stop holding forth as facts - or as "honesty" - our imaginings of what the players are thinking. Two reasons why: 1. it is disrespectful to the players, many of whom continue to say they are gutted, they are trying, they back the coach, etc. Dismissing what the players say, on the basis of our disappointment at the results each week, is tantamount to calling the players liars: and if they knew we were saying it, presumably this would only add to their shame and self-doubt and exposure. Disrespectful to those we profess to support. 2. it clouds the serious thought aired on this forum. Tempting for some perhaps to kick the walls or the cat when you are upset, but it doesn't help serious analysis or the search for possible angles that could help. Which is what I thought the forum existed for. So, how about a bit of self-regulation - or, if you prefer, a bit of discipline and following the game-plan of the site? (Might find out how hard that would be...)

show-down time, huh? there may be other ways, less paranoid and less antagonistic....

"All"? Some of what he wrote I agree with, but I also think a lot is simplistic and, worse, just scissors-and-paste from any number of selective sources (such as the right-wing of Demonland). He doesn't confirm, he just repeats.

Thoughtful post. But, if Schwab were to go, there would be a need for some air-clearing and healing, after which we would owe it to Neeld to start again. What has gone wrong this year can hardly be his fault, if we find there has been some other cancer in the club. I don't know if Schwab is the problem, but I'm pretty sure McLardy is in a position to find out. Since it has been mooted widely, it ought to be investigated properly and, in the end, transparently. Once the real problem is identified, an adjustment has to be both made and seen to be made. Some people are going to be owed apologies. I think it is vital that the club ensures there is no collateral damage when the problem is cleared out.

Just a thought - what if the reaction on the Saturday night/Sunday morning was not so much a reaction to the 186 massacre as to the sacking of Schwab? (The massacre being an excuse which allowed for swift and decisive reaction to the undermining of Schwab...) Who were the prime movers of the reaction, and who were their mates? And who - other than Bailey - has been clobbered for whatever it was that was reacted to? (Were they the ones to be blamed for the massacre?) I know it's wrong to speculate, but McLardy is not speaking and we do think it is obvious that there is a problem needing identification... (Such a scenario would presumably have included the senior players being very well aware of what was to come, once McLardy thanked them - could easily have unnerved them before the game. And, of course, it has nothing to do with Neeld, and how could he possibly succeed in his job with such a piece of history hanging over the place?)

"When is the Board going to act?" Does anybody think that that message from McLardy is, in any way, the Board either acknowledging there's an underlying problem or doing anything about it? So, apparently, the answer is "not yet, anyway..."

asserting isn't demonstrating. assett isn't anything.

I was with you for a while there. The even playing field of a few beers together sounds enticing. But Neeld would hardly bring them in and throw away all the goodwill by offering them rope to hang themselves with. Well, it would finish off their relationship if he did, as well as ending his career on grounds of abandonment of his responsibility. Likelier, he'd call them in for a discussion of how they could best play their good cards... But, it's obviously wishful thinking to imagine this mess could be tackled let alone solved in such a "stuff it, fellas" way. Lot of bridge-building required before they could drink away their differences, I fear.

Put a grin on my face, and it's still there. And while I'm at it, RudeBoy, your posts are always appreciated and valued. Good on you! If I ever met Liam, I would be tongue-tied for admiration.

I can't see how that can be exciting. The thought of revenge exciting you six months in advance? So angry you can't wait to see the beheadings? What will you do till then - give it away until you can turn up for the slaughter? Nope, I just can't grasp this. I am waiting for the players to click, for Neeld to get traction, for the club to get a handle on the underlying problems, and for our year to turn around. Fascinating to follow the analysis here, and look out for the signs each weekend. Every time Howie goes for it, I know we are still in the game. Clark, Jones, others too, now Watts and Blease maybe - it'll come. Six months waiting for the joy, which I believe for. What else does a supporter do? Hold on for the hangings, you say? That's not supporting...

I hope you do not mean players, when you say "toxic waste". There may be something toxic that has gotten into some players, but surely they would be no happier about that than you would be. The toxicity you see is not the player. The player is a person, and with the right help can surely be restored to what he wants to be. I think it is an over-simplification to throw the player out with the bathwater that is currently muddying his passion/gift/career. It's sad that what Tadgh says sounds so recognisable, but rubbing people's faces in what's gone wrong is only ever an act of anger and it was never a good practice. Knee-jerk abuse may be understandable, but I don't think we can afford to indulge in it, given that many are now referring to the state of the club as a crisis. MFC needs to protect its brand and its assets, and do it intelligently.