deespicable me

I like that we're moving him on. AI don't think he will hurt us at another club, he's just not that good and hopefully he can become a servicable player and remain on THEIR list for a while

That's how we ended up paying too much for too long to Dawes and Lumumba. Then Howe says pay me the same as Lumumba and soon enough you have a lopsided pay sheet and disgruntled players. People have been critical of Watts and Howe and in many cases happy to shift them off with the hope of an upgrade, but in an ideal world I'd keep those two and trade out Dawes and Lumumba. Who knows you might even get some spare change back as well. Having said that I think we are getting our payments in order. At least I hope so. I really don't want to lose one of our young guns. The only upside of paying Dawes and Lumumba overs is their next contract will be significantly reduced leaving money for those up and coming stars.

You must clearly be a fan of the bottom realms of the AFL Ladder as well then. You must clearly be a fan of Hawks continuing their dominance of the AFL competition and the Box Hill Hawks continuing their dominance of the VFL competition. Like it or not the lower teams need compensating or you wont get the cyclical movement up and down the ladder. You need to give the lower teams the ability to improve their lists. They need high draft picks to not only bring in young talent but to trade to the higher clubs for ready made players. The higher clubs already have a good list. They just need to control their cap spending, keep a good spread of ages through their list and tinker with a mix of draft and free agency. A pick 50 has as much chance of being properly developed on a good list as a top 5 draft pick. The lower teams need talented youngsters or well developed mid range players to improve their lists. The main reason the top clubs want an untainted draft as you suggest, is not so much about improving their own lists as it is about holding the bottom teams exactly where they are. Down the bottom. The public are being fed propaganda suggesting the competition has the ability to even itself out. It doesn't.

I think he has gradually improved almost each year and I don't think he has reached the peak of his potential, so I don't mind if the club holds on to him. I don't think he has the ability to make us a better side when we are losing but I do think he can make us a better side when we are winning. If Roos and co can get the side winning more often then Jack will be a lot better player.

I think we should put in a petition to stop him commentating Melbourne games. Not spiteful like he is. Just reminding Foxtel who their audience is and why they would choose to upset them so. I've always thought that why if you are commentating so many games of one side and you knew who your audience was that you would be so derogatory to their team. Why can't Foxtel get someone like Schwartz or a Melbourne person or someone who actually likes Melbourne to commentate Melbourne games. I mean not only were there not many at the game but the TV audience would have been low and primarily Melbourne supporters, we were happy enough because we won but when we lose and he is commentating he is boring and repetitive just sinking the boot in, quite often when the audience would again be primarily Melbourne supporters. I'm not suggesting something like Ed TV but his commentary is like the opposite of Ed TV to a Melbourne supporter. Hit him where it hurts and get him out of a job. It's only what he deserves.

And if thats not enough throw in Jimmy, out with the J's in with the H's

I like them both. Jack and Jeremy for Harley and Hall, has a certain ring about it.

Interesting discussion. I think because the top teams are generally tweaking their lists and trying to get age demographics right and maybe trading for a certain type of player almost as depth or insurance etc yet bottom teams are looking at big gaps in their lists and cleanouts and total list reconstructions etc (what were we on last year, our third list rebuild or something), then the bottom teams should get the means to do this, ie good draft picks. Gives those weaker clubs a bit of extra leverage and bargaining power around this time of year, helps them rebuild quicker, makes it a touch harder for the stronger teams to stay near the top, and you get a more robust competition. I may be wrong, Bullies being an example of good recruiting and getting the right personnel on board to coach and develop talent. Even Richmond who have been patient in holding and developing their talent over a period of years without assistance are both examples that would go against the call for extra assistance for lowly teams and sets the example for those posters suggesting we do it ourselves. I don't know, its a good discussion, I just wish it was our turn to rise, or as some may say we make it our turn to rise.

