deanox

Well if that isn't holding on the goal line, ablett better get nothing all day.

Worlds worst chain of handballs, but very happy with watts handball then Shepherd. Should be standard but we don't do enough. And goal!

Once again all opposition scores are from our turnovers.

Pinged that quick

Didn't we get Dawes and Clark with it?

We were too tall last week and gws exposed that so interesting changes, especially with Gawn out as well.

Howe and Jones or only players to play every game, it has been a very interrupted year. That being said he looks like he needs a rest.

In some ways it's great that we are able to have this convo. The fact that we have Jones, Garland, Trengove, Grimes, Dawes, Clark offering leadership in some form or another is better than where we were 18 months ago. Add to that sine leadership from the old blokes of the field (Rodan) and that it seems that a couple of the younger blokes have some leadership coming through too including Max Gawn and Jack Viney. Perhaps next year we can have a genuine leadership group instead of just naming people because we have too?

This is why I don't understand why a bump to the side is legal, but incidental and accidental contact to the head in that bump gets 3-4 weeks. What is wrong with paying a free kick for a sloppy bump? Side to side contact in congested situation with incidental had contact is significantly different to a Michael long Troy Simmonds head over the ball toe clean up but both are treated the same.

In you the one weekend three players deliver late bumps, otherwise perfectly legal except for a raised elbow, all the bumps are the same force, and from the direction and: a) the elbow strikes the eye socket breaking in 3 places leaving the player or for 8 weeks b) the elbow strikes the temple, knocking the player out: he gets up seconds later, runs of groggy and is subbed out but pays next week, or c) the elbow glances off the side of the head, the player bounces up a bit shaken and remonstrates. In all three cases the penalty should be the danger OR at least very similar. The potential to cause injury was just as bad in all three and the rain the penalty is the is because of the act, not the result that is punishable. The reason bumping with a raised elbow is illegal isn't because we like to hand out penalties it is because there is a chance that the elbow will injure someone. The level of the injury is irrelevant to the charge.

good post, well thought out and written.

Or consider it on a different light: Schwab, for all his failings had a contact that allowed only 3 months payout, which isn't particularly significant. Connolly quite possibly took the fall on behalf of the club - if we were going to keep the gaming licence and come out of the tanking saga with a not guilty verdict, someone had to be held accountable particularly if there was any truth to the taking allegations, and it appears that may have been CC. Potentially he has forfeited his career to protect the club from more severe penalties.

do you really think that CC made one dark joke that caused all this or do you think that that is the story that was told to the public at the end?

The board should stand down from their current roles (which they are doing), maybe that's what you meant by "gone from the club" but the way it cane across it sounded like you wanted then removed as members and supporters. I think that is extreme; these guys are still mfc through and through despite their failures.

No we don't. All we know for sure is that the captains haven't been in great form bit even that is offset by good form From Grimes pre injury, serious injuries to both captains and a very obvious defensive work rate from Trengove that results in high numbers of tackles and team efforts. What we do know is that some people seen to think that captain means on field performance will automatically jump and increase an elite level and don't seem to understand that the 2 hours we see on the weekend is but a part of the role of a captain.

I've never heard a bad word spoken about Jones either. Your comparison with Ablett is an interesting one that I hadn't before considered - the idea that if thrust into the position Jones would be forced to develop those leadership characteristics. I suppose the difference being that we apparently had two young blokes who were already doing and capable of steeping into that leadership style, and Nathan Jones wasn't required to adapt like Ablett was forced to. There are so many different types of leaders and we see this in business all the time - some leaders are great at building from scratch. Others are great at taking a group the next step. Some are great at continuing a culture and continuing to drive it and maintain it. At Melbourne, in my opinion, we need leadership that is prepared to change the culture from that which was formed in the late 1990's and early 2000's onwards. The culture that let Robbo jump fly but not chase, Yze always kick but never handball, White never impose on a contest, Trapper was laconic at the best of times. This was ok onfield while the list also included Neitz crashing packs, the Febey's running hard etc. but when that old guard left, the next group came through soft - Bruce, Green, Sylvia et al, were the next senior generation and none were great leaders or able to set a good example at work ethic. This has resulted in a downward spiral at the club. It happened to Hawthorn, but they caught it when they had a few old heads available to help instigate change. By the time we tried to change it we had Moloney left, and he was about himself, not about the club. We didn't treat some senior players well (Junior) but others held us to ransom (Davey, White, Yze, Bruce), all part of that culture. In my opinion the decision to appoint Trengove and Grimes was about culture change. We had two young leaders who were the right type of leader to start instigating culture change, start setting a minimum standard with the young brigade. It is great that Jones and Garland have stepped up. I think that Dawes and Clark fit into that as well, and would like to see those 6 players moving forward as the leadership group, I have no doubt that together they form the nucleus of good leadership and will set good examples. Given the existing culture at the club, I'm not sure that the Ablett/Jones "grow into leadership" would have been the right choice. At GCS, Ablett has set carte blanche the training standards, the culture etc. It was Ablett and a bunch of kids - everyone just looked up to Ablett, they were all new to AFL and had no expectations, and as a result he had a very easy group to mould in terms of developing culture. At the MFC developing a culture is a hard slog, long turn around. There is/was resistance to change i.e I've worked this hard for 5 years, why do I need to run harder now? Also, Jones was part of that culture, even if he sat separate from it - Ablett moved fresh to a new environment. Would Ablett have developed into the leader he was today if he had stayed at Geelong and was made captain? I'd suggest that what we did was the short term pain approach to culture change - remove what was perceived as bad influences, pick young culture change captains, [censored] the players by an authoritarian coach. This obviously didn't work due to the psychological effect, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is the quickest approach in the long term - particularly after we removed the authoritarian coach after using him to do the hard yards. The next coach is coming in with a list closer to what the GCS has 2 years ago: young kids and older players who want to be there and who will be receptive to change and rebulding, not resistance. Yes, Jones could have been captain, but I can't see a clear cut argument for why he was the only choice, or a better choice.

