Melbourne biggest issue (from an outsider)

[daisycutter 28,455]

Wouldn't find one in Borewood.

used to bbo

not anymore

you have any suggestions? be a waste asking biffo.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

methinks time for a massive sacrifice

anyone know any virgins?

Chokes brother

[daisycutter 28,455]

Chokes brother

certainly fits the first criteria as deserving of

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Chokes brother

Hahahahahahaha.

Gonna tell him to read the thread again...

[Bitter but optimistic 21,165]

used to bbo

not anymore

you have any suggestions? be a waste asking biffo.

Biff guarantees that the girls from the Gat "once were virgins".

[Dr. Gonzo 22,399]

North supporters handling out "you know why your clubs slop?" football analysis now as well are they? Excellent.

Always nice to hear from the Kings of Mid-Table Mediocrity. Lets hope they don't get pants week one of the finals and supporters clap them off, eh?

Haha too true North and Tigers supporters on BF are the worst at this I constantly have to remind them they've done 3/10th's of stuff all themselves. It's also fun pointing out to the Tigers supporters we actually beat them this year which has cost them a finals spot.

Re: the OP I don't think it can be dismissed as easily as some are trying to. He's obviously not talking about the fanatical 10% or so of supporters but rather the rest who were described in praha's post and who I've seen at the footy enough as well. There's probably a variety of reasons for this but I definitely think the supporters/members have "some" influence on the culture of the club though it's obviously not the supporters who chose Cook over Darling or Gysberts over Talia.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Haha too true North and Tigers supporters on BF are the worst at this I constantly have to remind them they've done 3/10th's of stuff all themselves. It's also fun pointing out to the Tigers supporters we actually beat them this year which has cost them a finals spot.

Re: the OP I don't think it can be dismissed as easily as some are trying to. He's obviously not talking about the fanatical 10% or so of supporters but rather the rest who were described in praha's post and who I've seen at the footy enough as well. There's probably a variety of reasons for this but I definitely think the supporters/members have "some" influence on the culture of the club though it's obviously not the supporters who chose Cook over Darling or Gysberts over Talia.

Correct.

I thought my brother's observation merited a discussion.

However I'm more than happy to sit here and watch everyone call him names.

TBH, it's turned out to be a more entertaining thread than I though it'd be.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,399]

I think most supporters are just numb how many times can you keep getting angry every week; if it got to that point you'd probably just stop going or youd have a stroke. Personally I wasn't even getting angry at the Giants game I just thought here we go and laughed at how [censored] we are. I dont cheer opposition goals though that's just pure masochism but I can understand apathy and I'm only 32 I can't imagine what those who are 50 or 60 and seen the previous 23 year finals drought would feel.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Dr. Gonzo

[Macca 16,173]

Yes but as usual they had skill when they did it, notice that word Macca.

Not like the ham fisted amateur effort put by us and the Blues

Again, it amounts to the same thing old dee.

Tanking is tanking whether a club picks good players or not (on the back of tanking "successfully")

I think you are being too dismissive on the first point and you didn't acknowledge the second.

Again I would say that there is quite a difference in the attitude taken by the Hawks/Magpies and us and Carlton (if what you say is true).

I can remember the day Jordan McMahon kicked that goal to sink us and thinking to myself that I was disappointed that we lost but at least there is a silver lining at the end of all this. I also thought that all this 'development' would be worth it in the end. Little did I know that some people were acting as though we had won the flag all ready and were actively rejoicing in our failure.

I would hope that is the attitude most supporters would have.

I'm not being dismissive at all, Colin. I'll explain my stance further ...

Tanking has been going on since the 90's and (partly) as a result of all that tanking, no fewer than 9 priority picks were handed out in 2003, 2004 & 2005. Then the AFL changed the rules - funny about that.

Just on that "infamous" round 18 clash of 2009 ... the Tigers were also tanking that day. There was only one set of supporters who were generally unhappy that day - Richmond fans. They'd missed out themselves and we'd become the "possible" recipients. Tiger fans in particular have pointed the finger at us ever since. Like us, they wanted Scully.

