titan_uranus

From a PR perspective, to help get rid of the negative focus on the club at the moment, I wouldn't mind seeing Bugg make a donation to a charity like Step Back Think or something like that, and to issue a better apology than the one he gave on the night (it's not his fault it wasn't a great apology, he would have had a million thoughts in his head and I don't blame him for not being good with words at that point). I'd also support the idea someone had earlier in this thread for the club to announce its own sanction of however many weeks to be served concurrently (i.e. if it's shorter, it doesn't make a difference, but if it's longer then he stays suspended after the Tribunal's penalty ends). Those are purely for PR purposes and to try to show the club genuinely doesn't tolerate what Bugg did and that Bugg has learnt from it and is trying to learn from it.

Not really. We need to accept that Richmond is going to make the finals and may well finish top 4. So, we are better off with them winning as many games as possible (along with GWS, Geelong and Adelaide) and beating our real competitors (Port, West Coast, the Dogs, Sydney, St Kilda and Essendon). We really could use a Richmond win over St Kilda. Somewhat helpfully, that game is on Saturday night (which gives St Kilda a six-day break coming back from Perth).

I'm on a "high horse" because I'd rather not see players punching each other in the head off the ball? Lol indeed. It's one thing to say there is "argy bargy" and back-and-forth. There always will be in a contact sport like ours. But that does not mean Mills "deserved" to be punched anywhere, let alone in the head. Talk of crossing white lines and no backwards steps is fine when it comes to courageous acts relating to the game. It does not apply to punching people in the head because you're being "niggled" by your opponent.

Agree, although ultimately I feel the season will end up in our hands. We are still going to need to win most, if not all, of the Carlton, North, St Kilda, Brisbane and Collingwood games irrespective of what St Kilda, the Dogs and Essendon do.

He certainly has the runs on the board from the no rucks era. Will be interesting to see what he does this week with selection (assuming JKH/Kennedy/Kent are eligible) and positioning (I doubt we'll see Hunt in the forward line again, for example).

Victim blaming. Arguing Mills "deserved" to be punched in the head and concussed epitomises the precise cultural problem invading the sport. I don't care what Mills did. I'd like to think our players are capable of taking some heat. We love it when Bugg is an instigator of a bit of back-and-forth, why can't he cop it when someone gives it to him, and why does he think it's appropriate to respond with a punch to the head?

I'm going with Vince, out of necessity more than anything. He has major room for improvement IMO and as a senior player, especially this week when we're devoid of leadership, I expect/hope he stands up.

Essendon losing is a great result for us. If Fremantle beats St Kilda (big if, of course) then at the end of this round there will be three teams out of the top 8 who are on 7 wins (they'll be St Kilda, the Dogs and Fremantle) and all of them will have a percentage under 100 (ours is 110%). Everyone else will be on 6 wins or fewer, which puts us two games (and percentage) clear of them all with 8 games to go. If St Kilda wins, that pushes Fremantle down but puts St Kilda level with us. Still an OK result as it keeps Fremantle out of the way but with their awful percentage that hardly matters anyway.

You're right to say we shouldn't be underestimating them, but you ended your post with "I could go on" - I don't think you could, tbh. You listed their best players and each week it's the same. Carlton is well-drilled and plays generally quite consistently, but still continues to be driven by the same core players of Murpy, Gibbs, Cripps, Kreuzer, Simpson and Docherty. If those players play well, Carlton can beat us with ease.

Meanwhile as much as we might hate it credit has to go to Richmond. Like us, they've been in every game this year except one (for them it was Adelaide, for us it was Sydney). As consistent, if not more so, than any other side.

Port is 0-5 against the top 8. Its only win against any side from last year's top 8 was North in the second half of the year, when North was cooked. They are majorly overrated and clearly beatable in three weeks when we play them (hopefully we get some of the injured players back by then).

How did we beat West Coast in Perth? How did we go 5-2 without a ruckman? We lose one game with an all-round terrible performance from everyone (including the first choice players), on the back of three consecutive 6-day breaks and a trip from Perth, and your concern is "depth". Your argument is weak.

5 posts. One about a lack of leadership in April, one halfway through the win over the GC, and three about how the season is over now. Good positivity from you.

My best guess is it's something like BBP writes - drinking after a game is probably fine when we have a longer break but probably not when we have a shorter one. I would guess that the players knew or ought to have known not to go drinking last Saturday night given the 6-day turnaround to this week's game. The worst thing about this is that three of them (JKH, Kennedy, Kent) were all in serious contention for selection this week. Did none of them want their spot in the team that badly?

The easiest way for me to break it down is to say we need to win one of Carlton/North, one of Adelaide/Port/GWS and then two of St Kilda/Brisbane/Collingwood. We'd have to have fit players to rest them.

It's fine to support him long-term or career-wise - players shouldn't get hung out to dry based on one error. However, the offence should be treated the same way as how we would react to any other clubs' player doing it. We can't say it's not as bad just because a Melbourne player did it. What exactly did Mills do to "start" it? Let's not go back to victim blaming here. It should be irrelevant how Mills "took" it, compared to how anyone else could or would "take" it.

So we add Viney and possibly Tyson to the list, along with Bugg's suspension. We get back...Garlett...?

Haven't heard anything about TMac. Viney was on crutches this morning and Tyson couldn't drive his car to recovery. Expecting Viney to miss a block of games, Tyson may well miss a game or more. I felt that he was hiding something about the Oliver on the bench issue. Wouldn't be surprised if they were holding him back or something (although 13 minutes is ridiculously long).

According to this article Tyson couldn't drive his car to recovery this morning: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/jack-viney-dom-tyson-added-to-melbournes-injury-list-after-loss-to-sydney-swans/news-story/c2cb8dec2f6f070d271c7fe5db5d8319 Apologies if already posted.

Agree SFebey, can't comment on its truth at all. Tough Kent, the rumour is that Kent, Kennedy and JKH went out drinking at some point during the week when they weren't supposed to.

Whether or not the rumour floating around about Kent, JKH and Kennedy is true, they have a lot to play for today.

The second quarter was the "annihilation". After half time it wasn't that bad, not that we ever really looked like getting back into it. I don't know how you can conclude that it was a "dreadful effort" despite the injuries and the short turnarounds. It seems obvious to most, if not all, that we were cooked from the start. It's therefore not surprising that we were second to contests and our general enthusiasm and "zip" were missing. As to "big occasions", we led Richmond for 3.5 quarters in front of 85,000 and only lost because of injuries, and we beat Collingwood in a tense game in front of 70,000. As to "quality opposition", we've beaten Adelaide in Adelaide, West Coast in Perth and the Dogs at Etihad. Let's not re-write the season based on one poor performance.

It's probably true that he was only trying to make contact to the shoulder/chest. It doesn't matter. If you're going to punch someone in that area, you have to cop the consequences of messing that up and hitting them in the head. It's the same principle that should have had Schofield suspended.

Maybe we'd ordinarily call on vandenBerg or Brayshaw, but they're also injured. Our injury list is huge and cuts significantly deep. This isn't a depth issue.

Meanwhile there was a passage of play in which Wagner dropped an uncontested mark, picked the ball up and turned it over by foot, then on the rebound didn't chase hard enough. I was furious with Wagner's game because he can do better.