grazman

Senior players couldn't seal the deal. Miller, Sylvia and PJ all missed regulation shots at goal. - Some can say we choked, but Hawthorn had the advantage of a strong breeze and we only ever had a five and a half goal buffer, it wasn't enough.

One positive for me was that while he had a quiet game, there's been progress with Nathan Jones's game. 15 possessions 3 kicks 12 Hand passes.

Good points Red. Unfortunately the question marks about some players just get bigger. I've got one in relation to Dunn, but I thought he was more composed today than in previous years. Our biggest problem still remains - we still have too many players who just can't use the ball - in any circumstances.

Stephen Gilham

Wona, Hammy, Junior Corky and Bruce was holding his arm, but stayed on. Petterd absolute class. Can find the ball and is as brave as they come. Ditto Wheels. Bater playing out of the square along with Newton. I've been dark on Juice for awhile, but a lot more committed today. Strong wind favouring our end of the ground for the third quarter, but we're still giving too many hospital handpasses and not holding our marks. Otherwise a reasonable first half. Young was reported for "tunnelling" if he was playing basketball he'd not be playing for a fair while. It'll only take one player to fracture his back and this will be looked on very seriously.

Ditto. No money in it for the club, but plenty of Kudos. Good work that man!

That's very encouraging. I think his future is as a run with player.

The hell you will - and hurry up and finish the Judd one too damn it!!!!

Hards, check with the club. I got my scarf when I got my membership pack.

Received mine in the post the other day and have worn it a couple of times. I really didn't think much of it when I first saw it, but was pleasantly surprised, very good quality and easy to spot in the crowd. . Of course I also think most of the in-vogue fashion now reminds me of the seventies... so what would I know.

Another good article by Caro, and people will take what they want out of the story... hopefully there'll be recognition we were beaten to the punch by a more professional outfit. Expect to see more stories (but far more rabid) along this line the longer we go without a sponsor.

From WJs summation of the AGM last night in another thread. Without diving into the old guard v new guard argument, I for one will be one very [censored] off little camper if we haven't secured a major sponsor by the start of the NAB. I can't credit Jim's response that they wouldn't accept an offer that was below expectations. I'm happy for them to explore all the options, but if they reject deals as not being lucrative enough (ie selling the club short) and then ask for another round of donations for "debt reduction" then he can go take a flying leap. Let's judge the current board on it's achievements. It'll be strike two if there's no major sponsor by the start of the NAB, Strike one will have been the numerous times we've been assured by the current administration that we'll have a sponsor (including Cameron Schwab's claim after we missed out on Mission Foods that he had a number of options lined up and it was a matter of ironing out the tin-tacks).

Absolutely. I'd also suggest that our bowling is suspect. Apart from Bracken we have no-one we can rely on to keep it tight. Clark is actually a better bowling option than any regular spinner which is a huge worry. I'm bitterly disappointed with Ponting's captaincy. He's been shown up to be a fair weather skipper. He's devoid of any real ideas when the momentum needs to be turned. Bowling blokes like Tait and Johnson in batting power plays is just dumb. The pace works in favour of the batsmen who don't have to do anything except put their bat in the way to clear the infield. The selections are also baffling. The whole process seems so formulaic. Why has it taken so long for Ben Hilfenhaus to play, why isn't Katich (whose bowling adds more flexibility) playing while he's firing? You can afford to stick thick with blokes when you're winning, but this aint working.

Ronnie bags six for, and the Vics still in with a show to get another 4 points and really stretch the gap. - Mc Donald Should be included soon in the one day squad - though I'm not sure why he wasn't to start with. With the wheels really falling off the cart for us, I think it's a chance to go back to the drawing board and start afresh.

Hope being the operative word. I suspect that even if we make the top four our draw won't improve significantly, because regardless of what the AFL might say, the draw has nothing to do with performance and every thing to do with ratings. As for our sponsor, Cameron's just ironing out the last few tin-tacks....

You think with his latest brain explosion on radio (what the hell was he on when he did this interview - definitely under the influence of something) that it's career over for Roy. I won't be sorry to see him go - 18 months ago maybe, now he's a liability in terms of his batting (doesn't value his wicket) and a walking headline off it. I still think the best option for South Africa is to bat Haddin at six and Johnson at 7 in the tests. Hauritz if he plays is a more than capable no 8. that still leaves space for three other bowlers. McDonald may tour, but his batting is suspect and Watson is unlikely to play a regular part in the future such is the nature of his fragile body.

Thanks for taking the time to post Flashdance. How was Riv - was he just doing light work or is there a suggestion he may have had a recurrance of his injury?

