mo64

Nah, I reckon it will be Peter McNamara who spills the beans. :D

I was thinking the same thing bub. The purse strings must be really tight if we can't afford to hire a bus. Wonder if Brock and the boys got compensated for petrol money?

Port Adelaide Geelong West Coast Adelaide Sydney Hawthorn Fremantle Brisbane Western Bulldogs St. Kilda Kangaroos Collingwood Essendon Carlton Melbourne Richmond Only 2 Victorian teams to make the eight. The Saints have the most talent of the sides out of the eight, but have an injury prone list. The Pies to take the biggest fall. Adelaide the big improvers. As for Melbourne, I agree with Jacey. If our list was currently injury free, 4 wins in the first 5 games was a possibility. However it looks to me that a vast chunk of our senior players will enter the season underdone or not available.

This is getting ridiculous. If McLean's actions don't affect his ability to play football or harm any existing club sponsorship, how has his behaviour in this instance been deemed unacceptable? If the club applies the same guidelines to on-field behaviour, by round 5 we won't have a leadership group. This is how it will pan out: Round 1 - Yze fails to man up, chase, or tackle - Suspended Round 2 - Robertson continually flies for hangers - Suspended Round 3 - Miller continually handballs to a teammate standing next to his opponent - Suspended Round 4 - Bruce turns the ball over with 50% of his kicks - Suspended Round 5 - Neitz to face the tribunal for charging - Suspended

Everyone is missing the point of this investigation. Whilst the AFL continues to receive money from betting agencies to allow betting on AFL football, it has a duty to ensure that the results are not compromised. The betting markets are framed according to the relative strength of the selected teams. There is a difference between not selecting your best team (tanking), and outwardly throwing a game which is in the balance, which is what Roos is alleged to have done. Having said that, the AFL loses it's integrity by allowing late changes to teams. The gaming commission should throw the book at the AFL for allowing this to happen.

If we don't dominate in the ruck and clearances, we'll get slaughtered. Without Rivers, who do we have to match up on Franklin, Roughead, Boyle and Williams?

Well Franky, this is why I directed my comments at Hannabal. This post was in response to doomsaying comments made by Schtacker. Hannabal suggests that we're hiding our gameplan, and the masterplan will be revealed in round 1. "I know I'm wasting my breath, so to speak, and I should be using crayons, but here goes. The Swans have never won a NAB Cup match with Roos at the helm. And other clubs don't want to do well in the preseason comp due to the protection of their upcoming gameplan. This strikes a cord with me. Bailey has one closed training session a week. Whenever Bailey or one of his assistants is interviewed and asked about the new gameplan all they offer is that "they'll be playing for each other". Well having been to training sessions, let me tell you that they practice far more drills and set plays than the previous coaching staff. Bailey doesn't want to let anything out. He also had no interest in winning these matches. That was obvious from the side that played Geelong. He's aiming everything at round 1. Now the nervous Nellies, ill informed, footy stupid, overly emotional, pessimistic, and just plain dumb supporters can work themselves into a lather, but I'll wait til round 1. Obviously I don't know what we'll do this year, but I'm far from concerned by what's happened to date. And if we are terrible it won't alter my opinion of the preseason. I'd rather experiment with kids. Frankly, I feel like spitting on the footy stupid. Especially you, Schtacker. And to think that you must love my all time favourite tv show."

Just a few points about your condescending remarks. For the 10th time, I didn't care about losing the practice match. It's the performance that concerns me. What was the experience levels of the Dogs players on Friday? There were plenty of names that I didn't recognise. The senior players that we're easing back, are they the same underachievers from last season. What makes you think that we'll turn things around at the drop of a hat? And apart from McDonald and Green, who are the other senior players you're expecting to be in the team come round 1? After 35 years of being disappointed, I'm quite entitled to be a "nervous nellie". You won't see me at Cranny, as I'll be working, but I'll be waiting for your spin should we underperform!

Agree. What's more bewildering is that Meesen was played as a midfielder against the Dogs. If he was brought in as a developing ruckman, why not give him a full game in the ruck for Sandy? If Meesen is not a ruckman, why did we do the trade?

I'm waiting for Hannabal's scathing attack on Bailey, for overreacting to a practice match. "FFS Bails. it's only a practice match. Don't you realise that the plan is to lie down during the preseason, and make a surprise attack on the Hawks in round 1? Get a grip on yourself man!"

mickrocks1, how does that help our player development?