The whole spectre of tanking mysteriously disappears if teams prosper from tanking (i.e pick good players with the picks "generated") However, tanking can always lurk beneath the surface if a team doesn't prosper from tanking - we found that out the hard way.

If we'd picked say, Sidebottom, Fyfe and Martin instead of Watts, Scully and Trengove then I'm tipping that the whole sequence of events surrounding our club would have been completely different. The investigation might not have happened because we could have prospered from tanking.

I've had open dialogue with friends and acquaintances about tanking for more than 10 years. Maybe 15 years. Most, if not all, have admitted that their teams have tanked on various occasions. It's happened about 30 times since the mid to late '90's in my opinion. Of course, I can't prove that but it's hard to disprove also.

Carlton tanked to get Murphy, Walker, Kennedy, Gibbs, Judd & Kreuzer. Ask any Blues fan who wants to be truthful - for verification.

We shouldn't beat ourselves up over tanking. It was a widespread practice carried out by about a dozen teams on numerous occasions.

We didn't prosper from tanking and then ... the perfect storm started brewing.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

I watched the GWS with my brother, a north supporter, last week.

At one point we saw a Melbourne player in the back line kick the ball directly to Hoskin-Elliot, who just turned around and kicked an easy goal.

He said "right there is your biggest problem."

I said "what, turnovers?"

He said "no, your supporters' REACTION to turnovers and lack of understanding of how bad you are."

He then rewound the footage and paused just after the footy went through the sticks. There were a few MFC supports sitting there applauding.

He went on to say that any supporter can and probably should applaud an opposition goal when it shows guts or skill etc. However when it's an easy goal as a result of a direct turnover, fans shouldn't be sitting there saying "well done". They should be outraged. They should be baying for blood. There was no skill in what Hoskin-Elliot did. That was an own goal.

The implication was that the lack of passion from fans, combined with misunderstandings and tolerance of our glaring flaws means that we don't hold the players accountable.

I thought the fans at the end of that game telling the players exactly what we thought of him undermined this point, but that image of those MFC people applauding that goal has stuck with me.

Maybe there's some truth to what he's saying and I don't want to admit it.

Are we just weak supporters?

I think you'll find that a fair number of the people at the game started applauding the idiotic mistakes Melbourne were making basically as mockery. I was there and in general my response was laughter. They really were just so bad that it just seemed pointless to boo them. It wasn't football, it was a slapstick routine.

[P-man 13,154]

Correct.

I thought my brother's observation merited a discussion.

However I'm more than happy to sit here and watch everyone call him names.

TBH, it's turned out to be a more entertaining thread than I though it'd be.

If he honestly believes that Melbourne supporters are too stupid to understand that a turnover is a bad thing, then frankly your brother can't be the shiniest penny himself. There is nothing more inane than making generalisations about entire supporter bases and their level of knowledge.

But thanks for sharing his view, however useless it was. Please tell him Lindsay Thomas is a cheating ittle [censored] and North supporters are accountable by not booing him whenever he takes a dive. Or maybe they just don't understand that diving is a blight on the game. Because they are less knowledgeable on such matters.

[spirit of norm smith 12,836]

Insipid and Irrelevant right now

Supporters are actually Resilient and Angry right now.

8 years without finals. 8 years of being whipping boys

Tanking, Jimmys passing and Clark & Jurrah no more.

End the suffering. Line in the sand. Stand for something.

[Trisul 636]

Unfortunately he's a lot bigger than me.

Stopped trying to take him on when he threw me through a wall about 10 years back.

Just quietly Choke, I think your brother is trying to remind you that he really isn't that fond of you.

And you support Melbourne.

[Macca 16,173]

But were they actively cheering for the opposition? There's a difference between being pragmatic and accepting what supposedly must be and taking active joy in your side losing which those blokes seemed to be doing after that Richmond loss.

I will also challenge the assertion that Hawthorn tanked in 2004. I have said it multiple times on this forum but keep in mind that Peter Schwab predicted his team would win the flag that year. If they were tanking, Schwab didn't get the memo. They started the year full of hope and ended it playing the kids.