Really why is that? wheres the team called Perth or Canberra or Hobart or Darwin? The AFL isn't about equity it's a business and it's mission is to make a profit. This isn't sport any more - it's entertainment. Sport is fair, sport the rules are written down and agreed to by all sides, This is about bums on seats and money in the hand. It's an absolutely faulty assumption to believe that we're required - being the oldest club means nothing. The AFL needs 18 teams for it's new blueprint, but it doesn't care if we're based in Melbourne or not - all they care about is the money and atm our failure to garner a sponsor for a season that kicks off in less than four weeks time isn't making a compelling argument for survival in fact I'd say it mounts a pretty strong argument for the opposition.

I think it's wrong to assume this doesn't happen in every other club. Collingwood aren't any different - they actually sacked their cheersquad not so long ago. Naturally everyone that feels strongly aligned to something like a footy club will have opinions, sometimes those opinions differ. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Vigorous debate (easily distinguished by not resorting to personal insults and emotive responses) helps inform and persuade. It isn't necessarily a sign that the culture is unhealthy, its a reflection that people don't agree. There's rarely any 'right' solutions to complex problems.

there's a second qualifying statement in the first sentence. So in simple terms I don't give a fat rat's clacker about the clubs politics UNLESS it means we can't field a side because we're broke!

The off-field stuff holds no interest for me what-so-ever, unless it means we can't field a side and that's where it's getting to. It's unfair to blame this administration for our economic circumstances, it's unfair to blame the last one or the one before that, Ian Ridley saw the writing on the wall. Most of our Core support is now six feet under and growing. Even a string of premierships won't address the issue in the short term. We have to find better revenue streams, and perhaps look at alternative models. I don't care if we're owned by some Indian Telecommunications company and I don't care if I don't get a vote at the AGM, I do care about a team wearing red and blue running out every second week onto the MCG. Call them factions, call them Fred, call them whatever you like, but different people have different ideas about how best to run the club, it's no different at Melbourne to any other football club. The idea of "unity" is a bit mystifying to me. I understand it in a football sense - getting behind the team, supporting, encouraging, but I don't understand it in a business sense. Do you continue to support an administration if you know they aren't doing the job they're supposed to? Should I be holding my breath for "the tin-tacks to be ironed out" in the next week or so? I care that the bloke who stated a number of times he didn't want the job and then took it, still hasn't delivered on one of his key responsibilities.

I disagree. Junior has been a model of consistency both on and off the field. It's doubtful that there's a player that's more respected at the club by his own or by opposition players. I'd rather see just the three captains (captain, vice and deputy vice) and have the other players strive to work towards those positions through their actions on and off the field. Large leadership groups while acknowledging a wider base are probably guilty of diminishing the status of the roles. I have absolutely no doubt that Brock McLean will be captain of the club, but not this year and not until he's earnt it. That's the way it should be - it shouldn't be handed out as some sort of 'encouragement' award. As for the team for the NAB cup, you've selected a very strong line up - Regardless of who I would personally chose I'd make a few points. 1. DB last year (and it seems to be a trend at most clubs) had a policy of rotating the best players through the NAB/Challege cup matches. I doubt we'll see a full onball contingent playing in the one match. 2. DB last year spoke clearly about the need to reward players who performed on the track with opportunities, that would obviously mean lesser lights rather than established players. It's too hard to tell from the training reports who would expect to be in the mix, but I imagine the club would be looking at the likes of Cheney, Spencer, McNamara and Meesen to play games to assess their potential and for the likes of Petterd, Grimes, Maric and Newton to be given specific responsibilities. 3. I doubt many of our first year rookies will be rushed. Bennell, Jetta and Bail will be in the frame because they're more advanced than the others. There'll be the inevitable supporter expectations to see Watts, Blease, Strauss and Jurrah play, but their bodies need development and at this early stage it's better to leave them on ice.

Absolutely. Belly's too suspect the closer he gets to goals. He's got good pace, he's strong and importantly he's very disciplined. There's a question over his ability to read the play though and that might be the knock on him playing regularly as a run with player, but I've argued for a while it's worth a trial at least.

It's a very good point Old. Poor Mark cops a fair pasting. We have a number of unknown quantities in Meesen or Spencer. As Phoenix stated, mobile talls with good skills like PJ might become the norm for rucks in the future, but ATM he doesn't provide much of a ruck contest and that's the challenge for him. Jamar is a good ruckman, he doesn't do much else, but he does at least provide an even ruck contest. If the trend of having fast boundary throw in's continues though, I can see PJ and perhaps even a Stef Martin being used more and more around the ground.

It would be a major departure to their usual preseason routine. I'll have to check the records, but I don't think they've ever won a preseason game under Roos.