-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
What a hero!!
- Thread starter graystar1
- Start date
graystar1 said:
If that's what he said, then he neednt bother turning up for stage 2 of the interview process.
Kicking the matchwinner or not, McMuff played a shocker and should be dropped.
For all the tough decisions he made when he was appointed, he's gone soft.
Show some gonads & drop McDud this week Rawlings for God's sake.
I would agree there is some evidence that Melbourne experimented with unusual matchups and so forth yesterday. But the fact is Melbourne took the lead with 2 quick goals very late in the final quarter. It doesn't add up.davidrodan said:
Anyway...I am far from convinced about this "all Melbourne supporters were happy" line that is circulating today.
Jade's actually 100% correct with this statement.graystar1 said:
Jordy ran from behind to receive off teammates. He constantly attacked and took running bounces through the opposition lines. He corralled opponents when they had the ball just as a loose downhill skier should.
Those parts of his game were excellent.
Jordy also never manned an opponent, never got an in and under possession. Don't recall him laying a tackle, might have missed one while having a wizz break.
He also sprayed most of his possessions all over the park, 'cept for the last and most important one.
Don't know if the players just thought they were going to get a win or if the whole lot were confused by Baileys experimenting to lose tactics.
Of our running players only three really challenged the lines all game Cuz, Jordy and Whitey. Whiteys only fault was that he tries to crash through the lines in heavy traffic, he lacked the finesse to weave through and got caught a few times.
My impression of McMahon's game was that it was poor but subtly so, thought he was ineffectual when the opposition had the ball - as usual. That he was named in our best is a huge concern for me. Still, since he has another year on his contract my concerns are irrelevant anyway.
mexican_radio said:
yeah exactly, give the guy a break, im not saying hes any good but he stood up for his team when he was needed and kicked a match winning goal. Ease up on the player hating, we won the freakin game.
Dyer Disciple said:Is this for real? Did Rawlings think McMahon was our our best? Surely it's a quote taken out of context!
Rawlings re McMuddle:
"I thought he was close to our best player. Number 32 [Ben Cousins] was pretty handy but I thought McMahon across the course of the whole day was the one that continued to try and threaten the game."
www.richmondfc.com.au
TigerMasochist said:
Agree.
However McMahon is not up to the role we recruited him for, running the lines, and we KEEP persisting on trying him in this role despite the amount of times he turns over the ball or shirks/watches a contest.
If McMahon was one of our best running the lines, why did Jade move him into the forward line? Because he hurt us too much down the field.
10 ineffective kicks out of 14, we call that a best effort? Why? We give candy now for people who fail in their position but we can at least see they tried? What is this pre-school?
Absolute joke. I'm not even going to start on a shepherd I watched him squib on and merely brush his oppositions shoulder when he should have been backing up his teammate who was in need on the boundary line.
Dyer Disciple said:Is this for real? Did Rawlings think McMahon was our our best? Surely it's a quote taken out of context!
Really hope the club is trying to improve his value as trade-bait by playing him and talking him up, the way they should have two years ago with Kayne Pettifer.