deanox

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?

I think you'll find what Neeld was trying to do was drive culture change (as discussed in the evolutionary vs revolutionary thread) by appointing two players who epitomised the new culture that we want to establish. It has nothing to do with selling the idea that we are a young team.

This, combined with your user name, is quite amusing.

There is talk of AFL support for someone like Buddy Franklin going to GWS, I wonder if there could be similar support to get players to Melbourne? It is quite obvious we need 2 or 3 mids to support Jones and the young mids coming through. This is the only thing that will make us competitive next year.

Pederson was indecisive and is unfit. But he had only been in for one week and deserves the sane chances as others to get confidence after a few games - it did wonders for fitzy. Also with the injury to Frawley I think stability is important, especially amongst the back 6. Also re pederson, I won't defend his performance but he has a 3 year contract. There is no point nagging him out and labelling him a spud and sitting at casey for that time. We may as well see if we can utilise his strengths and make a player of him.

I'm going to go a slightly different tact on this. While I agree we have been unimaginative at both selection table and onfield moves I can see some benefit in trying to stick with the sane team. We have a core group who haven't played much footy together so there is a focus on building up that experience instead of chopping and changing each week. There is an attempt to build confidence through exposure ie get a few games under the belt settle down, lose the nerves. There is also the fact that hardly anyone at carry is any good and that we'd be swapping player 22 for player 23 anyway, not bringing in anyone who is going to impact. Ok maybe a couple of blokes are next in line but I think the current approach seems to be "you must lose your spot" which is intended to rebuild the confidence I.e. The pays don't have to feel on the edge all the time like they might have been under Neeld. The focus isn't on players who make mistakes while trying (terlich, kent even pederson to an extent) the focus is on players who don't put on our run hard enough (blease).

At the time everyone was happy red and blue people were being brought into the fold. It was the big "getting the club back together" party that we thought would move us forward. whatever we do this time needs to be done right. But we said that lady time and the time before and both times we were happy with the first 12 months of the new way of doing things until we realised it was falling apart just the same. I have no idea how we make sure we don't make the same mistakes again bit we need to.

I missed the first 15 minutes but was told there it was big. Anyone able to elaborate?

Everyone should read the executive summary that is linked. It is very clear that the AFL are going to support us both financially and otherwise (attracting key personnel) of we give then a board they want. It was good that the is focused on keeping the board and ceo separate. I thought that report was too heavily focused on the need to satisfy the afl for public consumption however reading between the lines makes it clear that a non afl sanctioned board could see the end of us.

Devils advocate soon on this: Sooner poster have expressed concern over how will we attract players to the club (young Taylor Adams or other senior midfielders for example.) well if you sign a coach and Jack steps up and signs and col signs that is a pretty good indication to the external afl playing group that things are on the right track. If these players recommit it is hard to suggest the place is a horrible place to be a player.

I have no problem with stockdale, and would love us to be led by an outspoken strong president who won't take it from anyone in the media or afl. BUT now is not the time. In 18 months or 3 years when we are on track again Thanks to the afl bail out it will be time to take on such a leader. Right now we need the afls help and support.

I'm not sure what the fuss is. If I was Jack, I'd want to sit with the coach and say "what are your plans for me? What position do you think you will play me?". Jack would have an idea of what he enjoys and he had been shuffled around. I wouldn't blame him from wanting someone with a solid vision. Also, if seems obvious he didn't get on with Neeld but loves Craig. I don't mind him waiting to make sure we dont get a Neeld clone personality wise.

I can't remember many board members ever mentioning who they support! http://www.melbournefc.com.au/melbourne/news/2013-07-12/former-eagle-joins-melbourne-board.workstation This article describes him as a passionate demon. It also suggests he has been identified and in discussions with the club about joining the board for some time.

Oh WJ you beat me to it! I hope the tv stations run with "that one day in September" as the promo.

Whoever we get, I hope we get a coach who is more focused on leaving a legacy than winning a flag.

To soon to call tanking??

My understanding is he is a Melbourne supporter since birth. Remember there was no west coast or freo back then!