Just on the Hawks, Tigers and Dogs of '04

Tigers were 4/4 after 8 rounds and then proceeded to lose their last 14 games - Deledio (priority pick)

The Doggies won only 1 of their last 10 games to finish on 5 wins - Cooney (priority pick)

The Hawks only won 2 of their last 14 games (those wins were coincidentally against the Tigers & Dogs) Hawthorn finished on 4 wins and picked up Roughy & Buddy.

It looked sus at the time and it still looks sus, 10 years later - and that's just one year.

Of course, all 3 teams might have just been poor teams and it's all just a coincidence that all 3 "lucked out" and received priority picks.

If that's the case, are we then allowed to say the same about our team of '09?

2004 AFL season

[Grint 30]

I didn't see the applause after the goal but I was a bit horrified to see a few people clapping as they walked off the ground - and I've seen crap like that for years from Melbourne supporters... In particular the older ones who went through 64 to 87 without seeing finals. I think your brother is a bit off the mark as for it being our fault for accepting this crap though.

I don't buy my membership to see us finish last I but because I want to help the club survive and win a flag. I I'll always buy one regardless if we are the reigning premiers or the reigning wooden spooners - but that doesn't mean I accept the way we are playing. There is only so much a member can do though. I can't influence decisions made by the CEO in regards to sponsorship deals for example and I can't arrange a meeting with Paul Roos and offer my suggestions re list management (my god could you imagine some of the duds who would still be on our list if members could do that - I still shudder thinking how moist some people got for bloody Matthew Newton on this and certain other forums). All I can do is vote on the board every so often and support the team no matter what. If people want to applaud horrible bits of of play or opposition goals then that's their prerogative but I really doubt the players coaches CEO and board members sit there see that and think "sweet - we did enough". They are in this game for the same reason we are... Premierships.

Just on the side topic that has appears as a result of a North supporter making the initial observation - although not his year Melbourne usually has more members than North and also a higher home crowd average than North - despite everything in the Kangas favour during the past 20 years (premierships, marketable players, regular finals). When the dees are winning our average home crowd is around 41000 - I don't have any official stat to offer here but I do remember a few years ago working out our average during the early 2000's when we did play in finals regularly. Melbourne also has the highest supporter to member ratio in the league too. Over 1,000,000 claim to support the pies and the swans around the country and just over 100,000 for the dees (stats admittedly from the late 1990s)... Add to this the fact that there are a fair chunk of those supporters who have no need to buy a membership and therefore don't (MCC members) and despite all the ills of the last 8 seasons we do have something to be proud of. I know I am!

Edited August 25, 2014 by Grint

[Coq au vin 754]

Solution?

Dump

Extremely

Lazy

Individuals

Sans

Talent

[Chook 14,389]

Solution?

Dump

Extremely

Lazy

Individuals

Sans

Talent

I see what you did there. I'd also like to see us:

Deliver

Revitalizing

Answers

For

Troubles

Edited August 25, 2014 by Chook

[Redleg 37,474]

I see what you did there. I'd also like to see us:

Deliver

Revitalizing

Answers

For

Troubles

Or

Try

Regaining

A

Decent

Engine

[Coq au vin 754]

Draft has not been a success lately.

[Macca 16,173]

I didn't see the applause after the goal but I was a bit horrified to see a few people clapping as they walked off the ground - and I've seen crap like that for years from Melbourne supporters... In particular the older ones who went through 64 to 87 without seeing finals. I think your brother is a bit off the mark as for it being our fault for accepting this crap though.

I don't buy my membership to see us finish last I but because I want to help the club survive and win a flag. I I'll always buy one regardless if we are the reigning premiers or the reigning wooden spooners - but that doesn't mean I accept the way we are playing. There is only so much a member can do though. I can't influence decisions made by the CEO in regards to sponsorship deals for example and I can't arrange a meeting with Paul Roos and offer my suggestions re list management (my god could you imagine some of the duds who would still be on our list if members could do that - I still shudder thinking how moist some people got for bloody Matthew Newton on this and certain other forums). All I can do is vote on the board every so often and support the team no matter what. If people want to applaud horrible bits of of play or opposition goals then that's their prerogative but I really doubt the players coaches CEO and board members sit there see that and think "sweet - we did enough". They are in this game for the same reason we are... Premierships.

