Ouch!

I think we head into this season with a much better preparation than last year, there are also no huge expectations on the team (externally) Neeld and the coaching staff have had a season to trim players from our playing list. Get the players that remain and who have come in to play the style that is expected of them, We won't be going into the season opener with any emotional hangover from Jim's funeral (Something I think took a toll on the whole club just prior to the season commencing in my eyes) The tanking stuff has been resolved, and I feel that the club isolated this issue from effecting the playing group as well as you could expect. I would love it if, for the first half of the season, we are not in the headlines nearly as much as we have been over the last couple of years. For that to be the case we should win a few, lose a few. be competitive without having any huge blow out results. If that occurs I think we will be heading in the right direction this year. For me this year no expectations means no disappointment.It also means I should occasionally be pleasantly surprised too !

Apologies if anyone else has mentioned this, but after listening to Neeld after the game (vid went up on the MFC site this morning) it is telling that the club went into the game with the normal rotation planned for the AFL season and the GC used their full compliment. So being 2 rotations down and losing Garland as well. It is understandable for the team to be run over a bit in the second half in 30 degree heat. I'm not into making excuses, and it sounds like we didn't capitalise as much as we could have in the 1st quarter, and let them back in a bit too easily in the 2nd, but form in practice matches should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, I would have thought that teaching our players how to win needs to start as well...

This might be a little simplistic, but in my eyes you expect to see more goals from your FF than pretty much most other players on the ground, sure there are exceptions when you have a freak CHF or forward pocket. But as a general rule it works. I see Dawes as our FF, or at least the player leading out from the goal square. I see Mitch as more of a roaming forward that will spend some time in the ruck as well. (Probably the role that Dawes couldn't play well @ Collingwood) Based on my assumptions then I don't think Lloyds comment about 40 goals (given that we think Dawes is on a contract around half a mil) is too unrealistic... the only problem here is that Dawes hasn't kicked more than 30 odd goals in a single season I don't think, but I do think he gets quite a few goal assists.

I read somewhere that wasn't us, but when he played for Adelaide, I think they got the timing of when he kicked that bag a little mixed up.

I am fairly certain there is a media allowance that sits outside of the salary cap isn't there? Clubs choose how they assign this to players (if they use it). I seem to recall that clubs like the roos, doggies and us made comments to the effect that they could not afford to spend this on players and that was a disadvantage still to the poorer clubs. Or did I miss the point of your comment in that how the heck is Travis Cloke allowed on TV? if thats your question.... I can't answer that, its a mystery that anyone would consider him a competent media personality! ... I wonder if the CH9 news might use him to cover schoolies !

AFL Predictions: Brownlow Medal: Cotchin Coleman Medal: Drew Petrie Rising Star: Jimmy Toumpas Grand Finalists: Carlton Sydney Premiers: Carlton Wooden Spoon: Gold Coast Biggest AFL Story of the Year: Buddy stays, Dale Thomas goes The Biggest Improvers: Carlton The Biggest Sliders: Adelaide MFC Predictions: B&F: Jack Watts Leading Goalkicker: Jeremy Howe Best First Year Player: Jimmy Toumpas Most Improved: Jack Watts Final Ladder Position: 11 Biggest MFC Story of the Year: Jesse Hogan kicks a lazy 100 in the VFL

Nah man... I might have been a little smart with your one dimensional comment, but I probably should have quoted the OP, not your post in hindsight. Being the footy manager at these big clubs ... would be good coin, and no where near the stress as coaching, Daniher would be silly to consider coming back IMO

Wow... you are a smart one, I was actually saying excactly that. But hey if you want to big note yourself and call others names to make up for your lack of interpretation skills. Go for it!

erm yeah.... just too one dimensional as footy manager at the WCE Never say never, but he's not technically in coaching circles, it's like Neil Balme, both are still involved in footy operations, but I reckon they have left the thought of coaching behind them.

TBH I don't really care when Mitch comes back this year.... so long as he is fit for a pre-season for next year and no I am not advocating tanking :D I actually agree that bringing him back early is not what we need. .... still think you misinterpretted what I was on about before though

I don't disagree with you Billy, my point wasn't about whether we should... but whether a side at the bottom of the ladder can afford to carry a player who isn't 100% fit better than a top of the ladder side.

