Huge game vs the Cattery

[tonysoprano]

....and I really can't see how skills are actually going to improve mid-season. Or mid-career?

[BenDoolan]

Half of those who played in the seniors would have been dropped from the seconds based on the 2nd quarter performance.

Zach Merrett, Adam Cooney and Jake Melksham kicked at 55% efficiency

In Jake Melkshams game, he had 16 possessions for 8 Clangers.

So 50% of his disposals ended up as Turnovers. And we keep playing/paying/keeping this guy why???

Well I guess at least he can box.

FFS.

If Jake Melksham is not dropped then this club has no clue. I cannot see his worth to the side.
He has company, but really sticks out at the moment.

There's about 6 other players I'd drop before him.

[Sismis]

Half of those who played in the seniors would have been dropped from the seconds based on the 2nd quarter performance.

Zach Merrett, Adam Cooney and Jake Melksham kicked at 55% efficiency

In Jake Melkshams game, he had 16 possessions for 8 Clangers.

So 50% of his disposals ended up as Turnovers. And we keep playing/paying/keeping this guy why???

Well I guess at least he can box.

FFS.

If Jake Melksham is not dropped then this club has no clue. I cannot see his worth to the side.
He has company, but really sticks out at the moment.

There's about 6 other players I'd drop before him.

7 inside 50s (Equal highest) and one goal assist. Interesting one to single out.

[Crazyman]

Half of those who played in the seniors would have been dropped from the seconds based on the 2nd quarter performance.

Zach Merrett, Adam Cooney and Jake Melksham kicked at 55% efficiency

In Jake Melkshams game, he had 16 possessions for 8 Clangers.

So 50% of his disposals ended up as Turnovers. And we keep playing/paying/keeping this guy why???

Well I guess at least he can box.

FFS.

If Jake Melksham is not dropped then this club has no clue. I cannot see his worth to the side.
He has company, but really sticks out at the moment.

There's about 6 other players I'd drop before him.

7 inside 50s (Equal highest) and one goal assist. Interesting one to single out.

And how many of those inside 50's were effective and at what stage was his ONLY goal assist?
In a good side, Melksham could be carried, in our side, his 1 in 4 good performances are not enough...

[kelvin_sheedy]

A free kick is a clanger. It counts to the total and Jake had 4 FA and 4 disposal clangers.

I'd be playing Jake in front of Stanton every day of the week.

[little_ripper]

Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).

Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.

but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.

[BenDoolan]

Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).

Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.

but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.

He plays a negating game so he won't get much of the ball. His disposal has been crud. Just like 99% of the team. I would much rather persist with a bloke who applies pressure on the opposition rather than someone who allows his opponent to run amok. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.

[Crazyman]

Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).

Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.

but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.

He plays a negating game so he won't get much of the ball. His disposal has been crud. Just like 99% of the team. I would much rather persist with a bloke who applies pressure on the opposition rather than someone who allows his opponent to run amok. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.

What negating game is that?
He has no idea how to defend (I know it's the obvious example but did you see how well he played 'on' Cotchin)...
I would rather keep Ambrose in the side - at least he works his arse off to pressure opponents (that's his one saving grace...)

[BenDoolan]

Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).

Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.

but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.

He plays a negating game so he won't get much of the ball. His disposal has been crud. Just like 99% of the team. I would much rather persist with a bloke who applies pressure on the opposition rather than someone who allows his opponent to run amok. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.

What negating game is that?
He has no idea how to defend (I know it's the obvious example but did you see how well he played 'on' Cotchin)...
I would rather keep Ambrose in the side - at least he works his arse off to pressure opponents (that's his one saving grace...)

Yep, let's get rid of Hurley, drop Melksham, keep Stanton and Ambrose in the team. Winna!

[ealesy]

If I was Hooker I would be pissed. Absolutely destroyed Hawkins in any contest where he had a remote chance of being able to affect it, yet Hawkins still ended up kicking 4 for the night because we turned it over so many times coming out of the defensive 50, the Geelong players were able to slam it back in the 50 and hit Hawkins on the tit.

