Scoop Junior

I hope we are getting there because at the moment we are putrid to watch. But I'm not sure how you can close your eyes to what has happened this year and confine your analysis to last week's game. In six matches I believe we have defended at a level above insipid for a paltry three quarters (first quarter against GWS, first half against Carlton). That's 3 out of 24. So if anything last week's game appears to be the aberration. I hope it's not and I really hope we are starting to get our defensive structures together. However, the overwhelming evidence provides strong support for the notion that at the moment we cannot defend.

How do you rate our defensive game at the moment? I am all for a defensive game plan and a coach that values defence. But currently we are defending as badly as any Melbourne side I've ever seen. It's all well and good to say that you're a coach that focuses on defence, but if you cannot actually implement that defensive game plan and get your side defending well then what good is it. Need I mention that we are currently the worst defensive side in the league and haven't even played the top sides like Hawthorn, Collingwood, Sydney and Geelong yet. I did think we defended better against Carlton (hard not to after the appalling defensive work we've seen this year and especially against the Lions the week before) and if we can start to dramatically improve this area then I may see some light. But at the moment we are an absolute shambles defensively and if this does not improve I can't see the outcome being too bright for Neeld.

I cannot believe that some people haven't included Dunn in their best six players. Was I at a different game or did I see Lynden Dunn completely nullify one of the best midfielders I've seen. The same bloke who routinely dominates every time we play the Blues. Dunn was clearly in our best few players and how he can be excluded from the top six is astonishing.

The quote I read from Neeld was that while it would have been good to give Watts a game at Casey, the team and the club's interests must come first and that's why Watts was the 23rd player (in case Clark didn't get up). Now I'd understand this if we were a good side, but given where we're at, it is not going to make much difference if Watts or someone else was the 23rd player and was required to come in to the side. We lost by 94 points - would it really have made much difference (if Clark didn't get up) if we brought in Watts or one of the other emergencies? I would argue it's more important for the team and club to develop Watts and you don't develop him by having him sitting in the stands. Terrible decision and completely and utterly lacking in common sense for me.

Yes, agree, we need to get better at recruiting, developing and coachning. But we also need more talent on the list, in particular in the midfield. In trying to acquire this talent, a priority pick should help. Getting better in the above areas and getting a priority pick are not mutually exclusive. We can go about improving those areas regardless of whether we get a priority pick. As I said before a priority pick is clearly not the sole answer, but if our current on field form continues we should go for it. How can it hurt?

Saying we shouldn't get a priority pick because our current on-field position is our own fault is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. Why else would you be consistently down the bottom of the ladder? Because you've recruited well? Because you've developed your players well? Because you've built a good list? The reason a club finds itself consistently at the foot of the table is because of mistakes it has made and poor decision-making. To say a club should not get a priority pick because it has caused its own problems is essentially making priority picks redundant. When else would a club be awarded a priority pick – when a strong club has injuries and slides down the ladder for one season? The whole concept of a priority pick is centred around prolonged poor on field performance. And guess what causes prolonged poor on field performance? I also find it almost as ridiculous that some on here would not take a priority pick if it was given. Are you serious? It's a freebie and you take whatever advantage you get in this game. Just because we've stuffed up early picks before and have developed our players poorly does not mean that you completely dismiss the notion that early draft picks can help your side. You've still got to back yourself to make the right call and develop the player well. I'm not saying an extra early pick is the answer to all our problems, but gee if our current form continues and we get a priority pick I will be taking it with open arms.

