Cheesecake

As bad as this season has been so far, I still can't see us finishing below both of the franchise sides. We are in a dark hole atm, but we are also in the middle of our horror run of 7 of last season's top-8 opposition. After the break, there will be a dim light at the end of the long tunnel, and I predict our confidence will lift along with our performances. GWS will struggle to win another game. GC should beat GWS at home. We have two home games against the franchise, and another in neutral-ish Canberra. We won't finish last. So .. 2, 3, 12, 24 (Viney) or 3, 4, 12, 25 (Viney) .. for us (Yes, I believe we will be able to bluff or deal GC and GWS into handing us Viney as a second rounder.)

Doesn't work for me with Chrome, but does with Internet Explorer (after accepting the security warning thingy). Is that your problem?

Kudos to you, Demonhouse, for making the effort to make your feelings known to the club, and double kudos for this ^ retraction. I can't help but respect you for those things. As for your actual email, it totally misses the mark in so many ways. I don't think I can add much of anything to the pasting it has already received.

What a fantastic post! You are amongst the few on here that get it, MFC1858. And, oh the irony, that it's followed up immediately with a reply that misses the point entirely. I have deliberately not posted recently, as I do during the worst of the wrist slitting and scapegoating sessions that occur so regularly on here. But I think your post deserves to be pinned. By no means am I stating that everything is hunky dory, and yes, we may need to do some pretty serious tinkering, but the calls to clean out the playing list, coaching staff and/or administration that are all over this board are just outright ridiculous. The start of the rise of the Melbourne FC needs to come from within. And self belief, group belief, and love of the game need to be at the heart of it. We simply don't have these right now. And, it's up to everyone, but particularly Neeld, to germinate some. He's an ex-school teacher, so the job should be right up his alley. Can he do it?

So Clarke to do backup ruckwork? Not great. Also, a bit harsh on Bate, I think, whilst leaving Sylvia in!

Possible ins and outs for me, on a like for like (or at least similar roles/positions) basis ... Green vs Sylvia (Sylvia has had a few games back and shown nothing, he needs to be dropped. Such a shame he won't have a chance to play in the VFL.) Martin vs Fitzpatrick (No brainer, if fit) Jurrah vs Petterd (I'd pick Jurrah as the designated sub-off, and move Petterd to sub, to give him another small chance to show something after last week's poor showing.) Watts vs Bail (We need Bail's run. Notice that our form has mirrored his form over the last month. He provides us what we need; run! He has runs on the board from a few weeks ago, and should have another chance. Also, with Clarke and Howe in good form, and Jurrah back, we can live without Watts up forward for now.) Blease vs Bennell (I'd give Bennell another chance, we desperately need run and carry through half back and the middle, and he was showing this recently at VFL level. He needs to get his AFL confidence back. That said, Blease will give us run and carry too. We will definitely look a better side if one or both of these guys can find form and confidence.)

I said: you and I know that they have every intention of getting JV if possible But if the perfect storm brews (ie we are left with pick 3, JV falls in value to top-15 or so, and GWS/GC start talking about forcing our hand), then we might just back up our tough talk by seriously considering not taking him. That's my opinion anyway. I agree that a deal, like you say, is another good option. But it won't be explored until the situation arises that required it, and the bluff and bluster option has failed.

I can't believe that this post has slid by with barely a snifter of reaction!! This is the first "official" notice from the club (that I have seen) in regards to what they might do if the situation we are all taking about happens. And what does it say/imply? That the club would consider not picking JV if we had pick 3 and he was only rated top-10! OK, you and I know that they have every intention of getting JV if possible, but Neeld is very clearly here starting the media game of creating doubt in the mind of GWS and GC. This is exactly what Olisik and myself, and some other posters, have said the club would do, and lays to waste the ridiculous posts that some have been putting forward where they claim to have inside knowledge that the club rates him as near enough to a number 1 pick and will be happy to pay anything for him. Again, all the club has to do is create enough doubt in the minds of GWS and GC that they might potentially lose their top 2 pick and have to use a just top-10 pick instead. And, now, the club is starting to do that. Thank you, Neeld.

Agree wholeheartedly, Sylvinator, but thinking best 25, rather than 18. I think you'll struggle to find the eight players you are going to remove from our current best 18 to fit these guys in.

I love a good belly laugh. Thank you Dandee,

I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks, Riv. Yeah, bit of brain fart.