[Crazyman]

Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).

Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.

but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.

He plays a negating game so he won't get much of the ball. His disposal has been crud. Just like 99% of the team. I would much rather persist with a bloke who applies pressure on the opposition rather than someone who allows his opponent to run amok. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.

What negating game is that?
He has no idea how to defend (I know it's the obvious example but did you see how well he played 'on' Cotchin)...
I would rather keep Ambrose in the side - at least he works his arse off to pressure opponents (that's his one saving grace...)

Yep, let's get rid of Hurley, drop Melksham, keep Stanton and Ambrose in the team. Winna!

Good on ya BD, keep taking things completely out of context because you don't agree with my sentiments on an hypothetical trade where I have expressed an opinion different to yours...
1 - I never mentioned Stanton and hope he gets dumped
2 - Hurley was in reference to a hypothetical choice of trade between two players with my stated preference to keep both
3 - Ambrose, sure, he's not getting enough of the pill (neither is Milkshake) and Ambrose is not hitting the scoreboard (again, neither is Milkshake), but at least Ambrose gives a f*** and puts something resembling pressure on an opponent, at what point has Jake Milkshake ever done that?
Come on, you can do better that the above...

[BenDoolan]

Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).

Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.

but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.

He plays a negating game so he won't get much of the ball. His disposal has been crud. Just like 99% of the team. I would much rather persist with a bloke who applies pressure on the opposition rather than someone who allows his opponent to run amok. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.

What negating game is that?
He has no idea how to defend (I know it's the obvious example but did you see how well he played 'on' Cotchin)...
I would rather keep Ambrose in the side - at least he works his arse off to pressure opponents (that's his one saving grace...)

Yep, let's get rid of Hurley, drop Melksham, keep Stanton and Ambrose in the team. Winna!

Good on ya BD, keep taking things completely out of context because you don't agree with my sentiments on an hypothetical trade where I have expressed an opinion different to yours...
1 - I never mentioned Stanton and hope he gets dumped
2 - Hurley was in reference to a hypothetical choice of trade between two players with my stated preference to keep both
3 - Ambrose, sure, he's not getting enough of the pill (neither is Milkshake) and Ambrose is not hitting the scoreboard (again, neither is Milkshake), but at least Ambrose gives a f*** and puts something resembling pressure on an opponent, at what point has Jake Milkshake ever done that?
Come on, you can do better that the above...

OK;

1. I made reference to persisting with someone who applies pressure (Melksham) rather than someone who lets his opponent run amok (Stanton). So, you'd rather be stuck with an unaccountable bag of shit.
2. The Hurley reference is to highlight that you'd rather see a guy who puts his heart & soul into playing for our club traded away over a bloke who just doesn't give a shit.
3. Ambrose occupies a position in our forward line and is expected to contribute something to the scoreboard. I admire his tackling efforts. They've been great. But his meagre contributions up forward should no longer be tolerated. If you cannot see that Melksham has done well this season in his tagging role (apart from the last couple of weeks), then you are not a good observer.

[BenDoolan]

If I was Hooker I would be pissed. Absolutely destroyed Hawkins in any contest where he had a remote chance of being able to affect it, yet Hawkins still ended up kicking 4 for the night because we turned it over so many times coming out of the defensive 50, the Geelong players were able to slam it back in the 50 and hit Hawkins on the tit.

I agree. Really felt sorry for him that he was burned by several arsonists in our midfield.

[Crazyman]

OK;

1. I made reference to persisting with someone who applies pressure (Melksham) rather than someone who lets his opponent run amok (Stanton). So, you'd rather be stuck with an unaccountable bag of shit.
2. The Hurley reference is to highlight that you'd rather see a guy who puts his heart & soul into playing for our club traded away over a bloke who just doesn't give a shit.
3. Ambrose occupies a position in our forward line and is expected to contribute something to the scoreboard. I admire his tackling efforts. They've been great. But his meagre contributions up forward should no longer be tolerated. If you cannot see that Melksham has done well this season in his tagging role (apart from the last couple of weeks), then you are not a good observer.

