grazman

Lyon's appointment, if indeed it actually happens... is it contingency planning perhaps? The first two years are a wipeout for Bails, because it takes that long to prune back the dead wood. As Jaded pointed out finishing with 8 wins while it looks better in terms of win/loss is actually a worse case scenario in terms of rebuilding. Bails needs at least two more years to show what his real wares - if nothing much happens there's at least a fall back option.

A great read D26, and great men, in short it's why we've remained as passionate and loyal as we have. Go Dees.

Well he is competing against a very good ruckman in McIntosh at North, but I'd be thinking more as a Key Forward that could rotate onto the ball in short bursts. His set shots this year have been woeful, but he's really the only key forward inside North's fifty and he was good enough to kick 7 on Matty Scarlett in 08.

It's an interesting prospect Old. North need key backs, they also need a stoppage player to replace Harris who looks to be cooked and some tall running backs. none of Dunn, Newton or Bell are going to excite North, and while I'm loathe to trade either Rivers or Jones they're exactly the players they'd be looking at in exchange for Hale.

We've all heard about how we were the most professional of the amateur clubs and the most amateur of the professional clubs, well welcome to the the world of corporate football! Forget about the footy you grew up watching as a kid, it's a different game now, a game of commercial imperatives. Tanking is as practical as it is logical. Vlad won't admit it, but he doesn't need to. The AFL is a quasi-socialist construction anyway, but the alternative of rampant capitalist free marketers would kill us off in the blink of an eye. I don't lose any sleep about it, it's just how footy is now, the game must change with it's environment or go the way of the dodo.

Well to be pedantic, the poll isn't structured very well. Firstly it has to have a purpose ie. what are we trying to identify and why? Secondly there should be a statement or question that people can people can definitively answer ie. Yes, No, Don't know... etc. There's too much variance in the responses. For instance I could tick all three options because they may not be considered to be mutually exclusive. That is I believe the primary reason for playing footy is to win the premiership, that I also agree there are many other important factors in footy besides winning premierships and that neither is really black and white. Maybe your next poll should look something like this: Players play for the 'primary' reason of winning premierships. 1) yes 2) no 3) don't know 4) don't care Like all free advice consider it money well spent.

CRIKEY! Or maybe, just like Jarad Rivers a few years ago, coaches get [censored] off when their best players get suspended for undisciplined acts and make a point by bringing them back through the 2s. Colin Sylvia owes more to the MFC than the MFC owes to Colin Sylvia. I think it says more about the juvenile hero worship of players that the notion of Sylvia spitting the dummy and walking from the club is even on the radar. From his interview earlier in the year I see a new sense of maturity in Colin and his desire to make his mark, I think he understands more about the notion of 'club' and loyalty than some posters.

Loved the bit where Tony Shaw was discussing Melbourne and said that Mark Jamar had been good this year, but was a bit down last week and that Nathan Jones and Brock McLean would be important at the stoppages this week.

loked like a corked thigh Fred

I don't think it was half arsed at all. In complete contrast I think the club knew exactly what the situation was and that they'd get 300K guaranteed for very little outlay. Even if they'd gone full-tilt there'd be little reward as the Kangaroos discovered. If I was a betting man I'd be putting the house on us playing in Darwin rather than Canberra. It makes more sense financially and in terms of building a supporter base. It's unlikely Darwin will get it's own team and we have six Territorians on our list. Beyond a preseason match I can't see any AFL matches being fixtured at Manuka. The AFL wants the ACT Govt to double it's financial contribution and I just can't see them doing it. The only team that really wants to play in Canberra is the Swans (because they pull a strong following from Canberra and the surrounding regions when they're doing well) but they only want to play away games here (Hello Eddie Maguire) Drawing crowds of under 10k is hardly going to convince the Govt that it's money well spent. AFL in Canberra relies heavily on people travelling from Sydney and the Riverina to support the matches. Considering the weather and the genuine lack of interest even from the clubs - 7k is about all you could expect.

I was at the game on Sunday and it look like Stef had a corked thigh, he later went back on and played out the game. I don't think it's anything serious.

6. Bruce 5. Warnock 4. Davey 3. Moloney 2. Rivers 1. Morton

Who was brave enough to endure the entire 120 min torture of the Derby? Granted I maybe a parochial Melbourne supporter, and we have been pretty damn poor at times this year, but the one and a half quarters of pure unadulterated shyte that passed as football that I witnessed in this game was far worse than anything I'd witnessed from us this year and made me question whether players are indeed immune from tanking. I reckon Belgrave U12s could have beaten either side today. Sure the players looked like they were trying - right up to the point that they won the ball and then handed it directly back to an opponent who was miles away from the intended target.... and herein lies the non-issue of tanking as far as Vlad is concerned - how do you prove sides tank. I can't really criticise the motives of either coach without sounding like a hypocrite because I actually want us to get Scully, but I believe at the very least senior players can not be isolated from the intentions of the FD. The game was so farcical that it beggerd belief that the fans stayed to watch it.... other than to see who wanted to win less. This surely isn't good for football. It would be bad enough that a game at the highest level could be so poor at demonstrating the most basic of football skills, that it could do so on the basis of instructions would completely undermine and destroy the game. But like I said Vlad will be happy to say show me the proof...from my perspective though what I witnessed yesterday is enough evidence to do something about the issue.