Definitely one of the most disheartening and demoralising games I've seen from the MFC. Worse than 186 for me and I was at Kardinia Park that day. At least that day we were playing one of AFL history's greatest teams at their own fortress and were nearing the end of a wretched season. I wasn't expecting miracles today and a loss wouldn't have been all that surprising, but to get absolutely thumped by an ordinary at best Port side at our home ground in Round 1 is about as bad as it gets. For me the biggest concern was just how easily Port moved the ball down the ground, chipping short passes to players on their own and basically moving the ball from one end to the other without us touching it. They sliced us wide open, it was hot knife through butter stuff and it was bloody embarrassing. You could maybe understand Hawthorn cutting open a side with their foot skills but Port? I've watched a fair bit of footy in Round 1 and what has stood out has been the pressure. In the first quarter of the Eagles Dockers game both sides were struggling to get a clear kick. Essendon mauled the Crows and worried them out of it. What do the MFC serve up? Not even a quarter, not even 5 minutes of intense pressure footy. Right from the opening bounce they got easy uncontested ball and it remained that way all day. There can only be two reasons for this. Either the players are lazy and put no defensive pressure on, which would add the word 'heartless' to a long list of adjectives that already describe them such as skilless and brainless. Or alternatively they are confused where to position themselves defensively, which comes down to game plan and is the coach's domain. I'm not sure what the answer is but it is one of the above. Either way it's bloody worrying. The other thing I just cannot fathom is the schoolboy errors. Nicholson fumbling uncontested ball and dropping marks, Sellar dropping chest marks and not punching deep in defence, Gillies missing the target so badly that he actually kicked a point for Port, Dunn failing to kill the contest in the first quarter and overrunning it...the list goes on. I helped coach an under 14s team a number of years ago and I didn't see errors like that. I just cannot understand it, these guys are AFL footballers! All I want to see is a team that can constantly pressure the opposition. I can cop kicking 8 goals if we get our defensive aspects right and only concede 11. I thought defence is what we are supposed to be focusing on. We have too many skilless and brainless players masquerading as senior footballers. We have a terrible midfield, currently the worst in the league. Worst of all we can't even do the most basic thing in footy, put pressure on and make it difficult for your opponent. We don't defend. We don't even know how to. If Port slice us open what are Hawthorn, Collingwood, West Coast and co. going to do? We are in a huge hole and only time and astute drafting can get us out of this mess. This is about as low as I've ever felt as a Melbourne supporter. 79 point loss to Port at home. 24 less scoring shots. Hang your heads in shame MFC.

Scrappy first quarter but casey were on top I thought. Second quarter was very poor with Port completely dominating the play. Melbourne players: Viney - clearly the pick of the Melbourne players and the only one who looked capable of driving casey forward in the second quarter. Clark - limited opportunities, especially in the second quarter. But moving well and freely which is the main thing. Trengove - playing out wide on the wing. Barely sighted. Taggert, Kent, Fitz - all pretty quiet. Kent does look good when he gets the ball though. Blease - some flashes of good play but not consistently involved in the game. Jordie - a few touches in close but fairly quiet overall. There are lots of rotations with players coming on and off all the time so it's probably hard to pick up the rhythm of the game. But there is little to excite at the moment other than a good effort from Viney and Clark moving with freedom.

What this shows is how poorly we have recruited and developed midfielders in recent times. It really is pathetic that with all the early picks we have had in recent years that at this stage we only have one A grade midfielder. While it is too early to tell on recently acquired midfielders like Trengove, who no doubt could develop into an A grader, you only need to look at early picks dating as far back as 2001 to realise how we've blown many chances to acquire A grade midfield talent. The best midfields appear to have a core of about 6 players, usually about three elite (A grade) midfielders and three very good (B+) midfielders. They are then supported by fringe midfielders who can play a role and add value in different areas but are not necessarily themselves great players. It is these types who look better when supported by elite midfielders and would be more exposed in poor midfield groups. That's what we need to aim towards and the only way to get there is through recruiting and developing what we have. People can go on and on about midfield depth and having an even group of midfielders, but until we have some other players joining Jones in that elite/very good core of 6 or so players we just won't be able to compete with the best midfields in the competition. The good news is that we do have a few players on the list capable of getting there. If they can develop and push themselves into that core and we add another 1 or 2 through the draft / trades then we can get there. It will take work though and some smart decision-making.

