autocol

Whilst I agree generally with your wider point, that's not strictly true. Each year, on average, you'll gain 484 games of experience, and 484 games of experience will retire. The "natural" amount of experience to add each year is zero - and in the long term that's true for all clubs (as long as the list stays the same size). In the recent short term, however, you're exactly right. The Dees have lost vastly more experience than they've gained.

Haha! And because of his strategy to build a successful team (consistent messages, consistent training, consistent performance), he will continue to do that, whether it irritates you or not! If it ends up working, I imagine you'll find it less irritating then...

I don't think we do. I think the analogy is a strong one. We're all-in on the flop. Sacking Neeld now is like folding before we've seen the turn and the river. It makes the original decision to go all-in a waste. Once you've gone all in, you wait for the cards and find out if you won or lost. Once the decision is made, you're just along for the ride.

I think you overestimate the likelihood that you know what Neeld is telling the players. So far, I admit that he's not made a great impression with on-field results, but if there's something that could and should be praised, it's his ability to deliver a consistent message. He's clearly thought about what the message for each audience should be, and delivers that message consistently every time he's asked. The press get the same message about experience, and development. The supporters get the same message every time he speaks to us - stick with us, the future is bright. I'm sure the players get the same consistent messages too, but not the messages we get. It's clear he values consistently hard work, and systems to deliver it. It's clear to me from the words that come out of the mouths of the players during interviews, that they've been getting the same messages from Neeld, constantly. Work hard, play for your team mates, worry about internal measures not external chatter. Every single player interview they use the word "internal". They're setting up an emotional fortress, "us against them". I'm involved in high performance team-building professionally, I think they're on the right path to building a strong, winning, work ethic. Call it culture, if you like. I'm rambling, but my point is this - you don't know what Neeld's telling the players. He doesn't say to you, what he says to them. There's probably only 50-60 people in the inner circle of the football department (including players), and if you're not one of them, you don't know what the internal messages are. I'm still not sure whether Neeld is a good matchday coach, but then I'm not sure Mark Thompson (or any coach, for that matter), really has much of an influence on the field. 99% of their influence happens in building the team in the years preceding success. Given the way you could hear the players yelling - constantly - "Neeldy! Neeldy! Come on mate! Neeldy!" prior to the song on the weekend, I'm convinced he's got the backing of the playing group and they're "buying" his message. They were genuinely excited for him and wanted him to be a part of the song (I believe he was, once behind closed doors. His external message is different to the internal one, remember?). Even if we lose 18 games this year, I'd like to see Neeld remain in place for another 3-4 years. Once the fortress is built, the results make themselves. Bomber Thompson was that close to getting fired right before his team began the biggest football dynasty since the Hawks of the 80s.

So you decry the journalists that rip into the club, and then decry the journalist that decries those same journalists? Why bother reading the newspaper at all?

Your signature says... "MFC 2013 ... Raise The White Flag" The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

We need to fix the midfield before anything. Clark to the ruck. Puts skills and experience into the middle. We looked our best last year with him in the ruck. Spencer to provide his relief (and he'll need it, because he's not fit) because at least big Spencil looks like he gives a [censored] about the result. Yeah, yeah "who's going to kick goals?" you say. I reply "nobody, if we don't have any inside-50's".

Moneyball - the use of statistics to obtain the desired playing list more cheaply. This post - citing a sample size of one to criticise the use of statistics.

That was a rude response. Let me put it another way. Let's say (I'm making up the numbers for this hypothetical) that in 75% of games where Team A wins the tackle count by 20 or more, they win the game. This stat would be taken from the last 1000 games of footy (a statistically significant sample). What you could then say, with great confidence, is that if you win the tackle count by 20 or more, you're much more likely to win the game. What it DOESN'T mean is that, if you find a game where Team A wins the tackle count by 25 but loses the game, you can say "statistics are crap". That's completely wrong. All it means is that your sample of one was the more improbable result. Whilst I don't know the numbers, usually you would think that a team winning clearances by 8 and tackles by 7 would be winning the game maybe 60-70% of the time, but then again a team leading I50's by 10 would usually be winning about 70-80% of the time. In short... I don't see anything in these stats that suggests that statistical analysis is an improper method of predicting the result of a game.

If you're unable to understand that statistical trends predict probabilities (not certainties), and that a sample size of one is statistically insignificant... then yes, I recommend you stay away from statistics.

There's a set of guidelines for advertising cars that prohibit them from displaying anything that would be considered illegal on the roads on an ad. The only way around it is to ensure that the ad displays an environment which could not, under any circumstances, be mistaken for the real world. That's why there was a sudden prevalence of "video game" style ads a few years back.

I'm sorry, but this argument is ridiculous. The idea that the only people who can offer criticism are those with superior skills in the area of critique is utterly flawed. If it were true, Pavarotti could never have a singing teacher, Einstein couldn't have a maths lecturer and Gary Ablett could never have a coach. The argument is especially flawed when directed at someone who's just made a rather salient point. The fact is, our captain kicked the ball put on the full in every second game last year!

