Leaderboard

Training today at Gosch's Paddock. I got there at about 10.am and saw 1½ hours of training. About 15 -20 other spectators were scattered round ground over duration of training. Things noticed were, Jack Watts' polish with ball in hand and seems to be able to hold position against the bigger bodies a lot better i.e. in competitive drills against likes of Sellar. Jack Grimes looking good to go for start of season; he looks like has built upper body strength fair bit. Jack Viney was doing repeat 300m runs with LJ and, as they continued, Viney left LJ in his wake. Viney looks built to go now one of the most well-built 17yr olds you would see. If he plays u18 this year it would do nothing for him, he would dominate. Tom McDonald up forward in drills looked impressive but of concern to me is his delay in getting boot to ball in timely manner although once he does, he generally hits his target. However in competitive AFL matches he will have less time to spot up his targets. The lads had a short burst of goalkicking practice with Green and Watts consistently accurate. At about 10.30 the boys had some structured match practice led by Neeld which lasted for about 45 minutes with breaks every 10 minutes or so. It was heavily focused on playing the boundary line and stoppage work. Standouts here for me were Trengove (great footy brain) provides teammates with time and puts ball to their advantage. Jamar just goes about his business clearly the only true ruckman we have to operate with right now and so cannot afford him to go down at all. Nicholson gets so much of the ball by positioning himself in the right spots I just hope that his awareness improves once he has the ball as him getting it doesn’t necessarily translate to a clean clearance for his teammates. If only Morton had Nicholson’s attitude and desire but unfortunately I still see Cale as unfulfilled potential due to lack of desire to push himself. Leigh Williams was impressive in the contest clearly has a competitive streak in him and so does Mitch Clark who will be an outstanding presence on the field, Clark definitely has a bit of mongrel in him. The boys then split off again into a repeat lead drill where the 6 forwards would supply blocks for one another and repeat leads while the coaches would honour 1 of the leads this would have been very taxing on the players as it was performed at high intensity and for most part the defenders were very good in particular Jamie Bennell impressed with his ability to beat his forward opponents. While the forwards and back were involved in the repeat lead drill a midfield group was going the some centre setup work. I was surprised at how small this group was it featured Jamar and Fitzy rucking to JT, Bate, Nicho, Gysberts, Beamer and I believe Magner. Looks to be a case of you only enter the centre of the ground if you have the body to play as an inside mid. James Strauss appeared to be moving reasonably freely which was a really positive sign. Over the other side of the ground McKenzie, Spencer, Bartram and believe Tappy were doing running drills together. All in all it was an impressive session I really believe there should be massive improvement this season the coaching to me seems far more structured with the players not having much down time and learning the structures right under the nose of the coaches. Previously under Bailey I noticed him doing a lot of teaching out on the ground while players just stood in a position listening while not really being involved in a hands on degree, which is what I’m noticing is different under Neeld’s teaching all the coaches seem to have the players attention a lot more due to them being more interactive with their guidance to the players. Note I didn’t see likes of Davey, Sylvia or Jones.

To me, the main reason Jim Stynes has been great for the club is because he is an iconic, motivational, charismatic figure who has galvanised supporters, especially to eliminate debt and put the club financially back on track. It's not something just anyone, especially in a suit, could have done. That doesn't mean he's untouchable or perfect in a board and managerial sense, or that we need to lower the standing of his predecessors for any good things that occurred before he became President. Someone mentioned "group think". The worst group think is when people become so fervent, in a quasi-religious way, that they fail to see any negatives, faults or bad decisions at all. Hence my earlier comment about "is this a religion?" when someone mentioned "belief" in Jimmy. I don't want to 'believe' in anyone. I just want to see positives promoted and negatives eliminated, and the club thrive under good management, on and off the field. I also don't want to see anyone who dares to criticise Jim being rounded on and called some sort of 'disbeliever', like it's a black or white issue. There have been some monumental blunders committed, on much higher planes and in more important circles than the Melbourne football club, when a sense of over-whelming rightness (or 'righteousness') overtakes a group. There have also been a few blunders made under Jimmy's watch (many caused by his inability to keep his hand on the tiller due to his health) and we ought to be able to discuss these without the idea that to do so will sink the ship.

