Rhino Richards

Its naive to think a high profile footballer can go out on the town and not be seen by either MFC contacts, the media or the general public and have the matter easily swept under the carpet without the ensuing media frenzy and the lynching mob of supporters on talkback and websites like this.

Pickett did similar but did not front to an actual match. He got a fine and 1 match. Hardly soft.

There's a few candidates here!

Spot on. BTW, as a major stakeholder and funder in the MFC, the AFL does have a substantial interest in the performance of the Club. Likewise given the extent of the financial contribution to MFC by the AFL and given the rather parlous state of the MFC finances it would only be sensible for a prospective candidate to meet with the AFL.

I had the same concern. Its a reasonable action from the leadership group. It is a concern the reasons behind the need to do so. Ultimately its very embarrassing for all at the Club. Many of whom are working hard on and off field to turn things around.

Really. I have not seen any misguided idolisation but thanks for the warning.

Pot calling kettle black.

Could not agree more. I suspect this may not be the last incident. I dont see how you can seperate them. I dont think breaking team rules is any worse than significantly breaking a well known law especially where one player has stated public aspirations of being captain. Abiding by society's rules must be a team rule! But your last comment aptly applies to Carroll, Sylvia and McLean.

Neither Simmonds nor Jolly are top rate ruckman. We traded Simmonds who wanted to be a No 1 ruckman because we had Jolly. We traded Jolly because he cracked the shits at lack of game time against the current AA ruckman. He would have walked in the PSD the following year had we not traded him. He's a limited player. Thompson would have done the same to MFC if he was not traded back to SA. He is the only departure that really hurts us. And those three were not sacrificed for the retention of Biz, Jamar and Yze. FWIW, I would have traded Yze or TJ at the end of 2004. At least you would have got some value for player who showed he was spent in 2005. Unless you traded TJ after 2002 you would not have got anymore for him. He played 2 to 3 good years for us. 2002, 2005 and possibly 2006. He was damaged goods throughout. I rest my judgement on CAC until I see the fruits of 2003 onwards. McLean and Sylvia are 5 year players. Bell is in his sixth year. They must deliver. It would be good to see some younger players showing a bit. If you want to talk about strategic issues....the impact of the salary cap penalties in 1999 and 2000 have screwed for loss of talent and undermined list management. Its seriously damages team lists and means you are playing catch up for the next 10 years. Our poor drafting in 2001 only exacerbated these short comings.

Well put. Hannibal is right on this. He is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Some people are slower to get the message than others. The culture really needs to change from the antics of McLean, Sylvia and Carroll. Its not acceptable and DB needs to work hard to get players to take a greater responsibility for their performance. I would have thought that the pathetic and selfish performance of Pickett would have been a lesson to players. Seems not. Its really disappointing when there are others who bust a gut at the club only to be let down by the undisciplined few. Looks like the leadership group is really having an impact. While I am not in general support of suspending players, repeat offenders and continuing acts of unprofessional behaviour might challenge that stance

Dr, Jamar and PJ have had significant on field time and have shown little. That's why the Club gambled with Meesen. That one might not pay off given early form. I wish the Club had traded Robbo for the 2nd round pick. Robbo is a hard mark up because his marking ability for his short stature. Robbo was superb in 2005 kicking 75 goals. He did not do that from a flank. And its a misnomer to think otherwise. I actually waiting for the drop kick to make a return when a coach works out what to do with it! Static 6-6-6 football like the 90s is gone and the game has changed since Carey ruled the open forward lines. Players are covering so much more ground and exploit the opposition at various points around the ground. Brown is a very good footballer. I dont think there is many around as the influence of Hall, Tredrea and Gehrig has diminished. Dr I do agree with your assessment of the importance of the midfield. You summed it up well.

Good grief. We have been smashed in the clearances and had one of the lowest inside 50s last year. We desperately lack real class in the engine room and its shows big time. It remains a real problem regardless of Neitz. Robbo is a fish out of water anywhere away from FF line. Unless he learns some defensive skills and chases and stops playing for himself he will end marshalling the leadership team with Yze at Sandy. As much as I respect Neitz is there a captain besides Kane Johnson that has a lower profile? I would have thought Flash and Robbo are better known generally as identities. Not necessarily respected as much. Neitz's ability to influence a game has diminished with injury and age and he needs to be managed through this season. After some of the selections in the leadership group this year I am not sure anyone know what makes every one better. FCS, Collingwood and Essendon have each said goodbye to one of their greatest players in Buckley and Hird. They have moved on. Lets not get caught in the hyberbole, Neitz has been a wonderful servant to the Club but he aint in either Hird's and Buckley's sphere.

DrD, Our midfield is a problem and that is one issue to resolve. In the modern running game unless you are flogging the opposition it is very difficult to manufacture the one on one plays we all know. All oppositions know about Neitz's strength and are not going to give him the latitude there. Robbo has never played a flank and his best value in the FF line as marking smaller player. Neitz has been the sole FF. Furthermore Robbo's inability to chase and defend would make him a greater liability up towards the centre. I have thought Robbo's marking style would have complemented Neitz rather than hindered him. Nevertheless I am puzzled why Neitz has been badly coached over the past 4 years. If anything ND played to game plan that played to Neitz. Jamar and PJ have regularly had more than 5 to 10 minutes. White has not been able to ruck for that long for the past 2 to 3 years. In addition on days when White is being flogged, Jamar and PJ have both been used extensively. Jamar is no better player now than he was 3 years ago and that worrying. He has a constant characteristic. He does not get the ball and his ruckwork is mediocre. PJ is 200 cm rover. You are right ruckwork is overrated. But if you cant have a Dean Cox and dominate you need to have a competitive ruck that at least prevents any advantage to the opposition. Thomas at the St Kilda skimped on his rucks and it killed his team. Keep hoping for a J Brown. There has only been one and I am not sure that the powerhouse forward is the way of the future. Although I would not turn down a J Brown.

