Autopsy NMFC vs WBD

[StiffArm]

Are you suggesting that I am only on this site for 'validation' (I'm guessing in the form of likes?), and now I'm trying to control people to only post things that boost my ego?

The above seems a little far fetched. Assuming that is not what you mean, perhaps you can explain yourself a little better?

I have pointed out that there is a lot of rubbish posting and for a "supporter" forum there is a lot of unwarranted over-the-top negativity. I don't think this is up for dispute.

Your assumption seems to be that I want to therefore control or censor posting. What I suggested is the opposite, I indeed posited that it is unfair to place the burden on people to maintain large ignore lists, and it is equally unfair to have the mods censoring posts (beyond the obvious).

I am suggesting that by adding a section of the site that only people who are recognized to post good content can contribute to. People may have an incentive to post better quality content when they post on this site, and save their bile for this site http://screamintothevoid.com/.

 

[Gasometer]

Are you suggesting that I am only on this site for 'validation' (I'm guessing in the form of likes?), and now I'm trying to control people to only post things that boost my ego?

I see nothing wrong with this paragraph....I lold

 

[Gasometer]

If you had read my post with a level of comprehension you would have come across this in the first line "It isn't that I only want to hear good stuff about the club".

I don't have a problem with diversity of thought (although some people do stretch the definition of "supperter"), it is more that a lot of people here post rubbish in a repeat fashion and I think there should be a shift in burden from readers managing their ignore lists to making people post quality content.

I am not suggesting this be site wide, just have a specific thread or two for it. Tiered system to encourage better quality as it may be.



I don't think I'm saying that at all. Criticism is fine, but it should be proportional and balanced. I really enjoy reading compelling arguments about the direction of the club. I do not enjoy reading single sentence posts about how shit player X over long periods of time from the same posters. The burden should be on them not to post shit, not on me to put them on ignore.

The toxic atmosphere in here especially after a loss also drives away the people who were previously great contributors. I missed the first game of last season because I was travelling in a jungle area with no phone reception. Decided to read through the game thread when I got internet without first looking at the scores. I was convinced we were ten goals down by the comments, only to find that suddenly we were in front and had won :S

You were in the Jungle last year

Are you Fev?

 

[Contra Mundum]

Fake account

When you think about it - unlikely that Dennis as a 70-year-old would be across the Dank Spongebob memes - but maybe he is!!!

 

[utility]

I thought I'd give it a couple of days for people to blow off their steam before entering this thread. Probably a good thing given there will be a few rants in the previous 21 pages.

Disappointing but encouraging performance against the reigning premiers. We really need to recruit guys who don't fumble... my kingdom for a footballer who doesn't fumble. Their midfield didn't expose us as much as West Coast, whether that is because the Eagles have better mids or we played better I'm not sure.

Swallow is done. Somebody needs to make a brave decision and retire him mid-season. Gibbo is not too far behind but at least got in dangerous spots. If Garner cleans up his kicking he will be a serious weapon. Speaking of serious weapons and kicking, Ziebell was woeful. He's never been a reliable kick IMO but I get impression he is trying too hard. BBB had sloppy hands, just didn't look like all gears were in place. Our ruck combo is an excellent asset, though can see Goldy moved on and Daw playing the forward-ruck role.

Simpkin's evasive skills are elite, but needs to get more distance in his kicking. Good to see he sticks tackles too. Turner needs to get more of the ball, looked ok when he had it. Marley will be just about trade of the year based on cost/benefit the way his first four weeks have been.

A bit stiff not to be 2-2 but losing the close ones is a common pattern for inexperienced sides. Even though we're 0-4 no time to panic as there have been some decent signs in the first month.

 

[StiffArm]

You were in the Jungle last year

Are you Fev?

Yes

 

[Pike13]

Are you suggesting that I am only on this site for 'validation' (I'm guessing in the form of likes?), and now I'm trying to control people to only post things that boost my ego?

The above seems a little far fetched. Assuming that is not what you mean, perhaps you can explain yourself a little better?

I have pointed out that there is a lot of rubbish posting and for a "supporter" forum there is a lot of unwarranted over-the-top negativity. I don't think this is up for dispute.

Your assumption seems to be that I want to therefore control or censor posting. What I suggested is the opposite, I indeed posited that it is unfair to place the burden on people to maintain large ignore lists, and it is equally unfair to have the mods censoring posts (beyond the obvious).

I am suggesting that by adding a section of the site that only people who are recognized to post good content can contribute to. People may have an incentive to post better quality content when they post on this site, and save their bile for this site http://screamintothevoid.com/.