I feel for you, Oli. It's like beating your head against a brick wall on this issue with some posters. A few points that seem to be missed by a few here ... 1. Yes, of course, we definitely intend on drafting Viney, but we will not draft him under any and all circumstances. There are certain extreme circumstances where we might opt out, because it would be plain unprofessional not to. Imagine this scenario (yes, this a hypothetical, of course). He develops chronic OP, has a major debiltating injury or personal problems, has a serious personality clash with key members of the club, and drops substantially in perceived value. We have pick 3 (and 4) in the draft, and there are two clear standouts who are judged by all smart draft watchers to be heads and shoulders above everyone else. GWS state they are prepared to take Viney at pick 1 (to try and shaft us). What do we do? We have the chance to take one of the two standout future stars, plus the third, in a superdraft. Alternatively, we can take Viney (now valued as too risky for first round, maybe 20 at best) and the third best player who is daylight behind the first two. It's a substantial difference in benefit, and the club must seriously consider going with the former option. OK, I concede that this is unlikely to transpire, but it is possible. And if you concede that it could happen, and that Melbourne could opt to drop Viney (maybe with a view to get him back to the club in two years) for the chance to pick up a superdraft star and another guaranteed player, then you must concede that there is a continuum along which all the potential circumstances of the upcoming draft lie, and at some point along that continuum, the club could drop their plan to draft JV, because not to do so would be unprofessional. When the benefit to the club of the two standout picks so substantially outweighs the benefit of getting JV, then a professional club management will take the option that is the greater benefit for the club. 2. In any scenario in which JV is not rated by the clubs as a top 2 or 3 pick, there is a substantial risk to be taken by the club with pick 1 or 2 in nominating him. To say anything else, is pure folly. They are taking the risk, no matter how small it is perceived to be, that they could lose their option on their preferred number 1 or 2 pick, should we opt out of taking JV. The greater the disparancy between JV's perceived value and their pick, the greater the risk. For example, in the above hypothetical, the team with the number one pick, is basically risking their prime pick in a superdraft, for a player valued 20 at best. Again, this is an extreme example, but there is a continuum along which the actual circumstances will fall, and at some point along this, the risk will be too great for that club to nominate. 3. Point 1 and 2 don't seem like brain surgery to me. But if you can't concede this two points, then we're obviously on a different planet, and I wouldn't bother reading further. Let's just agree to disagree. Anyway ... 4. Given point 1 and 2, the actions of the club should (and I think, will) obviously be dictated by which point along those two continua the circumstance lie at the end of the season. I believe that this is why we aren't hearing from the club publically on this issue. There have now been several articles in the press insinuating that we will take Viney with our first pick, no matter what. The club has not come out to confirm this, as they are waiting to see what happens. There is no advantage to them saying anything, so they aren't. Once the dust has settled on the season, I believe that you'll see them act in one of two ways. i. If the circumstances fall so that picking Viney with our first round pick is good value for us, and that the risk for the teams higher than us in the draft order in nominating him is low, we'll back JV all the way, publically stating how in love with him we are and how good he is going to be. ii. if they fall so that our first round for JV is very poor value, and the risk of the other teams is higher, then we will start using the media and gossip channels to create doubt about what we are going to do. We'll take a tough stance and say that we are not prepared to be dictated to by other teams. We'll ask the AFL to put pressure on the other teams not to 'dishonour' the F/S system, and the draft system generally. The Viney camp will spread rumours about his unwillingness to move to Sydney or GC. Etc etc. 5. Should ii. take place, all we would need to do is create enough doubt in the minds of the teams higher than us in the draft order so that they think there is a miniscule chance that they could lose their prime pick and be forced to take a lower valued JV, who doesn't want to come to their club. If these clubs want to act professionally, they will then back away from nominating him.

I haven't seen him play yet, but from what I hear, he may just end up being our Sam Mitchell or Lenny Hayes. In fact, didn't one commentator describe him as a "more violent Sam Mitchell"? I love that quote.

Yep, as stated, its a combination of lack of quality outside players and the fitness/input from those inside players you mentioned. It's no surprise that the improvement in the last two games has coincided with an improvement in the form of players like Bail, Morton, Bate and Davey, and more outside work from Jones. If we can get the 5 you mentioned to stay fit, Moloney and Sylvia back to top form, and get more outside run and spread out of the 4 I've mentioned, plus maybe Bennell and/or Blease, we'll start to look the goods. Oh yeah, and Capt Jack T back into form won't hurt.

Still no direct quotes from the club, just the usual "Melbourne has privately conceded" gibber from the press. Silence does not mean we've privately conceded anything, it may just mean we are playing a straight bat. The club won't comment now, because no one knows how things will unfold. We could have a great second half to the season, and JV could elevate himself to a top 3 draft proposition. Then again, we could continue the season from hell and JV could drop out of top 10 contention, have more OP or another bad injury. If the latter happens, you'll start to hear rumblings of our willingness to call GWS and GC on their bluff. Whilst privately we will probably always be willing to take him with our first round pick, we'll certainly use every means possible to remind the teams below us just what they risk if they give up their freedom to choose their first round pick for a lock on drafting JV. If we don't, we'd be incompetent.

