Vlad and Co. are a disgrace

[CarnTheDees 52]

Matthew Whelan. More?

What about the game against Sydney? Similar moves were made. Short memories.

The only real experimentation with Whelan recently has been throwing him on the field and hoping he doesn't fall apart.

As for the Sydney game I can't comment because I didn't see it, however I would be surprised if 6 out of 8 of our key position players/ruckmen were played in positions that they have never/rarely played in before.

[45HG 1,559]

You're kidding yourself HT.

Of course we've experimented over the last two seasons - but cumulatively you'd struggle to find as many moves as we saw on Sunday.

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

Again, please read my posts. I am not slamming DB for the moves or for experimenting or for tanking. I wholeheartedly support it in principle although it did make Sunday the single weirdest game I've been to.

What I am against is people trying to tell me that what I saw and felt on Sunday was incorrect. I saw a team that was being coached in order to reduce its chances of winning. Everyone at that game could see that was the case. I understand why DB won't publicly admit it and why AD continually refuses that it is possible, but to have people coming on here afterwards and suggesting that wasn't the case is completely absurd.

And our season has been over since QB. Why hasn't this radical experimentation been tried previously? Why only now, in a very winnable game, when the priority pick is on the line....

Sundays game did not suprise me at all. In fact i would have been way more suprised had DB coached the "traditional" way.

We now know where DB is taking us. He is Dead set Serious. I support him 100% on this.

He did what needed to be done to begin next years campaign. (our young Players ALMOST bought it unstuck!!!)

[rpfc 28,729]

You're kidding yourself HT.

Of course we've experimented over the last two seasons - but cumulatively you'd struggle to find as many moves as we saw on Sunday.

You're right in the sense that there was more experimentation than usual but why wouldn't there be?

Playing an average side with little chance of a blowout, it would be the perfect time to do as many 'experiments' as possible.

And CTD should recall about a month ago when people on here were whinging about DB playing Petterd out of position and his last few games have completely vindicated the time Petterd spent struggling to get the footy in the forward line.

Davey on the HBF last year has helped improve his engine to the point where he was completely spent late in the second qtr yesterday with King tailing him and then he gave a great second half that nearly helped us pinch the game.

Morton played his best game against WB off a HBF, Martin was a FB being pushed out of the best 22 until DB told him to try his hand at Ruck and he hasn't looked back.

And Bruce and Macca should be nowhere near our centre bounces if we are serious about rebuilding our midfield. Miller and Bate deserve some freedom in the middle, as our forward line can be like the Sahara at times.

My view on the situation - These are the tactics of tanking, but they are tactics that Bailey has been using since he started. The rhetorical question is - Why would he abandon those policies now?

[dee-luded 2,959]

They're bringing their own game into disrepute by not changing it. The tanking shite is doing the game more harm than Ben Cousins ever did.

Pickles, Priority picks have been suspended following this years draft, have been for some time due to GC-17 & WS-18.

The AFL have Plenty of time to reassess their decisions quietly without the hysterior of the moment.

They'll be able to assess what teams do next year without any priority picks, so we'll all see what those teams try to do, who are in Rebuild phase...

[H_T 3,049]

You're kidding yourself HT. Of course we've experimented over the last two seasons - but cumulatively you'd struggle to find as many moves as we saw on Sunday.

Incorrect. I'm not kidding myself at all. I have quite rightly pointed out that similar moves (whilst not as many as Sunday) have been employed by Bailey this year and as you quite rightly point out, the last two years. We saw similar trends in Round 7 and 17.

[45HG 1,559]

It's an opinion, so it's not "incorrect" and you ignored that I did not say we have never experimented - I was simply pointing out that we had never seen it even close to the level we did on Sunday.

The spin being put on this game is amusing to say the least.

I never said we shouldn't have done it rpfc, but I'm just saying it's ridiculous to hide behind "we've made a few experimental moves over the last two years, so Sunday was nothing new." The extend was incredible, bordering on absurd.

It nearly won us the game because Richmond are useless. I'm glad we're doing it, but we shouldn't then bow our heads like innocent school children and claim it's what we've claimed we'd do all year and that explains the sudden impulse to shuffle the entire team.

Edited August 5, 2009 by 45hotgod16

[H_T 3,049]

Maybe I'm more protective of my club than others. The facts are the club has been experimenting for quite a while, only Sunday was not to the same extent, (ie.there was more), which I have stated. Other games give evidence to this sort of shuffling, like I stated, Rounds 7 and 17 which conveniently was ignored. IMO there is no hiding, as there is evidence of this occurring before. You may beg to differ, but that is your opinion.

