Scoop Junior

We need a third colour because it's a clash strip. It's not the V design on our home jumper that clashes, it's the colours. While a red jumper can avoid some clashes, it doesn't avoid all clashes. A true clash strip needs a colour that is not prominent on the home jumper. It appears as though they've tried to keep the red V and blue, as this is the basis of the new logo. Even though the red V is thin and off-centre, it still has that Melbourne feel to it with the red V and blue underneath. If anything, it has more in common with our home jumper than our previous away strip. I like the silver. Most other clubs have white in their clash jumper, and red, white and blue is a Doggies jumper. We had a pre-season jumper with silver in it a while ago and I don't mind silver being the focus of the clash jumper.

I don't mind it. The key to a good clash jumper is that the primary colour must be different from the main home jumper colours. The red one clashed with Essendon still and also was not a great contrast against Adelaide. By having silver as the primary colour, it will now stand out clearly from these two clubs, as well as other clashes with Freo, Carlton and the Bulldogs. I also like how there's still some red and blue in it to keep it Melbourne-specific. The design is a little odd and the red line/sash reminds me a bit of Essendon which I don't really like (sorry Ash). But on the whole I think it does the job well.

I'm with ya, Redfin. I had to hand in a few things at Monash Uni, so I thought I'd go down Wednesday morning as the website had the Dees training at Monash at 10am. No one was there at 10:30 and after I did my few things, I checked again at 11:30 and there was nothing. Yours would make it the third time the website has got it wrong this pre-season. It's not good enough. We are a club with a low membership base; we can't afford to frustrate passionate fans who make the time to watch a pre-season training session. I don't know whose fault it is. But it should be rectified ASAP. It's unprofessional and simply not good enough for a club trying to grow its supporter and member base.

They should remove the "special assistance" name then. It creates the impression that those who receive it are reliant on the AFL for funds. The average footy person does not know the real story and this results in comments made in the footy public, on the radio, in newspapers, etc. of how Melb, the Roos and the Dogs go cap in hand to the AFL. I think it paints a picture of serious financial trouble and this is not going to wash well with potential sponsors. I know it's not the true story, but image is important, and the general footy person out there has the image that those three clubs are living off the AFL handouts.

Bloody Arsenal!

The EPL is a different system. There are other incentives than premiership success. A premiership for Sunderland is staying up and avoiding relegation this year. A premiership for Blackburn will be finishing in the top five. A premiership for Newcastle will be stabilising itself as a top 6 side. In footy, there's only one aim. A flag. Nothing much else matters - true, it may be a good year for a developing team to make the finals, but ultimately it all comes down to a flag. Sunderland and Fulham aren't interested in winning the EPL. It's not on their radar. But every team from 1-16 aims to win the flag in the AFL. Anyway, the danger of the current system is that the AFL continue their stranglehold over financially weaker clubs. This is dangerous as it can lead to a reliance-type situation like with North. The one saving grace is success. If you have success, you will get better fixturing in terms of time slots. We had four friday night games this year. Next year, we have one. If we pick up our game, we will get some reward off the field.

Maybe I'm on my own here, but if we are serious about an alternative jumper, then we need to go with different colours. It's not the design that makes us clash with Essendon, it's the darkness of the blue and red colours and the black and red colours. A proper alternative strip has to be radically different in colour from the home jumper. Freo's is good. Essendon's is rubbish. I don't see the point in reversing the colours as I don't think this helps in a clash with Essendon. If we are already varying the sacred home jumper, then to me I don't mind if they go a step further and play in colours that aren't primarily red and blue.

I'm pretty happy with it. I've been going on for a few years about our usual draw front-loaded with MCG games and back-ended with difficult away trips and games away from the MCG. I prefer playing interstate early. You can catch teams out early in the year when you're up and going. Home games at the end of the year give you the chance to build momentum into the finals (if you are good enough to be in finals contention). The other bonus is we are never more than two weeks away from the G. Other years we've had to play four or five away from the G and have typically performed poorly in those stretches. The draw is good enough if we are good enough.

Bob: If your team made the GF, then you wouldn't get preferential access, unless of course you were playing Port Adelaide.

We had a wellness manager this year as well, whatever the hell that is! You gotta love the names given to FD staff these days. No more "recruiting bloke" but a "list management and player personnel manager". No more "fitness guy" but a "strength, energy and welfare manager". Next the janitor will be called the "player hygeine manager".

Gardiner is very ordinary and Dempster is just a bit player. King may add a bit with his strength and experience in the ruck and Schneider is a neat player who will provide some run and skill. Not much though to get too excited about. Sylvinator while I understand the point you make, you can't just put TJ in the Wood and Judd category and say it's fantastic that they were the only players to draw a first round pick. The fact is, there are many clubs that could trade players for first round picks. They just aren't prepared to do it. Just because TJ got a first rounder doesn't mean there's heaps of other players out there that aren't able to attract first rounders. We were just one of the few clubs prepared to trade a quality player. I'm happy with the trade, but looking at it from the perspective of who else attracted a first rounder is too narrow a perspective.