You're the better judge of whether you only come on here soley to have your views & emotions validated. I can't comment as a whole because I haven't read many of your posts. Many people do think that message boards are just vehicles for validation & they're usually those with self-concept issues or have deficits in communication & socialisation. Sometimes that's okay because some message boards can be about that.

As for control, who's the judge of 'good content' - you? Who's the judge of 'rubbish posting'?

 

[naturally north]

As for control, who's the judge of 'good content' - you? Who's the judge of 'rubbish posting'?

Dunno about good content. But I will gladly take on the mantle for judging rubbish posting......... not trying to blow my own trumpet but am kind of an expert in this particular field.

 

[astrovic]

Positive:

I can say to my grandkids that I was there the day Andrew Swallow kicked a footy over a jam tin.

f

 

[berniemccarthy]

Positive:

I can say to my grandkids that I was there the day Andrew Swallow kicked a footy over a jam tin.

f

I remember saying it was an Easter miracle when it happened.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Positive:

I can say to my grandkids that I was there the day Andrew Swallow kicked a footy over a jam tin.

f

How's Brown having to wait 15 minutes for it to come back down to earth....

 

[Le Grille]

How's Brown having to wait 15 minutes for it to come back down to earth....

It's an effective disposal


North keep letting me down. I wish I supported the mighty Bulldogs

 

[astrovic]

How's Brown having to wait 15 minutes for it to come back down to earth....

It worked out well, BBB got his tax return done in the meantime.

 

[rippersnipper]

Honestly, i didn't even care about 3rd man up. Scrap the whole ruck thing altogether. Scrap blocking out of the marking contest and in the ruck. Scrap deliberate behinds. Scrap deliberate out of bounds. Too many ****ing rules. Keep it to high tackles, push in the backs, holding the ball/throws, legging/kicking in danger. Just the simple stuff. Too many ****ing decisions changing games nowadays. The simpler it is, the less these decisions are made.

 

[Samsquanch]

Are you Fev?

... or IUB

 

[Gasometer]

... or IUB

Far too intelligent is SA to be IUB.

 

[astrovic]

I remember saying it was an Easter miracle when it happened.

You were probably concentrating on Benny slotting the joe the goose, but if you looked back at Swallow you would have seen the Etihad roof open a slither and a golden ray of light beam down on St Andrew.

 

[StiffArm]

You're the better judge of whether you only come on here soley to have your views & emotions validated. I can't comment as a whole because I haven't read many of your posts. Many people do think that message boards are just vehicles for validation & they're usually those with self-concept issues or have deficits in communication & socialisation. Sometimes that's okay because some message boards can be about that.

As for control, who's the judge of 'good content' - you? Who's the judge of 'rubbish posting'?

I was really content with not having an account for a few years after forgetting my password, then I got sick of the type of posting that I've been whinging about and decided to make a new one to speak up about it. Given that I'm not convinced my motivations here are about seeking sycophants.

In the second part you raise a really good question that I think merits discussion.
I would suggest it is done in the way that most awards are handed out, via nomination and confirmation. A "NMFC Bigfooty VIP" level which gives people licence to post in 2 exclusive threads. One for game analysis each week, and one for selection and team discussion.

Seperate to this would be a nomination process overseen by the mods, who would then go through nominees post history and make a judgement call on whether they deserve recognition (could have a set of parameters on what constitutes good posting developed by the board).

It is a way of dangling a carrot to encourage good content and discourage people only using the board to vent, which is fun for exactly nobody.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

I was really content with not having an account for a few years after forgetting my password, then I got sick of the type of posting that I've been whinging about and decided to make a new one to speak up about it. Given that I'm not convinced my motivations here are about seeking sycophants.

In the second part you raise a really good question that I think merits discussion.
I would suggest it is done in the way that most awards are handed out, via nomination and confirmation. A "NMFC Bigfooty VIP" level which gives people licence to post in 2 exclusive threads. One for game analysis each week, and one for selection and team discussion.

Seperate to this would be a nomination process overseen by the mods, who would then go through nominees post history and make a judgement call on whether they deserve recognition (could have a set of parameters on what constitutes good posting developed by the board).

It is a way of dangling a carrot to encourage good content and discourage people only using the board to vent, which is fun for exactly nobody.

I assume it's fun for them. And while I would enjoy reading premium posting only, I have to say that mods have more than enough to do. A combination of the ignore function, scrollibg past otherwise decent posters when they are on a tear, staying the hell out of gameday threads, and maintaining a sense of humour, works ok for me.

