titan_uranus

Let's hear what comes out over the next few weeks/months. If things go as we want them to go, and the group starts to galvanise after all this, I dare say Gawn will have played an important role in that. If he still wants to be captain (and he may be exhausted from the role, tbh), it's undoubtedly still his IMO.

I don't agree with those who are saying "if Collingwood/Carlton have the capital next year, watch out". For one, if we address the issues that have come to the fore, we may be able to reduce or eliminate what's been pushing Trac towards the door. Things will also feel and look better if we get back to winning again next year. But more importantly, this time next year he'll still have a four year contract on a million a season, and he'll be 29 turning 30. One fewer year on the contract doesn't suddenly make it easier for another club to take him, or reduce our bargaining power.

Throughout this whole process I've always wanted him to say, because I have faith in his ability to return to being a top 5 player. He is too good, and too professional, not to IMO. So my overall reaction to this news is one of excitement, happiness and relief. Of course, the statement certainly reads like he's saying "I'm not happy, but there's no way I can get out and so I'm staying, and hopefully things improve from here". However, in combination with Gawn's very well-spoken words yesterday on radio, I can see how we're here, and I hold out genuine hope that throughout this process the club has committed to addressing what are likely very real issues. The disappointment is that there has been damage done to Trac's relationship with us, the fans (probably the players too but that's harder to assess than simply reading these 228 pages). He was my favourite player. Maybe he still will be, but I know that many Melbourne fans are going to have, in the back of their minds, the thought that he isn't fully committed, or still has an eye on the door, or has his own "brand" higher on his list of priorities than us or the club. The way we respond to the issues Trac has raised becomes, IMO, one of the most singularly important things this club has done in decades. If we do this right, this could bring the club together and improve us in ways that otherwise would have continued to be ignored. But if we do this wrong, the hole we'll fall into next year will be far greater than the one we've been in the last two weeks.

The interview wasn't bad. It was awful. Her interview responses were contradictory, confusing, disappointing and, worst of all, at times incredulous. How has she not spoken with Trac's family despite the severity of his injury and the focus at the time on whether it was right for him to have gone back on the field? The issue was raised 2.5 months ago, not just this week. Yes, as president she is rightfully and reasonably a step or two removed from football operations. But the issues facing us with Trac (as well as Clarry, Smith and perhaps ANB/Pickett wanting out) aren't exclusively football department issues. If she attempted to dead-bat the questions, she failed miserably given how much she opened herself up to criticism. It's difficult, if not impossible, to resist the calls coming thick and fast now that she is incapable of doing her job and incapable of holding her role as president.

Otherwise, can’t decide what’s more egregiously wrong: - Ryan and McGovern both selected over Andrews - Waterman selected over Curnow and Stengle

A reminder that not everything about this club sucks right now. The greatest ruck the game has ever seen.

I’m being a touch facetious, but losing Trac and Koz does huge damage to our marketability, let alone our chances of getting out of the bottom 6. PS if A-grade players don’t want to be here, that’s equally an existential issue for us.

@Adam The God if Koz and Trac both leave, how hyperbolic is it now to suggest this club will fold?

Things can change. In the last week a significant amount of water has gone under the Petracca bridge. Who knows what impact that has had on Koz. It’s not at all outlandish to think that he’s changed his mind in the last week.

If the report was merely that he’s homesick, I’d agree. But the report is that he wants to explore a trade. Which to me, is a step further down the track. And in circumstances where we’ve very clearly granted ANB’s request to go home for family reasons, we’re going to be in dangerous territory if we refuse his request without good reason (there may be good reason, but it’s concerning nevertheless).

The article also says, for what it’s worth: “It’s believed Pickett’s desire is family focussed after he and his partner welcomed their first child earlier this year, and is in no way linked to ongoing cultural questions surrounding the Demons.” It’s still seriously concerning.

Read the article - he wants to go to GC for family reasons.

I like Xerri's season but it's honestly just anti-Melbourne bias or Gawn AA fatigue to suggest Xerri's had a better year. Gawn's the AA ruck, and deserves it.

They will be a markedly different side in the first final, if they can get back a decent number of Curnow, McKay, McGovern, TDK, Saad, Marchbank, Boyd, Cerra and/or Martin. They have no pressure, as most expected them to miss the finals altogether. They'll be underdogs against Brisbane even if they get all these players back. But their best football this year has been in the best football any side's played, and they can do damage if the release the mental shackles. (Or alternatively they'll get pumped by Brisbane. TBH not sure.)

FWIW, my view is that Fritsch is more of an icing on the cake, and in a season where the cake was disgusting, the icing didn't get a chance to shine. We need to fix the cake (ball movement) and if we do, he'll be better for it. However, that's not to say he can't improve his defensive work, because he can. But I don't think that goes anywhere near the level of trading him out, because I don't think he's easily replaceable at all, and I think his value goes up exponentially if/when we improve the midfield.

