Demon Dynasty

I can only hope this club has enough $$ available from the AFL to make Roos a massive 'overs' offer. I would consider Choco as 2nd banana if Roos wont budge. But foresaking those 2 i think it's allover red rover for this club now. I doubt it will improve significantly under an Eade reign or anyone similar or lessor. I'm not even that confident Choco could turn this shameful ship wreck around. And i know there's no way PJ can sitting behind his desk. Craig has unfortunately proven himself to be a "has been" in the last few uninspiring weeks, both before the game at the selection table and in terms of being unable to motivate the troops to any degree on match day. IMHO it's either Roos/Choco or bust. Unless the AFL are happy to keep bailing out a completely irrelevant club for the next decade or more with tens of millions in losses from here over that period.

Without seriously watching it (and the Norf non-effort last week), just glimpses as it's just not worth the effort anymore, our opponents are in the clear by at least 3 to 4 meters almost every time they receive. Meaning they have ample time to make their next disposal/choice/option including kicking for goal. We just give them too much space to work in and don't pressure them out of it often enough. This gives our opponents too much possession early in the match and boosts their confidence ten fold from the get go. Unable to close check an opponent when we don't have the ball means they are able to run it coast to coast either from the middle or from the kick out with little or no pressure. Not putting in the hard work early means we are chasing tail all day as well. Not in all cases i'm sure there are exceptions but too few to matter. Having too many slackers just deflates the others who are playing a close checking game and working hard to get their own possessions. I'm not sure why so many are unwilling to close check an opponent once we lose possession (which is alot of the time given our woeful disposal) but those who are unwilling or incapable of doing so must be weeded out and delisted/traded pronto. This could end up being up to 10 to 15 players off the current senior list but in the end this is reality for us right now. From what i can garner Craig is pretty uninspiring in his match day selection and structure, as well as whatever it is he's preaching on game day. I'd say the only chance this club has of ever becoming an AFL competitive football club from here is a new experienced premiership coach and a massive clean out of the present list while keeping a core (8 to 12 or so) who have shown they are willing, capable and/or have super potential to develop.

And be more entertaining!!.....

Meanwhile a potential ok midfield option continues to rot at Casey (magnet). Too many talls, not enough mid field rotations to help Jones etc. poor coaching selection (again) by Craig & co. Another black mark against Craig continuing. The negatives continue to mount by the week for him being considered beyond this season.

More than likely on the money OD. There wasn't a contradictory/combative person on the entire panel taking an opposing view eg., picking up McVeigh on his defense/aggressive outburst earlier in the year when the story first broke, why didn't Luke "the AFL apologist" Darcy ask about Dr Reid's role?, If Reid was left out of the supplements experiment who made the decision? where is Dr Reid now and why has nobody spoken to him (not one person on the panel mentioned or asked about Reid, probably the most important cog in the entire saga outside ot Dank!?) etc etc. No doubt some unwritten guidelines must have been put in place by 7 hierarchy and producers prior to the program going to air with legal situations/advice as an overlay. 7 not willing to jeopardise the next broadcast contract. With the amount of $$/careers at stake now nothing is left to chance and everything would appear to be very carefully "managed", from the top down. What you say is correct, and looking back on it in the clear light of day now, it was no coincidence that not one member of the panel was willing to put the hard questions up.

You mean this team actually has a cue somewhere? Last time I saw them use something that resembled a cue was 2006

Are you sure about this? Or just a freelance under contract. Does a whole lot of work. Sportingbet TV, SEN 1116. Not sure he's actually on the payroll as an employee for 7 even if making regular appearances. Still doesn't explain why 7 couldn't have brought in another ex Bonger in Reimers for a completely different view/aspect given that he was the first "public" whistleblower.