What we saw, doesn't happen 'every' game either, if your looking for 'more' evidence.

[old55 23,687]

I don't have a problem with it, I know that it is in the best interests of the club, but do not try to suggest that Bailey and Co. did not tank that match.

Your posting doesn't have the best interests of the club at heart - try and think it through - it's not that hard!

[rpfc 28,729]

It's an opinion, so it's not "incorrect" and you ignored that I did not say we have never experimented - I was simply pointing out that we had never seen it even close to the level we did on Sunday.

The spin being put on this game is amusing to say the least.

I never said we shouldn't have done it rpfc, but I'm just saying it's ridiculous to hide behind "we've made a few experimental moves over the last two years, so Sunday was nothing new." The extend was incredible, bordering on absurd.

It nearly won us the game because Richmond are useless. I'm glad we're doing it, but we shouldn't then bow our heads like innocent school children and claim it's what we've claimed we'd do all year and that explains the sudden impulse to shuffle the entire team.

Yes and no.

That much tinkering would not happen in one game unless you are at the end of another losing season, your players are ridiculously one dimensional, you have an injury plagued list (and team on the day), and your talent is young.

But wait...

Those things apply to us.

We would be doing this even without the PP.

[45HG 1,559]

You should work for the press mate.

I don't believe we would have put that amount of experimentation into one match without the PP. Sure, we would experiment with players in new positions, but surely not all in the one go.

Ironically, many of the changes made on the day worked out quite well. So of course you can say it was a success. But you're very naive to simply claim we're doing what we've done all year.

HT, by your own admission you can only name two rounds this year (3 now I assume).

All I'm saying is starting your last quarter with Jones, Bartram, Frawley, Warnock in the forward line (with Jetta as CHF) is beyond experimentation.

Geez I'm sick of this whole debate. It just goes around in circles and usually restricts itself to matters of semantics.

[old55 23,687]

I'm really struggling to understand the benefit to the club of Melbourne supporters/members arguing strongly in a public forum that we are tanking???

So I'm struggling to understand the motivation of those of you in this thread who are taking that position???

Whether you believe it's happening or not - arguing that it is, is not helpful to the club in any way.

Andrew Demetriou gets it, Cameron Schwab gets it, Dean Bailey gets it, rpfc gets it - can you get it?

Edited August 6, 2009 by old55

[45HG 1,559]

Anyone read Grant Thomas today?

"Imagine a situation where a team loses and pushes another team over the 4 wins threshold," yeah, tough to imagine.

Went on to say if Demetriou admitted it there'd be massive repercusions financially and socially, but him not admitting it is mystifying....not so mystifying.

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

Anyone read Grant Thomas today?

"Imagine a situation where a team loses and pushes another team over the 4 wins threshold," yeah, tough to imagine.

Went on to say if Demetriou admitted it there'd be massive repercusions financially and socially, but him not admitting it is mystifying....not so mystifying.

Thomas has already admitted Tanking exists from the coaches box. Heard him say it earlier this year.

And why not, a coach is paid to do a job in the best interests of the club to which he is employed.

I like Grant Thomas's honesty. 'tis the reason he lost his SEN job.

[45HG 1,559]

If it wasn't SEN, I'd say he lost his job for being a moron.

[Akum 2,660]

Anyone read Grant Thomas today?

"Imagine a situation where a team loses and pushes another team over the 4 wins threshold," yeah, tough to imagine.

Went on to say if Demetriou admitted it there'd be massive repercusions financially and socially, but him not admitting it is mystifying....not so mystifying.

Thomas sees tanking everywhere. On FC he said that WC were tanking against Essendon, they just happened to find themselves in front at the end (ummm ... by nearly 5 goals ... and they were in fron the whole game). That left even Caro speechless. He said "nothing could convince me that they're not tanking" and in a way he's right - if there was 100% evidence he wouldn't be convinced. An ego the size of Jupiter.

