Rhino Richards

I guess the contribution a few lazy thousand out of his own pocket to the debt demolition would not mean much these days....

23 to 18 in Richmond's favour. Agree. Hardly a crucifixion. Hard game to umpire where skills were rather slipshod and some of the tackling questionable. Waiting for hell to freeze over!!

Maybe its a measure of loyalty that they turn up in numbers regardless of the situation. Its a credit to them particularly when you consider how fickle MFC supporters are.

Agree Jack. Well written.

For a player that has missed a fair bit of football in the past 2 years, I thought Warnock's game was promising. If Warnock is a capable ruckman then it allows Carlton to play Kruezer forward. And I think Kruezer is a VG footballer with smarts and excellent ball skills for a big man. I would not have paid the price Carlton did to get Warnock. However, Its hard to gauge where Warnock and Carlton are truly at against a team like Richmond.The Tigers looked terrible last night with the game played a pretty much 3/4 pace with little defensive pressure from the Tigers when they did not have the ball. The spirit of Wallace lives on in the Tigers debacle.

THanks. Good luck to him anyway!

Agree with that. Good luck to Strauss, Trengove, Scully and Jordie on their first games.

Great stuff Two Sheds. I always like an MFC victory but anything MFC could do would pale into insignificance to the victory you have achieved. Good luck and enjoy your future. Brilliant news.

We could play the Rabbitohs on Easter Sunday and give red and blue Easter Eggs to all the junior members.

If he was from NSW then he would be in. You're probably right there Nasher about the selector's radar. If he does not get another Test by the end of next summer while maintain good Shield form then he never will

It does not seem like it on this thread. The answers to the Ops questions seem obvious.

You wouldn't say that if he was Tasmanian!! I like Smith but Hughes has to bide his time. It will come Its clear that Ponting does back his players, Clarke, North and Hauritz when it gets tough.

In reality its likely to be a short career but I have no qualms over his decision. I could not believe all the bleating over his departure. An ordinary NQR leaves MFC to become an ordinary NQR at another club and the sky is falling.

Absolutely. In the past 3 seasons I cant think one of MFC player that would be in the top 50. And for all the bleating about Sheahan's choice. Its just one person's opinion and he is prepared to put his name to it. I would have thought Ryder and Tippett would be worthy contenders. Tippett could be special this year. Love him at MFC.

He has had one good knock on a flat deck with an ordinary attack that was already one down. He knows the requirement. Next time he will take his opportunities when they come. Good to see its competitive for some spots in the team. If Hussey goes I would prefer Smith or White to Hughes and move Clarke up.

Touche and well said.

The quantum of $$$ involved with Volvo will not have the impact of a Tassie type deal. In most cases any sponsorship money is good revenue. I think our current sponsorship deals are promising but our sponsorship history has been a weakness for us financially. I think we are arguing semantics. I dont think at the present time there are "breakout" strategies of the type the Hawks have enjoyed. I think with the current administration under Schwab, there is the commitment to finding succesful solutions. However there are no easy ones. I think the present administraition is laterally looking at opportunities. But to date none have been identified as the big strategy. In all fairness you have put four untested ideas down. That's good. Tell the Club. But its not clear they are anymore than the 100s of paper ideas that get put forward, reviewed and determined by the MFC admin. My comment on the Hawks was in reference to their financial recovery in comparison of MFC. The two deals that the Saints overlooked (Waverley and Tassie) were extraordinary, one off type deals that literally fell into the Hawks lap. The Hawks were blessed with manna from heaven. Not too much innovation or nous required there. However they were extreme and very profitable cases which in the absence of deals like that I would be surprised for MFC to make such a rapid phoenix like rise. MFC did however take the opportunity when the Kaspersky deal fortuitously came across their desk. Given the situation and legacy MFC has, the MFC admin needs to do exactly as you say. I have no evidence to suggest they have not been doing this nor wont be doing such going forward.

