Nathan Jones is a poor kick.

Paul Johnson is a ruckman.

You have to adapt your game plan to suit your playing list.

Lynden Dunn could be a KPF if given a chance.

I've spent half my positive player posts defending this year the bloke who will have the most goals and most assists, and been one of the hardest workers all year.

Watched Matthew Bate pretty closely last week and last few games and I believe he will be a fantastic player for us in the future. He is tall and quick, has a long and accurate kick, is prepared to run all day and while capable of the odd fumble has pretty good hands in the marking area.

When our full side is up and going and he is played as a roaming half forward he will become an extremely dangerous player for the opposition to cover.

I look forward to him becoming one of our main men in the coming years.

Brad Green is/was/has ever been soft.

Good one.

How about Melbourne have no forward line structure.

That opinion has come from watching games live, not from reading forums.

That opinion has come from watching games live, not from reading forums.

So have most of the other opinions.

The ultimate irony in this thread is the people who have jumped on in order to use the "forumulated opinions" mentioned by others to re-kindle previous arguments. There are thousands of previous threads for that, go troll back there. This thread isn't about point-scoring or who initially started these opinions and how wrong they are, it's about collecting together all the opinions (good, bad, correct, wrong, wild, safe), especially those that have snowballed from 1 person's fingertips into absolute gospel.

How about "we should recruit Player X because they barracked for MFC as a kid", and "Ratten was an excellent assistant coach".

Clint started the thread because he was annoyed that people called Valenti slow/a poor kick and he wanted to put forth his view to the contrary. However he tried to do it amongst other opinions so that he wouldn't have those opinions challenged.

The fact that he is getting annoyed that someone has called him out on the "no forward structure myth" shows his intentions in creating the thread. I found it to be hypocritical.

And rpfc, what I was referring to as rubbish and what you have interpreted it to be are two very different things. Almost polar opposites.

Ralphius, some people will use logic and reasoning in their arguments and others will be unable/unwilling to. The only person who can judge this is the you, the reader. In the end you will find our who those are whose opinions you rate highly because they put in enough rational thought to validate their own arguments and are open minded enough to accept an opposing point of view that they judge to be based on stronger evidence. By the same token, you will find other posters whose opinions you don't rate and will question them very heavily because you know that they are not based on fact or perhaps they have an ulterior motive for their views. For example, I do not rate Freak's opinion because he makes rash judgements that are designed purely for his own (misguided) aggrandizement - I will question every statement of his. But I know that grazman puts a lot of very good thought into his opinions first and so I'm interested to know what he thinks. Others may not rate it that way, but will agree more with the emotional responses some posters provide because it's more closely aligned to their own way of thinking.

Each to their own. I know that neither Clint nor rpfc will care what I think. However I'm not trying to convince them of anything, but rather I am doing it for those others reading and also to either convince or amuse myself.

Clint started the thread because he was annoyed that people called Valenti slow/a poor kick and he wanted to put forth his view to the contrary. However he tried to do it amongst other opinions so that he wouldn't have those opinions challenged.

The fact that he is getting annoyed that someone has called him out on the "no forward structure myth" shows his intentions in creating the thread. I found it to be hypocritical.

No need to convince me. I found the hypocrisy at the same level you found it to be.

Clint started the thread because he was annoyed that people called Valenti slow/a poor kick and he wanted to put forth his view to the contrary. However he tried to do it amongst other opinions so that he wouldn't have those opinions challenged.

The fact that he is getting annoyed that someone has called him out on the "no forward structure myth" shows his intentions in creating the thread. I found it to be hypocritical.

And rpfc, what I was referring to as rubbish and what you have interpreted it to be are two very different things. Almost polar opposites.

Ralphius, some people will use logic and reasoning in their arguments and others will be unable/unwilling to. The only person who can judge this is the you, the reader. In the end you will find our who those are whose opinions you rate highly because they put in enough rational thought to validate their own arguments and are open minded enough to accept an opposing point of view that they judge to be based on stronger evidence. By the same token, you will find other posters whose opinions you don't rate and will question them very heavily because you know that they are not based on fact or perhaps they have an ulterior motive for their views. For example, I do not rate Freak's opinion because he makes rash judgements that are designed purely for his own (misguided) aggrandizement - I will question every statement of his. But I know that grazman puts a lot of very good thought into his opinions first and so I'm interested to know what he thinks. Others may not rate it that way, but will agree more with the emotional responses some posters provide because it's more closely aligned to their own way of thinking.

Each to their own. I know that neither Clint nor rpfc will care what I think. However I'm not trying to convince them of anything, but rather I am doing it for those others reading and also to either convince or amuse myself.

First of all most people on this thread have taken the whole thing way too seriously. Forumulated Opinion is a play on words, a bit of a joke and stems back to the "Ryan O'Keefe type player" who "bleeds red and blue" that was once blurted out in every second post. Unfortunately the subtlety has gone over the head of many such as HT and you Bob.

The Valenti debate did inspire the thread as I am sick of the same lines of "Valenti is really slow" and "Valenti is a bad kick" being blurted out, without much substance to them as if the poster has just looked at what others have written and copied it because it has now somehow become fact. He isn't quick, and he isn't the best kick in the team, but some have made him out to be Godfrey II. Nasher's Brad Green example is a perfect case of this.