And also derided/lambasted Reimers in this first week for talking rubbish over the supplements program during his whistle blowing interview. In addition, when asked tonight whether there were any players other than Zaharakis who refused the program McVeigh intially said something along the lines of "there were others", then when prompted again said "the OTHER player", then contradicted himself yet again a little while afterwards saying "the others who refused". The question also needs to be asked, why is McVeigh's view given more weight than the guy who started the ball rolling in the first place, Kyle Reimers? McVeigh's reaction/info in that first week towards Reimers and his interview has since been proven to be so off the money yet Chanel 7 uses McVeigh as their main "go to" guy for all things Essendon. Seems a little strange IMO. Why not bring in Reimers for his opinion as well???

I don't often see eye to eye with you Soxy but on this one i'm with you. SOFT SOFT SOFT!!! Both mentally and physically. It was Watts earlier in the year who whined and went sooky sooky la la in public interview after a loss about being dissapointed that he wasn't playing in a team with any decent leaders like Selwood, Hodge etc. No matter how much you might desire that, IMO if you are a team player you just wouldn't go public about it. There's nothing TEAM orientated in that or this bloke's behavior on and off the field. He's a liability and has been carried and given too much leeway by all at the club. And yes that includes Craig. Stand up and have some balls Craigy and call it for what it is mate. The bloke can hold out but don't make a bloody song and dance of it via Manager. He just aint THAT good yet. Honor before honors Mr Craig. Another negative cross against appointing Craig. I'm tending more and more towards Choco as the days pass (assuming Roos is unavailable as stated). Watts doesn't or isn't willing to do the hard 1 percenter team things on the field either that might inspire a hard nosed coach and FD to want to continue putting time/effort & $$ into. He plays a "bruise free" selfish style of game with a few minor exceptions demonstrated over 4 years. He isn't alone in that regard (ie., not being hard nosed at the ball/carrier, doing the critical 1 percenters etc) and certainly not expecting a Nathan Jones type, but i'd take a Kent/Howe/Terlich/Grimes type attitude with some reasonable talent over a primadona like Watts anyday. Time to trade for a half decent mid fielder and reasonable draft pick. One of the biggest mistakes (of many) this club has made in the last decade was not going after Nic Nat and instead putting their blind faith in this bloke. His rankings vs the rest of his 37 team mates (that had played up to Round 15 against the Swans on which these stats are taken) are as follows...... Contested 15th (no i'm not expecting a mid field/on baller result here) Uncontested 17th (not so good given he plays most of the time in space/getting away from his opponent or playing loose down back for the most part of the first half of the season) Effective Disposals 13th (a pass mark but not setting the world on fire) Effective Disposal % 8th (a good result but has a below average disposal count vs top 18. Just doesn't get enough of it to be damaging) Clangers 31st (positive result as you would expect given his disposal effectiveness %) Contested Marks 9th (average ranking vs top 18 regulars) Goal Assists 16th Marks i50 4th (competitive effort but even Fitzy is up on him here at no. 3 and he's only had a handfull of games) 1 Percenters 15th (Bettered by Pedo, Sellar, Strauss, Nicho and even newcomer Clisby!) Kicks 17th (simply doesn't get enough of it himself unless someone's giving it to him on a platter) Handballs 15th (as above) Inside 50s 23rd Tackles 34th (only beaten to the bottom by 3 others..... Clisby [35th], Blease [36th] and Gillies [37th]) Basically Watts is sitting on the outer edge in most comparative stats vs his team mates (ie., sitting a little inside the top 18 rankings/players on most stats) with the exception of contested marks (9th), Marks i50 (4th) and effective disposal percentage (8th overall). His tackle ranking at 34 is IMO a solid indicator of a man that is either unable or unwilling to impose himself on his opponent and the contest when he doesn't have the ball. I certainly wouldn't want that level of committment in a team member going into a big game where everything's on the line in the clinches. Time to part company with Jack Watts IF we can get some value for our severly under-manned mid field stocks.