Am I reading this right, and people are actually complaining that he had TOO MANY tackles? Far out!! If every player racked up eight tackles a game, the opposition would never dispose of the ball!

Nope. Streaming on a delay requires totally different technology which alters the cost by orders of magnitude. The vision they've provided is recorded by the camera raw to a card, then post-processed in a PC afterward, then uploaded as a single file for streaming. Doing all of that "on the fly" requires pro-level gear which is much less accessible (and vastly more expensive, and skill-intensive, and... you get the idea). I think it's great that at least they provided what we got. Let's hope MFC have the same thing in mind for the Saints game at Casey.

I agree Sue. I went to the cricket this year for the first time in aaaaages, and realised that I actually enjoy the game when I'm at the ground, and can see the game of chess played between the captain and his bowler, and the batsman. On TV, it's just "guy throws ball, guy hits ball", over and over. I much prefer to see footy from the third level or above at the G for the same reason. Much better for watching plays develop.

All you pessimists shut up pretty quickly when Nathan Jones found his true form. No doubt you'll do the same when Jordie does too. The coaches LOVE him. He'll play 22 games this year, and next year, and the year after that. Jones' kicking three years ago bore no resemblance to the low bullets he delivers these days. Jordie will improve.

The criticism wasn't directed at the discussion of Tapscott. The criticism was leveled at the highly critical tone of the subject line. If you want a discussion about Tappy, just say "where do you think Tapscott's at?". The present headline is as biased as a Range Rover poll title.

Mitch Clark. Forward line with Hogan and Dawes frees Mitch up.

I agree, Roost It. Nathan Jones is a quality player, but if he wants to win a flag, he'd be hoping for at LEAST one midfielder a class above him on the team, and probably two.

When I was graduating year 12 (in Victoria), I was 18 in the September of my graduating year. However, plenty of friends who also graduated that year did not turn 18 until May or June the following year. People running O-Camps at universities in Victoria have to be careful with their legal standpoint because so many of their attendees can be 17. I don't know where the idea that all Victorian year 12 graduates are 18 came from, but it's false. Also (and probably completely off topic), I dated a ludicrously intelligent girl last year (she scored 99.95% ENTER), and she was enrolled at Melbourne Uni as a 15 year old! She was that smart that they just let her skip two years of school completely (and her birthday is in late May, so she'd have graduated as a 17 year old even if she hadn't been accelerated). Anyway, my understanding is that the parents of those born between January and June can elect to put their child in either year - so they might turn 18 early in their graduating year, or not until the year after they graduate. As a result, some kids are more than 12 months older than other kids in the same year level.

Also, you won't get a running commentary from the media as you did with the AFL investigation, because the Caroline Wilson's of the world don't have their tendrils reaching into these organizations like they do with the AFL.

JJC, my experience is that when someone gets an opportunity to exercise power over others, almost anything can happen. When the fires leveled Marysville, someone from the department of housing wouldn't let the homeless "refugees" move into some decommissioned mining dongas shipped in from WA, because they "didn't meet Victorian standards". As a result, those people were forced (against all logic) to sleep in tents instead! Will the VCGLR hand out a series of club-crippling sanctions? It's certainly possible, because everyone knows five or six clubs deliberately lost games of football. I'd say it largely depends on the motivations of the people in charge of the agency. If someone high up has their eyes on a bigger prize and thinks a large, public scalp could further their career... anything could happen.

Is it just me, or have the Dees been in the media literally ten times more this year than at any other time in the last 15? Not just Caro's attacks, either, trade week, Viney, Hogan, free agency (both in and out), Casey relationship, the list goes on. I don't think we've received this much publicity in decades!

Again, if the best way to catch people involved in the drug trade was random drug testing of the entire civilian population (or if that were a morally acceptable way to do it), that's how the drug squad would do it. They don't, because it's not an efficient (nor ethical, in my view) method. You guys are suggesting that the AFL should do it this way with their players, however, and I still don't really see a distinction between that and any other form of criminal conduct (which they don't randomly test for). That aside, you've got a good point about associating with criminals, and in truth, I don't actually really care how the AFL treats the players on this issue because they represent a very small (and privileged) percentage of the population. What I would really like to see is governments around the world tackle drugs of all kinds in a consistent manner, with a view to harm minimisation. Our current "drugs are bad, m'kay" strategy has demonstrably failed miserably, and leads to rich criminals and dead kids, neither of which I'm fond of. The reason I dislike the current testing environment within the AFL is that it continues to propagate the existing "zero tolerance"/war-on-drugs paradigm, which is serving no-one but the criminal underworld.

So you think the drug squad identifies drug traffickers by randomly taking blood tests of citizens at work? You've made one good point, but it doesn't make any progress towards explaining why the AFL should be testing players for illicit drugs out of competition.