I find this is often the case for a big loss. It usually doesn't look as bad when you sit down and watch it again because your expectation has totally dropped away. You expect us to be absolutely hopeless so when you actually see something remotely decent on the replay it tends to alert the mind more than the bad passages of play. I like watching the replays to see the detail that you can miss watching it live, but in terms of getting an overall feel for the game and how the team performs I think it should be based on the first 'untainted' viewing. I thought we were decent for three of the four 'halves', but there's no doubt we were well and truly thrashed in the first half against Richmond.

Good point Jens. Funny how the same journos who claimed that clubs would be mad to win an extra game and miss out on the priority pick now go on about the evils of tanking.

Yeah but you can call a duck a pig if you want, you're entitled to do that. The fact remains it is a duck. And the fact remains that we have been found not guilty of deliberately trying to lose. So if you want to say we have been found guilty of tanking, please enlighten us as to what this word means. Because the generally accepted definition of the term is deliberately trying to lose and we have been found not guilty of this. 'Not doing our best to win' is not an offence and 'conduct prejudicial to the AFL' is not tanking. So I fail to grasp your assertion that we have been found guilty of tanking.

We have been found not guilty of deliberately losing games, which is the key point in all of this. No board knowledge and no directive from the club to lose games. Therefore, according to both the narrow legal definition of tanking AND the broader public concept of tanking, we have been found not guilty. That's the result we wanted. The $500k fine is excessive but who knows who is really funding this amount.

"Perhaps in legal terms they are correct". So on what basis should we be punished Wilson? Thanks for confirming how far out of your depth you are.

I think that Craig was a very good identifier of talent at mid to late picks. Names such as Whelan, Bruce, Bartram, Garland, Brown and Rigoni were all excellent gets at lower end picks. He also picked some gems in the rookie draft, including Walsh, Ward, Jolly, Robertson and Junior (I'm not 100% if Craig selected the last two but I think he did). He probably let himself down a bit at the top end of the draft, which unfortunately are the picks you really need to get right. Lamb, Bell, Smith, Bate, Dunn, Morton and Maric were all top 21 picks. His big gets in the top 20 were Thompson, Frawley, Jones and Grimes. Any recruiter over a period of time is going to have their hits and misses, but on the whole I would say he performed well later in the draft but probably could have done better with some of the early picks. What cannot be measured though is the impact of development and I think it would be fair to say that our development wasn't at the level of the top clubs in the AFL. A recruiter is always going to look a lot better with a strong development system.

If there is insufficient evidence that we 'tanked', then why wouldn't we be cleared altogether? You can't be half guilty of breaching the 'tanking' rule.

Do you really think that will be the extent of the damage? Do you not think that being found guilty will have a significant adverse impact on the club's brand, which in turn could lead to issues with sponsorship and other revenue-generating activities? As Don McL said we need to protect the integrity of the MFC.

I don't know how many times I've seen this type of comment, but I cannot agree that it's irrelevant that other clubs have not been investigated or charged. This is not a case of burglary or another clearly defined law. This is a poorly drafted rule that is vague and basically inoperative without some form of clarification from those in charge of administering the rule. You could ask 20 people what the rule is about and you'd get 20 different answers. Therefore, the fact that certain conduct (e.g. what Carlton did in 2007) has been deemed by those in charge of administering the rule as satisfactory and not in breach of the rule shows how the rule is interpreted and applied by those in charge. Even if it was only tacit acceptance by the AFL (for what it's worth I think it was more than that), then I think the clubs are entitled to rely on such tacit acceptance in formulating their understanding of the rule and the interpretation and application of the rule by those administering it. Even during the 2009 season the CEO of the AFL publicly backed what Melbourne was doing! If a club cannot rely on the administering body's interpretation and application of a vague, poorly drafted rule, then what can they rely on? So no, the speeding ticket example is not relevant to the current circumstances. Everyone knows that you cannot drive over the speed limit. No one knows what the hell 'on their merits' means. Hence the need for guidance and the relevance of administrative acceptance of similar prior conduct by other clubs.

