45HG

Can someone please explain exactly how everyone knows it was shelved? If people don't know exactly what was in it, how can they be so sure that none of the recommendations have been undertaken? Or is it easier to assume the MFC are useless in all departments.

Logic has everything to do with it. You accept upsets happen. You have referenced many examples of upsets, including two of the last 3 grand finals, that you didn't see coming. Yet you refuse to believe that a team in the top four in the last 3 years was anything but miles away.

Saints were third and produced a big upset to roll the Cats in the QF. How you ignore logic and facts is beyond me.

Making three straight prelims, two of which they were reasonably unlucky to lose, is no where near "miles away." You say you would've tipped St Kilda to win the first GF, yet they were lucky to not have been blown away. Hrm. How in the world you can figure they were "miles away" after the stats used above is simply flawed IMO. Your claim that they "aimed to make finals and survive" is "miles away." What I also don't understand is how you frame the dogs as an underfunded club with few top class players, yet Eade isn't a good coach because he 3 times came within a quater of making GFs that, despite your ramblings, they were certainly better than a 15 goal shot.

Not that that is in line with what you've largely been saying, but that's nothing new. They nearly rolled the overwhelming favourites in the 2008 PF. Yet they couldn't have won the '08 granny? In '09 they lost an epic PF that many would argue they were hard done by in (for the second year running). They would've come up against the team they played, and beat, only 4 weeks previously. Yet they would've been mauled...

They also lost the '08 (I think) prelim after they were very close in the last quarter, Brad Johnson went up for a mark and was tackled by that hairy Geelong defender Rooke in midair. Unbelievably no free was paid and the Cats kicked a goal and stole the momentum late. I'm enjoying WYL's best work here though.

They are compared here.

And the highest paid player (I believe) would struggle to be in the top 400. Bizarre scenario.

Kennedy is just about the exact type of player that any club needs. Sylvia isn't.

Don't know what game you were watching.

Would seem a pretty obvious no IMO.

Can't understand how people can feel worse after today's game than after any of the previous 3.

I just don't understand the argument against same-sex marriage. Who loses out from people who love each other marrying one another?

Dream come true.

There's nothing I would detest more than living with 58 other footballers...

Not sure how this fits...

Haha. Big AFL revelation: All rookies are paid under the desk. AA to investigate possible breeches.

While I think he'll stay, does he have the mental fortitude to decline 12 and a half desks a year over 5 years? By the end of his 5 years in GWS, he could've racked up 62 of them. Maybe more.

Or 10 desks...

Re-sign!!!!

Scientists have shown that gay marriage actually killed the dinosaurs.

I agree... The 2008 MFC team was one of the greats.

My point was more along the lines of good teams win wherever the play and the week after wherever they play. Further, that it's not playing in Darwin that is the problem. If we were a good team we wouldn't be complaining about pulling up from Darwin. To be a good team we need, as you say, experienced, senior and bigger bodied players. In a few years time, it won't even be a concern.

Personally, I feel a lot of footy fans (and some MFC fans) buy into the notion that MCC fans are soft and don't attend games, are fairweather fans etc. I feel that the turnout in the MCC area of MFC supporters is always quite good (considering it's 1/5 of the ground). From what I see of the rest of the ground some weeks (namely last week and the Hawthorn game), it's the outer where the lack of MFC numbers really shows. It's just a pet hate of mine, and probably and over reaction, but it's an opinion nonetheless.

I also agree with Billy and Nash in terms of "deserve" however I frame my position differently. Whilst I enjoy the finals, and the outside chance of ultimate glory that it spreads to the lesser teams (and the longer spectacle), under the new system it's hard to argue how any team outside of the top for "deserves" to play finals. Traditionally, they have each just made up the numbers. I'd say that the Bombers are a more worthy team to hold a finals spot than we are. Should we win the next four and make the finals, we'd have 1 win, 1 draw and 8 losses against top 8 sides. The Bombers would have 4 wins, 1 draw and 6 losses. Our 8 losses have come at an average of 71.25 points. Essendon's 6 have come at an average of 41.33. In summary, I'm torn. Probably on terminiology more than anything.