 

[Frank Thring]

I took a look at the replay yesterday and took particular notice at players with and without the ball and how they position themselves and what they were doing when they didn't have the ball. I will be honest, i would need to rewatch it at least 3 more times to do this exercise justice but these are my initial observations for each player.

Williams - Good game and takes calculated risks coming off his man, forced turnovers and showed good speed in the contest. Continued his good early season form. 7/10

Tarrant - Bit of a mixed bag from Robbie, did some great body work and did some poor work as well. Dropped a few marks but overall beat his opponent. 6/10

Hansen - Bit of non descript game from Lachie, i have a feeling that he was lead away from the corridor by his opponent (s) nullifying his intercepting but i would need to look at that more closely. Seemed to be always a few metres from the contest. 5/10

Mullet - Liked his game live and even more on the replay. Was good one on one and showed real zip and composure out of D50. Some of his kicks set up transition. Very good game 7/10

Atley - Like Lachie, a non descript game from him. Had a a couple of "good minutes" but faded out as quickly as he burst in. Needs a spell. 3/10

Thompson - Surprised me with his courage and he didn't once act or feign for a free. Maybe he read my editorial crucifixion of his courage on the internet highway . His disposal was average and made two poor skill errors that resulted in a direct shot on goal. 6/10

JMac - Average game by our VC and as a fan of his, he has been below average this year. Offers no run and seems to be preoccuppued watching where his teammates are positioned than his own. Got caught out behind his man too often and is not reading the game like he was in previous seasons. I reckon his intercepting is down this year. 3/10

Cunnington- Superb, played a lone hand and was immense in the contest. Spread from the contest the best ive seen from him in a while and looks hungry. 9/10

Higgins- Down on his standards but was okay. 6/10

Garner - Butchered the ball BUT he kicked that clutch goal at the end so for me his fitness is not where it should be due to injuries so that is going to come. Love his smirky arrogance. His pressure inside 50 is awesome, never gives up and repeatedly has 2 to 3 efforts in the one play. Cant wait for Wood to come in and plays next to him. 6/10

Turner - Like Garner offers a lot in pressure and tackling but for me he looks for the tackle too much instead of going for the ball. I would like to see him a have bursts on the ball and tell him to be aggressive at the ball. 5/10

Dumont - A good game from Trent and is coming along nicely. Did a lot of defensive work at the contest which is a waste as he can use the ball. 6/10

Thomas - Uuurgh, a terrible game from Lindsay and not the first one either after round 4. His pressuring was no where near Garner, Higgins and Turner inside 50 and kept looking for cheap goals. Too much seagulling around packs. He also needs a spell. 2/10

Brown - A very good game from Brown often taking on 2 players at each contest. Worked very hard all game and kicked 4 goals. Dropped two sitters but he was probably exhausted. 8/10

Goldstein - An okay game who should have taken advantage of their ruck sitiation but didn't. He would have won that game for us if he was in 2015 form. No in close work from Goldy where his quick hands would get a touch of the footy causing a spill, his control of the ball in close is non existant. Stood around too much when the ball was in dispute from a ball in or up. 5/10

Preuss - Did some nice things and continues to be a surprise packet. Didn't run out the second half well and like Goldy failed to capitalise on the ruck situation. However he did make efforts at the contest after a ball up or in. Threw his body around and caused some rushed opposition possession with his presence. 5/10

Gibson - Seemed to play a negating role on Hunter and kept him in check but made some bad turnovers. His role needs to be transitioned to someone else who can offer more moving the ball forward. 5/10

Simpkin - He positions himself very well around the contest and knows when to go for the ball. Laid some great tackles. His set shots obviously needs improving but his fitness and strength is no where near AFL level so watch out when it is. 6/10

Zeibell - Shees this was an interesting game from the Captain. I thought he was going to win us the game when he went permanently forward with his mini impact at the start of the last. Some of his dosposal was woeful. I would like Jack across half back like Hodgy and moving on to the ball when we are losing the contested ball. He needs the play in front of him. 5/10

Swallow - Tried so hard but it's gone passed him. The play where he burst out of a centre square contest and turned to see a Bulldogs player on his hammer so he falls to ground trying to duck under him reeked of it. He limps a handball while on the ground and the ball is turned over. It was a momentum killer. Needs a spell. 3/10

LMac - Threw himself at the contest (literally) and i quite liked his game. No glaring errors, good one on one although beaten in a marking dual by a bigger opponent inside 50. He had a spurt on the ball late in the third i think and i liked what i saw. Great positioning around the ball. Holds his feet and strong in the contest. This guy needs to rotate with Cunners. 7/10