I wouldn't say it's a "great" deal. A fair deal, perhaps, and a possible win-win. But ultimately it comes down to who we have our eye on at pick 14 and who we actually get. If you grab a Daniel Bell (like the Woey trade) then it will be a big win, but there is the fear of picking up a Nick Smith. It's a risky decision but has more potential upside. I'm happy to be aggressive and take that risk.

If he has another bad year, he won't have any trade value. Currently, he has a bit of trade value. So it's not so simple as give him another year and then see. We need to make the decision now - keep and develop or trade?

I hope the performance goals include things like assists, creative handballs and general team play.

I don't get it. Bate has a lot of potential, played some good games and should continue to improve over the years. But our 3rd B&F this year? Come on. I remember Hannibal being upset with Davey finishing so high up in 2005, particularly because it showed that we were rewarding the wrong attributes in a player. I don't think Bate attacks the ball hard enough and he needs to improve in this area. For him to finish 3rd speaks volumes of what we look for in a player and what we are rewarding. Brad Green was streets ahead of Bate in my book this year. Hopefully with a new coaching department, we see players getting rewarded for displaying attributes that ultimately contribute to premiership success.

If Matthew Bate has come 3rd then it's just about the biggest joke of the year

I don't think the comments were all that flash. I understand the motives - re-enforcing positivity - but I think that less is more in such a situation. All it does is convey acceptance of mediocrity. I know that's not what was meant, but unfortunately it comes out a bit like that. I don't think we should've bagged Judd or anything, but a one liner would've been enough. Something like "it is disappointing that Chris won't be at Melbourne but we'll move on with our plans of building for a premiership". Being too positive carries with it undertones of mediocrity. Being too negative and bagging Judd reeks of sour grapes. The right approach IMO was just to dismiss it quickly and move on. Most of the comments were fine, except the bit about the club being "quietly satisfied".

Just like Buckley moving to the Pies to win premierships. Brisbane 3, Collingwood 0. I also prefer he go to Collingwood. Where better to get a good education on how to lose Grand Finals? It is disappointing, but we'll move on.

No, he was. It was just that he needed time and experience to grow into the role. Not many young players come into the side and are immediately up to AFL standard. But you can tell that some have the right attributes to make it if given time. We knew Bell would make it, it was just a matter of time. People that labeled him "no good" have been proven wrong.

Yeah I've watched a fair bit of Geelong this year and Mooney has been sensational. He one grabs everything, is a big physical presence, pretty reliable set shot for goal and is the main power forward in their line-up. I've been amazed at how he's played this year and he's gone from a talented yet unpredictable and hot-headed footballer into a genuine power forward. I think the selectors have gone a bit nuts on Geelong, but Mooney has had a great year.

Do this year's results affect the clock theory? I think they do. In an even competition, which is equalised by the draft and salary cap, injury is becoming one of the absolute key factors for club success. Most would have had Collingw&%$ and the Roos in their bottom four, Port and Hawthorn around the middle of the ladder and Geelong back in the 8 but hardly the dominant force they have been all year. The Roos' list appeared shot to bits, Hawthorn was too young, Port looked on the verge of a few years down the bottom while the Pies were expected to drop away with a terrible midfield and a lack of pace and class. The Eagles, Saints and ourselves were meant to be in premiership window. But injuries killed all three teams. The competition appears to be so even now that teams can bounce up and down the ladder more quickly than the clock theory suggests. Or are we perhaps reading too much into one season? I think the clock theory is a useful tool for analysing where your list is at for the purposes of list management decisions. But it does appear that its role in determining a team's premiership aspirations for the year is diminishing.

I'm sure Carlton were rather happy with Riley's decision to play to win in Rd 22

Fair enough. You're going by a different definition to me. Under your interpretation, Godfrey wouldn't be in the hard category. But neither would any player who doesn't possess the ability to continually get to the fall of the ball in close. I do think however that hardness needs to be separated from ability.

Interesting H. Depends how we define tough/hard/rough. For me, toughness and hardness are similar. It's about never shirking, putting your head over the ball no matter what the situation and throwing yourself in with 100% effort. I think Godders satisfies these criteria. I don't think he can be accused of failing to go when it was his turn. Roughness, though, is more that mean streak that certain players have. The desire to hurt the opposition and to pounce on opportunities to crunch a body. I wouldn't put Godders in this category. He didn't hurt blokes and it wasn't his style to dish off big hits. Rather, he focused on hunting the ball in a tough manner. Whatever words are used, IMO there are differences in how people interpret toughness/hardness. I'd agree with you if you are saying that Godders was not "rough". But not "tough or hard" - I disagree.