titan_uranus

Just a reminder that if Fremantle beats GWS, and Hawthorn and the Dogs win as expected tomorrow, then if Carlton loses to West Coast they are almost certainly out of the finals - they would have to beat St Kilda next week and then would need either Hawthorn to lose to North (and to make up a 1.5% gap, but the chance of Hawthorn losing to North seems miniscule) or the Dogs to lose to GWS (and to make up an 11% gap, which is almost too much for one game).

Some of what I considered to be the key points: Our depth failed to stand up in the absence of Gus/Smith and the later injuries to key players The off-season presented "distractions" and we didn't cope with them We've "lost some alignment" within the group One of the issues Trac is frustrated about is the response to his injury, even though the club continues to say the response followed all protocols (because it was "reviewed") We need to "benchmark" off the better sides and work out whether there's something in our game plan that doesn't stack up The club will be communicating this review process with members We started the "benchmarking" process halfway through the year, to work out if there were things we needed to improve mid-season but also to prepare for the off-season The "benchmarking" is also with elite clubs outside AFL He accepts fans will be frustrated with the club's failure to bring in a key forward He sounds frustrated with this news coinciding with Houston's interest and leading to him cooling "Will Jack Viney stay?" "Yep"...but then "I expect him to be playing". That answer started very convincing and ended very unconvincing.

You know this is part of the problem, right?

My read on the Trac situation (all based on the reports with no inside knowledge): Prior to KB Trac wasn't happy with certain things - I'm going to assume this is broader than just "we're not winning" and spill into things like fitness, training, dedication, 1%ers, stuff like that The KB injury occurs and Trac probably feels poorly treated by the club, if not the decision to go back on the ground then the aftermath (e.g. the social media post or the messaging around what happened to him) Sitting at home in isolation watching us continue to lose and our season fall apart exacerbates the feelings that have been bubbling away the previous few months He starts saying things out loud about his dissatisfaction, whether to friends/family or being overheard in public At some point he approaches the club to discuss his views, and either says flat out "I want out" or something more like "I'm not happy with where things are going and it's making me consider my future here" The club says something like "well you're here for the next five years so we better work on it" That correspondence doesn't sit well with Trac It gets out to Morris The club's statement only says he'll be here because he's contracted because that's the line we're running - no denial of his unhappiness, nor of him wanting out or suggesting it's heading that way, because that part is true Trac doesn't say anything, in part because it's true that he's unhappy and/or wants out and/or has suggested he will be reconsidering in the future if things don't change, and in part perhaps because he feels a bit sheepish or caught out for mouthing off and it got out into the public The natural response from many is to either side with Trac, and say it's the club's fault for standards slipping or promoting/failing to address poor cultural issues, or to side with the club and say Trac's sooking. IMO, if the above is even remotely close to the truth, it's a combination of both. No player like Trac should find themselves in this position. If he had issues, he needed to keep them in house. But the club has failed to contain a series of genuine problems over the last 12-24 months and finds itself now in a terrible position. We're copping it everywhere and we have no way to respond. How does this look for target players, or sponsors, or our fixture chances in 2025, or our 2025 crowds and membership figures, or our ability to retain home games at the G, or all those things that matter. This needed to say in house, but whatever is going on, it needed to be raised and dealt with. At least now the club has no choice but to confront these problems. If that means assistant coaches go, good. If that means Pert, Richardson or board members go, good. If that means our fitness program is overhauled, good. Whatever it is, it needs to happen. The only thing we can't do from here is nothing.

Your post was good until the last line. We've made list management error after list management error for a few years now, Jaded.

To be clear though, in the OP linked podcast Tom Morris suggests he hasn't asked for a trade, on the basis that he doesn't want to and have to then deal with the request being denied.

They beat Fremantle two weeks ago. They also have wins over Hawthorn (Round 1), the Dogs and GWS. But they've also had one of the biggest fixture leg ups we've ever seen, and botched it - they have not left Melbourne since 2 June, which was Round 12. It's now 16 August, and Round 23. They go to Brisbane next week, which means they didn't leave Melbourne for 12 weeks. 12 weeks. No travel. And they're still going to miss the finals. (the other fixture leg up goes to St Kilda, who finish this season with their last 6 straight games, and 8 of their last 9 games post-bye, at Marvel Stadium, and are also not going to make finals).

