45HG

Fascinating to watch Australian cricket now, I'm very excited for the coming Summer. We should bring back our mid-90's uniform and play cricket like it used to be played

I don't believe you took in a word that was just said. I'd like to see where any of us said they shouldn't play on a Friday night. Of course they should play, but how equitable is it that W.C. have already had two Friday night games, Brisbane have had one, Freo have had two, Adelaide have had one (and have another in a weekend basically to themselves), Port had the opening game of the season. Not one of these have been at the G, aside from the Eagles game, most have been at the Interstate team's home ground. Whilst the MFC have had precisely ZERO friday night games in our, not the AFL's, 150th year. Furthermore, to focus on this one distinct point within the broader nature of this thread is a little narrow in my opinion, especially if you're going to miss the point

Ordinary team = Carlton. This year, they had the first match of the season plus two Saturday nights plus a Friday night and a Sat arvo all in the first 7 rounds. Plus one of their other matches was a Sunday arvo against Collingwood, a home game. Fixturing is not so much about giving lesser teams bad draws, as it is giving big teams very good draws as a means of furthering their own monetary receipts. I don't necessarily think it's wrong. I just find it an odd fixture. Friday night at the MCG featuring an interstate side has always seemed an odd fixture to me. I remember we played the Crows and it seemed odd, thought was backed up by the Breast Cancer awareness initiative. I think it lowers the crowd and Victorian interest. A home game for W.C. against the Hawks in this round might have made sense, as interstate game on Friday can be live to a sellout crowd. Friday at the G in my opinion should feature two Victorian teams.

I see what you mean. But the two halves we played against Bris last time are enough to make me want to smack myself in the head with something sharp. Not to mention most halves this year. I'll take each week as it comes, whatever the performance brings.

Another i forgot was round 22, must be an attempt year in year out to have teams travelling as little as possible. And yes, i realise they aren't mistakes, i was trying to be diplmoatic, something i'm not very good at!

Valenti is hardly a match winner, and we've added a first gamer whilst taking out a 260 gamer. Against another top 4, or thereabouts side, i hardly see how you could consider us winners. Especially with Jamar, Johnson and Martin rotating in ruck. Any combination there is a loss for us, maybe not for the future but on the day.

Why is Hawthorn playing West Coast on a Friday night before the Split round/at all? What would we change, or make sure would happen, if we were in charge of fixturing? Now i don't want to turn this into Collingwood bashing, but of course theirs is the biggest inequality in the draw. But aside from that i think it is generally i ridiculous state of affairs. I remember from round 4-8 i think it was featured the same four teams. Pies, Dogs, Saints and Bombers (from memory). There are too many fixturing mistakes that underline the lack of integrity that AFL should have in creating a fair an equitable system

Yeah i see what you mean. But if the game had never, ever, been played before, how do we know there were selected teams? Did the Grammar principal initiate the game and then select a crop of talented rugby players? Or did he have a ready made team raring to go?

Trade talk in June = Stupid

Yeah i was just being a goose. Being a Grammar boy myself, shock horror, i've heard this story a billion times. I just don't see how you can have two teams playing each other, yet one is claimed to be the first team. Not to mention the game was adapted between two others, rugby and soccer, and possibly adapted from indigenous games, with rules not set down until after the game was played. I can see why they claim it, and good luck to them as i suppose it helps set some scene for the situation at the time

Cut off is Monday night isn't it?

8 of Newton's 11 games have been played alongside David Neitz

Bring a mate absolutely, and more importantly, SIGN THEM UP!! Second last day of the membership drive, a thousand people bring a friend and sign them up we could hit 30...wishful thinking ok, but nonetheless. P.s. Does anyone know how we're actually losing SO much money this year?

With a score of 1-1 after three consecutive Saturdays, the MFC probably could claim to be the first anything in Australian rules, because Scotch and Grammar were playing soccer

11 matches of 13 Aussie has played. How's that relatively few?

Given that it's a relatively new form of heritage listing, intangible, it's probably unknown by all to what form it will be and what it will mean for our club. Because there is no precedent, we cannot know if it can protect us or if it simply a tag for our club. We should just wait and see

I see what you mean, but then i suppose the argument then becomes how effective is an effective ruckman/hitout. I personally don't think tap outs are as important as they once were. Hit outs do not equal clearances, and in fact can often lead the other way around. Watching White this season, it's bewhildering the amount of times his hit outs will not go to advantage. I see what you mean, and i do think that Jamar is a better traditional ruckman, but in today's football i think a ruckman is not just one who contains himself to ball ups and throw ins I think the argument is about not just which footballer at the MFC can take the ball ups and throw ins, but who can be versatile enough to play different rules, and who understands football enough to make it hurt around the ground.

Honestly I don't see why they wouldn't Another blockbuster marquee game that they're apart of and another "away" game on the MCG

Jeff White

Bbub already put a thread of this up

God i Love Connolly. Such a straight talker, but picks his words well. His quote about Neitz is fantastic

But RR, he won MOTY, he must have been impressive I admit, on occasion last year i was pretty excited. He seemed to be going out of his way to really attack the footy and work hard. Unfortunately it seems he's gone backwards, when his only option was to move forwards. I'm not sure if i'm more dissapointed though in Weetra, or more to the point, why we drafted him. Is there a story behind this? Was he Rookie listed? Was he injured before the draft and we assumed he was better?

What message would it send a rebuilding club building on youth, to draft a 30 year old who hasn't played footy in over a year?

Whilst on the subject of ex-players, one player you have to hunt out is Anthony Ingerson. Ingo is the funniest bloke. Spoke with him at the dinner, then at the walk. Was wearing his playing jumper under his jacket. Funny guy, really down to Earth

How are they older than Scotch? and Melbourne weren't professional at this stage anyway, that took a long, long time