Ohhh I get it now... you're taking the [censored].

What the... Newton played his first game in 2007 and has been given plenty of chances since then to prove his worth in the seniors (and how many times exactly can you debut)... to use your phrase when given his chances he was utterly useless. It's probably never crossed your mind that the footy department might actually know a little bit about the game... but in any case I'm backing their judgement over yours.

Ideally after Rd 15 every club has played everyone else the priority picks can be sorted out pro rata, but in the current system that's not possible because of the way the draw is structured, but it does make sense.

Tanking is a non-issue! After watching Dean Bailey's performance on the couch last night and then reading Cameron Schwab's comments in the Hun this morning I was left a little perplexed. Are the club really trying to tank? Do we suck at losing as much as we do at winning? I take on-board Dean's comments that you can't really send players out onto the field and tell them not to try, but I think the whole issue is a very confused one. Consider the AFL's position, namely that there is no such beast as tanking... that clubs do not try and seek an advantage at the draft by manipulating their performances on the field. Perish the thought. The draft after all is an artificial construct and priority picks aren't inherently evil; whether clubs deserve them I guess depends on where the respective supporter stands on the argument. I doubt that anyone other than Vlad spends less time worrying about tanking than the current coaches fighting it out for the top 8. So for at least half the competition the concept has no immediate relevance. For those with no realistic chance of making the finals though, there seems to be some sort of parallel universe happening - no one it seems wants to finish in the middle of the ladder. Michael Malthouse believes this to be a blight on the game - that the prize for finishing last is so great that supporters are actually barracking for their club to lose. Priority picks aside this would still happen under any form of the current draft, someone will have pick one afterall.... unless of course we were to dismantle the draft and introduce free agency. Now which sort of club could benefit from that arrangement? Mick you sly dog - not satisfied that the current fixturing policy gives you enough of a headstart? Certainly the reactions of some supporters would support his claims and leave me befuddled at times. It almost seems that they want the team to show signs of development - enough to underpin the expectations of future success, but obviously not so developed as to actually win. One minute we're terrible, the next we're not terrible enough. A case of having your cake and eating it too I'm tempted to suggest. At the heart of the issue is how many gold plated top ten picks will guarantee for fans and sponsors the holy grail of a premiership? I'll be cruel and suggest going by some club's previous recruiting that 38 should just about do it. Jack Scully (yes I know his name is Tom, but I'm calling him Jack!) is the name on the lips of every amateur recruiter and player manager. I'll go out on a limb and suggest there's probably 16 clubs that would love to have young Scully. The dilemma of course is that only one club will probably have that chance, and that his selection alone is unlikely to drag the sixteenth team to the finals let alone a premiership. 21 other players will be needed (granted the kid's good, but not quite that good). Gaining first selection in the draft is not a prize in itself, simply a means to an end (now there's an interesting philisophical argument) OK Melbourne have the likes of Watts and Grimes and eventually Jack Viney (yes I've already pencilled in SOT as a F/S selection) so Scully could well feel right at home with other developing talent, but is this just the vision of a delusional supporter trying to put a positive spin on a rotten season or is the club actually working towards a set of strategic priorities under a stable administation with a long term view of developing players? Should I be more concerned by our performances against Collingwood, Essendon and Brisbane, or about a win over an insipid Port Adelaide at the G? If we don't win against Geelong, Sydney, Richmond and North, sides all above us on the ladder, can we really be accused of tanking? For every point of view, there's a contrary perspective with very little to hang a hat on in terms of fact or detail..I'm actually coming around to Vlad's reasoning - for all intents and purposes the issue of tanking is in fact a non-issue. Maybe I'm being a little premature, but I'm firm in my belief that if you want something badly enough you have to make sacrifices... so I say to the sceptics out there ... welcome to the Melbourne Football Club Jack Scully.

Peter Burgoyne was a disgrace, no matter how you feel about what happens off field, first and for most you represent yourself every time you play... he squibbed it today big time. There's real problems at Port, not least because the problems will fester away until the wound is cauterized. They've dug themselves a very big hole.

If we're serious about 'list management' time to sign the big guy up for another two years and put him back on the LTI list for the rest of the year.

Doesn't matter so long as we don't win more than four and West Coast win the Derby.

I think last night was Mark Harvey's death sentence. The derby is going to be fascinating... they both can't lose... West coast winning is good for us, Freo replacing their coach could be just as good.

:lol: :lol: ... oh wait you were serious

If we win less than five matches, then West Coast is the only side that can sneak in to get pick 2. Freo aren't eligible for a first round priority pick.

I can think of three possible explanations. 1. His team mates chose a better option 2. He wasn't in his team mate's field of vision ie standing wide on the wing rather than in the V. 3. His team mates just don't like him. There are probably others, but that will do to start with.

one word for Robbo - showpony.