You answered your own rhetorical question. None of those players have been picked because none of them have demanded selection at Casey, and we're not going to gift them games for the sake of it. One sure fire way to damage your playing group culture is to play players who don't deserve it.

https://www.3aw.com.au/sam-mcclure-gives-the-latest-on-the-unfolding-situation-at-melbourne/ Sam McClure in this grab said that he knows "for a fact" that other players at the club didn't like how Clarry was treated, i.e. saying they'd have been dropped for a month when he didn't cop anything. If true (and yes, it's McClure), that tells me one of two things has gone wrong: The club's response to Clarry's situation was not the right approach having regard to the rest of the team's dynamic and views The club's response to Clarry's situation was correct, but we don't have a stable playing group who can appreciate this, and/or we weren't able to explain our approach to those other players in a way which they'd accept and understand. Maybe the report's not true. He told everyone West Coast wasn't picking Reid because he wasn't going to go there last year. So yeah. But if it's true, it's not good for us.

https://www.3aw.com.au/sam-mcclure-gives-the-latest-on-the-unfolding-situation-at-melbourne/ A slightly different report from Sam McClure (who, I know, is going to give the same reaction to many on here as Tom Morris). In this grab he says that Trac has already asked to be traded, and the request has been denied. I'm not sure that's been reported before. Perhaps that is the reason he hasn't said anything this week. Perhaps Morris report that "if he were out of contract he'd ask for a trade" is indeed wrong, but not for the reasons some want to think. It's wrong because the truth is that he's already asked, but the club is refusing because he's contracted. Hence the Pert and Goodwin "he'll be here next year because he's contracted" remarks. Food for thought.

This game feels so weird. Obviously because of the events of this week. But also, it's our first dead rubber since late-2019, and before that 2016. Which is funny because we had a decade of essentially only playing dead rubbers. But having been up for even just these last 5 years, it's so flattening to now be so checked out before the end of the H&A season.

I might have missed it but aside from the line that people “familiar with the situation” have said that Trac’s going nowhere, I found the following two paragraphs of Peter Ryan’s article today the most insightful: “Without Brayshaw’s calming influence, frustration among the group has bubbled to the surface. The retired midfielder was the team glue who brought out the best in skipper Max Gawn and vice captain Jack Viney. But those two, who have had to tirelessly represent the players throughout the tumultuous period, have busy lives with family alongside football, and again find themselves engaging in a review where all the old problems are re-aired.”

Paywalled so I haven’t read the article.

I think he means Houston?

The rules are abundantly clear. Media articles: fine. Unsubstantiated rumours: not fine.

Pretty grubby stuff. Takes quotes from the presser out of context completely and describes Goodwin as being “defensive” when he wasn’t at all.

“It is understood Houston has had second thoughts about making the move to the Demons despite Melbourne’s strong interest in the All-Australian playmaker. It is a blow for Melbourne who had their eye on Houston to help improve their delivery from the back half. But the club will be forced to look elsewhere as it is aware Houston is considering other options. It has been a turbulent week for Melbourne which is holding talks with superstar Christian Petracca over his frustrations with the club which have put a cloud over his future in red and blue. The off-field issues at Melbourne mean Houston is considering other clubs in Victoria to continue his AFL career, but in any case a deal could be very difficult.“

Parker’s struggling to get a game because Sydney’s midfield is stacked. I’m not convinced he’s the best option out there but he’s so much better than Billings and Hunter that the comparison is silly.

Not against this. Certainly in favour of the first three - I'm also in favour of the sub being not Melksham, but not sure if he deserves to be dropped.

Garry Lyon said on radio this morning that his understanding was that North asked the question and Viney said "no thanks".

I have absolutely no idea how you reached this conclusion. You must not watch his other press conferences. Go watch any of the ones he's done in the aftermath of one of the press hit jobs, and you'll see him when he's unsure and uncomfortable. I've just watched today's and I agree with the OP's general sentiment. He was proud to stand up for his players. He was open and honest about ANB and Clarry. He correctly identified Trac's concerns as being a positive - clubs need to have a strong enough culture where the players can feel empowered and able to raise concerns. He even had a wry smile at the point where he was about to say the phrase "contest and defence", knowing that Kane Cornes has been insulting him all week for those words (and he correctly said that he is constantly on the record as saying we need to be good in all three phases, the third being offence, and that we're not good enough at punishing turnovers). This was as good a press conference as I recall seeing from him, and about bang on what you'd want to see and hear from him after the last 48 hours.

Trac's been back since at least Friday, which is when he was seen at Captain's Run. Gawn said he'd had some preliminary chats with him. There's every chance that's right - with Trac not in at the club with everyone else all the time, it could easily be a situation where they've said they want to chat properly in-person, not by text or over the phone or something. I know that if I were Gawn and I had a situation like this, I'd be offering to sit down with Trac and go through whatever's on his mind. If he has concerns, let's address them properly, in-person, not over the phone or by text. Gawn was door-stopped, so he said what he could think of. I just wouldn't read too much into his choice of words. Also, like @Gator, I read the posts about the interview before seeing it and I had expected it to be far, far worse than what it really was.

If you think this, I don’t think you properly appreciate his role or modern footy. And that’s without acknowledging his status as a leader of the club.

Snap.