Worth an attempt. Seriously lacking a small crumbing forward. The ball continuously gets crumbed front and square by most other teams' and rocketed out of our forward line with ease......year after year after year.

I think you'll find even those on a placebo see some sort of positive outcome. More like a Flacido program for our lot.

WYL the entire "out of contract" playing group might be waiting!!!

Top stuff Song. Funniest work around these parts for some time. Whole family had a chuckle over that clip and the context. Giving you 8/10 for that one mate

I think the first thread here is a forerunner as to whether Hulk will stay or move on after contract expires. This club would be in serious danger of folding in the next few years without the massive AFL lifebuoy that's already been thrown and we're pretty much AFL governed and funded anyway. Hurts to say but any young potential stars serious about their footy career won't be hanging around our parts for too long unless there's some sort of miracle turnaround next year, and the mid field problem is without doubt our biggest issue right now. Our stocks are woeful. At the same time how the hell does Choco continue to get a gig and survive the carnage??? The coaching staff and executive must somehow still be impressed. I've certainly yet to see anything positive in this part of our game.

Neeld's University may have been biased towards too much theory and he literally bored them all to death with this carp instead of focussing enough time/effort on pounding the skills/drills side of things into them on the track ie., the practical/match similution vs upcoming opponent. But as Old Dee said up there, we would want to be careful this doesn't go the same way. Most players are meat & 2 veg type blokes (Dawes a possible exception lol).... once you start complicating things beyond 2 +2 you lose em' fairly quickly i would think. I'm not saying they aren't intelligent either, just that they'd rather be on the track mostly, training it, rather than sittin on their arses in front of a 'white board' etc. Oops, i probably shouldn't use that term around here

Craig's first 5 games as Coach vs Neeld's last 5 Average Differential / Average Differential % increase/decrease Blue = positive result for Craig. Red = negative result for Craig. Black italics = potentially a negative/neutral or positive result. Contested +18 / +15.6% Uncontested +3.6 / +1.9% Effective Disposals +10.4 / +4.7% Effective Disposal % -3.3% Tackles +10.4 / +17.4% Clangers -2.6 / -5.5% Contested Marks +1 / +12.2% Goal Assists +1.8 / +37.5% Marks i50 +1.8 / +28.1% Clearances +4.6 / +14.8% 1 Percenters +4 / +9.0% Bounces +6.6 / +94.3% Kicks +22 / +12.5% Handballs +2.6 / +1.9% Inside 50s +6 / +16.9% *Disposals Per Goal -6.7 / -15.0% Rebound 50s +2.6 / +7.4% Kick to handball ratio has increased by 10.4% (Craig 1.43 v Neeld 1.30) *Note that our worst results this year were as follows..... 75.5 disposals per goal vs the Cats under Craig and 68 vs the Pies under Neeld. Our 2 best results were both under Neeld. 16.36 vs the Giants in Rnd 4 and 21.57 vs the Lions in Rnd 5. Craig's best result here so far is 23 vs the Bulldogs. Stats: Courtesy of Footywire

Daisy would you mind refraining from spoiling such "tried and true" phrases! We "live and die by the sword" and have to "gild the lily" a little at times in order to "make the most of what we have". Besides, you have to "give a little to get a little" and i'm afraid OD is kind of correct here...... "you can't fatten a pig on market day", especially when it's a sow and MFC's market day appears to be so bloody far away!!

