6. Miller

5. Chris Johnson

4. Valenti

3. Whelan

2. Buckley

1. Davey

6. Miller

5. Valenti

4. Buckley

3. ?????

2.Davey

1.Bruce

6. Buckley. Injected some life.

5. Jamar. Some positive return.

4. PJohnson. Gave his all.

3. CJohnson. Composed, exquisite skills.

2. Morton. Lively. Needs to pass quicker though.

1. Miller. A fair game.

6. Miller

5. C. Johnson

4. Buckley

3. Valenti

2. Martin

1. running out of options but Davey, I guess!!!

I also didn't hate Garland, I thought Morton showed some class and Jamar was encouraging.

6. Miller

5. C. Johnson

3. Buckley

4. Valenti

2. Martin

1. running out of options but Davey, I guess!!!

Quite confusing actually

Quite confusing actually

Oops sorry, fixed it now !!!

Completely different team after the 1st quarter and difficult to give votes - i have tried to choose consistency over flashes:

6 - Bate

5 - C Johnson

4 - Miller

3 - Davey

2 - Buckley

1 - P Johnson

6- Miller

5- Martin

4- Garland

3- CJ

2- Davey

1- Jamar *encouragement award*

This week's weighting is an incredible .5965. Incredible only because it would have been >15 had we kept going as we did in the first quarter!

With our two leaders out it gave the opportunity for others to poll but, as expected, Brocky and Greeny retain their first and second places comfortably.

78.366 Brock McLean

69.590 Brad Green

51.371 Brad Miller

44.698 Paul Wheatley

42.809 Colin Garland

40.082 Austin Wonaemirri

37.636 Cameron Bruce

31.490 Aaron Davey

29.052 Paul Johnson

27.203 Chris Johnson

25.733 Matthew Bate

25.458 Colin Sylvia

24.347 Nathan Jones

20.946 Cale Morton

16.154 Lynden Dunn

14.482 James McDonald

12.282 Brent Moloney

10.684 Jared Rivers

10.482 Nathan Carroll

10.346 Matthew Warnock

8.217 Stef Martin

8.132 Clint Bartram

7.770 Simon Buckley

5.904 Matthew Whelan

5.265 Russell Robertson

5.087 Jeff White

3.579 Mark Jamar

3.474 Shane Valenti

2.845 Adem Yze

My 6:

6: C.Johnson

5: S.Buckley

4: B.Miller

3: A.Davey

2: M.Bate

1: M.Jamar

This week's weighting is an incredible .5965. Incredible only because it would have been >15 had we kept going as we did in the first quarter!

it will be very interesting if we beat WC 120 - 20 and whoever gets best on ground gets 36 points in the demonland player of the year...

it will be very interesting if we beat WC 120 - 20 and whoever gets best on ground gets 36 points in the demonland player of the year...

If Brad Green gets voted best on by a few, he will take the bacon.

Brad Miller has a rocket beside his name!

My 6:

2: M.Bate

You must be joking.

He only got a few kicks in junk time. When we needed him to stand up, he, like so many others were nowhere to be seen.

6.Miller

5.C Johnson

4.Valenti

3.Jamar

2.Martin

1.Garland

You must be joking.

He only got a few kicks in junk time. When we needed him to stand up, he, like so many others were nowhere to be seen.

6.Miller

5.C Johnson

4.Valenti

3.Jamar

2.Martin

1.Garland

Incorrect.

Bate had 14 Kicks, 9 Handballs (23 possessions - 8 contested possessions) of which 7 possessions in the last quarter (what you might call junk time!); 9 Marks; 5 inside 50's (Melbourne's highest); and Kicked 2.2

B)

Incorrect.

Bate had 14 Kicks, 9 Handballs (23 possessions - 8 contested possessions) of which 7 possessions in the last quarter (what you might call junk time!); 9 Marks; 5 inside 50's (Melbourne's highest); and Kicked 2.2

B)

3 free kicks against 52% disposal efficency

missed a goal from 20 m out and one of his goals was a cheap handball over the top in the dying minutes

his game was average

3 free kicks against 52% disposal efficency

missed a goal from 20 m out and one of his goals was a cheap handball over the top in the dying minutes

his game was average

..and 1 goal from outside 50 which was a ripper.

