MELBOURNE A VICTIM OF MEDIA LYNCH MOB

[Demonland 73,161]

MELBOURNE A VICTIM OF MEDIA LYNCH MOB by

William Thomson

The tanking saga that has its hands around the throat of the Melbourne Football Club would benefit from some objective analysis - a refreshing change from the continued search for guilt.

The Demons are looking more and more like a sacrificial lamb and whatever the result, the current wait is feeding the hysteria of media outlets.

Melbourne fans were in uproar over Caroline Wilson's daily attack on the club before Christmas, and while noting most journalists are returning from holidays, she has been conspicuous by her absence since.

The media has set up tents in the camp of the more attractive guilty result and rather than provide objectivity, have instead searched for guilt even in the most unlikely places.

With the centre of focus now being on Melbourne's infamous game against Richmond in round 18 of 2009 a game in which Jordan McMahon converted after the siren to win the Herald Sun has published an excerpt of the match, complete with commentary over the questionable moments.

Such dissection is ugly at best, while the analysis and search for guilt sets dangerous precedents. How long can the AFL let this fester without an answer?

The commentary questions the moves made by former coach Dean Bailey, starting with why he brought in ruckman Jake Spencer for Cale Morton. There was no mention of Morton's 10-posession, zero tackle (the only player that week not to record a tackle), zero handball performance in a three-goal loss to Sydney the week prior.

Why was ruckman Paul Johnson playing at full back on Richmond's Nathan Brown? Melbourne fans that saw Johnson chase down then Brisbane speedster Justin Sherman in 2008 can think of reasons why and let's not forget at this dire stage of the season, it's more a case of why not. Johnson was no lumbering ruckman and ended up retiring without ever really finding a position.

Brown only kicked one goal in the quarter, which was from the boundary after he was led to the ball by Johnson only for it to bounce from its oblong point and into his hands. The video nonetheless focused on this crucial conversion.

"The questions started before the game when Melbourne left out Russell Robertson and Colin Sylvia," the video's narrator reads. In fact, Robertson was dropped the week prior after a seven possession shocker against Geelong and didn't warrant a call up, while Sylvia was serving a three-match suspension for striking Scott Selwood in a recent win over West Coast. While the video claims the Dees brought Michael Newton into the game, he played against Sydney the week earlier and took six marks and kicked two goals.

Why was James Frawley playing in defence? When you've won four games the year, most fans were screaming to try something and knew his defensive capabilities.

Brad Miller in the ruck? Hardly a strange move at 194cm and only 16 goals for the year up forward at that point. Why did he then play in the middle? No comparison in skill or talent, but Matthew Pavlich and Jonathan Brown have bursts in the centre and with the game on the line, a big body at the bounce wasn't overly foolish.

In a first, some articles have queried deliberate fumbling by players. If fumbling is a hanging defence, then most Melbourne sides since 1964 should be cast in irons. How do you measure the level of 'fumbleability' in a match? It's ludicrous.

To date, any accusations have been against the Demon hierarchy but to question players' integrity with as little proof as this is concerning as the longer this saga drags on the more convoluted it becomes.

The video continued, quickly glossing over Melbourne's fight back into the lead to eventually level the scores at the final siren, instead focussing on the rather glum looks in the coaching box that showed little enthusiasm about Ricky Petterd putting the Dees in front.

Make no mistake, Melbourne were a horrid side in 2009 (perhaps even worse in 2008 for that matter), but what precedent do you set, or worse still, what quality of evidence is the lack of emotion in a tense finish. Should coaches be forced to read a manual and stick by it, or have their every move questioned by video analysis?

To pick apart this game or any for that matter is trivial and unpleasant. To dissect a game with the intention to find foul play will only raise further questions.

If Melbourne had foul motives for these moves, it has broken the game's laws in a most significant way. But without proven motive, media assertions do nothing but spread innuendo at the expense of balance.

The AFL's decision to respectively investigate the Melbourne Football Club on the back of a Brock McLean comment no less has the potential to leave it dangerously exposed without more evidence than what the media is pouring over.

Indeed, the implications may be far reaching. If the AFL starts opening 'cold cases' then Carlton's 2007 tactics may be placed under similar review. The Blues won four games for the year, losing the last 11 to ensure they had access to Matthew Kruezer in the draft. Further still, Richmond coach Terry Wallace confirmed he did "absolutely nothing" in the latter stages of 2007. The Tigers subsequently drafted their now captain, Trent Cotchin.

"It was a no-win situation for everyone in the coach's box," Wallace said. "We decided the best way to operate was just to let the players go out.

"I didn't do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren't any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes."

Former Melbourne coach Dean Bailey now has to defend claims he brought the game into disrepute by failing to coach the Demons to their utmost throughout his second season in charge. The disproportion is there for all to see.

The AFL knows too well the priority pick system left an all too enticing carrot for cellar dwellers, and while this does not excuse any manipulation, it has brought upon just that.

Melbourne officials and Bailey are in the process of responding to the AFL's reportedly 1000-page report. Whatever the result, which will be known in a matter of weeks, it's a messy affair and one the football world should hope doesn't end up in courts or extend beyond the Melbourne Football Club.

(Originally published on BACK PAGE LEAD)

You can also follow William on wmth's blog

Our thanks to William for this great article!

[H_T 3,049]

Well written William.

[Harrisonrules 273]

Regarding the multimoves we are supposedly not meant to make. I recall my frustration and that of our mates that Bailey wouldn't try anything different. We felt he was stubborn. I recall our drive home from some game after another poor performance and listening to Gerard Healey and Spud Frawley. They were highly critical of Bailey for failing to try something different. Spud stated that he knew that chip had played forward as a junior. Surely it would have been worth trying him or one of the other back men forward. When finally he did and we go ahead we are criticised for playing players out of position. As you say, when you want to find guilt whether there or not, you will find some argument to support your intent.

[Biffen 12,947]

Good job nice read.

A likely story .

[Deebate 7]

Well written.

I recall that Johnson actually played pretty well at full back. And Spud Frawley had been calling for James to play forward for weeks prior to the move in that game. And Miller could get near the ball down forward, so why not put him where the ball is, especially (if i remember correctly) when one of our rucks was injured, etc. etc.

[Eittocs12 32]

Great work William.

You are spot on with what you have written. Paul Johnson was very fast for his size and even last season if you listen to MMM during a game Spud frawley always says he can't understand why melbourne don't push Chip forward more. The one time we try it we get called for tanking.

I'm also pretty sure that we had 2 injuries in the first half of the game as well but that is glossed over.

[wmth 69]

Thanks for the kind feedback, folks. The poor media commentary rages on, however, still laced with innuendo and shady sources. The mantle has seemingly been passed on to Mr Pierek.

Even if my explanations for the above moves are incorrect, it goes to show defenses can be manufactured in much the same way the media is finding guilt. Says a lot about what a mess this whole affair is and perhaps why objectivity in these matters is so important.

Cheers,

Will