In the interests of assisting Melbourne supporters get over Scully I'm closing this thread. Had a gutful of the little #£}€$x&.

He probably deserves more credit than timD has given him, but he deserves less credit than you've given him. What Jim is, is a leader who has united the club on many fronts where previously it's been fractured and broken. What JIm isn't, is the second coming of Jesus. There are lots of way over the top views on both sides of the fence in this thread.

I wish there was also a forum feature to dislike a post. I find your comments particularly ungracious. I suspect you find comfort in numbers, because there's a sentiment on here from seemingly older posters along your lines. I sense a groupthink mentality from some of the forums oligarchy, although I'm not suggesting that you're representative. Stynes was able to demolish the debt because of his ability to unite the club. This club had been fractured by factions for 30 years, but under Stynes they managed to put their considerable differences aside in the best interests of the club. This is his legacy. People that previously wouldn't financially contribute suddenly did. He cobbled together a Board that was praised by the AFL, unlike many previous administrations that they'd derided. Membership and sponsorship are now at record highs and are at odds with the club's on-field performance. Your following comment particularly annoyed me: "It takes no balls to come in to a hopeless situation because no one will blame you if you fail. No-one at all. It is a free swing." You're an ingrate. An unpaid volunteer reluctantly accepts a position to save a club he loves that will require copious amounts of his time and keep him from his family yet you say it takes "no balls" ? A club that has a crippling debt and massive divisions within its ranks. A club that stands for nothing according to the AFL's chief. You even acknowledge that it was a "hopeless situation" he inherited, but still want to downplay his contribution. You say no one will blame him if he fails. You obviously don't know too many successful people, or what motivates them. The Board may have momentarily dropped the ball, which is hardly surprising when such a hands on President is suddenly staring death in the face, but I suspect they'll put their mistakes behind them and learn from what proved to be a challenging year.

Well done Demonstrative. Where have I said we should get rid of the current board?? FMD. I have been vilified here because I actually recognised he had been sick which has impaired his ability to function and pondered whether he was able to continue in the role. He has struggled over the past 12 months. The Board and Jim would surely recognised that and hopefully are more pro active than some of the thinking here. And I think your 2nd sentence completely misses the point too.

All you say may be true but if you going on hating it consumes you. My father was on the Kokoda track in 1942, for years he would not allow anything made in japan in our house not even a cheap toy . By the 80,s he had a Japanese Car, TV and numerous other items. When I pursued him on the subject he said "How long can you go on hating". Live goes on, I have had my quota of hate it was making me as bad as the people I hated". Put it all behind you guys, the MFC is more than one person.

It's funny, I thought I'd feel sick every time I saw a photo of Scully, heard his name, or read a newspaper article, but rather than vomit a little in my mouth, or contend with silent rage, I'm remarkably ambivalent about the rodent. And it feels good. Maybe I'll feel different when he's running around on the footy field, but I don't think so.

Anyone who is $till bitter about the $cully $aga (including myself) just need$ to a$k themselve$ the Que$tion...... $cully or Clark?? Although the $aga was unfortunate and practically rewened an entire season I still think we have won out of this in the end I do believe we will get the last laugh. Mitch Clark is a much better footballer than $cully and will always have a greater ability to have a huge influence on a match. We wouldn't have had room in our $alary cap to lure Clark to Melbourne if $cully was still on the list. My conclusion is yes it was devastating for all supporters and caused great grief for the best part of a year but we have certainly won out of this and we WILL get the last laugh.

