titan_uranus

This is a truly terrible idea. The ongoing pursuit of scoring, likely driven by Channel 7, is misguided, but putting that to one side this rule is just stupid. It robs defenders of an option in an era in which it's hard enough to be a key defender and make contact with your opponent without giving a free kick away, and if anything it will encourage sides to go down the boundary line. It's completely unnecessary. It's a huge change! It's a fundamental change to how the ball considered "live" vs "dead". I don't buy your logic that this will detract from moving the ball down the boundary line. Why would a side be afraid of the boundary line because of this? If anything it will attract them to it. FWIW, I also dispute the proposition that the ball moving down the wings is "bad". Agree. We could also bring back the third man up rule - let midfielders get it clear of congestion. I wholeheartedly agree on paying 50m penalties for all those repeated instances where players hold their opponent. If they take a mark or get a free, immediately get off them or a 50m (or maybe 25m) penalty is awarded. I also wholeheartedly agree on the "stacks on the middle" penalty. If your teammate has tackled an opposition player, you don't get to join in. If you do (doesn't matter if you grab your teammate or the opponent), it's a free. Stay out, let the ball come out in the tackle or get the umpire to ball it up straight away. But again, it all comes back to the fundamental proposition that the game needs to be higher scoring or "faster". Fast football, defensive-free football or high scoring football does not always equal good quality product.

As do most, I love Neville and the thought of him playing for any other club is a bit off-putting. But he's no longer in our best 22 and given he'll be 31 before Round 1 next year, it's hard to justify giving him anything more than one year. If Collingwood offers him two or more years, and he's looking for that extra job security, how can we blame him? I'd love it if he chose to stay with us in an off field role as I think he's one of the very few leaders we've had at this club since 2006, but I don't think we should be offering him any more than one year in a playing role no matter what Collingwood or any other club say/do.

Opening line addresses your final line concern.

I have a lot of issues with this post but perhaps the biggest one is the notion, and you're not the only one to do this, that if a certain player doesn't end up at Melbourne then the club has failed to do its job. As if there's some sort of magic formula whereby all we have to do is be interested in a player to guarantee that player signs with us.

The prospect of going to a game at the MCG excites me most. It might not happen straight away, or at all (depending on your level of optimism/pessimism about the world), but that excites me more than anything else right now.

I like this reasoning until you get to the bit where you say Fritsch played his best footy at half back. I think that's absolutely not true at all. I think his best footy has been unquestionably as a forward. His work across half back is often too loose and his positioning poor. His kicking never seems to live up to the promise, either (a bit like his goal kicking). I appreciate the problem you've flagged with having too many talls and Fritsch playing too tall. An alternative solution would be to put the onus on Fritsch to learn to chase/tackle/defend in the forward half more? He's not done developing. If he can take what he's got and add more defensive pressure on transition and when the ball hits the deck, that will improve our balance and IMO is a better net result for the team than moving him to half back.

This is a silly argument. That's exactly what Goodwin should be doing. Our list is in "challenge now" mode. Gawn's at his peak. Our core list is coming into its peak. If the opportunity arises to bring a player in that will deliver a flag in the next 1-3 years, we should be exploring that option, not shying away from it because we're worried about what our list might look like in 2024.

In theory, probably (assuming the CBA doesn't prevent it). But think about it in reality. We're not talking $5,000 or $10,000. We're talking $100,000+ over two years. So what you're suggesting is that he give up hundreds of thousands of dollars. AFL careers are finite. He only gets one chance to capitalise on his ability to play AFL football, and he now has a family to think about. I'm not suggesting living on $500,000+ salaries is hard, but I don't know Tom and I don't know what lies ahead for him once his AFL career is over. He may also feel like/know that if he stays, we won't be able to afford any of the other key forwards on the market, which in turn will force our hand and he'll be in with every chance to be our starting FF in Round 1. Remember, at the moment the impetus appears to be the club looking to trade him, not Tom wanting to walk out on us. So if ultimately he doesn't want to take a pay-cut, I'll completely understand.

Just to be clear: you have no evidence, only your opinion, that we're paying Viney more than Geelong offered him.

As to Preuss, I get why he wants out (why he came here in the first place is the bigger mystery) and I get why we're not falling over ourselves to hold onto him, but I still think we should be firm enough with GWS to ensure we get something back that actually helps us. If we think we can put a late-second/early-third pick to good use, then that's fine.

The PC brigade? Do you mean people who don't like baseless rumours? Like your whole "we're paying Viney more than Geelong offered him" one?

How can anyone forget?

Down, yes. Significantly, no. The numbers are here (averages in 2020 vs 2019): https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?playerStatus1=A&tid1=11&playerStatus2=A&tid2=11&type=A&pid1=3464&pid2=3464&fid1=S&fid2=P&fopt2=2019 Once you factor in a 20% reduction in game time, many of the stats that look a far way apart (e.g. disposals, inside 50s, UPs) are actually not that far apart. Although one stat that stands out is metres gained, which fell of a bit even despite the 20% shorter game time. Part of this will also be explained by Hawthorn being bad across the board. Harder to get involved on a wing when you can't win a clearance and can't stop your opponents scoring.

I guess they chose to roll the dice on improving from last year and selling success to Daniher and Fantasia as the way to keep them. Maybe that and also an element of trying to tell the industry, and/or their own list, that if you're under contract you don't just walk. That latter bit doesn't appear to have helped them much. I didn't rate them last year despite their top 8 finish and given what was reportedly on the table for Daniher (two first rounders), I'd have 100% done that deal.

