titan_uranus

You'd want to hope that the wind was a factor and that we are able to make some sort of switch like we did part-way through last week's game. The Dogs are fielding a VFL side.

Any reason for the Dogs resting so many players? No Suckling, Murphy, Wallis, Bontempelli, M Boyd, Dahlhaus, Stringer, Wood, Macrae or Picken today.

No, if you attend the game you support OUR team. There couldn't be much worse for our boys than to show up to this horror show of a tribute to drug cheats and arrogance with a stadium full of Essendon supporters cheering them on and no support for Melbourne. Like with every game we play, the more support we can get (whether home or away), the better it is for the players. Do you refuse to attend Carlton games because they once cheated by breaching the salary cap?

We kicked 15 goals, and accurately too (15.5). We were harder at it, yet moved the ball fast (in the second half, anyway). Clearly there are kinks that need ironing out, but for a first meaningful practice match plenty of promising signs.

Of course. But it's classic Demonland to only think that poor form in the NAB Challenge is relevant. Poor form = poor season. Good form = still poor season.

Classic Demonland. First half, playing poorly, "here comes another year of bad football". Second half, playing well, "oh no NAB Challenge doesn't actually mean anything for the season".

I'd have thought, of all the people in the AFL community, Melbourne supporters would understand how important it is for a club to be well run from within. There are some things about the AFL I hate (the focus on "match day experiences", scheduling of prime time games, the fixture in general, home/away jumpers, etc.), but by and large the AFL is a well-run competition which is growing stronger and has an eye on the future (the moves into GWS and GC will, in the long run, be good for the game, if they aren't already). My major gripe with the last 10 years of football rests with this club, not with the AFL.

To those who think we're "too defensive" to climb the ladder, I would say this: that argument assumes 2015's offence was either the level the club wants it to be, or the limit of our offensive capabilities. I'd say both those are wrong. From what I've seen and read from the club this year, there continues to be a focus on improving our scoring. It's clear to me that the coaches (maybe Goodwin more than Roos, maybe not) are working on the transition from defence to offence and on making us a more attacking club. So to say we're "too defensive" because we didn't score enough last year is a pretty short-sighted argument. As for capabilities, I'm excited for the improvement Hogan is going to give in his second season of football, I'm excited to add Kent back to the forward line, I'm excited for the Garlett-Hogan relationship to blossom and, most of all, I'm excited for our midfield to improve which will mean more inside 50s, more quality inside 50s, and easier opportunities for the forwards to score. Based on that, we can clearly improve. I'm confident we will.

If I have one burning question for this year, it's whether we are able to raise our worst football such that we reduce the blowout games, the big margins and the uncompetitive football. Our best football needs to improve too of course, but I'm a lot more confident in that happening than in our worst football improving.

Agree. Assuming Frost is a defender, and I think that's his best position, then I rule out the possibility of him being a back-up ruckman. My hope for Frost is that he takes over from Dunn as the second tall defender (after McDonald) which allows Dunn to be the third defender (easier for his height and he will win a lot of contests that way) and allows Garland to be a more aggressive half-back flanker, reading the play and zoning off as necessary. But I'm not sure Frost is ready yet, and like Demonated, I don't like Frost as a forward and don't want to see him there.

I have little sympathy for him - he signed that extension. AFL players can't have their cake and eat it too. Homesickness is real but if you put your pen on the paper and commit to a club, you have to deal with the consequences. GWS has to deal with it now, but I like the stance they took. Too many players fail to understand what a contract really means when they sign it. It seems many see it as a one-way promise (i.e. club is bound to keep you and pay you, a safety net until you find something better). GWS simply enforced its right under the contract. Edit: this has nothing to do with any mental illnesses McCarthy may be suffering from. I'm talking purely from the legal point of things (i.e. complaining about not being traded last year when he asked).