I hope they decide sensibly WJ because we dont want another "rescue mission"

Not just us. Every footballer who thinks he is underpaid, under appreciated or just looking for glory will salivate at the opportunity to get a crack at this overpaid upstart. Chances are someone will get him before us. He will be a red rag to many bulls.

knowing Vlad and his cohorts the FA rules will probably have more backdoors than Windows

WYL, this whole trip to China has been blown out of proportion, mainly in regards to some posters expectations about the purpose of it. A lot on here jumped to the conclusion that as we are trying to establish a brand in China, that it should automatically equal instant revenue in terms of sponsorship. There has been a number of China-based companies mentioned as possible investors, but this is based on nothing but guesswork. I reiterate, CS HAS NOT said that we will get a major sponsor from China, not to the best of my knowledge, and I will be happy to stand corrected. The issue is for us as supporters, we hear one thing, but often don't listen to what is being said. For Schwab to say that he is hopeful that a number of relationships will come out of a visit to China, or that he has visited 6 major cities in as many days, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that we are getting a new Chinese major sponsor on board. In time, it may well, but if you got your hopes up from the outset, and are starting to question why we haven't announced it, maybe you thought wrong (this isn't directed at you WYL). The other thing that we need to brace ourselves for is that actual amount that a new major sponsor is going to invest. We may get equal to or greater than what Energy Watch paid, which a number on here automatically assume is market value, but in reality, it may not be worth that much. Again, I've said it before on this thread, just because one company believes the BoJ is worth X amount, doens't automatically mean that the FoJ is worth more. It's worth what someone will pay, and while we don't have a FoJ sponsor, that's a big fat zero. We will have someone pay to get the FoJ spot, it always happens, they may come from China, the may pay more than $1.9m a year. But I'm one of a few that is prepared for something that doesn't tick all the boxes of "what should happen".

Ok, say you start by saying that we should be forgiving of well-meaning Dees supporters and then proceed to refer to the well-meaning Dees supporters who run this site as conspiratorial draconian communists...

Is this a forum for people who support and cherish the MFC, or a star chamber run by politburo? Divergent points of view, I would have thought are exactly what a "member" based forum should be all about. Sure, you don't have to agree, but the puerile sniping by some on here leave me cold to say the least. For mine, I look forward to a harder, smarter and physically developing Melbourne list. Like I said earlier, I reckon going to the footy in 2012 will be far more enjoyable than in recent years. Bring on the footy and let's mount a coup on the Demonland cabal.

We do know that Leoncelli leaving left a hole that Jim attmepted to fill but couldn't. The board knew very little of the grievances of the FD/players which led to a naive McLardy asking a pre-pubescent Green of his thoughts, and in his role as the tail in this approaching metaphor, attempted to wag the dog. Jim should never have agreed to step in for Leoncelli, the Football Director is the conduit between the board and reality. And reality is important to realise.

But would he have stopped that mess? Because if he didn't then he would have been a part of the ills of the club. The narrative wouldn't be the same. And would the conclusion to the story be what it is today - a rather successful consultation? These are all 'unknown unkowns' as a poor excuse for a human being once said, but they do make one think... I do agree that he should be more involved in the club, considering the clout he seems to have, but maybe we are better off for his recalcitrance, as you imply - that at least he knows he isn't fit to do more.

It's the money we won't get by not having a sponsor between October and March that's a problem. We obviously don't have one and that is fine, I hope we get it done soon. But the allusions by some on here to timing of the announcement just makes me roll my eyes - Chinese New Year, the Tennis, the release of the latest Mass Effect game... And can we put this to rest - the Demon Shop will know we have a sponsor the same day that Twitter does.

From those Photos all our guys are bigger through the shoulders and considering the amount of running they have been doing this is good. Our players just look different players to what we saw last year. We expected to see good body devlopement from our younger guys but even Green looks bigger and Moloney looks in better condition not bigger, it looks to me his body shape has changed not so top heavy more balanced with his muscle mass.

Just another player, albeit one I'll dislike more than your average.