IMO what caused the need for about half of those moves that CTD mentioned was the fact that we had 3 or 4 injured players for most of the last half who couldn't play. The only way we could rest players in the last quarter was to get Whelan to stand in the FP. DB had to rest some of the on-ballers in field positions, like the BP (McDonald, Valenti, may well have been others) and maybe FP (Bartram? I'm not sure, I wasn't watching that closely). It seems to be the fashion for players to be rested on the bench after goals these days - they couldn't do that with Dunn & Petterd so they had to send them back too. And I think Newton & PJ were so useless that they would have spent much of the last half on the pine if we had 22 fit players, but DB had to try to put them as far away from the play as possible.

The case for the Dees tanking has yet to be proven, IMO. We're not Carltank, who deliberately played to lose in 2007 - we've never done that.

[beelzebub 23,382]

I'm really struggling to understand the benefit to the club of Melbourne supporters/members arguing strongly in a public forum that we are tanking???

So I'm struggling to understand the motivation of those of you in this thread who are taking that position???

Whether you believe it's happening or not - arguing that it is, is not helpful to the club in any way.

Andrew Demetriou gets it, Cameron Schwab gets it, Dean Bailey gets it, rpfc gets it - can you get it?

old..some just may never get it, some see this as too simplistic a picture. They dont get all the nuances etc..They would not listen, they're not listening still. · Perhaps they never will !!

Edited August 6, 2009 by belzebub59

[CarnTheDees 52]

Your posting doesn't have the best interests of the club at heart - try and think it through - it's not that hard!

Seriously, don't be so precious. As if anything I say on an internet forum is going to affect the MFC in any way, shape or form.

Should we abadon all robust discussion, especially that which revolves around the future of players? Do comments such as "Robbo should retire, he's too lazy. Newton isn't up to it. Bell should be trade bait" etc etc have the best interests of the club at heart. How about the interests of the players who might read it, or at the very least get told about it by someone with evil intentions?

[CarnTheDees 52]

The case for the Dees tanking has yet to be proven, IMO. We're not Carltank, who deliberately played to lose in 2007 - we've never done that.

A perfect summary of the crux of my argument. Right now we are no better than Carlton were, we are playing to lose.

And so we should. But we have no right to take the moral high ground by taking the 'experimentation' defence. We're exploiting a filthy system that has been created by the AFL.

[old55 23,687]

Seriously, don't be so precious. As if anything I say on an internet forum is going to affect the MFC in any way, shape or form.

Should we abadon all robust discussion, especially that which revolves around the future of players? Do comments such as "Robbo should retire, he's too lazy. Newton isn't up to it. Bell should be trade bait" etc etc have the best interests of the club at heart. How about the interests of the players who might read it, or at the very least get told about it by someone with evil intentions?

I agree many thoughtless and potentially hurtful things are posted anonymously on internet forums. But there's a difference between the two cases you raise, in the tanking case the mainstreeam media is cooking up a storm on the topic and more and more often goes to the internet for content - let's face it they don't have any real content on the matter. Posts like yours throw petrol on a raging fire - and can cause only problems in the court of public opinion. The individual player posts are potentially individually hurtful to the players involved but are unlikely to have any major impact on the club - if it is communicating properly with the players they will know where they stand with the people who count at the club and that's what matters.

I do agree that the "we're not like Carltank" position is ludicrous and people like Robbo (recently saying on MMM that he was amazed in 2007 when they missed early goals and left Travis un-marked) should shut-up and concentrate on their knitting.

There's absolutely no proof that any club has tanked and there's definitely no value for Melbourne supporters in trying to make a public case that MFC have. If you feel that way and can't handle it, you'd be better off communicating directly with the club and making a judgement about whether you can support us in future. IMO it would be the height of hypocrisy if you're cheering Tom Scully on in future. FWIW I communicated directly with the club and proferred my total support for their current strategy.

[H_T 3,049]

Anyone read Grant Thomas today?

"Imagine a situation where a team loses and pushes another team over the 4 wins threshold," yeah, tough to imagine.

Imagine North doing the unthinkable. Imagine the following weeks game. A debacle.

Edited August 7, 2009 by High Tower

[rpfc 28,729]

Imagine North doing the unthinkable. Imagine the following weeks game. A debacle.

Yes, but a debacle that will end tank talk for the year. We will not lose to Freo.

It will be simply out of the realms of possibility and happenstance.

Bailey must thrust TMac and Bail into the fray as much as possible this Sunday and give big roles to Newton, Valenti, and Frawley in defence, midfield, and the forward line respectively.

Brent Harvey has hard an up and down year, it would be good, from a 'football lover' point of view, to see him have a good game and collect the four points as Captain.

It'll make us all feel good inside.