I said he was concerned with the performance, not the result. Performance includes discipline. Discipline doesn't just relate to giving away free kicks either. It includes manning up, zoning off, playing in front, etc, etc. All these facets of the game add up to your overall performance.

Add Rivers, Bartram, Wheatley, Dunn and Grimes to those who have 0% chance of playing round 1.

I'm glad that Bailey was more concerned with our performance in the practice match than 90% of the posters here. As an aside, one of the posters on demonology spoke to DB, who advised that Rivers will be available for Sandy rd 2, and hopefully for us by rd 3 or 4. Not good news.

I never include Whelan in my discussions, because I doubt that we'll be seeing much of him this year. I agree that he does add poise to the backline.

I hope George From The Outer doesn't mind, but this is his take on our backline from Friday night's game: "Without the natural football skills of Jared Rivers or (dare I say it ) a Clint Bizzell, the back-line looks like rudderless ship. Not that the opposition forwards were winning in any way, shape or form, we were simply giving them opportunities through our own ineptitude." This is how I perceived our backline last season. Without Rivers, we lacked naturally talented footballers. Carroll, Holland and Bell are try hards. As were Ward and Brown, who have now departed. It's a bit early to call, but Frawley also seems to fit this category. Playing the likes of Yze and Green in the backline, might not be a bad solution.

I can accept the argument that the scoreboard and result during the preseason are irrelevant, however I don't take any solace from how we've played in the practice matches. The 2 major areas of concern for mine, still appear to be a problem: 1. An incohesive backline. 1 on 1, they are not talented enough to beat their opponents, and collectively they are not functioning. 2. Our ruck division. They are all fully fit, so there are no excuses. Even this early, by all reports, Meesen is not the answer. I'm scared about how we'll go in the early rounds.

I think you're underestimating the impact of Brendan Lade. One of the best tap ruckmen I've seen, plus has the other skills mentioned.

From what I've seen of Valenti at Sandy, he and Godfrey are like chalk and cheese. Valenti is a natural footballer, who reads the game well, has good disposal and decision making skills. Godfrey may have been a workhorse on the track, but apart from manning up on his direct opponent, his renowned fitness was not utilised on the field. Never saw him run down and tackle the opposition. Never saw him run hard to get loose from his opponent, and be an option. He had a strained look on his face that made it look like he was going flat out, but for mine, his work ethic on the field was overrated.

That's fine MikeyJ. You just continue to take everything that the press writes as gospel, whilst the rest of us try to decipher what is fact and what is journalistic embellishment.

In defence of the marketing/membership departments, I'm pretty certain that analysis shows that the cost of mass media marketing to generate memberships outweighs the financial benefit. I believe that the club's focus at this time of year is on renewals and lapsed members from prior years. A cheap and effective strategy for mine is for the club to engage former legends like Lyon, Stynes and Barassi to call lapsed members and MCC/Melbourne Supporters. When Bomber Thompson started out as coach at Geelong, he would personally ring lapsed members. Whilst I not suggesting that Dean Bailey does this, a call from a club legend would be more effective than from the membership dept. or a volunteer.

Not yet. The article initially states that McNamee was interested in the job. It then goes on to say that he's "agreed to discuss it with the headhunting company". In other words, McNamee didn't express interest in the role, rather the headhunting company expressed interest in him. McNamee has given the headhunting company the courtesy of a meeting, nothing else. It's a bit premature to say that he's a candidate for the role. A minor news story in my opinion.

How is the item about McNamee "clearly" the most newsworthy? He simply states that McNamee wasn't an original applicant to the position, but has agreed to talk to the headhunting company. He's about as close to being our next CEO as I am, and it doesn't warrant being the headline item, if news of Chris Judd's confirmed return to the playing field is also included in his list of stories. The issue I have with the journalism is not the length of press we received, but as to why he'd include 2 on-field related stories under a headline of a minor off-field story. If McNamee is close to being our CEO, it should be considered a major stand-alone article. If not, it should be a throwaway line amongst other football news items.

Great journalism Greg Denham. Five paragraphs on the subject matter, and ten paragraphs on Chris Judd's return. :angry: On the subject matter, I'd be rapt with someone as dynamic as Paul McNamee as our CEO.

Selwood excluded, this is the same group of players that didn't make the finals in 2006. Did they underperform in 2006, or did their natural ability improve overnight?