Neitz will be 34 in 2009. Notwithstanding injuries, Neitz in 2007 was a shadow of the player he once was. I would think that if he has a season like last year I think he will retire. In the modern times of flooding how often is Neitz one on one with a full back. Not often. And not likely to be with a one paced midfield. Heavens help us if we are left with PJ and Jamar who struggle at AFL and have done so for some time. White may be signed on for another 12 months. The loss of the experienced players you talk will happen over a two year period and Robbo is contracted for 2009 and Junior would be good for another year.

Given the amount of money they put into this Club and other Clubs they have a vested interest which in corporate terms would normally equate to Board seat or two.

The AFL did not approve the Harris appointment. The MFC Board appointed him.

I never thought we could win either the 1988 or 2000 GF. Both Hawthorn and Essendon were on their own in those years. After 5 minutes of both matches I knew we were gone. It was painful to sit through. The Prelim Final we should have won and the loss cut deep at the time. It really hurt after the momentum It took me over an hour to get out of the car park at Waverley Park after the game. I swore that I would never go to that Waverley hole again.......Never did. Can't even look at that last quarter again. It was one disaster after another.

I dont agree. We went into the North final with good form and reasonable expectation that we could win. North had been shaky in the lead in. Sydney was gettable after they had lost to Hawthorn by 100 points in the first final. We may have been a slight underdog but never out of contention. Hawthorn were on a high after the PF win but were physically and emotionally exhausted. They could not raise a yelp. Without Flower up forward, injuries to players and the self doubts a couple of players had we would have been struggling. The momentum bubble burst at half time at Waverley. Carlton were equal to Hawthron that year and top after the H&A and were the best team that year. Its unrealistic to think that after you spend so much energy and emotion in match like that to back up one week later and do it again one week later. Not even the great Hawks in the 1980's could get close. All sides have team spirit. Its only seems obvious when they are winning. Its having the skills sets and the belief in that ability that differentiates sides. Noone spoke of Geelong until they whipped Richmond by 150+ points. If that belief can be harnessed and it gains momentum like MFC did in 1987 and 2000...its potent.

I doubt it. It feasible once or twice when you have a clean out but a top side may not necessary delist/retire 6 to 7 players nor necessarily participate in a trade. I have not done the maths on all sides last year or past premiers etc but I would say 6 excluding changing rookies. How much impact does a rookie have if he is not being promoted? Sandy 2nds

Good grief. How much time do people need? Jamar has been on the list 5 years now. He has had plenty of time. PJ has had 5 years at two clubs and is limited in his ruckwork and marking. Meesen had 4 years at Adelaide and has done nothing. I give him a year at MFC. If he is any good he will make the PJ/Jamar discussion redundant. Our midfield is terrible aside from Jones. McLean has a (big) point to prove after stagnating over the past 12 months. Junior has about 12 months left and Moloney is still to prove himself but does not win enough of his own ball. Be nice if Sylvia stepped up!

Do you have access to these areas within the Footy dept at MFC and other Clubs? How would you know where MFC are at relative to others? How do you Daniher and Fagan refused any of those areas you talk of? How does this refusal and the lack of financial resources were the objective to preserve employment of players? Looks like grandstanding without the substance.

FWIW, I thought it was Green that was hampered with an ankle injury not Bruce. Too often last year Bruce, Green and White played and we were terrible. They cannot be relied to carry and lift the team. They are not good enough. We have deficiencies on our list. I think your side highlights a number of the issues: 1. Our rucks struggled against good competitive opposition. White is nowhere Top 5. He is not the worst. But its a pipedream to hold him in the top 5. 2. Your best side includes two current rookies as emergencies which is ambitious and damning of the MFC list as it is. 3. No Bate, Dunn, Garland or Grimes by 2009 proper underpins a broader concern. If two last minute chosen rookies are pushing best 22 and the named players arent its rather damning of either recruitment, player development or player fitness. 4. A six year player who was a No 3 draft pick is apparently fit for the first time and can only get an interchange role is a failure. I have no doubt that given the paucity of performance from senior players this year, younger player will definitely get a chance to perform. There should be alot less doubt about where those players are at. If its a bad year, I have listed 8 that could go without much effort before you even look at trades and possibly clearing out a rookie or two. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but MFC overrated the list and the draft penalties of 1999/2000 and the poor draft performance of 2001 has left us with a gaping hole in the list

Its called speculation without the facts.

Way too early for this with much water to flow under the bridge to talk of delistings, tradings etc. (although there are a couple who would stand out). Before we decide to slice and dice the list we need to understand where we stand against the rest of the competition. I would suggest Rd 12 to 15 will give us the story. The season will depend on whether our senior players perform to their capabiilities and our younger brigade (5yrs or less actually perform). If its a bad year and injuries aside, I would expect that we could turnover a similar number of players to last year. This is a critical year for McLean Sylvia Bell, Dunn and Bate. A failiure to make an impression will be interesting. Its a brave call to promote 3 rookies out of 4. You are lucky to get one serviceable player out of rookies let alone three. Spencer is a project player and is years off if ever. Unless one of PJ Jamar or Meesen comes through,I suggest we will trade for a ready made ruckman.

Correct on Yze. White's contract is not the problem. It was the ability to trade him and seek a solution to our rucks which apart from him are not AFL standard. Those you might be referring too will hang onto their over priced contracts till seasons end. I doubt there will be any windfalls. His lack of leg speed adds to a midfield already one paced. Completely agree Graz. We should see a similar number to last year go.