I did a quick search of the requirements for VFL finals eligibility and found this: http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?c=1-118-0-0-0&sID=277333 It seems to say that if you played in the AFL after July 1, you need to have played at least 6 VFL games in the season to be eligible for VFL finals. Rule 20.7 refers to not played more than 12 AFL matches, but that appears (to me) to refer only to a VFL club that does not field a development league team, which Casey does. Can anyone confirm this is correct? If it is it appears that any player who has played 6 VFL games will qualify for the VFL fianls regardless of how many AFL games they've played. If the "no more than 12 games" requirement does apply, it is interesting to note that Jimmy Toumpas and Max Gawn have both played 12 games before being dropped this week (both would have 6 VFL games for the season if they play the year out at Casey, making them eligible for finals), Jack Viney has played 9 games for the MFC (not sure how many VFL games he has or if he could get to 6 to qualify), and Jack Fitzpatrick has 9 MFC games (so could drop back in coming weeks to qualify?). I wouldn't be unhappy if these four played the finals series for Casey, would anyone else?

possibly validates what the club has been saying: that Clark was genuinely indefinite and they were going him to be right any week just waiting for the injury to settle down. Good luck to James, this is possibly his last chance at afl level to impress and keep his spot next year. GC will have him covered for speed but a kamikaze inside hard ball approach could be very effective against the younger bodies.

If he doesn't play it would be strange. Good luck to him it is probably his last roll of the dice at afl level, hopefully he shows some of that vfl form in the afl.

I heard great bloke, strong trainer but maybe not someone who was interested in how others trained etc. Ie he may have ran harder than the rest but he also didn't encourage others to push themselves harder and if others went putting in that was their business not his. In the past 9 months however he has stepped up to really lead the players, and this was reflected in the promotion. As a result it wouldn't surprise me if he was captain next year and I am very happy to see him continually developing. Leadership encompasses a range of skills and qualities other than personal performance. Different leaders are also required for different circumstances (are the evolutionary v revolutionary change thread). Re Grimes I disagree with anyone who claims Grimes isn't a leader - there is a reason why Successive coaches awarded him successive club leadership awards. Re Trengove he was thrust in the position too young given we have such a crap team but if we are genuinely trying to change the culture of the club, both on and off field, it makes sense to appoint someone as leader who embodies the new culture, and leads by example (offfield). It is just a pity his onfield form hasn't kept up.

interesting indeed!

I agree with a lot of what you said but you are incorrect with your belief re Jones. People within the club have said it this year publicly and I have heard it from my contacts within the club, that despite Jones' on field performance he was not and did not act like a captain off track (this isn't disparaging, I'm not saying he misbehaved just that he didn't lead). However in the past 6-9 months both he and Garland have stepped up this leadership off field. It is possible that this combination of on field performance and newly developed of field leadership makes Jones The most suitable captain next year. But not at the time of choosing.

You never know, the employees [censored] up all the time...

Misson obviously comes from a decorated background, and the swans and saints both credit him with outstanding runs with injuries when he was with them. I raise this because I am concerned about repeat soft tissue injuries to Frawley and Dawes. Both have had soreness/tightness 3 times in the same injury, which suggests recovery has not been complete. Does anyone think we may still be pushing the players harder than standard to bring them up to "higher" levels of fitness?

Thanks for the updates KC. Any comments on a couple of the young runners for the Scorps? Are Barry or Strauss getting any of it? It also sounds like Rivers has held Hogan since going on to him, or is that more a result of a dominant Geelong midfield strangling supply?