What an absolute load of nonsense. You state that it is a myth that Jim saved the club because he did not personally improve our facilities, build our list or develop Casey etc.. Yet you acknowledge that these things wouldn't have happened without him - and you agree that he inspired and united. What the hell do you expect a leader to do? Under your thesis, Churchill didn't beat Hitler because he didn't get into the bunker with a a machine gun! What has JIm done wrong? Was it his fault that, our Football Director ( Andrew Leoncelli) moved to Sydney - and that no-one else was prepared to step forward to fill the void? I am delighted that so many others have torn this critical post to threads

Your first point about sinking the boots in has been answered by others. I will pull you up on your "not the captain type" comment. Some argue that we have a leadership problem at the Club, but regardless of that, Jones was voted in to the leadership group in 2011, which I think may have helped his football. He was 23 years old when this happened - not a bad effort for a bloke who isn't a captain-type. So, as he obviously has leadership qualities, what does he now lack that would be against him in earning the captain title? As you follow him on Facebook, you must have a fair idea of how the playing group rates his leadership ability, so if you could give us more insight as to what they think, that would be great. In terms of Frawley, I mentioned his name as I was trying to find out what your thoughts were on who our captain should be. It worked as you said that you are leaning toward Trengove being captain, so I thank you for answering my question. I agree, a number of posters used to (and some still do) give Jones quite a deal of unsubstantiated comments regarding his ability, of which are probably more damming than your comments re captaincy. But, as most are pulling you up on, you're excluding him from being a natural captain because he's a surfer. Richard Branson is a surfer - does that make him not worthy of owning large companies??? Honestly, I haven't got Chunk as a leading candidate for the job. However, I would be more than satisfied with the decision if he were to be named Captain, knowing too well that he would lead by example onfield, and I would have no doubt whatsoever that offield, he would take to role on and be a bloody good skipper. He will be work in progress to some degree, probably less so than Trengove, but like on the football field, you wouldn't be able to knock his endeavour and commitment to the role.

I understand that some of us don't like the reverence in which Garry and Jim are held but everyone needs their heroes. If nothing else - we were in a great deal of trouble and needed a leader to get those to the club (Foundation Heroes, members, board members, personnel, etc) who, collectively, could save the club. Jim did that and he is revered because of it.

Wow. WHat a breathtakingly stupid post, What were you doing in economy you cheapskate....

There are only a couple of people expressing the view that you have outlined and ironically through this comment you have been sucked in to the negativity.

The season's over. Bring on 2013!

Jim may well have not done all of the things you've listed above, in fact it's almost ludicrous to suggest that he would even be responsible for facilitating those outcomes. I feel that the point you're missing is that it has been Jim that's been the key ingredient. It sounds like you're suggesting that any candidate could have pulled this off. To bang on about what he has not done, is plain poor form and an effort to stand apart from the general supporter consensus. I hope you re-consider your opinion.

Dude you obviously and literally have no idea. The 'pro-Darling camp' as you put it sound like a bunch of impatient types with little to no knowledge of how the drafting/development process works. In any case I think the 'camp' is best suited for the Weagles. That way you get to belt one out for Darling and cheer for the team at the same time.

Nate! Is his name Nate? You sound like he's your best pal and can speak for him. Give it a rest WYL.

??? That's all you've got? In your perception, opposition analyst is a step down from head of recruiting, and from that you've jumped to the conclusions that (i) he must have been pushed and (ii) it was because he chose Darling over Cook. If he wants to get (back) into coaching, the position at Carlton is a big step forward. Taking Nathan Buckley as an example, you'd have to say that it was above being an assistant coach, and perfect preparation for being head coach. As for the rest, surely you're not suggesting that because a subject has a few posters on an internet forum, the professionals in the Football Department are going to be taking note and acting accordingly? Is there any evidence anywhere (except in fertile minds) that anyone in the FD could give two hoots about Darling and whether we drafted him or not? For all you know, Neeld and co. could be over the moon that we have the AA under-18 CHF waiting in the wings as a long-term prospect.