13 players in the entire competition this year kicked more than Fritsch's 41, and only 17 had a better goals per game average. One of those 17 players was Sam Day, who only played 5 games, and another was Thilthorpe, who only played 7. Of the other 15 players who played most of the season and averaged more goals per game than Fritsch, only 6 averaged more pressure acts than Fritsch's 8.3 per game: Treacy, Ugle-Hagan, Rankine, Langford, Greene and Sam Darcy. "Not that hard to replace...with someone who can put on pressure and tackle"? I beg to differ.

GWS, Port or the Dogs for me. Although at this point I’m going to have to barrack for whoever is playing Geelong or Hawthorn.

Correct. North copped a much harder set of double ups than Hawthorn did. There are no guarantees with a bottom 6 fixture because it is set based on the previous year’s performance. Hawthorn’s just an example of how it can work in your favour.

In relation to the quoted line about acting in good faith, whilst the line comes in the analysis of the rules that were left to be decided by the judge, the paragraph and surrounds don't link that phrase solely to those rules. I don't know that the judge would have been so unequivocal on that issue if he had privately thought to himself that the club's conduct in relation to the other rules wasn't in good faith etc. It's at least open for debate I'd have thought, so I'm not sure I misinterpreted anything there. Then in relation to the second point, the judgment shows that Peter rejected the amendment the club ultimately made, which was to make it clear that the phrase "disparage" does not include reasonable constructive criticism. I find it hard to see what Peter thought was wrong with that amendment, which is precisely what the judge said. I agree though that it obviously came at the conclusion of the trial, so had he agreed with the amendment it wouldn't have made a difference to the fact that the trial had already occurred. But this wasn't the only rule left for the judge to consider. There was still at that point no agreement on the rules relating to giving interviews and using social media. So you've had a go at me for something "factually incorrect" but I'm not sure your post is completely correct either. Regardless, what I meant to focus on in my first post (but which I see on reflection was not clear) was less the disparagement point and more the point about being able to give interviews on TV and radio and post on social media. Combined, the effect of what he was seeking was the ability to go on radio/TV and criticise the club. As I said, I don't think that is something he ever should have sought in the first place. When I said the ends don't always justify the means, what I meant was that the outcome of this case, which should largely be seen as a win for him, doesn't mean that his actions can be stripped of any sense of entitlement or selfishness which would otherwise attach to them. But I completely accept that our election rules are better now. I also completely agree that Roffey's email was disgracefully misleading.

Overall record against the finalists: Sydney: 6-3 GWS: 6-6 Collingwood: 6-6 Port Adelaide: 5-3 Geelong: 5-5 Bulldogs: 5-5 Adelaide: 4-1-8 Hawthorn: 4-5 Carlton: 4-6 Melbourne: 4-7 Brisbane: 3-5 Essendon: 3-6 Gold Coast: 3-7 Fremantle: 3-8 St Kilda: 3-8 Richmond: 1-10 West Coast: 0-8 North Melbourne: 0-12 So whilst the bottom 6 draw worked for Hawthorn, it did not work at all for North, who copped 4 of a possible 6 maximum repeat games against finalists (Carlton, Geelong, the Dogs and Hawthorn). Adelaide had the roughest on this metric, with 5 of its 6 repeat games against finalists (Geelong, Port, Brisbane, Hawthorn and Sydney), meaning 13 of their 23 games were against finalists. Meanwhile Brisbane, despite making the GF last year, and Port, despite being a top 4 H&A side last year, ended up with just 1 of their 6 repeat games against finalists. Brisbane fared well getting Collingwood and us twice. It's obviously a rudimentary metric - part of the reason the finalists are finalists is because they beat the other sides. Also this doesn't take into account when a side won these games (e.g. of our 4 wins, 3 were in in Rounds 1-3).

The help of a bottom 6 draw can be seen in Hawthorn. They got each of Richmond, North Melbourne and Adelaide twice. They went 6-0 against them. The way they play is very attractive and exciting, but it's also important to note that the only finalist they've beaten since Round 13 was Carlton two weeks ago, when they had no one on the bench in the second half, and they only played three finalists in total since Round 13 (lost to Geelong and GWS, beat Carlton).

In Round 18: We were in the top 8 Carlton was 2nd Fremantle was 5th Essendon was 6th Port was 9th, 2.1% behind us The Dogs were 10th Hawthorn was 11th, a game and 10% behind us St Kilda was 15th, 4 wins and 14.4% behind us

So we just finished 14th. To be honest, I hate seeing us that low on the ladder. But if you’re going to have a down year (and let’s hope it’s just one year down), may as well make it as bad as possible. Getting pick 5 after being in the finals race with 3-4 games to play has its upside.

Agree. Too much talk about key forwards, not enough about the midfield. I’d rather spend whatever we’d have to pay Lynch on a mid, assuming we can find one.