You don't refrain from asking a question because of what the interviewee might say in response. You ask the question and let the interviewee answer it themselves.

What a great job he did too, failing to ask THE most obvious question after Brock said the reason he left the MFC was because he didn't like what went on in 2009. That question being "then why did you decide to go to Carlton after what happened there in 2007?' The fact that three knowledgeable football journos did not ask that question seems odd to me. So if they were just doing their job, then it'd be fair to say they were performing abysmally (which again is rather odd given I rate Gerard's commentary).

I think she has. Your ordinary every day non-Melbourne supporter (and even people who aren't big footy fans) would be left thinking that the MFC of 2009 were a bunch of dispicable cheats that have put a stain on the game that cannot be removed. The amount of people I've spoken to about the tanking issue (non-Melbourne supporters) and their comments on it clearly indicates to me that they have been affected by her articles. I haven't heard one person come up to me and say "gee that Wilson article was way off the mark". It's very easy for us as Melbourne supporters to poke holes in the story and recognise bias, but your average non-MFC fan out there who doesn't over-analyse the article like we do is likely to 'buy in' to what she says. So while I understand that you are not spooked by her, I think in the eyes of the wider footy community she has done a fair degree of damage to our brand.

So are you saying you would like her to be around? In other words, would you prioritise being more "informed" on the tanking issue by having Caro around over the club suffering more damage to its brand as a result of her biased reporting? I am happy to sacrifice the "information" she provides so that the club's name isn't dragged deeper into the mud.

Yeah but how much of this was due to our draw being far easier in the second half of the season as opposed to the first? We played Collingwood, Hawthorn, Geelong at Geelong, WCE in Perth, Sydney in Sydney and Carlton in our first 11 games, while the back half of the year included GWS home and away, Gold Coast at home, Port, and Freo at Etihad. For what it's worth, I think we did improve after the mid way point, but relying on statistical analysis is flawed to the draw. It's why I don't think the comment "if we win x games, it's a good year" is all that relevant. It all depends on who you play and how you play against them.

My thoughts exactly. Disgraceful piece of journalism there. While it's probably a case of extremely sloppy writing (which would not surprise given the quality of Age articles on the investigation), I cannot believe something like that passes through any proof reading of the article by the journo himself and the editors and actually makes it in print. I also love how he has trawled through the Annual Reports to find comments that show that the club was looking long-term in a bid to induce the reader into drawing a connection between the long term focus of the club (which would be the case for any club near the bottom of the ladder) and the alleged 'tanking' in 2009. Top work there Hercule Poirot. Can't wait to see what Pierek will invent next.

The quote is: "He goes to quite an extent to say that, 'I have been lined up by certain people at the club, these are the same people who lined me up to move sideways from football manager', to what he is doing now. I still don't see how this is inconsistent with these people being former employees. The people that 'lined him up to move sideways' obviously were at the club in 2011 and they may have had issues with CC. But just because CC was moved on from footy manager at the end of 2011 doesn't mean that the people that 'lined him up' had to still be at the club in 2012 (or are still there currently). It's entirely possible that certain people who left at the end of 2011 were the ones who 'lined him up' and are the same people being interviewed as part of the current investigation. This is all assuming the quote has been accurately reported. Given it comes from someone who read the report (rather than CC himself), has been passed on and re-written by a journalist at a paper that has had no problem getting certain facts wrong and sensationalising other aspects in their coverage of this story, I'm not 100% confident that that quote is even accurate. Fan the comment you refer to is written by the journalist. It's not a quote from the report. Are you 100% confident that the CC quote in the report refers to people currently within the MFC? I'm not...in fact, I have no confidence in The Age to accurately report the facts of this investigation, given Wilson and Pierek's sensationalist coverage, their apparent bias against MFC in this affair and the fact that they have already made glaring errors in a number of their articles.