Just read Wallsy's frank assessment of our team in the Age - Time for Dees' date night

Has Sylvia as finished. What did other posters think of his ratings. Interesting that big Max Gawn didn't even rate a mention. Your thoughts please.

If I thought Walls wasn't a moron I might even read it.

not the most thorough appraisal

Wouldn't be high on my to-do list.

Out of curiosity, he thought Sylvia was finished with the club or finished as a player?

with the club

not the most thorough appraisal

A non-playing teenager is our most important player, according to Robert Walls.

Surely he has forgotten the potent contribution of [pick 11, 2015 draft].

This is a standard Walls formula article - make a sweeping generalisation based mostly on either the bleeding obvious or the current media smoke, then make a list of players you can come up with two sentences each about. After about fifteen minutes' work, send to editorial staff to have pictures added of players mentioned, for colour. Watch as pub debate is stimulated by arguments over the obvious deficiencies in the article. Collect a paycheck and a byline on a sports page spread. Be rich, trim beard, take a nap.

I dunno what he was like as a coach, but as a journalist he is just plain lazy.

I cannot abide in his views purely on his assertion that we should ditch both Davey and Sylvia. Obviously he hasn't watched much of Melbourne this year when he suggests that Davey was finished years ago.

He makes some interesting points but like many of those commentating on Melbourne at the moment, I suspect there's not much original thought and he's basing what passes for his analysis (like many in the media) partly on what he's heard from others.

I wonder if he's seen Jesse Hogan. While I agree he's important for the club's future I think there are many others who remain priorities for the club above and beyond an 18 year old who hasn't played a game yet. Despite our pathetic form and miserable ladder placing, it's important we get more development out of the players who will be stayers for the club in the long run and overlooking Max Gawn and a few other of our younger players suggests he really doesn't know as much about us as he should.

And what does one make of his statement that James Strauss is a "must play" for the rest of the season because "it's time to find out if he has a future"? Well, he had an opportunity to do that a few weeks ago and was dropped. Since then I don't recall him appearing in the best players at Casey so no offence to James, but that's where he has to demonstrate his worthiness first because if he can't play well in a lower grade with a team that's winning then perhaps he doesn't have a future and if he's upgraded at the expense of others, what does it say about our "culture" or Walls' capacity to deliver more than mere platitudes about the game?

Perhaps a little more research and some deeper thought might have been in order.

I haven't been reading any articles on Melbourne lately but clicked on this one because of this thread. It was ok, just ok. However, the level of analysis was on par to what I'd expect from this place, not an alleged top line football media personality. It's almost as if when the papers have a spare spot they roll out an MFC article which is nothing new, just regurgitated opinions.

He makes some interesting points but like many of those commentating on Melbourne at the moment, I suspect there's not much original thought and he's basing what passes for his analysis (like many in the media) partly on what he's heard from others.

I wonder if he's seen Jesse Hogan. While I agree he's important for the club's future I think there are many others who remain priorities for the club above and beyond an 18 year old who hasn't played a game yet. Despite our pathetic form and miserable ladder placing, it's important we get more development out of the players who will be stayers for the club in the long run and overlooking Max Gawn and a few other of our younger players suggests he really doesn't know as much about us as he should.

And what does one make of his statement that James Strauss is a "must play" for the rest of the season because "it's time to find out if he has a future"? Well, he had an opportunity to do that a few weeks ago and was dropped. Since then I don't recall him appearing in the best players at Casey so no offence to James, but that's where he has to demonstrate his worthiness first because if he can't play well in a lower grade with a team that's winning then perhaps he doesn't have a future and if he's upgraded at the expense of others, what does it say about our "culture" or Walls' capacity to deliver more than mere platitudes about the game?

Perhaps a little more research and some deeper thought might have been in order.

"Interesting points"? We must have read different articles. Mostly common sense, ie getting games into the younger players. Truly a terrible piece of journalism, it reads as if it were written by a 5 year old who had left his home work until the last minute. No mention of Terlich, and regurgitates points we have heard time and time again. Yawn

I dunno what he was like as a coach, but as a journalist he is just plain lazy.