Hrovat - I liked his game. Set up well behind the ball and used the ball well. He is getting better each game. 7/10

Therefore after Werribee has now played and an eye to blooding more younger players, my changes would be:

Out: Swallow, Atley, Goldstein, Hansen, Thomas
In: EVW, Clarke, Mountford, Daw, Anderson

Lineup against Freo:

B: Williams Tarrant EVW
HB: Zeibell Thompson Mullet
C: Clarke Cunnington Higgins
HF: Simpkin Brown Garner
F: Turner Daw LMac

R: Preuss Dumont Anderson

Em: Gibson Mountford Hrovat JMac

 

[Deleted member 98541]

I was really content with not having an account for a few years after forgetting my password, then I got sick of the type of posting that I've been whinging about and decided to make a new one to speak up about it. Given that I'm not convinced my motivations here are about seeking sycophants.

In the second part you raise a really good question that I think merits discussion.
I would suggest it is done in the way that most awards are handed out, via nomination and confirmation. A "NMFC Bigfooty VIP" level which gives people licence to post in 2 exclusive threads. One for game analysis each week, and one for selection and team discussion.

Seperate to this would be a nomination process overseen by the mods, who would then go through nominees post history and make a judgement call on whether they deserve recognition (could have a set of parameters on what constitutes good posting developed by the board).

It is a way of dangling a carrot to encourage good content and discourage people only using the board to vent, which is fun for exactly nobody.

A safe space?

 

[adrenalinjunkie]

staying the hell out of gameday threads

If there is one key to preserving sanity, H2H, this is it AFAIC.

Sometime around mid-2015 I officially went mad (in BF terms). Crazy. Round the twist. Stark raving bonkers. And it was caused by reading Gameday threads.

So I cancelled my own membership of the board and took to drinking green tea instead of red wine. Disciplined myself to run 10km and do 200 situps & 5 sets of kettlebell swings before breakfast. I came back on my own terms and not before: a fitter, stronger, and wiser person.

But occasionally that hidden demon returns to my shoulder and taunts me. My three kids say "Dad, don't do it!!". My big sister (an Eagles supporter, if you don't mind) says "But you told me you'd sworn off reading those Gameday threads". Yet at times I succumb. Before long, sure enough, I'm reaching for the red wine again. And my fitness regime goes to the Dogs. (Certainly not the Roos.)

But like Billy Jo Armstrong, I'm Still Breathing. Just. Amidst all the madness.

So don't do it, peeps. Don't venture into Gameday threads. Ever ever.

 

[koshari]

I took a look at the replay yesterday and took particular notice at players with and without the ball and how they position themselves and what they were doing when they didn't have the ball. I will be honest, i would need to rewatch it at least 3 more times to do this exercise justice but these are my initial observations for each player.

Williams - Good game and takes calculated risks coming off his man, forced turnovers and showed good speed in the contest. Continued his good early season form. 7/10

Tarrant - Bit of a mixed bag from Robbie, did some great body work and did some poor work as well. Dropped a few marks but overall beat his opponent. 6/10

Hansen - Bit of non descript game from Lachie, i have a feeling that he was lead away from the corridor by his opponent (s) nullifying his intercepting but i would need to look at that more closely. Seemed to be always a few metres from the contest. 5/10

Mullet - Liked his game live and even more on the replay. Was good one on one and showed real zip and composure out of D50. Some of his kicks set up transition. Very good game 7/10

Atley - Like Lachie, a non descript game from him. Had a a couple of "good minutes" but faded out as quickly as he burst in. Needs a spell. 3/10

Thompson - Surprised me with his courage and he didn't once act or feign for a free. Maybe he read my editorial crucifixion of his courage on the internet highway . His disposal was average and made two poor skill errors that resulted in a direct shot on goal. 6/10

JMac - Average game by our VC and as a fan of his, he has been below average this year. Offers no run and seems to be preoccuppued watching where his teammates are positioned than his own. Got caught out behind his man too often and is not reading the game like he was in previous seasons. I reckon his intercepting is down this year. 3/10

Cunnington- Superb, played a lone hand and was immense in the contest. Spread from the contest the best ive seen from him in a while and looks hungry. 9/10

Higgins- Down on his standards but was okay. 6/10

Garner - Butchered the ball BUT he kicked that clutch goal at the end so for me his fitness is not where it should be due to injuries so that is going to come. Love his smirky arrogance. His pressure inside 50 is awesome, never gives up and repeatedly has 2 to 3 efforts in the one play. Cant wait for Wood to come in and plays next to him. 6/10