I wasn't getting annoyed at all by the "no forward line structure" comment, but merely pointing out that it wasn't a Forumulated Opinion, mainly because others don't agree with it and thus don't repeat it.

- 'Melbourne needs a power forward to be competitive' line is a popular one.

- 'MFC's list is not big enough for Jones, Brock AND Moloney'

- MFC needs some 'star' players

-Melbourne needs a power forward to be a 3/4 year 'premiership contender', not to be just 'competitive'. We can be competitive without one.

-The list 'is' big enough for Jones, Brock and Moloney, but what about our best 22? That's my query 2 years down the track from now...

-We do need some star players.

I actually think a number of them have some merit, but I agree that there are a few miss-truths that get bandied about as irrefutable fact.

Like 'Dean Bailey has no gameplan'

'Brock McLean can't kick' (he can kick, and we'll see that with a full pre-season)

'Winning premierships is essentially about constructing the best midfield - and this will compensate for deficiencies in other areas'.

Edited August 18, 200916 yr by Scully The Tank Engine

Each to their own. I know that neither Clint nor rpfc will care what I think. However I'm not trying to convince them of anything, but rather I am doing it for those others reading and also to either convince or amuse myself.

The fact that I am apart of this board illustrates that I do care, otherwise I wouldn't be espousing my views in an attempt to persuade and inform.

If I misinterpreted I apologise.

I don't bully people. If someone says something I have a problem with, I disagree and dismantle their argument, not their intelligence.

That was the point I was trying to make - there are posters, and moderators, that don't care about persuasion and informing others, they just want them to know they are stupid and wrong for not going along with what they say.

I realise it is a slight tangent from CB's selfish (And remember 'motives are rarely unselfish') thread but it is how these 'facts' start with someone throwing up 'truths' without arguing why it is truth.

Need a semantics forum.

The previous board didn't care about the club.

Nice one. Some others from the past (some can be argued they didn't have a flow on effect as CB suggests ie. otherwise considered as nonsense by many):

The previous board weren't as respectful to women.

The current board have not been proactive enough in terms of obtaining sponsorship.

The Casey move will be a disaster.

Bell will be a good tough uncompromising midfielder.

Valenti is NOT slow.

Don't worry about it rpfc, I was far too ambiguous with my reply about 'rubbish in this thread'.

I also agree that there is a lot of 'Groupthink' on internet forums. There is a lot in real life as well, which is far more dangerous. It's also why you should not be afraid to argue against the majority point of view or even against your own beliefs. Not only does it help you achieve a better understanding of the issue, but it's fun too!

Don't worry about it rpfc, I was far too ambiguous with my reply about 'rubbish in this thread'.

I also agree that there is a lot of 'Groupthink' on internet forums. There is a lot in real life as well, which is far more dangerous. It's also why you should not be afraid to argue against the majority point of view or even against your own beliefs. Not only does it help you achieve a better understanding of the issue, but it's fun too!

Change 'a lot' to 'almost 100%' and it would be a fairer assesment.

Our society is pretty much based around marketing and advertising which preys on this characteristic of human nature. Almost everything we say and do has been predetermined from going shopping to buy the milk and veggies from the local Coles to going to the footy on the weekend.

Another one:

- Valenti will by a Sam Mitchell type player

Change 'a lot' to 'almost 100%' and it would be a fairer assesment.

Our society is pretty much based around marketing and advertising which preys on this characteristic of human nature. Almost everything we say and do has been predetermined from going shopping to buy the milk and veggies from the local Coles to going to the footy on the weekend.

Derren Brown.

That after every loss our team is the worst ever seen and the coach should go and after every win, we'll probably beat Carlton and St Kilda.

Derren Brown.

Absolutely, I was thinking of one of his episodes when I created that last post. The one where he manipulated the advertising execs into coming up with the marketing idea he wanted them produce.

Great show, loved the trick/treat series as well, especially the bloddy card he uses. Cheeky bugger

That Mclean has been poor this year.

Another one:

- Valenti will by a Sam Mitchell type player

That point bought up by mo64 in Dec '08 never flowed on, in fact it was rubbished by pretty much everyone on that thread. It may have been a forumulated opinion, but it was certainly hit on the head pretty quick smart.

Edited August 18, 200916 yr by High Tower

No need to convince me. I found the hypocrisy at the same level you found it to be.

What, cause One of the Thousand of formulated snide utterances may have a pinch of truth to it..

Gee- id hate to be the [censored] who missed the point of this thread..

BTW- Did anyone else expect to come back to this thread, with only 1 or 2 posts remaining, the rest of the replies containing the message.. "this article has been edited for 'self - important' reasons"

Edited August 18, 200916 yr by DemonDan...

That point bought up by mo64 in Dec '08 never flowed on, in fact it was rubbished by pretty much everyone on that thread. It may have been a forumulated opinion, but it was certainly hit on the head pretty quick smart.

I've seen it a lot and it was even mentioned in the "Valenti takes his chance" article.

That point bought up by mo64 in Dec '08 never flowed on, in fact it was rubbished by pretty much everyone on that thread. It may have been a forumulated opinion, but it was certainly hit on the head pretty quick smart.

What happened to mo64 anyway? He seems to have disappeared in to thin air.

- This year's draft is shallow.

Like a broken record and the only "formulated opinion" that's bugging me. When your bottom of the ladder and it's the only good thing your club can take out of the year, why be so pessimistic about it?