Just on the side topic that has appears as a result of a North supporter making the initial observation - although not his year Melbourne usually has more members than North and also a higher home crowd average than North - despite everything in the Kangas favour during the past 20 years (premierships, marketable players, regular finals). When the dees are winning our average home crowd is around 41000 - I don't have any official stat to offer here but I do remember a few years ago working out our average during the early 2000's when we did play in finals regularly. Melbourne also has the highest supporter to member ratio in the league too. Over 1,000,000 claim to support the pies and the swans around the country and just over 100,000 for the dees (stats admittedly from the late 1990s)... Add to this the fact that there are a fair chunk of those supporters who have no need to buy a membership and therefore don't (MCC members) and despite all the ills of the last 8 seasons we do have something to be proud of. I know I am!

You make some good points 'Grint' ...

How on earth any blame can be apportioned to our supporters and members because our team under performs is astonishing. The truth is that we have very little influence on proceedings and that won't be changing in a hurry. All clubs might get a bit of feedback from time to time (from the members) but that's about it.

So, what do we make of the Tigers? Best described as a bit of a ferrel lot and how's that working out for them? They've played a handful of finals games in 32 years. All that hollering and shouting has got their supporters and their team nowhere. They're odds on to finish 9th again this year. How sweet is that?

[Coq au vin 754]

Pull

Absolute

Yobbo

Big

Inside

Guns

[Dr. Gonzo 22,399]

Again, it amounts to the same thing old dee.

Tanking is tanking whether a club picks good players or not (on the back of tanking "successfully")

I'm not being dismissive at all, Colin. I'll explain my stance further ...

Tanking has been going on since the 90's and (partly) as a result of all that tanking, no fewer than 9 priority picks were handed out in 2003, 2004 & 2005. Then the AFL changed the rules - funny about that.

Just on that "infamous" round 18 clash of 2009 ... the Tigers were also tanking that day. There was only one set of supporters who were generally unhappy that day - Richmond fans. They'd missed out themselves and we'd become the "possible" recipients. Tiger fans in particular have pointed the finger at us ever since. Like us, they wanted Scully.

The whole spectre of tanking mysteriously disappears if teams prosper from tanking (i.e pick good players with the picks "generated") However, tanking can always lurk beneath the surface if a team doesn't prosper from tanking - we found that out the hard way.

If we'd picked say, Sidebottom, Fyfe and Martin instead of Watts, Scully and Trengove then I'm tipping that the whole sequence of events surrounding our club would have been completely different. The investigation might not have happened because we could have prospered from tanking.

I've had open dialogue with friends and acquaintances about tanking for more than 10 years. Maybe 15 years. Most, if not all, have admitted that their teams have tanked on various occasions. It's happened about 30 times since the mid to late '90's in my opinion. Of course, I can't prove that but it's hard to disprove also.

Carlton tanked to get Murphy, Walker, Kennedy, Gibbs, Judd & Kreuzer. Ask any Blues fan who wants to be truthful - for verification.

We shouldn't beat ourselves up over tanking. It was a widespread practice carried out by about a dozen teams on numerous occasions.

We didn't prosper from tanking and then ... the perfect storm started brewing.

I don't really get what the big deal is about "tanking" it happens in the NBA and NFL and their media don't seem to give a stuff - or do they just sweep it under the carpet? I don't know I haven't followed those sports for long enough but a couple of years back in the NFL they had the "Suck for Luck" (no. 1 pick quarterback Andrew Luck) which the Colts "won" after Peyton Manning went down with season ending neck surgery. Sure they would have sucked anyway but the point is it's generally accepted over there that teams will "list-manage" for the future if they're out of contention. Of course it has more of an effect in the NBA or NFL where 1 player can make a huge difference especially if its a QB, you probably don't see that as much here where 1 player probably won't make a difference, especially in his first year.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I watched the GWS with my brother, a north supporter, last week.

At one point we saw a Melbourne player in the back line kick the ball directly to Hoskin-Elliot, who just turned around and kicked an easy goal.

He said "right there is your biggest problem."

I said "what, turnovers?"

He said "no, your supporters' REACTION to turnovers and lack of understanding of how bad you are."

He then rewound the footage and paused just after the footy went through the sticks. There were a few MFC supports sitting there applauding.

