http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl...4-19742,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/1,9...9-19742,00.html

Anyone feel both these articles are very harsh and don't reflect the match well at all? Especially the second one by Mark Hayes. Apart from a 20 minute period we beat Richmond, and yet they write things like.....

But the new Demons chairman must have been mortified last night when he realised his football coffers were virtually empty.

He has high hopes the once-proud Demons will trade out of their financial plight, but any accountant in his football department would file for bankruptcy.

When coach Dean Bailey begins his review today, he will be appalled at a string of glaring deficiencies.

The day is best summed up by Melbourne in the first half managing one contested mark and 14 hardball gets but committing 24 clangers. And the Demons know how to make the errors count more than most.

were they under instructions just to stir the pot even more, drum up more negative media about our club? i found this one quite amusing...

Brock McLean and the gritty Nathan Jones typically tried hard in the middle; Colin Garland and Clint Bartram showed presence in brief flashes around the ground

colin garland? brief flashes? did he even watch the game?

You read and respect the Herald-Sun?

I agree the articles are harsh as could be written ......and I wonder whether these reporters actually go to the game....... or just catch it on tele or radio for a few clues as to what to write.

If I had to bet, I'd say neither author has any fondness for either the Tigers or the Dees.

One of the reports seems to be almost juvenile while the other more mature but lacking in good will or footy insight.

Lazy hack work on a Sunday night by a couple of malcontents.

Don't let these dills get you down.... that's what they want to do....very destructive.

I read these this morning as well, and even for the HUN they are a real letdown. I don't have alot of time for guys like Robinson, Stevens or Gullan in that paper, but at least they are objective about every game they write about.

And who is this Mark Hayes bloke anyway? I've never heard of him, and If he writes like this about my football club or any other team then I hope i don't hear of him again.

Utter tripe, better off reading the Age !!

You read and respect the Herald-Sun?

KA-POW.

Particularly Harsh given we WON 2 quarters and lost the 4th by just 3 points - I actually felt (with the 2nd quarter an obvious exception) we were on top for the better part of the match but just lacked the ability to FINISH!!!!

after reading the paper this morning i came on here planning on writing the same thing. i've got no doubt they didnt watch the whole game, and definitely didnt watch it live. which is dissapointing because i thought it was a good game of football. we got beaten for about 15 minutes, and didnt stem the tide.

another thing that got me was the snipe about melbourne fans not showing up to support the side.

a) it was a richmond home match

b ) it was a telstra dome

c) it was the worst possible time for anyone to ever watch a game of football.

i dont get it i really dont. if the afl scheduled these games so that the tv could run one game into another, fine at least they are trying to make money somehow. but the game wasnt on tv. so it appears that the afl scheduled that game at that time to be awkward. it is like they were trying to reduce attendences.

if richmond v mfc was played on sat arvo at the g, or fri night at the g it would have got excess of 40K.

They do the Sunday twilight game so Foxtel can have an early game that follows into the later game, and because apparently in a survey, fans said it was one of their preferred times, yeah right

They do the Sunday twilight game so Foxtel can have an early game that follows into the later game, and because apparently in a survey, fans said it was one of their preferred times, yeah right

must of been a survey of foxtel executives...

another thing that got me was the snipe about melbourne fans not showing up to support the side.

a) it was a richmond home match

b ) it was a telstra dome

c) it was the worst possible time for anyone to ever watch a game of football.

i dont get it i really dont. if the afl scheduled these games so that the tv could run one game into another, fine at least they are trying to make money somehow. but the game wasnt on tv. so it appears that the afl scheduled that game at that time to be awkward. it is like they were trying to reduce attendences.

if richmond v mfc was played on sat arvo at the g, or fri night at the g it would have got excess of 40K.

The same thing struck me as odd as well deanox. What is to be expected of a match between 12th and 16th at what is essentially a neutral ground at the worst timeslot of the weekend? I would say that Richmond supporters were more at fault than Melbourne supporters considering Richmond members could have actually got in.

How did Anderson give Morton a spray in his article about his ineffectiveness, but yet had him in his best players???? Yet did not have Garland.

I am almost certain that the journos in games such as these which have no real bearing on the competetion, but just sit up in the press box gas bagging and will occassionally watch the game and then pick the best players by the stats.

How did Anderson give Morton a spray in his article about his ineffectiveness, but yet had him in his best players???? Yet did not have Garland.

I laughed so hard my head nearly fell off when I saw him in the best. Then threw the newspaper away. No more Hun.