I don't really understand what the bolded bit means. It remains the case that there's no report, rumour or any other evidence to suggest we ended up offering Viney more than what Geelong offered him, which is what you've claimed. I've already said I wasn't sure about a 5-year deal but I'm not at all fussed about the way the negotiations played out.

Did you read the article? “I love working with ‘Goody’" “I feel like if I was to head somewhere else and end my time at the club, then I would be hanging him out to dry a bit." “I thoroughly thought through both scenarios and came to my conclusion there is unfinished business with Melbourne Football Club." “It is something I have put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into and I do want to see it out." “Everything is about making the Melbourne Football Club great again and successful again and that is where my ultimate fulfilment is going to come from.”

I suspect it's entirely possible the contract ended up being less than Geelong's offer. There's more to Viney's decision than just money/years.

Rams, Cardinals, Bills

Where's it been reported that the contract he ultimately signed was worth more than whatever Geelong offered? I believe it's been reported that our opening offer and Geelong's opening offer were a gap apart. That doesn't mean we immediately offered more than Geelong did in response. Or is that just your opinion? In which case you've got nothing at all, other than your own pessimism, to base that on.

Rubbish re: Richmond. Riewoldt clearly plays a second tall forward. Never mind St Kilda (King/Membrey) or West Coast (Kennedy/Darling). But at any rate, the only side that doesn't play two tall forwards is Geelong. Every other finals side played two key forwards. So who cares if players like Riewoldt or Marshall don't get huge touches. If they take marks and kick goals, then isn't that an upgrade on what we currently have? Now, in saying that, TMac could give us what we're seeking in Brown. I don't see the need for us to take Brown if we're going to keep TMac. It's one or the other for me, and I'll be happy either way. Agree with the whole post but the bolded bit in particular resonates.

I wonder how St Kilda will go managing their list after their finals appearance this year. After ours in 2018 we saw TMac and Harmes' statures rise, both asking for bigger dollars than they would have received pre-2018, and they got them. I don't know which St Kilda players are OOC this year but there'll be no doubt IMO that some will be on average/poor deals and will be arguing they deserve more.

I think this is absolute rubbish @Lucifer's Hero. He's been a captain of the club. He's still VC and a leader. Goodwin, Gawn and the club make that point about him all the time. He's 26, much of our list is younger than that. There's nothing at all wrong with what he's said here and I think it's horribly unfair to suggest he has tickets on himself. The last sentence is what the journalist wrote, all Viney said was "something really special". Maybe that's a plea to his teammates to stay, not a crack at them. His actual quote: “We have all got to sacrifice a little bit to work well together because there are only so many positions in the midfield,” “If we can rotate through and work well as a unit, there is so much talent. “It can be something really special and massive advantage for us.” Doesn't sound like he's having a crack. Sounds accurate, for one, and a sign that he understands that the midfielders (him included) need to "sacrifice" and "work well as a unit".

Only 3? Richmond and West Coast "only" won three more games than us this year. I suppose we're not that far off them, then? Look, the gloating over Essendon struggling to retain players is understandable. It's not hard to dislike them. But when we're as devoid of recent success as they are, it's a bit dangerous really. Who knows whether we'll be able to retain all our players if we don't start winning finals soon.

I'm not a fan of players who leave weaker clubs to walk into strong ones to win a flag. I just don't see that as being rewarding or deserving in anywhere near the same way as it is for players who take the long road with a club to get there. He walked into an all-time elite outfit and rode their wave into a premiership. But, in saying that, he was a good player for us and if he wanted to chase success elsewhere, that was his right. When he left it didn't look like we'd be getting anywhere near a flag for years. He played more than 100 games for us and was a shining light at times when we didn't have much else to cheer for. I'll always reflect more positively than not on his time here, but I don't really reflect positively on his premiership.

@JimmyGadson's raised some interesting issues, most of which I don't agree with. I don't think OMac or TMac are wildly inconsistent. They're very consistent IMO. OMac's consistently poor. Until his injury mid-last year TMac's consistently been athletic and a bad kick other than for goal. When we put him forward, it clicked for two years. Going after Lever post-2017 and May post-2018 were both smart and correct decisions. if we paid a lot for them, we had to. Funnily enough, Jimmy complains about spending up on May/Lever but then complains about us not getting Saad/Wilson, who will cost a fortune. We have to spend money to bring in quality players from other clubs. It's not always our fault that they choose to go somewhere else. Jimmy speaks as if a player picking another club is a necessary consequence of us stuffing something up. It most certainly is not. We've targeted our "specialist small forward" need by bringing in Pickett, a "specialist small forward". Also, Jimmy argues every year is a wasted year, but then offers Carlton as the example of a club who is attracting players and is apparently going to "waltz right past us". Despite being the club who outside of Gold Coast is on the longest streak of not playing finals. But none of this is to say our list management has been great, or even good. We still have too many half-forwards who don't offer anything of particular note on any consistent basis (I'm talking Melksham, Hannan, ANB, Hunt, vandenBerg - chuck Spargo and Bedford in too if you want). We still are forced to play Salem in the backline because most of our other options for half-backs are bad kicks or just aren't very good. We can't work out how to play all of Petracca, Oliver, Viney, Brayshaw and Harmes in the same side. And we still haven't really worked on our midfield balance: at times this year playing those five midfielders along with Jones and Sparrow.