He went on to say that any supporter can and probably should applaud an opposition goal when it shows guts or skill etc. However when it's an easy goal as a result of a direct turnover, fans shouldn't be sitting there saying "well done". They should be outraged. They should be baying for blood. There was no skill in what Hoskin-Elliot did. That was an own goal.

The implication was that the lack of passion from fans, combined with misunderstandings and tolerance of our glaring flaws means that we don't hold the players accountable.

I thought the fans at the end of that game telling the players exactly what we thought of him undermined this point, but that image of those MFC people applauding that goal has stuck with me.

Maybe there's some truth to what he's saying and I don't want to admit it.

Are we just weak supporters?

I can say with absolute certainty that this is not the problem with the club.

In fact, if only it was.

[Macca 16,173]

I don't really get what the big deal is about "tanking" it happens in the NBA and NFL and their media don't seem to give a stuff - or do they just sweep it under the carpet? I don't know I haven't followed those sports for long enough but a couple of years back in the NFL they had the "Suck for Luck" (no. 1 pick quarterback Andrew Luck) which the Colts "won" after Peyton Manning went down with season ending neck surgery. Sure they would have sucked anyway but the point is it's generally accepted over there that teams will "list-manage" for the future if they're out of contention. Of course it has more of an effect in the NBA or NFL where 1 player can make a huge difference especially if its a QB, you probably don't see that as much here where 1 player probably won't make a difference, especially in his first year.

They don't seem to bat an eyelid in the States ... the Spurs were fined 250k a couple of years ago for "resting" a few of their starters against Miami but that had more to do with resting up a few before the playoffs. It could be argued that the Texans and Falcons tanked last year in the NFL. The Sixers in the NBA - you betcha.

As you intimated, tanking happens frequently over there and no one seems to mind. I maintain that tanking can be raised if a team doesn't benefit from tanking. It starts off as a team "wasting" their picks and just escalates from there.

If you drew a timeline through our club, there was a sequence of events that led to the investigation. "Possible" tanking ... poor picks ... team didn't improve ... sackings ... loose lips and before you know it, an investigation starts (led by an ambitious Anderson)

[Dr. Gonzo 22,399]

They don't seem to bat an eyelid in the States ... the Spurs were fined 250k a couple of years ago for "resting" a few of their starters against Miami but that had more to do with resting up a few before the playoffs. It could be argued that the Texans and Falcons tanked last year in the NFL. The Sixers in the NBA - you betcha.

As you intimated, tanking happens frequently over there and no one seems to mind. I maintain that tanking can be raised if a team doesn't benefit from tanking. It starts off as a team "wasting" their picks and just escalates from there.

If you drew a timeline through our club, there was a sequence of events that led to the investigation. "Possible" tanking ... poor picks ... team didn't improve ... sackings ... loose lips and before you know it, an investigation starts (led by an ambitious Anderson)

Maybe because betting is illegal over there (except Vegas)? It is pretty strange the moral outrage you get here, especially when many teams have done the exact same thing. Collingwood, Freo and WCE were doing it at the turn of the century (Coll 99, Freo 98?, WCE 2001) there was discussion around it for 2 or 3 years when Carlton were racking up picks ending in the Kreuzer Cup - I maintain it's not how "good" or "bad" necessarily but how many friends you have in the media and in the halls of the AFL Exec/Commission (*cough* Fitzpatrick *cough*) which determines the spotlight. Carlton has already been done for salary cap and that set them back 10 years they couldn't go after them for tanking as well it was costing the league money having one of their "big 4" clubs anchored to the bottom not to mention a former Premiership Captain heading up the Commission.

Where are our friends in the AFL? Until Demetriou agreed to bail us out after the Debt Demolition they couldn't have given a stuff if we died or relocated and no one in the media (even our good mate Mike Sheahan) batted an eyelid. He probably would have helped us on our way if it meant he was one of the privileged few just like he did with Fitzroy. Robbo (for all his stupidity and yobbo/bogan character) stood up to Demetriou and see what happened with him. They were threatening legal action and he had his "access" revoked until Demetriou needed him to run some feel good stories on his farewell lap before retirement.