I hope you're right Chris. I hate Carlton as much as the next bloke but whenever this comes up in the media similarly to our request last year the so-called unbiased media experts all shoot it down in flames. The latest talk that is getting a good run is that compensation picks for free agents should be scrapped altogether. Where are the discussions that Hawthorn with three homes, the whole state of Tasmania to pillage and the fact they can cherry pick a free agent like Frawley for $450.000 a year when we would have had to pay $600.000 to keep him, or Geelong with their sweet Stadium deal or Collingwood who basically say when and where they will play and just keep banking cheques, where are the real discussions about true equalisation, because an extra pick at the moment is nothing compared to the run these larger juggernaut clubs are getting.

I don't think any team or more importantly any group of supporters should have to go through what we've been through in the last decade. (except of course Essendon supporters). The AFL needs a robust competition with turnover at both ends of the ladder. A 3 peat for Hawthorn is boring. I still reckon the best way to equalize on-field fortunes is through a compromised draft, ie by pumping draft picks into the bottom clubs until they rise. I think Carlton need a lot of help.

Didn't you guys see Viney on the weekend. If you remember at the start of the year hardly any of his possessions ended in a Melbourne players hands, he has come a long way. I'd suggest he's actually ahead of Sam Mitchell at the same stage of his career and every chance of becoming a better player by the end of it, hopefully just as decorated. Its all very well to be critical especially when we play like we did against Carlton and Essendon but give some credit to the coaches, I reckon they would be tickled pink with Viney's game on the weekend. This is just one of those negative threads that goes nowhere. Stuff Sam Mitchell, I wouldn't trade Viney for him even if he came with a first round draft pick. Some people go looking for gold when they have it lying around in their own back yard!

I blow with the wind. I think a lot of us do. Today was great. We showed great promise and considering some of the players out of the side it was a terrific effort. But geez we sucked against Carlton. It's fantastic to end the year on a win so my yo-yo feelings towards the Melbourne Football Club are optimistic and we can all look forward to the new year with hope. Imagine next years pre-season reports! But I am still wary of the teams split personality.

I prefer Salem running off half back to Yarran. Salem will hopefully be a much better footballer than Yarran, and I rate Yarran. Save the money and give it to Salem when he's got a couple more pre-seasons under his belt. Keep developing our own talent.

The first quarter umpiring was one of the reasons I get so frustrated with the "great" game. Its hard enough going over there playing against the top team, home crowd and getting an extra advantage by the umpiring. Many of the decisions were 50/50's. I think "would they pay that free against the home team" answer NO Would they pay that decision at the MCG against Hawthorn. Answer NO Then why the !@##$%$%&*^ pay it against us. Really the bias doesn't do anyone any good. Freo were flattered to get away from us so easily, but when they come over here and the bias goes the other way, they will get a similar result to what we got yesterday. Bias in umpiring is one of the biggest issues facing the game, and still its a taboo subject. A good side will generally score from an umpiring decision and only good sides can overcome bias. We were biased for in the 3rd quarter last week against Carlton and it got us back into the game.

I still think Cale Morton will make it.

Gee, not for me. I think he's a fairly ordinary footballer. I haven't seen that much of him but what I have seen I would have thought theres a strong chance he could and should make it to the pre-season draft. Pick him up for peanuts. Play moneyball. I mean look at Saints with Hickey and Bruce, they didn't pay overs for players I'd rate above Lynch. I'd rather find another Vandenberg. I'm not too sure he's that much of an upgrade on Dawes or Pedo. Oh well, I hope we don't pay him too much or offer him too many years.

Garland is pretty good one on one albeit he has got pinged a few times for wrapping arms around qpponents. On any one day he is generally never the worst of our back six and has had very good games when he only has to play his role. He suffers as many do, not just Melbourne defenders, when we are under the pump and losing because he generally just goes back to old habits of just stopping his player when perhaps the team needs someone to step up and attack off half back. I reckon Garland is a smart bloke and he has lived through such club horrors that the self preservation instinct kicks in and he sort of thinks that if he just takes care of his man he can't get overly criticized. I think Grimes sometimes plays that way when we are getting pumped. I would like to see him play with a bit more freedom if he gets the chance and we actually start winning more games than we lose, (a couple of big ifs). He deserves that. I hope he wants it for us and himself rather than the answer to the question in the change rooms when someone asks how do you go about playing better footy and it seems like they all say "go to another club". I think Suckling would be rubbish at Melbourne, under searing pressure his passing would go to crap. I would like to keep Garland and hope he would like to stay and the club and he can agree to terms. But I think that of most players. I hate free agency.

