MH.

This "haters" term is so over-used. I have an opinion that Mark Jamar has had one excellent year of footy in 11. I don't hate him, I just have an opinion on his career and most recent contract. I dare say others are the same.

I understand that sentiment, but I disagree. Most novice coaches that are any good at least have the players improving by their second year, or they make an immediate impact in their first. Terry Wallace took a side that had won 5 to 14 in his first. Neale Daniher took a wooden spoon team that won 4 to the finals and 14 in his first. Sanderson had stellar first year at Adelaide - 7 to 17. And there are plenty more examples of coaches having a positive impact on a group in either their first, or second years. I've never seen a playing group less responsive to a rookie coach and I know from plenty of other examples that it's not a healthy situation. What is going on is not normal. It's very far from normal. There are real issues at this football club.

I couldn't believe how loose we were through the two forward 50 arcs. They had unmanned players running everywhere. We were lucky West Coast weren't on their game, as we could have been down by 5 goals very quickly. At quarter time we had 6 tackles to their 22. The first quarter was inches away from being another disaster. Then there was a period - mainly the second quarter - where the players gained confidence and became desperate in their attack on the footy, but, as we know, it didn't last long.

That is my initial gut reaction, but it's probably unfair. My biggest concerns about Ratten were that his sides weren't defensive enough and that he lacked the charisma of the top coaches. I reckon he'd be a better coach second time around and a stint under Clarkson wouldn't have harmed him. Most of all though I now fully understand that my gut reactions are in fact the opposite of what's true. My gut told me that Neeld and his defensive game-plan would work. I believed that his no nonsense approach would gel with the group. I fully accept I'm a moron. I will not poor scorn on any suggestions from this point on, as the opposite is likely to be true.

It is impossible for any lucid thinking person not to realise that we have a terrible coach. The performances simply could not be any worse. He makes Dennis Jones look like Norm Smith. After round 3 last year, their first in the AFL, GWS had a greater percentage (albeit it marginally) than we have now. A bunch of Kids with no AFL experience, who were getting mercilessly slaughtered, performed as well as Melbourne is now. It is simply beyond belief. I accept that there will be people that are reluctant for change and I'm not advocating a sacking today, but I have zero doubt that a change has to happen sooner rather than later. This club regularly makes atrocious decisions, which is one of the reasons they'd be reluctant to act on the coach, but regular poor decisions shouldn't paralyze the club in the face of what is without question a diabolical appointment. There comes a point in time where you have to cut your losses. Even the spin that Neeld is now putting into the public domain is comical.

His mark today was one of the best I've seen. It won't be rated that highly because the camera doesn't explain the difficulty, but it was extraordinary. Running at pace, the wrong way, he leaps on his opponents shoulders to take the mark. Amazing. He was hopelessly out of position to beat his opponent. I've never seen a mark of this type in 40 years. Thankfully it was "right in front of me".

Lots to like, but still has a lot of development left in him. He's being asked a lot for a young player, because there's no-one else. Will be better with more strength and experience. The least of our concerns.

He's been Melbournised in less than 6 months.

Jamar is one of the more extraordinary case studies in sports history. He's played one good year in a career stretching 11. He needs to be on the motivational speaking circuit.

In a suit with his Melbourne tie on. Roller turned up with a couple of his Kids as well.

Players are selected, or otherwise, as much for what they're doing when they don't have the ball compared with when they do. Take that into account when you look at the omissions. There's hardly a player that deserves to retain their spot, so there's little point being affronted by the team selection. They weren't all going to be demoted and not one player that was demoted could complain when one considers their output. I suspect the coaching panel decided in advance to give Toumpas more than two games, which I find quite reasonable. Allowing him a few games under his belt to get acquainted with the pace of AFL footy makes sense to me. When Kent does get his go I suspect they'll give him a few on the trot too. I vividly remember Andrew Gaff's first few games in 2011. He was utterly out of his depth, but they kept playing him - well, they gave him the first half dozen. He came back later in the year and looked a different player. I have no doubt that Toumpas will get time down at Casey sooner rather than later, but to give him a few in a row makes perfect sense.

No. Pathetic, but not wrong.

It's a starting point. A great CEO and President unifies a club. They make good decisions. A disjointed club won't succeed, but a united one has some chance.

We have that many?

We don't know why, but it's clear that the coach has lost the players.

I have to say that Neeld's pregame speech was one of the most depressing things I've heard. You'd run out onto the ground as flat as a tack. It was polar opposite to Sheedy, who said to his players "don't let ANYONE INTIMIDATE YOU". I know which I prefer. And I'm no fan of Sheedy.

I don't think there's a "bad culture". There just isn't any leaders. It's more "no" culture than "bad" culture. I don't believe there's any rogue element. The players they've brought in aren't up to it and the players with real talent are too young. There's a massive chasm in the list. I see only one solution. The coach has to go whether it's fair or not. There's just too much baggage. And kids that will have a crack need to be played, i.e. Kent, Tynan and Jetta. They need to go down the GWS path. GWS are getting hammered, but they're having a crack and the whole club is on the same page, because they're treading the same path. I know that GWS have top end talent, but I see no other way. There has to be a benchmark and that means having a crack. Break it down to the lowest common denominator, i.e. tackles. We had 35 tackles compared to Essendon's 61. The Swans won a flag last year on the back of 110 tackles. You don't need to be a gun to tackle. You have to start somewhere and that's where I'd begin.

You think the club is "defiant" ? The opposite is true. Yes, I know.

Kent wants to model himself on another tough and skillful left footer - Luke Hodge.

Journalists become rubbish when they say things supporters don't like. Virtually every football supporter that is non-aligned to the MFC thinks that Watts is softer than butter and an extremely disappointing player. It's really only Demonland, where excuse after excuse is trotted out, that is affronted by the truth.

While I wouldn't have Nicholson play I suspect what will happen is that Terlich will play in defence and Nicholson will play up the ground. They'll use his run and speed like they did in NAB 4 against the Saints.

You don't drop a young top draft pick like Toumpas when he had NO senior players leading the way. Sheer lunacy to do that and ruin any confidence he still has remaining. He's the bloody future. Can't believe that Nicholson is still in. The guy hears footsteps as badly as anyone I've seen.