LegsLeoncelli

Yes, I'm glad you saw it too because I thought I might have imagined it. It was odd, wasn't it? He anticpated Cloke and Garland coming over the back but they didn't even move. At least he took the mark this time...

What a poor post.To suggest that YD's view is "hate filled" is such a misrepresentation of the content of his posts. Of the people who have moved towards an anti-Neeld stance, YD is still one of the more positive folks around here.

Oh look, Ben-Hur's back!

Oh man, you were so close! Don't you know you're supposed to call it THE worst team ever? That's what we do on this board. Every...bloody...week.

Constant manic pressure? Sydney, 2012. I reckon you'll be right about the dynasty though.

... and then shrugged the trainers off so he could jog to the bench unhindered. And received a subdued but respectful applause from supporters on the members' wing. That's about it, without the bias.

Way to highjack a thread. Next time try arguing who has the biggest ego out via PMs, cause frankly, I reckon most folks on here don't give a continental.

You forgot:How can we drop so many uncontested marks? and How can we continually kick into the man on the mark? I know it's beyond sad, but I use going to the G each week as a way of showing my nine year old boy what not to do. You have to get something positive out of it...

It's shades of Jeff White, Jolly and Simmonds all over again. Let's hope we hold on to the right one this time around.

Cats by 28, yet Ess won the clearances 41-22 (or thereabouts, depending on the bloke doing the tally marks). It looks to me that Scott is willing to concede pure clearance numbers if it means that his team is set up better further down the ground, thus creating more rebound and run & carry opportunities. This appears to be a strategy to negate one of the key strengths of the premiers, and although the coach will publicly bemoan his team's clearance numbers, I feel it is a calculated and well considered ploy. If it is ultimately successful, maybe Neeld can say we were pioneers in this area.

Garland generally plays on the best small forward, and is only used on a true tall as a last resort.

Says this guy: Sometimes, it's hard to take some folks around here seriously...

I really like the thought behind your post but I think the difference is that folks who post on this forum primarily have the club's interests at heart, even if they do agree to disagree. People who are, or previously were, within the club and attempt to undermine it are purely pursuing personal vendettas.

What a strange little statement. What more would you have them do? Be ten goals up at halftime against WC or kick 15 goals in the last against GWS?And to those questioning the validity of the whole 'fitness' thing, surely hearing it from the players' mouths might lend some weight to the issue? Unless they're just liars...

Because the AFL said so.

I know what you mean. It's obvious they give her a hard time because they actually hate their mothers.

I'm not sure how you could honestly say that.

Ok, you've clearly made your point here.Run along back to your favourite "Sack Neeld" thread...

I wonder which is actually more likely... a. Don is actually Santa and knows everything or b. Bates was the ONLY person at the club who knew Dank was working with us Um, actually, they're both really stupid positions.

Yeah, that's right. It's all Bates' fault. He's not just another scapegoat, because obviously no-one else at the club would have had any knowledge of this, whatsoever... stuie, can you please insert that gif of Picard doing the facepalm here? Cheers.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-18/super-saturday-at-windy-hillHope that works.

And in commentary, Bruce just described Kieran Jack's run as, "jack...off". Does it get any better?

Nah mate, I totally get your point. Unfortunately this latest incident is based on the false premise that we had had nothing to do with Dank (because we said he wasn't 'officially' employed by the club) when in fact he had been working with the club doctor and certain players until the day of the Essendon press conference. It seems that at the moment, no-one is saying we did anything wrong with the things we were trying. However, if we did nothing wrong, why not just tell the WHOLE truth. It's very obvious that the AFL were going to find out Dank was working with us, so why try to hide it?

There are facts regarding McLardy's performance, you just continue to ignore them. As an exercise, if Don were the coach, what do you think his Win/Loss ratio and percentage would be? About how the voting is going, is my prediction.

I started writing a considered reply to this three times and then erased it.If members calling for McLardy's head after the culmination that was today's events is 'torches and pitchforks', but you calling for the coach's head every week is 'standing by your club', then so be it. I haven't the patience to engage in an argument with someone whose only strategies are sensationalism, insults and GIFs.