I don't think it's entirely the fault of individuals. As with Hawthorn when they lose a couple of players and a player comes in to the team as depth, they are told in no uncertain terms what to do, where to run, who to cover etc. They have a winning culture. When they are tested they dig in and fight back. There have been at least two examples of their resolve this year. The biggest disapointment on the weekend was the last quarter. This was when our losing culture shone brightly for all to see. We are showing signs of improvement in 3 of the last 8 quarters we have played, but our mistakes and lack of desire to hold on in the last quarter was shocking. This goes to the responsibility of the leaders and not the lesser players. Old habits aren't necessarily the fault of the individuals that people seem willing to highlight week in week out. In fact I would think that swap a Matt Jones into the Hawks line-up for a day and there would be no difference to their result. I saw two instances of this. One when Dunn was kicking out and the other when Watts turned it over in the last. Jones and McDonald in both instances were walking with their back to the play and crowding space. I've never seen the Hawks or any good team do that. If you're in range of the kicker you either make a lead or shepherd or get the $$$3## out of the way so someone can lead into the space you're clogging up. Jones was actually by himself but was tired and didn't even want the pill. Thats our leaders. Thats our culture. I'm not saying trade out Jones or Mc

I would have thought Ed himself would have pulled it. Surely he is embarrassed by that performance. Daicos was O.k and at least tried to be rational. left Melbourne alone and just talked about Collingwood. Tony Shaw should never see the inside of a commentary box again. He was boring, ranting, objectionable and by my count (I didn't really) thought the free kick count should have been 68 to 0. He was terrible Peter Hellier hadn't done any homework for the job and thought he might get by with his casual wit, and clearly didn't. Had one joke repeated 7 times about the "Straunie" pocket.

I actually think Brisbane probably should get a priority pick as I thought Melbourne should have in previous years. But let me indulge. There is Capitalism, or no restrictions for the rich, even concessions for the rich to prosper as they then filter the money down to the workers. There is socialism which is everyone should have access to a fair go. Even playing field. Then there is Equalism which is where a governing body actively interferes in order to raise up the less fortunate and restrict the powerful to somewhere in the middle. Again please bear with I am not trying to be condescending I just think for my argument it is important to establish three different styles of governing. It is worth noting that the equalisation fund is very close to what it intends to be. The AFL have identified using a formula the poorer clubs and those clubs receive more each year than the richer clubs. For example I think we get 9 million per year where Hawthorn or West Coast get ???, I'm not sure but not as much. That is equalism. But I have a feeling the rich clubs may have signed of on this equalisation funding model under the proviso of keeping the draft "pure". This is where I think the AFL need to recognise that if you actively engage as a governing body to equalise the competition on field you will get a much more interesting and robust competition. The consequence being all 18 sides can and will survive. So I'm actually all in favor of Brisbane getting a priority pick. But I'd go further. I don't think Hawthorn should get their first pick till around 30 or so. Their second may not come in till 60 or so. For me the way it should work is by key factors as in the equalisation fund. ie when was the last time the team played finals. When was the last time the team finished top four. How many years has the team been in the bottom four. etc Then break up the ladder into performance indicators ie bottom 4 (18 to 15), Bottom half (10 to 14) (5 to 9) and top 4, and from there give out a sliding scale of picks. So if Brisbane finsh bottom with 2 wins they might recieve picks 1 then pick 5 and maybe depending on other triggers a further pick before the top four teams get their first pick, say pick 17 or so. Melbourne by fact of their fantastic bottom 4 representation (go Dees) and lack of finals appearances over the last 10 years if they finish 15th with 6 wins might get as worked out by the formula picks 4 then a pick between the bottom half and the 5 to 9 group so a pick that might come in around the 13 mark. Carlton might get pick 2 then a further pick at the end of the first round before the top 4 and if they show little improvement in 2016 and finish bottom 2 they might get picks 2 and 5 etc. I know it sounds a bit complicated but thats because every extra pick you give out pushes everyone down the list but to give an example Brisbane 18th 2 wins, second year bottom 4, last played finals 2002 receive picks 1,5* 17* 31, 61 etc Melbourne 15th 6 wins, fifth year bottom 4, last played finals 2000 recieve picks 4, 13*, 18*, 35,65 etc St Kilda finish 11th 8 wins, haven't played finals since whenever recieve normal picks with an extra pick end of first round or maybe a second round pick straight after their pick in the second round. Geelong say they finish 10th, because of their recent successes obviously don't get any assistance and just take their place in the queue for draft picks Hawthorn blah,blah end up with picks after priorities have been given out approx pick 30, 60, 78 etc This I think distributes talent from the draft reasonably fairly for an equalised system. Hawthorn who have a superb culture and can turn stones into diamonds are challenged to work with their picks to get them up to their high standards. Also due to the extra picks given to the lower clubs and their desire to look for a mix of kids and experience, all of a sudden a player like Shoenmakers (25 man bun) who was a fair player would be more chance to be traded out to a lesser club rather than winning a premiership with Box Hill Hawks. Well I hope that makes sense. it's what I believe. Just like the "equalisation funding model" does fairly well for clubs off field fortunes, I think a similar system for the draft would work to equalise clubs fortunes on-field.

