Martin Flanagan in The Age

[praha 11,240]

I think the article is less about MFC and more about the coverage in the media.

It's quite bold to criticise the coverage of MFC, especially given that his colleagues at The Age have, at times, been the responsible journos.

I agree that the reference to Afghanistan is rather distracting. He could have used a less controversial example to provide the context that this is not life and death. There could have been a more effective way of showing that the hyperbole of certain journalists has become rather ridiculous.

Yeah, a critique of a critique.

Alternatively, he could have written WHY the club isn't as bad as his colleagues are making it out to be, without actually referring to them. Rebutting the media when he should be challenging and/or positively critiquing the club instead.

[gsmith12 491]

That was the first thing I noticed in that photo too. No empathy or respect - the kid will most likely turn into a scumbag of the highest order.

It is Essendon Ron - hereditary ?

[Webber 10,468]

Studying Journalism, this is a great case study. Especially the stuff at the beginning about over-utilising hyperbole to the point that you have nowhere to go when something really happens.

This guy is a treasure.

WAClark, he's written a number of footy books, all of which are IMO excellent. Try 'the Call' which is a lyrical dramatisation of the Tom Wills story. He also delivered the 2011 John Button oration on Tom Wills, beautifully arguing that his cultural significance to Australia is akin to that of Ned Kelly. Also his retrospective look back at the 1970 Grand Final is great reading.

[Webber 10,468]

Yeah, a critique of a critique.

Alternatively, he could have written WHY the club isn't as bad as his colleagues are making it out to be, without actually referring to them. Rebutting the media when he should be challenging and/or positively critiquing the club instead.

Except that would be a different article, with an entirely different purpose. One which he is not engaged in. You're criticising the article for what it isn't, and clearly has no desire to be.....

[autocol 448]

So you decry the journalists that rip into the club, and then decry the journalist that decries those same journalists?

Why bother reading the newspaper at all?

I have to be honest: I find the commentary to be especially condescending.

[thaipantsman 180]

I find self serving posts to be annoying in the extreme, although the two points for me from that article are two points that several of us here have been hammering home for ages:

1. cutting Junior McDonald prematurely was a major miscalculation; and

2. appointing Sheedy, rather than Bailey, in 2007 would've been a huge shot in the arm for this club.

Both very regrettable mistakes IMO.

Good article.

my recollection was the Lyon didn't take Sheedy seriously in other words Lyon felt Sheedy was "washed up". I agree Sheedy would have helped Melbourne.

[P-man 13,366]

Just amazing that the main protagonist in that photo is some smart-alec, snotty-nosed kid taunting the team with a Bombers jumper. He's no fan, just a juvenile opposition supporter rubbing it in, and who should have been shown better manners by his parents.

Life punished him by giving him a face like a smashed pie.

[Strafford 182]

Agree on Junior, but Sheedy was shot and needed time away. Perhaps a senior coach may have been better at heading off any problems with role overlap, but Sheeds showed at the Bombers that he didn't mind indulging in "Politics" so who knows. Where he could have helped would have been spruiking the club...he is a master at it...but actually coaching...meh. The key to a figurehead coach succeeding would have actually been who we would have put around him, so too many ifs and buts for me.

The more important question for me anyway is who of the up and comers did we pass up and why. Carlton and Freo went inhouse without much of a process and the Bombers went inhouse after a process. From memory Voss was all the buzz at the time, but we still would have had a fair few to choose from. Although any new coach experienced or otherwise, after a relatively short time was going to face the prospect of not being the guy of a new CEO and Pres. Just all sorts of bad timing.

[Strafford 182]

I too believe we have a pattern of poor player management however that does not excuse complete lack of personal pride in effort and performance.

Having played at a very high level at my chosen sport (not footy ) the one thing a professional sportsman should never bring is a lack of effort as it reflects poorly on no one else but themselves. Personal pride is a non negotiable and if our players can't play well for no other reason than their own pride and satisfaction they should reconsider their current chosen career.

We are very quick to look at every other problem at the club but seem to cut the playing group way to much slack, the greatest coaching staff and administration could do no more with our current group who still carry mental baggage from previous administrations like a badge of honor, absolving them of any responsibility.

Until we get over that or replace those players that can't, we are doomed to a life of ignominity, no matter who leads us going forward.

I agree our problems are mulit causal. Which is why you end up with so many heated discussions when people try to pin down how to cure our ills by citing only one or two of them. In effect both both sides are actually right, but just don't go that extra step to recognise that fact. Which is why they had to be so careful in handling the aftermath of 186, but in my view stuffed it. To me a number of people probably shared the blame so any impression that any one person or faction won was always going to end in more tears.