Obviously this is just a snapshot of Collingwood training compared with ours, but I think it highlights a difficulty we will have throughout this year. Certainly against the better sides, and possibly early on in the year against the mid-lower sides. I'll use StKilda under Ross Lyon as an example. I remember very clearly that Lyon's first year in charge of the Saints started off very slowly. I can't remember where they finished, but I'm fairly sure they took a step backwards after some decent years leading up to his appointment. His game plan took a while to catch on with the playing group. That was with a team that was already performing at a good level. Our team has been pathetic for years. We have no out and out stars. We have a new coach and a number of kids still learning the game who have to learn a completely new game plan. We may be doing everything right on the track and be heading in the right direction, but my concern is that come round 10, we could be going alright but still be 2-8 just based on the fact that we haven't perfected our new gameplan. Collingwood are now just a classy unit who have been well trained and matured together. Their training (albeit one session noted by one supporter) can easily be dedicated to refining an already proven formula. We, on the other hand, are still teaching new tricks to VERY raw little boys in an AFL sense. We're a long way behind the best teams still. To suggest we are finals contenders in our first year with a new coach after being perennial underperformers is, I think, a bit optimistic, Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it, I'm just not getting my hopes up.

Facepalm...

When the hell did this become the accepted truth? Half the season impressing in the Casey 1s, then a form slump, then surgery for an injury that he would have been trying to play through. FCS... And the last line is self-indulgent carp.

Why? Members with less than 11 game memberships might just take umbrage to these comments. Some supporters simply can't afford it whilst others, mainly interstaters can't extract maximum value from higher membership without spending thousands of dollars extra to fly over for games.. Segregating membership tallies would be a pointless exercise that would lead to polarisation. We all support the same team so why should we be classed as different?

It's amazing that every training report turns into a player debate. As far as I concerned I'm taking the Mark Neeld clean slate stance on the all our players. They have all been under developed over the past 3 seasons we are going to learn a lot more about them this year.

C - Green VC - Moloney LG - Jones Grimes Trengove Rivers

I may not be as articulate as some posters on this thread but I cannot hold back any longer I have been a supporter of our Club for something like 70 yrs even following them when we played our home games at Punt Rd as the M C G was unavailable during the war years I am appalled by some suggestions that Jim be asked to resign. sacked or to take a pay cut. All this coming from supposed "supporters" of Club I would say that Jim has given his guts and more for our club and to treat him in such disrespect saddens me greatly. Now on Gary .I don`t care whether he was asked ,stuck his bib in or what but he came in our of need,as friends do,to help. Of course the proof of the pudding etc but I firmly believe we have a very good coaching panel led by Mark. As an interstater I love the training notes so keep up the good work boys. God bless Jim and his family

I am one of the few people who thought Bails was a good coach, but frankly, we'll never know. More importantly, I think a lot of people are overestimating the role and importance of the coach. The fact is that throughout 2011 the club suffered from internal division between the football and administration departments. We all read reports of dissension and conflict involving Schwab, Bails, Connolly, even involving senior players, who's views were sought on the club's predicament. Added to that was the long drawn out Scully saga, which would have impacted negatively on team morale. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the club to apportion blame for any of this, but any organisation, whether it's a football club or not, is bound to fail if it is divided. Neeld may or may not prove to be a good coach, to date he hasn't coached a single AFL game. However, the club's best chance of success is if everyone associated with the club unite and support each other. That, rather than the influence of any one individual, will do more than anything to generate on field success.

Depending on opposition: FB: Rivers Frawley Bennell HB: Grimes Garland Tapscott C: Jones Moloney Blease HF: Davey Watts Howe FF: Jurrah Clark Green R: Jamar Trengove McKenzie I/C: Gysberts, Petterd, Martin & Bail. - Rivers to play that floating role, Chip is just a gimme & Bennell to take a crumber - Grimes & Tappy quarterbacks. Garland I like at CHB, is a spoiling machine. - Moloney owns the centre. Jones can run all day and Blease can rest down forward. - Forward line is flexible. All six can play anywhere and rotate deep for breathers. - Rucks are a certain. Gotta have McKenzie he is all heart. - Interchange is really flexible and god I hope I havent missed out on a gimme