Cheesecake

We tanked. We weren't the first, and we won't be the last. But right now, at this point in time, we are the last. And that's why this issue won't go away. Why journalists still paint us, and not Carlton or others, as tankers. There has been no benefit in tanking for the last few years. We can thank rule changes, and the AFL's franchise team love-in for that. If it wasn't for this someone else would have been in the gun, and we would have been forgotten about. The tanking chocolate wheel would have landed on someone else; the Lions, Tigers or Port, or someone. This will die down. The AFL will do nothing. We'll improve and someone else will tank. Just give it a year or two.

Not true. Despite the recent job losses at their Syd factory, they are still the market leaders in household insecticide. Boom tish.

Actually, having a second read of this, particularly these bits ... Rather than offer the nominated players to clubs one by one, in reverse ladder order, the league will instead present them as a group. For example, should the ladder remain the same, Gold Coast will first be asked if it would like to bid its No. 1 pick on any of the nominated players. Should Gold Coast bid, hypothetically, for Daniher, Essendon would then be asked if it wanted to match the bid with its next available pick. If the Bombers did that, the Suns would then be given the opportunity to bid for one of the other players. Those remaining would be offered to GWS, Melbourne and the rest of the clubs, in reverse ladder order. ... makes me think it won't make an ounce of difference to our chances. We still have to get past two teams who have a chance to spoil the party (assuming current ladder position, of course).

This could be big news - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-overhauls-fatherson-bidding-20120627-212vm.html I'm too tired right now to work out all the potential effects of this, but this article clarifies the bidding process, including a change to the process. Anyone care to analyse this and give their view on how it affects our chances of picking up JV in the 2nd round?

I'm in the Garland to be a swing man club. Always have been. Back, forward and wing. The key issue with this though, is that Garland is so flexible as a defender that him going forward will rely on us having others on the park to get the defensive matchups right. He can take anyone from a Betts to a Franklin, and often gets called on to pick up a small, if Bartram is out or the oppostition have multiple speedy small forwards. So, the key is to have a good range of defenders available such that swinging Garland forward doesn't leave a hole down back. Frawley and MacDonald for the faster talls, Rivers and Watts for the slower talls or third man up (although Watts does the latter well now), Sellar or Martin to pinch hit against teams with two or three monster forwards/resting rucks and Bartram and Bail/Strauss/Bennell/Blease for the smalls. Grimes, and Tappy/Morton/Trengove for the mids.

Just how bad will the commentary on Melbourne get? Can it sink any lower? http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/collingwood-legend-tony-shaw-urges-mark-neeld-to-rethink-melbourne-captaincy/story-e6frf9jf-1226380963264 Oh well, at least they are talking about us, I guess.

Compare rounds 13 through 21 ... Round 13 Vs GWS (h) Round 14 Vs Bris (a) Round 15 Vs Rich (h) Round 16 Vs Freo (h) Round 17 VS Port (darwin) Round 18 Vs North (a) Round 19 Vs GC (h) Round 10 Vs St K (a) Round 21 Vs GWS (a) ... with rounds 2 through 11 WEST COAST EAGLES Away RICHMOND Away WESTERN BULLDOGS Home ST KILDA Home GEELONG CATS Away HAWTHORN Home SYDNEY SWANS Away CARLTON Away ESSENDON Away COLLINGWOOD Home It quite a difference! It gives me some (maybe false) hope that, if we hit some ok form at the right time, we could actually get more than just a poofteenth of wins on the board. Edit: bloody tables.

Interesting. Not an easy call to make. Here's my attempt. Jones, Jamar, Jurrah*, Garland, McKenzie, Blease, Rivers, Howe, Bartram, Strauss, Moloney, McDonald, Bail, Bennell, Petterd, Nicholson, Davis, Dunn, Bate, Cook, Jetta, Fitzpatrick, MacDonald, Green, Spencer. * obvious implications around court findings to consider Wow! That was hard!

And a forward: - gets the ball kicked to his advantage, most of the time. - can allow a turn over without it probably resulting in a score against. - has overly sensitive umpires granting him ridiculous free kicks all the time,for gentle hands in the back, hands laid gently over their shoulder, or a defender taking his eyes off the ball for a millisecond. Playing forward and back are both equally difficult in today's game. Different skill sets. Some players skills make them suited to one, some the other. Some really good players, both. And, adding 'no disrespect' to your last line, doesn't make it any less condescending.

Yep, I did consider that. In fact, I was thinking exactly that as I wrote my post (but chose to keep my post short). And I think your proposition is, to a pretty large extent, true. Still, early on in the season, I got the impression that his pride had taken a beating, and I was worried that he might put that before the benefit of the team, and dig in his heals. The last few weeks, I get the feeling that he is starting to take on board what a lot of commentators, colleagues and professionals were saying about the predictability of his plan, and tweaking it accordingly. That shows a willingness to learn. Like I said, I have more faith in him now.

Good call about the change in game style, DM. I stated pretty much exactly this in the match review thread. Best of Bailey and Neeld combined. It is good to see that Neeld is malleable enough to tweak with the plan, and not so pigheaded as to continue with a plan that was seeing us thrashed repeatedly. My faith in the man has grown.

