grazman

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.

6. Grimes 5. Bruce 4. McLean 3. Rivers 2. Jamar 1. Davey

I like Pickers, and what he's saying is logical, but I beg to differ. Big blokes are speculative... plenty of clubs have got it wrong and still get it wrong. Unless the player is cut and dried (like Watts or Nick Nat) using an early pick is folly IMO. Is Butcher worth pick 2 just because there won't be as many chances in the future and he looks the best of the current draft or is he worth pick 2 because he's genuinely good enough to be ranked that high? Tough call, particularly given the club wants a contested KPF. If that's the case I certainly wouldn't discount the idea of tabling pick 2 in trade week if the club's not sold on Butcher and desperate for another tall forward.

I've seen enough of Newton to know he won't cut it as a forward. He has zero confidence kicking at goal even in the VFL. Still he's on the list for another year so we may as well try and do something with him, for that reason I'd try and turn him into a defender at Casey. As for promoting players... I'm more thinking about protecting players. That's why I'd send Morton and Bennell back for this week. I don't care who comes in really - it's academic from my point of view.

PJ made three clangers (one of which resulted in a goal to the opposition) and gave away at least two free kicks which resulted in opposition goals. Yes he tried hard, but he was also pretty silly at times.

I beg to differ. He got punched in the throat as a 19 year old playing his first season of footy. His confidence was a little shaken, but he was ostensibly played as a forward then as an outside receiver - he got an undeserved tag of 'soft' because he played the role he was assigned. I can't remember too many times in his career when he didn't go when it was his turn - and certainly none at all in the last five years.

Yep. I can't remember the exact words, but Matthews qualified what he said by saying something like "I'm not sure what I expected from an 18 year old school kid and that Key Position players do take a long time to develop." Picking talent is not that easy - particularly for KPF. Coaches that have dabbled in recruiting have more often than not, made a complete hash of it. As for Watts himself, I saw plenty of good signs and one bad sign last night. His kicking, vision and poise is great, but he's obviously being targeted for physical attention. I don't have a problem with that - that's footy. He dropped his head at the last minute in a marking contest waiting for the contact he thought was coming - while completely understandable as an 18 year old kid playing men and the kid's got a great temperament so he'll learn from it, but it's something the Footy Department won't have missed. Watts may not get sent back to Casey this week, but he will get sent back and supporters should accept it as a natural part of his development. He's on a steep learning curve and still doing his VCE, the days of sink or swim are over.

You could also argue that some of those players shouldn't be in their best side anyway. There's some interesting decisions to be made at Richmond at the end of the year with players such as Richo, Bowden, Brown, Pettifer, McMahon, Polak, King, Schulz, Tambling and Oakley-Nicholls

The two reasons for extending Bailey's contract this year rather than waiting until 2010 are: 1. It is a public show of faith in the coach and the approach to the players/media/supporters... it creates a sense of certainty. 2. This certainty has a flow on effect in match planning... anyone want to argue that 5 wins at the end of the season is better than 4?

I think Bailey can coach and I think the evidence is that there's been substantial improvements in key areas such as clearances and in general workrate (last week aside). He's building a side from the bottom up and he's developing some very raw material at the moment. It takes more than one year to 'rebuild' and it takes more than one year to completely change the coaching philosophy and game plan of a club. If the club is serious about rebuilding then it's already factored in the first two picks in this years draft, and it must also understand that it's completely unfair to judge a coach on only the final year's performance of his contract - particularly when he's delivered on his end of the bargain for the first two... it's why Bailey should be given an extension on his contract this year.

Food for thought DD (both of you). When I was a young man (so much younger than today!) I remember a psychology lecture (one of the ones I attended anyway) discussing the usefulness of IQ tests in assessing a child's potential. " An IQ test simply measure how well you can do on that IQ test at that particular point in time." His point being the same as yours - I think... that there are a lot of other variables that need to be considered. With IQ tests like the draft too much gets read into the importance of a score that probably has no correlation to anything other than a simple measure. Kids get drafted on a lot of intangibles that aren't as definitive as we'd sometimes like them to be such as talent and potential, they sometimes don't get drafted because of other intangibles such as attitude. As Dist Dee said it's a judgement call and recruiting is more art than science - in the end and each club would have kids rated differently. and now to answer the actual question... The club by virtue (or the lack thereof) has had a number of high draft picks recently and looks to have another couple on the way. I agree that too many supporters lack patience and understanding. There's obviously a rough timeline for when this should translate into performance on the field, but I think what supporters expect and what the club expects are two different things eg Col Garland and Col Sylvia who've both taken longer than a few us wanted.

Oh please, that's as soft as butter, - I disagree with you ergo I accept mediocrity. You're getting a bit up yourself aren't you.

Yeah... not trying to deride the North player, this aint soccer afterall, the point I was making was the same one you were. If Jamar had suffered a broken jaw the penalty would have been worse, but if anything his actions of shaking it off and following the play actually contributed to the leniency of the penalty imo. The system doesn't penalise this sort of act harshly enough. Kings action could have been construed as a shepherd as much as Gardiner's. Anyone that's played the game knows exactly what Gardiner's intention was - to attack the head of the opposition player, it was a gutless sniper act that could easily have broken Jamar's jaw and perhaps put his career in jeopardy considering he's probably still somewhat at the crossroads.