Everyone has missed the occasional sitter but what i like is that he was there to mark it...... and i liked it that he was (still) running (late in the game) to go past Bruce for the hanball for the so called cheap goal...... that would'nt have looked so "cheap" in a thriller finish........or if it had rebounded off Bruce or the pack... he was doing what was smart footy..

52% disposal efficency, if it's a correct figure, must include the clearing handballs from tackles..... his kicking disposal was a lot better than 52%.

His game was better than average.

Just saw a replay. My votes FWIW...

6 - B.Miller

5 - Davey

4 - C.Johnson

3 - S.Buckley

2 - P. Johnson

1 - Martin

Garland, Bate and Valenti all stiff to miss out. I find it really hard to give votes without seeing the game live.

Just saw a replay. My votes FWIW...

6 - B.Miller

5 - Davey

4 - C.Johnson

3 - S.Buckley

2 - P. Johnson

1 - Martin

Garland, Bate and Valenti all stiff to miss out. I find it really hard to give votes without seeing the game live.

I know you love PJ, but how can you give him 2 votes and Martin one?

PJ had an ordinary game. Martin was outstanding in his third game while Garland continues to impress. Both were better than PJ IMO.

But I know you possess creepy man-love for PJ, so you probably have bigger issues to deal with right now

On Footy Classified, both coaches had given Bruce 1 vote.

All i can say is...what can i say

..and 1 goal from outside 50 which was a ripper.

Everyone has missed the occasional sitter but what i like is that he was there to mark it...... and i liked it that he was (still) running (late in the game) to go past Bruce for the hanball for the so called cheap goal...... that would'nt have looked so "cheap" in a thriller finish........or if it had rebounded off Bruce or the pack... he was doing what was smart footy..

52% disposal efficency, if it's a correct figure, must include the clearing handballs from tackles..... his kicking disposal was a lot better than 52%.

His game was better than average.

B)

On Footy Classified, both coaches had given Bruce 1 vote.

All i can say is...what can i say

You could say simply that you are not a good judge of a player's ability!

I could say simply that a player's ability should not be considered when adjudging how well he played in a game, and therefore your remark fairly misses the point.

I'm not having a go at Bruce, merely saying that out of 9 supporters ratings, only one gave him a vote and even that was the sixth best melbourne player.

I find it odd that he would be judged the 5th best on the entire ground after the game he had.

Now if you have something useful to add, i'd like to hear it. And yes, i realise coaches know more about footy than we do, but i still find it an odd/interesting one

I could say simply that a player's ability should not be considered when adjudging how well he played in a game, and therefore your remark fairly misses the point.

I'm not having a go at Bruce, merely saying that out of 9 supporters ratings, only one gave him a vote and even that was the sixth best melbourne player.

I find it odd that he would be judged the 5th best on the entire ground after the game he had.

Now if you have something useful to add, i'd like to hear it. And yes, i realise coaches know more about footy than we do, but i still find it an odd/interesting one

This harks back to the opinion that I've had for a while - that Melbourne supporters are the only ones who see Brucie as he really is. Everybody else; players, coaches, even the media, really rate him highly. So, given this, I'm not surprised that the coaches voted for him.

I know you love PJ, but how can you give him 2 votes and Martin one?

PJ had an ordinary game. Martin was outstanding in his third game while Garland continues to impress. Both were better than PJ IMO.

But I know you possess creepy man-love for PJ, so you probably have bigger issues to deal with right now

...we're all guilty of having at least one 'love child' aren't we, Jaded?

I thought PJ had a consistent game after IMO an outstanding 1st quarter. He didn't flash in and out of the game like many of his teammates, which is why he got into my votes this week. He seemed to rack up possies at will all day, and his finishing skills were a feature. It was a pleasant contrast to the bullocking and grunt work of Jamar, though IMO, Jamar still went missing for too long a period of time to be considered for votes.

Martin was fantastic in the first half, but seemed to fade (as expected from a guy in his 3rd game) as Freo got rolling. In hindsight, i'd probably give Martin the 2 and PJ 1, but as i said earlier, its so hard to give votes when i'm not at the game because you've got really no idea whats going on around the ground. For this reason I find it a lot harder to give votes to defenders when watching it on TV...