Turner - Like Garner offers a lot in pressure and tackling but for me he looks for the tackle too much instead of going for the ball. I would like to see him a have bursts on the ball and tell him to be aggressive at the ball. 5/10

Dumont - A good game from Trent and is coming along nicely. Did a lot of defensive work at the contest which is a waste as he can use the ball. 6/10

Thomas - Uuurgh, a terrible game from Lindsay and not the first one either after round 4. His pressuring was no where near Garner, Higgins and Turner inside 50 and kept looking for cheap goals. Too much seagulling around packs. He also needs a spell. 2/10

Brown - A very good game from Brown often taking on 2 players at each contest. Worked very hard all game and kicked 4 goals. Dropped two sitters but he was probably exhausted. 8/10

Goldstein - An okay game who should have taken advantage of their ruck sitiation but didn't. He would have won that game for us if he was in 2015 form. No in close work from Goldy where his quick hands would get a touch of the footy causing a spill, his control of the ball in close is non existant. Stood around too much when the ball was in dispute from a ball in or up. 5/10

Preuss - Did some nice things and continues to be a surprise packet. Didn't run out the second half well and like Goldy failed to capitalise on the ruck situation. However he did make efforts at the contest after a ball up or in. Threw his body around and caused some rushed opposition possession with his presence. 5/10

Gibson - Seemed to play a negating role on Hunter and kept him in check but made some bad turnovers. His role needs to be transitioned to someone else who can offer more moving the ball forward. 5/10

Simpkin - He positions himself very well around the contest and knows when to go for the ball. Laid some great tackles. His set shots obviously needs improving but his fitness and strength is no where near AFL level so watch out when it is. 6/10

Zeibell - Shees this was an interesting game from the Captain. I thought he was going to win us the game when he went permanently forward with his mini impact at the start of the last. Some of his dosposal was woeful. I would like Jack across half back like Hodgy and moving on to the ball when we are losing the contested ball. He needs the play in front of him. 5/10

Swallow - Tried so hard but it's gone passed him. The play where he burst out of a centre square contest and turned to see a Bulldogs player on his hammer so he falls to ground trying to duck under him reeked of it. He limps a handball while on the ground and the ball is turned over. It was a momentum killer. Needs a spell. 3/10

LMac - Threw himself at the contest (literally) and i quite liked his game. No glaring errors, good one on one although beaten in a marking dual by a bigger opponent inside 50. He had a spurt on the ball late in the third i think and i liked what i saw. Great positioning around the ball. Holds his feet and strong in the contest. This guy needs to rotate with Cunners. 7/10

Hrovat - I liked his game. Set up well behind the ball and used the ball well. He is getting better each game. 7/10

Therefore after Werribee has now played and an eye to blooding more younger players, my changes would be:

Out: Swallow, Atley, Goldstein, Hansen, Thomas
In: EVW, Clarke, Mountford, Daw, Anderson

Lineup against Freo:

B: Williams Tarrant EVW
HB: Zeibell Thompson Mullet
C: Clarke Cunnington Higgins
HF: Simpkin Brown Garner
F: Turner Daw LMac

R: Preuss Dumont Anderson

Em: Gibson Mountford Hrovat JMac

Great summary. you do know however that swallow wont be dropped?

 

[Frank Thring]

Great summary. you do know however that swallow wont be dropped?

I live in hope

 

[naturally north]

I was really content with not having an account for a few years after forgetting my password, then I got sick of the type of posting that I've been whinging about and decided to make a new one to speak up about it. Given that I'm not convinced my motivations here are about seeking sycophants.

In the second part you raise a really good question that I think merits discussion.
I would suggest it is done in the way that most awards are handed out, via nomination and confirmation. A "NMFC Bigfooty VIP" level which gives people licence to post in 2 exclusive threads. One for game analysis each week, and one for selection and team discussion.

Seperate to this would be a nomination process overseen by the mods, who would then go through nominees post history and make a judgement call on whether they deserve recognition (could have a set of parameters on what constitutes good posting developed by the board).

It is a way of dangling a carrot to encourage good content and discourage people only using the board to vent, which is fun for exactly nobody.

Dunno Stiffy,

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.


I at times get very frustrated with our input and it would seem we expect a different outcome from said same input. Last season I was mortified by our direction and a couple of things our coach said. So if we kept making the same mistakes every week- was I not entitled to mention the same thing every week? It wasn't like I was hanging onto the past- this nightmare was unfolding for the best part of 3 months.

I get what you're trying to achieve, it is foremost on the individual to maintain their a) dignity and b) composure. Losing your shit from time to time should be ok- Was H2H who said it best.

Just move on through.