An interesting listen on Wallace's take on Melbourne list, Mark Neeld and David Kings comments...

http://m.soundcloud.com/edbowman-1/terry-wallace-on-melbourne-fc?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=twitter&utm_content=http://soundcloud.com/edbowman-1/terry-wallace-on-melbourne-fc

And for those of us not using our mobile:

http://soundcloud.com/edbowman-1/terry-wallace-on-melbourne-fc

very interesting. He's spot about about Bailey's game plan. And the comparisons to Essendon.

He was wrong about Blease. Blease was 2nd rounder.

He says we're not "babies" in terms of list.

Well, take Green, Jamar, Davey out of that list.... and replace them with say a tapscott, gawn and strauss...we suddenly are pretty close to being "babies".

But he didn't really talk about our club. Basically analysed ages and analysed where players were picked.

He says 5 out of 15 first rounders have "made" it.

Well firstly its 5 out of 14.

But of the 9 that they didn't count. Trengove, Gysberts, Watts, Grimes are apart of that 9. So I see that as 9 out of 14. The 5 he didn't count then would be Bate, Sylvia, Dunn, Sellar, Cook.

Cook still too early to tell IMO. Sellar...picked off a scrap heap. Bate, Sylvia, Dunn. Spot on.

So while they were trying to give the illusion that we're not doing great with our talent/development, I agree partly, but I disagree as well. By round 12 next year, if we aren't at 4 wins 8 losses or better... Then I'll be asking for answers from the Board about Neeld.

And for those of us not using our mobile:

http://soundcloud.com/edbowman-1/terry-wallace-on-melbourne-fc

Thanks for that.

very interesting. He's spot about about Bailey's game plan. And the comparisons to Essendon.

He was wrong about Blease. Blease was 2nd rounder.

He says we're not "babies" in terms of list.

Well, take Green, Jamar, Davey out of that list.... and replace them with say a tapscott, gawn and strauss...we suddenly are pretty close to being "babies".

But he didn't really talk about our club. Basically analysed ages and analysed where players were picked.

He says 5 out of 15 first rounders have "made" it.

Well firstly its 5 out of 14.

But of the 9 that they didn't count. Trengove, Gysberts, Watts, Grimes are apart of that 9. So I see that as 9 out of 14. The 5 he didn't count then would be Bate, Sylvia, Dunn, Sellar, Cook.

Cook still too early to tell IMO. Sellar...picked off a scrap heap. Bate, Sylvia, Dunn. Spot on.

So while they were trying to give the illusion that we're not doing great with our talent/development, I agree partly, but I disagree as well. By round 12 next year, if we aren't at 4 wins 8 losses or better... Then I'll be asking for answers from the Board about Neeld.

Not sure if I'm reading this correctly but you can't say Sylvia hasn't made it and then say Gysberts has. He might have turned up when he wanted for the last few years but he's still played more good games than the Gys has in total.

It has gotten to the stage where I reflexively ignore anyone who mentions our 2011 win-loss record as a positive when compared to 2012 - David King, for instance: "they had some great wins last year" - but at least Wallace had the smarts to acknowledge that our 2011 wins need to be discounted against our losses.

It has gotten to the stage where I reflexively ignore anyone who mentions our 2011 win-loss record as a positive when compared to 2012 - David King, for instance: "they had some great wins last year" - but at least Wallace had the smarts to acknowledge that our 2011 wins need to be discounted against our losses.

He also recognised that if we had have gone along the same path that whilst we may have picked up a couple of wins we were likely to go backwards this year under Bailey.

Bit of a stretch to suggest that a first-round draft pick who didn't work out and was picked up with a third-round draft pick is still equivalent to a first-round draft pick.

Bring back Luke Molan, Nick Smith and Daniel Bell and we should be coasting.

It has gotten to the stage where I reflexively ignore anyone who mentions our 2011 win-loss record as a positive when compared to 2012 - David King, for instance: "they had some great wins last year" - but at least Wallace had the smarts to acknowledge that our 2011 wins need to be discounted against our losses.

Yes; Daniel Harford on SEN recognised that our wins were not really putting us on the right path to success. It wasn't the right kind of footy to take us to finals success, was his take.

He also recognised that if we had have gone along the same path that whilst we may have picked up a couple of wins we were likely to go backwards this year under Bailey.

Yes; Daniel Harford on SEN recognised that our wins were not really putting us on the right path to success. It wasn't the right kind of footy to take us to finals success, was his take.

Now, if only we can get Obvious Robert to give up his sacked coaches crusade and concede that Melbourne's wins in 2011 were classic flat track bully material and that our losses were a stark indication that we got smashed in every big game and would continue to do so.

yawn!!!!!!! more hot air by somebody who gets paid for generating it....maybe he will discuss his massive success at Richmond next

Edited May 25, 201213 yr by H_T
Size too big for forum.