1 - Actually, you didn't compare Melksham to Stanton, you simply commented on dropping Melksham and keeping both Stanton and Ambrose, however, if your point was to compare Melksham to Stanton, then I agree with you, f***, I would almost take Cupido or Zantuck over Stanton...however, when referencing to pressure, surely even you have to concede that Melksham is not doing that right now...
2 - Hurley, you and others are shooting me down for suggesting we should trade Hurley instead of Carlisle. Tell me, what position of strength does EFC have in regards to Carlisle when he can simply walk at the end of the year? I agree Hurls bleeds red & black and would give his left nut for the club, but f***, what percentage of players and clubs are about loyalty now-a-days? Also, please, do tell who you think has sufficient currency to get even a half decent trade over the line? Who would you happily put on the table that has any real currency?
3 - I agree Ambrose does not hit the scoreboard and should be dropped, just not on the basis of pressure which is what was originally referred to re Melksham...f***, right now both Melksham and Ambrose + Stanton (permanently) need a spell in the Magoos...however, assuming TBell is dropped, I would not want to see more than another 2 players dropped and Stanton is at the top of that list, so the question is, do you drop a guy that doesn't hit the board but tackles or a midfielder that right now doesn't know how to defend a stoppage?

[rockhole]

To use the terms "Trade" and "Hurley" in the same sentence defies belief. You want to get rid of a proven performer who is having his best year, a guy who bleeds for the club and who attacks the ball like a maniac, for some reject or high draft pick who may turn into absolute duds.

Hurley is the type of guy you build your team around, not someone who can be traded just because he has currency.

[rockhole]

To use the terms "Trade" and "Hurley" in the same sentence defies belief. You want to get rid of a proven performer who is having his best year, a guy who bleeds for the club and who attacks the ball like a maniac, for some reject or high draft pick who may turn into absolute duds.

Hurley is the type of guy you build your team around, not someone who can be traded just because he has currency.

[Sismis]

Half of those who played in the seniors would have been dropped from the seconds based on the 2nd quarter performance.

Zach Merrett, Adam Cooney and Jake Melksham kicked at 55% efficiency

In Jake Melkshams game, he had 16 possessions for 8 Clangers.

So 50% of his disposals ended up as Turnovers. And we keep playing/paying/keeping this guy why???

Well I guess at least he can box.

FFS.

If Jake Melksham is not dropped then this club has no clue. I cannot see his worth to the side.
He has company, but really sticks out at the moment.

There's about 6 other players I'd drop before him.

7 inside 50s (Equal highest) and one goal assist. Interesting one to single out.

And how many of those inside 50's were effective and at what stage was his ONLY goal assist?
In a good side, Melksham could be carried, in our side, his 1 in 4 good performances are not enough...

Have no idea when his ONLY assist was? The entire game is a blur. But I do know it was 1 out the 7 we kicked... He is ranked 11 in I50s in the league.

[j-mac31]

Melksham and Ambrose are both shit.

[j-mac31]

....and I really can't see how skills are actually going to improve mid-season. Or mid-career?

Hooker used to be completely incompetent.

[j-mac31]

Can Hirdy see his short-comings and can he do anything about it? The litmus test is here and we have up to 12 Rounds to find out. The club is 10% down on membership from last year and the way we are travelling we will be lucky to get to 50,000 members next year.

He now has to perform as coach as he once did as a player. I think it maybe too much to ask.

He definitely needs to improve as a coach and I think he already said that earlier this year, but why assume at this stage that he won't?

He missed all of last year and this is his first year without Bomber. Maybe some shit games now and some list changes at the end of the season will have him doing better by this time next year.

Also C Scott was on Talking Footy last night and seemed quite pleased to admit that he's a better coach now than when he won a premiership.