Even worse IMO Red is bringing in Blease to replace Rodan. Why would you replace a genuine mid fielder (at least for us at the present moment) and not replace him with another, leaving us even more under manned in the rotations and even more vulnerable through the mid? Looking at the 3 of them, Byrnes/Blease/Rodan here are their rankings against the entire list of 37 that have played so far (38 if you include Joel MacDonald but he's excluded from the averages, only having played 1 match so far this season).... Contested Rodan (5th); Fair result, inside the top 5 Byrnes (23rd) ; Fail, outside the top 22 Blease (31st) ; Fail, outside the top 22 You would expect Blease to be low here given he's an outside runner/receiver. But again, to ommit Rodan and replace with an outside runner against one of the best congested defensive teams in the AFL? Not for mine. Uncontesed Byrnes (19th) ; I consider this a fail given that he doesn't appear to be playing a contested role very well either. Rodan (22nd) ; By the hair of his chinny chin chin he scrapes in to the top 22. probably not good enough though even so for a player of his experience. Blease (28th) ; Fail, not even close to the top 22 here. On the above 2 records alone this is a massive signal to a selection panel NOT to select Blease for his outside run for THIS particular match. Clearances Another key stat when trying to compete against such a competitive stoppage team like the Cats..... Rodan (4th) ; Good result, Top 5 Byrnes (13th) ; Slightly better than a pass given that's not his forte' Blease (25th) ; Even though he's an outside receiver/runner i consider this a fail as there's 24 players in front of him on this, not 21 Effective Disposals Now, lets look at how these three perform once they get the ball in their hands in terms of getting it to the next player with a degree of accuracy Rodan (17th) ; not so good Byrnes (22nd) ; a tad worse Blease (36th) ; only one below him here and that's Tom Gillies! Inside 50s Byrnes (9th) ; Pass Rodan (11th) ; Pass Blease (17th) ; Barely a pass and you would expect more given this is what he's probably expected to do a fair amount of. I agree Byrnes isn't setting the world on fire Red, but i'd have him before Blease (at this point) even just for his uncontested ability, and especially in a match against the Cats on his old home turf. I certainly wouldn't have Blease replacing Rodan. What a massive blunder on the selection panel and coach's part. And if you aren't doing so well at most of the above (Blease/Byrnes), then how about tackling your way into the contest, that might help a little?.... Tackles Rodan (4th) ; Top 5 is more than a pass Byrnes (16th) ; Barely a pass Blease (36th) ; Again, only beaten here by Tom Gillies Lets face it, Blease is just not up to this level.....yet. Maybe with another pre season and if he cleans up his disposals and improves his defensive side a little. In addition the selection panel should have bolstered the mid field rotations today (not depeleted them with the exclusion of Rodan for an outsider, who's not even very effective at doing that, in Blease). Magner an easy in today to account for Davey, especially on such a skinny ground where Magner would be more capable of getting to a few more contests at Skilled and potentially having a bigger impact than say Davey. My confidence in Neil Craig's pre match strategic thinking took a big hit today.