Also not wanting to fan the fire of a boring debate, you're not suggesting that Jones is "Very Average Player #22", are you?

On the TV coverage from the game, someone (maybe Greeny) said that Frawls had a hip-flexor strain. Not sure that this isn't club spin, and perhaps you have better info Mac, but if the rumour mill can't even get the exact injury right, then who knows how long he'll be out. Can anyone provide any further info?

The Good:: The players who excited us last year with talent or promise, yet had dissappeared early this season, are starting to show something again. - Bail's run and spread and fearless attack on the contest - McKenzie doggard determination to negate the oppositions stars and win or draw contested situations - The Jamar-Moloney combination has shown signs of a resurrection - Garland's poor form is showing signs of abating - I think we've seen a flicker of what Davey used to have (some might disagree) (not including Jones and Howe here, as they hadn't disapeared) The Bad:: Disposal from the half back line continues to be our undoing. - Grimes returns with 27 touches (yay) of which about 20 were delivered straight back to the opposition (boo) - Joel Mac continues to struggle to hit the side of a barn under no pressure at all - Tom Mc struggled, especially early - Even Tapscott, who is a renowned good kick, was off in a big way The Ugly:: Watts showed no signs of making any impact in the conditions. Needs to put the same endeavour that he puts into running, into competing when the ball is up for grabs. Added nothing this game, and should have been wearing the red vest. (I'm a fan though, and reckon he will hit back next week.)

I reckon you're about right. Maybe four. The good news is .. that is plenty of time for another ruck (ideally Gawn) to step up to the plate.

Love the way folk on this site take about 2mins to jump off or on someones bandwagon. Martin has showed pleny of potential over the last year or two. He was one of the league's most improved players last year. Just because he hasn't come out of the blocks firing this year (as haven't plenty of others), people are rueing not trading him. Crist! Players of his size and agility don't come along that often. He's got the attributes to become the perfect mobile second ruck who can pitch hit in the forward or backline. He started in footy late, is still young-ish, and his general trajectory is up. Ease up a bit folks, and let him continue his development, without silly expectations like that he will continue to improve at the rate he did last year for ever. He's going to have some down times. Like everyone. Jamar has the lock on first ruck. The next generation of first rucks are struggling with injury, in Gawn and Spencer. Our second ruck options are Clark, Sellar and him. Clark is most valuable playing the forward role, and should only be used sporadically in the ruck, or in case of injury to others. So, Martin is competing with Sellars, who is yet to prove himself. At their best, Martin wipes the floor with Sellars. Back to the OP: Yep, we need to re-sign Jamar. It's a must. We also need to keep our other rucks until one of Spencer or Gawn shows that they can consistently step up to first ruck, if needed. And, only if one of Sellars or Martin shows the same consistency for the second ruck position, would I consider trading the other.

I admit I was one of those calling for either him or Sellars to be dropped (too top heavy). But with Frawley out, I was happy to see him stay in. Whilst he defnitely made me eat my words, with a very solid performance, let's not get too hasty with all the superlatives that are getting thrown around. He matches up really well against Reiwoldt for size, pace and gutrunning ability, and Reiwoldt is not exactly in top form this year. Also, he made some pretty terrible decisions and disposals, particularly early (as he had the last few weeks - the reason I called for him to be dropped, along with Joel Mac). That said, I was very impressed, and he has earned a game next week.

Seriously? You've waited until we put in our most promising and consistent performance, and nearly beat a way more experienced Saints to make this call? Seriously? We may well end up 0-11. The run ahead is a difficult one. But, I reckon we'll give a few teams a shake. To say you'd be surprised if we beat GWS is just being a drama queen.

Started in the centre square, and played on ball more than usual. Was his best game for a long while. Keep it up, Morts.

6.Jones - first half, just brilliant. second pretty good. 5.Bartram - not sure how anyone can not have Bartram in their votes. His endeavour was just superb, and his skills better than usual. 4.McKenzie - welcome back, son. Showed improvement last week, then huge step up tonight. 3.Magner - same old Magner, great pickup. 2.Bail - another, like McKenzie, who has started to show some form last week 1.Bate - absolutely deserves his spot in the side at the moment

I think pretty much everyone here agrees that if he is rated around 5, we will happily take him at 3 (cause we will have pick 4 as well, which we can use for the third best player). It's if he is rated around the second half of the first round (like some journos are now saying), that it gets tricky.