The heart beats true

For what it's worth the thread was started because I find the AFL statistics fascinating when it comes to experience. I also think that these stats coming from the coach of our footy club are designed to allow people to get a sense of where we are and be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel for the playing group, regardless of the coach. I'm sorry if it offends you. Maybe we should all return to talking about possible trade scenarios, over analysing Jack Viney or writing songs about the coach?

I was thinking the exact same thing after watching the replay from the weekend CBH. Blokes like Dunn, Bail and Joel Mac looked to have a lot more time and space on the weekend. It proves the theory that they are handy VFL players but can't stand up against more pressure. We looked like a decent side in the first quarter on Sunday but that side would have been annihilated by anyone inside the top 10 teams in the AFL. A coach can't get blood from an inexperienced, talentless, injury prone stone.

So why haven't Hawthorn won a flag since 2008? (and remember I don't want to hear excuses).

Watts can be Goddard-like: Neeld About 2:45 into this weeks 'Coaches Office' Mark makes a very interesting argument about experience and it's impact on success. To paraphrase: • It's all about the experience on the ground, not on the list • 144 games played prior to last round and only 3 of those had been won by a team with less than 65 games average experience (MFC winning 2 of them) • last season we fielded a team with more experience on 6 occasions, which obviously resulted in better performance • we are essentially 2 seasons behind but we clearly have time on our side Thought it was fascinating to see how directly experience effects the results not just for us but across the competition.

I can't think of a single reason why the club would release information that another player dobbed him in. It's got trouble written all over it. I hope Swanny is [censored] and wants out. I'd look the other way while he did whatever he wanted with his free time if he got 40 touches a week in the Red & Blue. And think about the marketing opportunities! We've always had a reputation as 'skiers'

I'm really glad that the club is having a game to honor Brad at the G. He's been a great servant. I'll be there to cheer him on one last time. Thought this photo was a bit of fun: http://instagram.com/p/ODOYyXl30X/ Am I reading to much into it, but is that Bater waving good bye as he exits the building?

I actually think that was his way of showing the playing group just how poor they were. He knew he was gone, the only ones that could do anything about it are the players and they showed absolutely nothing. Staying in the box implied that he was in control when he clearly felt that he wasn't. Good luck to them now. Maybe Bandicoot and co could sign up as Port members. I think they'll enjoy the next few years of sticking the boots into the new coach.

Or, he was a bloke that started his career with a successful team only to spend 75% of it being thumped and constantly under criticism. I thought it was obvious Brad has been told his time is up this year and he was enjoying the last bag of goals he'll kick on the G in front of his family. I was glad he got to do that, and I think anyone that wants to take that away from a 250 game player is mean spirited.

See this comment I have a problem with. I don't genuinely believe that you want Neeld to succeed. I think you'd rather be 'right' about him. Why else draw this rather obvious conclusion for everyone? Can we just give it a rest for a few days? It's boring.

I'm a bit confused about this 'strong hold' that we apparently have. Is this part of the same strong hold that got 13,000 in to see the Freo match? You're kidding yourself if you think that there is any growth for the club in Bentleigh. It's why Hawthorn moved to Waverly. We went to Casey because their is population growth there and we need growth to survive. Shoring up Bentleigh is like Geelong shoring up Colac - a nice idea for the 10,000 that live there but a horrible business decision with no room for expansion.

They are kidding themselves. We are a bad side at the best of times but if you take out 7 of our first 18 (let alone 22) with injury then the argument should be made that this will be a very close game and could go either way. The coach and FD are too new to be let go, most of the players are well aware that they are already playing for their futures. That only leaves those higher up the chain and I can't see ANY foreseeable reason why a Healy would want to put pressure on them, right? Right?

Don't take away the conspiracy theories BH. It's all we have left in 2012.

I would imagine that not playing like the worst team we've fielded in the last 20 years would probably help both causes.

That's a very good description of his skill set rpfc.

You'd be even more confused if you've seen much of Cook playing at Casey. Looooong way to go.

Just saw that a reporter from the Hun wrote an article today suggesting that Kevin Sheedy will lose against GC Suns to ensure they get first pick in the draft. The club president issued a press release within hours saying what an insult it was to the club and coach. Meanwhile a former player accuses us of deliberately trying to lose and we do nothing. Neeld told the players on the weekend that it's time that this club stood for something. I wish those further up the chain agreed.

That article draws a parallel that simply doesn't exist in it's very first sentence.... 'FORMER Melbourne ruckman Paul Johnson has added weight to Brock McLean's claims of tanking in 2009, saying player development, rather than winning, was the priority under former coach Dean Bailey.' Choosing Player Development over winning does not equal tanking. Otherwise we could be accused of tanking in 2012 by picking Neeld as coach and changing our game plan.

I get your anger regarding the situation Pipefitter, but you can't side with Mclean on this. He went to play for the team that wrote the handbook on tanking.

This is absurd. If we got beaten by 10 goals I can understand the hand wringing but if ANYTHING had happened differently in that match we would have won it. It's no like we kicked the ball to Jordan McMahon deliberately, it's not like he was a certainty to kick it, and in fact the siren blew before he marked it and it shouldn't have been allowed! On one hand the media think we are irrelevant idiots, and on the other we are brilliant masterminds of the most complex rig in the history of sport. Which one is it?

Johnson certainly doesn't call it tanking. His story is very similar to what we are doing now. Nathan Brown is a paid media commentator. His account of this can't be seen as being very relevant in light of that. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by placing himself in the centre of this (when really it has nothing to do with him and he can offer no insight that anyone that watches that game on TV can't see).

It's a slow news week is all. The talk before this came up was that the season is too long and that it's getting boring. This is a manufactured story being pushed by a group of people who rely on there being something to write about. If Scott Thompson had to face the tribunal then this would have been much less of an issue. Hopefully the AFL's investigation will take 5-6 weeks. This will take us to mid September when there is much bigger footy stories. Hopefully between now and then a couple of players hit there 3rd drug strike and Wayne Carey and Ricky Nixon stay busy and this will all be forgotten about.

Our general crapness actually works in our favor. Surely it proves a history of being non-competitive. You only have to point to this year and see that players are playing out of position. This year everyone knows it's because we don't have the cattle. In retrospect it looks odd but at the time of the accusations we were a struggling team just doing what we needed to do to get a better understanding of our list. If we get hung out to dry for this then it's going to start an all out war. Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn and WCE are all implicated. Last time I checked most of those clubs are at the other end of ladder to us. The only thing that can happen is that the AFL provide an amnesty and put in place a more severe deterrent. But I agree. If they come for us and us alone on this then it stinks of hypocrisy and they will have a MFC lead riot to contend with. Pitchforks and Blazers at dawn!

I think we can all agree we've proven this to be true over the last few years.

What happens if we lose? Half of D'Land gets what they want - an opportunity to kick the [censored] out of the coach, the players, the administration and anyone else that might be in the vicinity. If we win? They just wait a week for another opportunity to kick us.

I reckon Brock will clarify that he didn't like playing out of position and in a team that was experimenting and the AFL will accept it and move on. They look like morons if this goes further as they've already done an investigation. The good thing is that it's in the AFL's best interest for this to go away.