Bring back the priority pick. I believe the "Melbourne tanked" debacle and consequent angst towards us by all and sundry with the overall sentiment being "they don't deserve a priority pick" made it easy for the AFL and those with vested interests (the powerful clubs) to take it away. I was surprised and disappointed at the lack of support for one of the enjoyable idiosyncrasies of the draft that added a bit of spice for those supporters who had had to endure a poor year of performance on the field. One question that was rarely asked in the debate that conspired against Melbourne was did we actually deserve a priority pick. Clearly the answer was yes. I know people also said that teaching a footy club to lose games goes against the grain and creates a poor culture and I think Melbourne were definitely guilty of those sins. In fact Melbourne were pretty bad at everything they did. Maybe they still are. But even so the priority pick was never intended for such lowly purposes or to give incentive to poorly performing teams to perform even poorer. It was intended to even up the fortunes of the teams on the field in the coming seasons. To create a cycle that allows teams the opportunity to rise back up the ladder irrespective of whether they were a crap club that would blow the chance anyway. Eventually if they keep getting draft assistance they will rise. GWS are proof of that. Remember this is based on the correct presumption that if your team rises up the ladder you can achieve a much better off field result as well. Obviously it was abused and the criteria for receiving the priority pick needed reviewing but I think it was a mistake to scrap it, or indeed put it at the discretion of the AFL. What with umpiring and the MRP you can guarantee they'll get that wrong. Melbourne have been down the bottom for far too long. Its no good for anyone. The AFL isn't robust enough to sustain a club that performs as badly as we have over the past decade. If we remain in the bottom four next year we would have to consider folding. People suggested we got paid overs for Frawley leaving last year. I certainly don't. If the power clubs can take a KPS leading player from a bottom 4 club in his prime at about 25 and lose nothing themselves, the only restriction being to fit him in the salary cap then the bottom 4 club has been given a massive disadvantage. Massive. If Brisbane or Carlton go through a decade similar to our last decade the drain on the competition will be enormous. I think this way because I can't see us ever getting back on an even footing with the more powerful clubs. I don't believe we can get there without help. I know some people hate the idea of a welfare system but they better get used to the bottom 4.