Kinda disagree, I think bottom sides are the only clubs that can afford to carry blokes into fitness. Top sides can't afford to do it, because it could be the difference in winning or losing, or even %. Generally this is less important for clubs down the bottom of the ladder. Edit: That is not to say that a bottom club *WOULD* do this, as they could play another player and give them a run.

Haha, thats gold. I heard he had a ripper of a preseason, and judging from this it's fair to say that T$ is running out games strongly.

I haven't re-watched the games, but I actually thought on the night our kick outs were pretty good (When Watts and Dunn had the ball in their hands) I certainly didn't have my heart in my mouth thinking this would be a direct turnover, I also felt that we didn't use the short kick into the pocket as the first option, and as such didn't give the opposition time to block up that side of the ground that has frustrated me so much over the last 4-5 years. Add Strauss into the group of players that we can use to kick the ball in to our advantage and we have 3 reliable options to kick the ball out. It was only when Frawley took a kick in that I felt myself getting nervous. TBH I actually felt that it was the next kick from the kick in that was our problem, which is more symptom of a lack of midfield spread that hurt us.

I like the balance of this side more.... But I think Pedersen will get the nod before Fitzpatrick, and I would prefer to see Garland on the wing instead of Grimes...Probably drop Dunn to the pocket with Grimes on the half back line.

His mistakes are noticeable, but he also has games like the essendon one when the successes are noticeable too. I think I'd prefer him on half forward than half back personally, but Joel Mac didn't have a great game in the second half, and no Strauss either meant that he played defense. (On that note, Sellar up forward doesn't excite me either, would rather Garland with Sellar back, but thats just my opinion)

Holy $hit are you serious? Two mickey mouse games into the year and it's started You seriously think that Garland, Frawley and McKenzie would be playing and on the list if they were not doing what they were instructed to by the coach? If Garland is in the back pocket as the short option then it's because Rawlings and the coaches want a player there. Barely any of our kick-ins used the option short I noticed, but all clubs put a player there as a last resort if the longer kick is not an option. Rather than bagging Garland and his positioning, why not actually make a comment that Watts and Dunn actually were good in this role of kicking out. First time for a while I wasn't so nervous about the ball coming immediately back in from a poor kick out. These players by now would have no illusions of how Neeld wants them to play, and if the coaching staff felt that they were not buying into his coaching style and game plan then they would not playing. It's a really poor comment, and to be honest it's just a cop out to use that for an excuse to slag off our players. BTW I don't think Col played great last night, but he the best Col we had playing...

Anyone manage to get a stream yet? It's just blank... and I am sick of Greg Evans paying out on Dexter

To me personally, the charge of 'not coaching to his utmost' is the pivotal charge that the other charges all hinge on. Without this charge the others become that much harder to stick onto the MFC ... of course I shouldn't assume logic has any place in this discussion.

.... you can't quite see me in that photo, but I'm somewhere behind one of those kegs on the left I am pretty certain!

Need to let them have it first CBDees! Its on tonight

Just on the topic of Cadburys, I noticed there is an article on the main page of the AFL site with Patrick Dangerfield, he has a training top on that has Cadburys on it. Whether we have missed the boat or not with these guys, hard to say. Doubt that they would sponsor multiple clubs though.

Would be a huge boost for the club to have Davey fit and in form again. I have to wonder what impact having players like Rodan and Byrnes at the club would have had on him, and his desire to get back in there for what must be his last chance on the list.

Only a guess, but as it's only a squad I would imagine that it's not definite that they will play.

Grasping at straws but perhaps if Dean Baileys Laywer is Adelaide based and they were submitting a response jointly for all parties involved. Timezone difference and then the time required to collate the submission? Either way, whilst it doesn't look good, I doubt that the AFL was left 'uninformed' of the timing of the response by the MFC. OOOh.... or perhaps they faxed their submission back to the AFL, given it was 1000 pages originally, thats a big fax, would have taken a long time! (I like that second excuse best!!)