Well folks, we're 15 rounds in and deep into the 2013 season so i thought it might be interesting to see who's leading the count on some of the key (publicly available) stats. And yes i realise Magner has only played 2 matches so not really a meaningful number for an average, but hey, it's an average! I also realise most of Spencer's amazing disposal effectiveness % is down to him more than likely just a handfull of possessions where he handballs to a player 2 or 3 feet away for the easy lay off (often a set play around a ruckman) etc etc. But I'm just putting the raw numbers up for interest's sake. So here they are... (Player Average Per Game) Contested Possessions N Jones (10.43) J Magner (10.00) J Grimes (9.17) J Viney (8.67) D Rodan (8.13) C Sylvia (7.64) Uncontested Possessions M Clisby (16.67) M Jones (13.50) N Jones (12.79) D Terlich (12.69) J Grimes (11.67) C Sylvia (11.55) Clearances N Jones (5.64) J Magner (5.00) J Viney (4.17) D Rodan (3.75) J Grimes (3.33) J McKenzie (3.13) Effective Disposals1. M Clisby (17.00) 1. N Jones (17.00) 3. J Grimes (15.67) 4. D Terlich (15.31) 5. M Jones (13.86) 6. J Magner (13.00) Disposal Effectiveness % J Strauss (87.78) N Jetta (87.08) M Clisby (83.17) C Pedersen (82.45) J Spencer (82.03) J Frawley (80.99) Tackles J Magner (6.00) J Trengove (5.25) C Sylvia (4.64) D Rodan (4.63) C Garland (4.21) J Grimes (4.17) Clangers1. T Gillies (3.5) 2. M Clisby (3.0) 2. D Terlich (3.0) 4. J Viney (2.8) 5. J Spencer (2.7) 6. C Pedersen (2.6) Contested Marks J Howe (1.79) M Clark (1.50) C Dawes (1.38) M Gawn (1.25) M Jamar (1.11) J Fitzpatrick (1.00) Marks Inside 50 M Clark (1.75) J Fitzpatrick (1.60) J Howe (1.50) J Watts (1.30) C Dawes (1.25) M Gawn (0.88) Goal Assists C Dawes (0.88) J Fitzpatrick (0.80) C Sylvia (0.64) D Rodan (0.63) L Tapscott (0.60) M Evans (0.56) Rebound 50s T McDonald (4.22) D Terlich (4.00) C Garland (3.93) J Frawley (3.58) L Dunn (3.30) J Grimes (2.83) 1 Percenters C Garland (8.64) T Gillies (8.00) T McDonald (6.67) J Seller (4.83) C Pedersen (4.50) J Frawley (3.58) Bounces D Rodan (2.50) M Clisby (2.00) C Sylvia (1.82) S Blease (1.33) M Clark (1.25) M Jones (1.14) Inside 50s C Sylvia (5.09) C Dawes (3.25) M Evans (3.22) N Jones (3.07) J Magner (3.00) M Jones (2.86) Stats: Courtesy of Footywire

I guess that's pushing your age up there a bit OD. Apologies. I should have said Korean :-))

Great to hear, or should I say SEE, Bb. Nothing wrong with the humble carrot. P.S. Rohan Welsh is on SEN soonish. Bout to discuss Casey and Hulk etc for those who're interested.

Well I was trying to keep Bb's visionary flame burning there OD. Although going by his latest thread it wld appear his positivity hasn't skipped a beat. You seem to have the inside running on carrots. Is there something heroic in your past that you haven't told us about? Retired WW2 ace maybe? P.S. I think the bombers were eating too many bananas and attracted a few wild monkeys and those monkeys just may have brought in some funny bananas of their own!

BB, it would seem from your first post there that you're heavily reliant on eyesight going forward. I would recommend carrot cake for you at this point!

A big YES to that. President material?

Individual Stats - Top 3 (By Category) Contested Possessions 134 1. N Jones 2. Rodan/McDonald 3. Davey Uncontested Possessions 208 1. Clisby 2. M Jones 3. Terlich Effective Disposals 261 1. N Jones 2. Terlich 3. Frawley Effective Disposal % 75.87 1. Byrnes (Sub) 2. Frawley 3. N Jones/Garland *4. Kent * Have included the next ranking as Byrnes only played 1 quarter of football as sub. Tackles 81 1. Nicholson 2. Garland 3. Trengove/Sylvia Clangers 43 1. Howe/Trengove 2. N Jones/Gawn/M Jones/Dawes/Davey 3. Garland/Nicholson/McDonald/Dunn/Clisby/Blease/Rodan Contested Marks 14 1. Howe (4) 2. Dawes/Dunn/Fitzpatrick (2) 3. Gawn/McDonald/Frawley/Watts (1) Marks i50 9 1. Howe/Watts 3 2. Gawn/Fitzpatrick/Dawes 1 3. - Clearances 37 1. N Jones 2. Rodan/Davey/Nicholson 3. Byrnes (Sub) Rebound 50s 33 1. Terlich 2. McDonald 3. Dunn Bounces 15 1. Rodan 2. McDonald 3. M Jones/Sylvia Inside 50s 56 1. Rodan 2. Trengove/Howe/Dawes 3. M Jones/Davey/Fitzpatrick Stats: Courtesy of Footywire