The games against the Bombers and now the Saints were critical to this year. Its all very well to win a game you weren't meant to, or get a team on an off day but if we had any ticker as a club, any heart, any care, then these games against teams in similar positions to ourselves are the ones that show the supporters the club cares. These are the "line in the sand games". And we once again were rolled over like a weak gutted animal. A good club would wouldn't accept it. I want to see Bartlett, Jackson and Roos in front of us putting things straight. Telling us it won't happen again. Putting jobs, reputations and the club on notice. This isn't about game plans, succession plans or individual performance. This is about a club deciding wether its just a bunch of mercenaries checking their bank balance each week to make sure the moneys gone in or wether we are ever going to stand up and be something worthwhile.

I agree with these posts. I am extremely depressed with the state of the game not for the beauty of the spectacle but because there is no change. I used to enjoy seeing teams other than Melbourne rise and fall and the cyclical nature of success. I believed and still do believe in the restorative power of the priority pick. I used to believe that your chance of success in the AFL was indeed cyclical, you couldn't stay down too long before you'd bubble back up with a team filled with early draft talent. The biggest shift in the game in my opinion is political. The game used to have socialist roots. After the years of St Kilda and Fitzroy being lost down the bottom of the ladder the AFL introduced the draft and the priority pick system to help those that couldn't help themselves. Now I believe we are viewing a Capitalist system where the strong get stronger and the weak....... well its their own fault. Bad luck. I know everyone says Melbourne had its chance and blew it. I know people say its our own fault. It was and is. So how long do we stay down. How much longer? I have NO faith that we are on a level playing field, that if we work hard and get the right people in place we can become as powerful as any one of Collingwood, Hawthorn or Geelong. I think the power clubs have too much say and are actively making it impossible for teams like ourselves to ever rise up the ladder. Hawthorn have homes at Glenferrie, Waverley, Tasmania and now some multi million dollar facility at Dingley. Collingwood has a great set up and a huge power base and Geelong like the interstate clubs has its own stadium. Equalisation is a myth. People who think we should fight our way out of this are in my opinion mistaken because we can't compete given our circumstances. We are starting from a fair way back and we are only going backwards. I don't really care about the beauty of the game, I just want us to win something occassionally. Given the political shift the game has taken and a weak AFL administration I see this as virtually impossible.

In the first half for Casey Grimes played back and didn't go so well. He turned the ball over and although he is a good one on one backman he had no effect in running the ball out of defence. In the second half though he played on a wing and rotated a bit through the middle and was much more effective. His goal in the third quarter when Toumpas handballed to him as he ran to the 50 was one of the goals of the day, also Toumpas's best play and gave hope to those of us who would like to see those two stay at Melbourne and become good players in a good side. Most players are judged by their ability to attack and be involved in goal scoring and we forgive their lack of accountability to put on pressure when we don't have the ball. Jurrah a classic example (wow he was worth it though). A lot of posters would like to see Hunt given a go but in reality if he was playing at the Box Hill Hawks he wouldn't even be considered for this year and would be told to work on a variety of roles and certain skills would need to be ticked off before consideration for the seniors. This way when those players do get a go they can fit into the Hawks style of playing. Hunt is showing good signs but I would prefer he is developed properly for the rest of the year. I'm not sure if that includes a senior game, it may. Grimes though is the opposite of a Hunt. He is dour and defensive minded. He needs to work on his attacking play. On Saturday in the Casey side he showed progress. He should be considered for a wing/ HF/HB/mid rotation role. I certainly believe players can develop and to get rid of Grimes at the end of the year when he is great depth and still a chance to be a permanent part of our best 22 is short sighted by one or two posters. The importance of Casey being a good side should not be underestimated. You only had to see how poor the Blues were to appreciate we are definitely ahead of them in our development and there were 5 or 6 players playing for Casey who could walk straight into Melbournes senior side and perform well. The Blues looked very thin. Toumpas is playing in the midfield at Casey and is still uncomfortable in contested situations. He is working really hard and shows vision ala when he handpassed to Grimes in space for that goal. At some point he should get another stint at senior level as part of that development. The idea is that eventually he will stay there as part of our best 22

Oh poor Jobbey. Boo Hoo Only 4 and 8 half way through the season. You better hurry up and retire before they decide you can't play for 2 years.