Their "quick" bowlers are pedestrian without Bond and O'Brien. Even their own commentators think so.,,and that's a big admission for them. The conditions were fine. The batsman got themselves out not the bowlers.

As always its your definition of success and your definition of development. Life is wonderful in the test tube isnt it. FWIW, you have pinned "your" success on so called experienced players who have played no more than 20 games and you have lauded two players (Scully and Trengove) who have yet to play a game. I note you have not addressed the impact of trading arguably our leading midfielder (in an ordinary midfield) in Mclean. Thats a strong mature and experienced body with 6 years AFL experience out of the engine room. Of course it does not suit your defintion. I have put a plausible case supported by demonstrable evidence. You have crawled under a stone and said it does not suit "your" myopic view. I sorry I dont have your grasp on the MFC. It seems to be an intensely personal one.

You do. When you get a soft attack bowling at 125kmh you cash in. He did. And you Mr Hussey?????

In 2010, your draft number in 2004 is as relevant as yourzodia sign to indicate AFL talent. Meesen was pick 8 in the 2004 draft by the Crows was traded in 2007 to MFC for pick 38. At the end of 2009 Meeson was put on the rookie list by a bottom dwelling Club with a shortage of good rucks. Hmmmm....what does that tell you? Newton was pick 43 in the 2004 draft by MFC with questions about attitude and maturity. After making an impact in 2007, Newton has failed to make an impact since at MFC despite the bottom dwelling Club which is screaming out for forwards even despite getting a dubious 2 year contract extension. He was put on the rookie list in at the end of 2009. Hmmmm....what does that tell you? Unless there is a complete change of form and/or fitness, neither play will be playing AFL in 2010. Dunn is in his sixth season and since his first season there has been a question about his stomach for the contest. And being built like Tarzan does not hide that you play like someone else. Has cute skills but has been put on tagging roles to take him to the contest more because he does not do enough offensively. Its got nothing to do with the position he is played. The forward line is not a place for shrinking voilets. Not best 22 for mine. And injuries give him a chance to actually show that he has got it. Put on the first 5 years he has been a fail for a first round pick. If he is still at Casey at year end then he should go. Mathew Bate is very underrated and has done a wonderful job in a difficult role up forward. I hope he blossoms further. Aside from you conspiracy theories, neither Newton or Dunn has shown they are good enough. The reports on here suggest with Newts..its more of the same. Bate is returning from injury and once match fit will be best 22. Nasher covered the side for Rd 1. I'lll give you a hint....Dunn and Newton are not even on the bench. And I'd play Max GAWN on one leg ahead of Meesen.

Once again JCB your grasp of the issues is frail. Success and development are very much intertwined. Either you understand the message that the Club is sending out or you dont. At the end of last year we pensioned off/ delisted/retired, Robbo, Whelan, Wheatley. That near 450 to 500 games of experience. In addition we traded McLean (94 games) and delisted a number of fringe players who probably totalled 40 games. Sorry I dont have the eact numbers. We have picked up MacDonald 83 games. So we have taken just over 500 games of AFL experience of our list. So while some of the players are a year older the whole list is younger. And Scully and Trengove, as talented as they are not "plug in and play". They will do some good things in their first year but they are defintitely learning. We still have to get games into Watts. Blease and Strauss are essentially first year players given their injuries. Spencer too is raw but likely to get significant game time. Unfortunately the stage of the cycle you may be in is different to the cycle the Club is in. This may explain you inability to properly grasp the message of PATIENCE. Even your overreaction to the Freo game should have set even distant bells ringing.....

You do miss alot dont you?

I did. You stated every year is development/continuous improvement. And then said we should be striving for success this year? Whats different? I already told you that list is younger this year than last year and the year before that. What thats telling you? Hmmmm. In addition, there is the issue of injuries and the fact that other teams are at a different stage in the cycle. I would expect there will still be a number of teams that will improve more than us as their core is 2 to 4 years older than ours. Your basis of assessment is simplistic and ignores some of the key issues.

Which is? I would have thought there were enough examples in the media in the AFL to counter the stereotype.