Great analysis, P_Man. The bit in bold, particularly, is what pleased me about the game. We saw elements of what was good about the Bailey game plan, with what is good about Neeld's. And we were able to do this because we had players like Bail, Blease, Nicho and Jones giving us run and options. This is our future, I think. If we can play this game style for four quarters, make a few less stupid decisions or poor kicks through the back half, and get our contested possession up (particularly, get our midfield firing - apologies to Jones, who is awesome), we'll start to beat sides.

Sellar should stay until Martin is ready. I want to see Clark play 100% up forward, and will cry like a girl if he does a knee or similar playing second ruck. Regarding Moloney, when watching the game, I though he and Jamar were trying hard, even though it hasn't been gelling for them this season. I think we need these two working their magic again, if we are going to be competitive in the middle. I'm willing to persist a little longer. I read this quote on MelbourneFC later, and if is to be believed, it looks like Neeld agrees. Neeld is not 100 per cent sure how to kick-start Moloney but he defended the midfielder's work rate. "He's working really hard and eventually those things turn," Neeld said. "It's not work rate, effort or a lack of trying. He's doing all those things. He's just not in great nick." That said, if he went out for Couch, you wouldn't hear me complain.

I'm going to go against the grain and suggest as few changes as possible. We were competitive for three quarters. That's two more than any game in recent memory. I'd make sure a thorough review of the last quarter capitulation is done, and each player is drilled about where expectations were not met. But then I'd reward them with a chance to make amends. This team needs some self belief, and large scale changes won't help that. Changes only made for injury or matchups (eg Green out if ribs rooted, and maybe Bartram in as we lacked speedy lock-down defenders tonight).

Jones Rivers McKenzie Blease Bail Clark Apologies: Grimes, McDonald, Nicholson

Also, not wanting to get sidetracked on JV, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong. And by pretty sure, I mean 99.99999999999999999999%. As the F/S nominating team, we can use our next pick, but as one of the other teams, they would have to use the pick they nominate.

Beat me to the punch, condemned.

It's another Saint, BJ Goddard, that I think he will emulate. -Picked number 1 in the draft in '04. -Much maligned by supporters and media for his first few years. Considered talented but soft. -By '09 was one of the best utilities in league, a Brownlow favourite and an All Australian. -In '12 is now a dual All Australian, should have won a Norm Smith, and every team would sell Judd's grandma for him when free agency kicks in. He is tracking perfectly so far ...

You've just nailed exactly why we will get JV in the second round (if we have pick 2 - ie finish second last).

- We have a home game against each of the franchise, plus another at Canberra against GWS. - The franchise play each other once more - only one of them can win that (or a draw). - The franchise only play one of Brisbane and Port each, whilst we play them both. So, I put that at 5 winnable games left for us, 2 left for GWS, and 3 left for GC. Based on that, and the fact that all three of us are playing at about the same level atm, we should NOT finish last. 2nd or 3rd last for us!

Yep. That's it in a nutshell. The media, just like the supporters, continue to view Watts through '1st pick saviour of the downtrodden Dees' tinted glasses. He is never going to cop a fair deal. And the funny thing is, I think he personally knows, and accepts, that a lot better than some some of the supporters do.

Really happy with Davey and Sylvia out, especially the latter. Really p1shed off about Morton being dropped, though. Yes, he had a shocker last week, but was finally showing something in two or three weeks before that, and particularly since Neeld has given him some spurts in the middle. It's so bloody obvious that he is a confidence player, and that he hasn't had any confidence for the last year or so. Dropping him after one poor game is undoing all the good work that Neeld has done with him over the last month. The same thing happens ad nauseum with players like Petterd, Bail, Bennell, Tapscott etc, whilst other players play two or three shockers in a row and stay in the side. When self belief is so low amongst the team (the main reason for capitulating losses, I believe), I find it so frustrating that this keep happening. I know Neeld is trying to set non-negotiables, but he needs to balance that with nurturing confidence in players, particularly the young ones.

I think you've nailed the list of the real positives there with your first four (not necessarily in that order). I think Grimes has just been a neutral (although getting consecutive games into him is a positive, I guess, his form has just been average by his standards). I think the form of Rivers, and Bartram, T McDonald and Bate in patches, might rate as a positive. If Blease can backup with a repeat performance this week, we might have another. Other neutrals for me include; Howe, Watts, Frawley, and McKenzie and Garland in patches. These guys are somewhere on par with the minimum I would have expected from them. Unfortunately, the list of negatives is as long as your arm (but that's for one of other gazillion threads - this is supposed to be a happy thread )

And on the subject of the Scully compo pics, I do find it interesting to compare what we could theoretically get should we finish bottom 3, as opposed to what we would have expected to get prior to the start of our dismal season. I think many posters, assuming an 8 to 12 ladder position, thought that we might get, for example, picks 10 and 12 for Scully. In fact, we could now potentially get, for example, picks 3 and 12. Whilst many of us thought that picks 10 and 12 would have been short change for Scully, picks 3 and 12 in a strong draft seems much more fair, I think you'll agree!

Agree wholeheartedly with other posters who state that compo picks don't come into the equation for a priority pick. I will be fuming if anyone at the AFL even hints at our need for a priority pick not being valid because we get picks 3/4 and 12 on top of our usual picks! Those were given to us for Scully, a number 1 pick who isn't on our list anymore! They are irrelevant! Regarding our chances, if we finish with 1 to 3 wins and a percentage around 50-60%, after several years of poor finishes, I think the AFL will have to seriously consider a priority pick after the first round. Edit: spelling