An indication of that is his last paragraph - perhaps a real journalist would have bothered to find out the status of those contracts before publishing.

An indication of that is his last paragraph - perhaps a real journalist would have bothered to find out the status of those contracts before publishing.

I thought the same. Lazy much...

Apart from missing Max Gawn, Terlich is not there either, so lacks a bit of credibility, just with those two

An indication of that is his last paragraph - perhaps a real journalist would have bothered to find out the status of those contracts before publishing.

Correct

He is mailing it in and has been for years. As most suggested is a lazy writer. I'd actually love to go back over his articles over the years and see how many opinions he has stated have been correct. Don't think it would be many.

Walls is an idiot this just goes towards proving that. "Without knowing contract situations I would release these players." It's called research Walls you moron.

What a frigging joke!

One line sums up the whole article:

'Without knowing contract situations, I would release these players...'

Thats basically admitting that you did no research (contract info is very easy to attain). He just picked up a footy record and went through and went 'he's ok', 'don't rate him' etc.

What a hack. If I was the editor of The Age I'd be pretty insulted by the lack of effort put into this.

Walls is an [censored] this just goes towards proving that. "Without knowing contract situations I would release these players." It's called research Walls you moron.

Beat me to it Gonzo!

I thought it was a pretty good overview of where we're at. We do need to get games into those that are staying and have a look at some of the borderline players to see if they stay or go.

Hogan at one, well it's not just Walls that thinks that. The club is pushing the Hogan line and many posters here are doing the same.

I also think most people here not knowing the contract situation would compile a similar list to Walls of those who should be moved on. Even if they are in contract we would like them gone and last year a few who were on contract were moved on.

He missed Terlich who I rate, didn't know anything of Taggert no mention of Gawn but that's our thing we live and breathe the club he has 18 clubs to keep an eye on.

I'm not a big fan of Walls and I always find his defence of Dean Bailey amusing but I think a lot of you are being a bit precious here.

I thought it was a pretty good overview of where we're at. We do need to get games into those that are staying and have a look at some of the borderline players to see if they stay or go.

Hogan at one, well it's not just Walls that thinks that. The club is pushing the Hogan line and many posters here are doing the same.

I also think most people here not knowing the contract situation would compile a similar list to Walls of those who should be moved on. Even if they are in contract we would like them gone and last year a few who were on contract were moved on.

He missed Terlich who I rate, didn't know anything of Taggert no mention of Gawn but that's our thing we live and breathe the club he has 18 clubs to keep an eye on.

I'm not a big fan of Walls and I always find his defence of Dean Bailey amusing but I think a lot of you are being a bit precious here.

A good overview...really??

I cannot abide in his views purely on his assertion that we should ditch both Davey and Sylvia. Obviously he hasn't watched much of Melbourne this year when he suggests that Davey was finished years ago.

Davey was finished 3 years ago. He's finished now. Rightly, he won't be at the club next year.

His 4 year contract was just another stuff up.

Davey was finished 3 years ago. He's finished now. Rightly, he won't be at the club next year.

His 4 year contract was just another stuff up.

I don't disagree the contract for 4 years was not great for the MFC, but it's not like it caused us salary cap pain.

If his body holds up for the remainder of this year, I would be amazed if they didn't offer him a 1yr contract that is performance based.

A good overview...really??

Yeah, apart from people getting in a knot about him not knowing contract status where is he wrong?

I don't disagree the contract for 4 years was not great for the MFC, but it's not like it caused us salary cap pain.

If his body holds up for the remainder of this year, I would be amazed if they didn't offer him a 1yr contract that is performance based.

Davey may or may not get a one year deal but I wouldn't expect to see him in to many games next year, he would only be kept on for his leadership around the club. I wouldn't be amazed one way or the other.

As has been stated it's hardly in depth or compelling analysis but he's pretty much on the money.

Yeah, apart from people getting in a knot about him not knowing contract status where is he wrong?

overview o•ver•view;

n.

1. A broad, comprehensive view; a survey.

2. A summary or review.

It's just a personal opinion article that is ill researched. I can see past the contract status mishap as I can see what point he is conveying. It's a completely useless article which serves no purpose. Do I really have to explain what is wrong with it?