The 17-5 idea has been floated before but is flawed for many reasons. For one, wherever the line is drawn (here it's between 12th and 13th), that line is arbitrary and there may be nothing come Round 18 to split 12th and 13th bar minor percentage. 12th may have also had an easier travel fixture compared to 13th, for example. It also robs the season of memorable late-season winning streaks (e.g. Richmond in 2014) and tension towards the end of the year as to who will make the finals (as opposed to who plays whom in the finals, far less interesting). Not to mention the issues associated with fixturing on the run (given the possibility that 12 and 13 change positions in the 17th game, you can't draw up the final 5 weeks until the conclusion of the 17th game. How do clubs sell tickets to games they don't know exist? Which clubs get the extra home game in the first 17 weeks (extra certainty in ticket sales etc.)?). It's a noble idea which does not work. My preference, at this stage, is for a fixture whereby clubs are required (by a rule, not by some shady "custom" written in an article on the AFL website which could change at any minute) to play each club a certain number of times, both home and way, over a certain number of years. That way, some clubs will benefit some years (inevitable in a 22-round year) but it will balance out over, say, 4 years (and avoids situations where clubs don't spend years and years without playing an interstate club in their home ground, I recall Hawthorn played Brisbane in Brisbane in 2015 for the first time in like 8 years or something).

I don't think you can complain about Essendon being able to "draft good players". Anyone they're taking was necessarily passed over by the other 17 clubs already, or they'd be on an AFL list. I think Essendon or the AFL need to provide compensation to clubs from whom they steal players (e.g. Crowley's club). But otherwise, this is the right thing to do I think. Keeps Essendon from being wholly listless and gives some players a second chance at their career.

Seeing Seattle lose was so, so sweet. The more so because it puts two nice, new, fresh faces in line for a Superbowl appearance. Would be happy with either of Arizona or Carolina; probably hoping for Arizona and Larry Fitzgerald at this point. Should be a great game. I'm less confident that the AFC Championship game will be that great. Denver struggled to put away a side without its best wide receiver or its two best running backs, and a QB with a dodgy arm. The only thing going against New England is that the game is in Denver. If they lose, chalk it down to that awful Week 17 loss to Miami where they gave up home field advantage.

Disappointing to see the Patriots win yet again, making this their 5th consecutive AFC Championship game - I don't like that kind of sustained success in any sport. On that topic, I like seeing Arizona make the NFC Championship game and if Carolina can knock Seattle out, then a guaranteed fresh face in the Superbowl will be even better. I'm dreading the thought of another Seattle-Denver or Seattle-New England Superbowl. Unfortunately, the way New England's offence clicked today against Kansas City's defence, it probably doesn't matter. Gronk + Edelman + Amendola with Brady in form passing is a recipe for disaster for the other teams.

Pittsburgh, Seattle and Green Bay are probably three of the top four or five teams I cannot stand. All could have lost, two should have lost. All infuriatingly won. Poor Blair Walsh. He could kick 12309 field goals next year but he'll only ever be remembered for that miss. Heartbreaking (mind you, they never should have needed to come from behind. Letting Wilson turn a botched snap into a long gain for a TD and then AP dropping the ball on the next offensive drive was where they lost it).

I cannot believe what I just watched. All the Bengals had to do was three pedestrian running plays, force Pittsburgh to use all three timeouts, put a FG on the board, take the simple 4 point lead to win the game (barring a Hail Mary fluke). It was so easy. To fumble the ball on the first play, to allow Pittsburgh to gain two (or three) first downs on the final drive, then the horrendous two penalties...unbelievable. Cincinnati deserves to be pilloried for those final sequences. The only reason it's not enjoyable is that it puts Pittsburgh into the next round.

Most of the time, I'm a fan, but he still exhibits too much of what is now the typical MFC senior player "baggage", if you will. Goes missing when we need leaders in games against lowly sides, gap between his best and worst is too large for a senior player, at times has the worst body language on the field you'll ever see (again, in the context of being a leader, not good enough). Be that all as it may, I do rate his work in defence and I think he played some outstanding football at times in 2015.

You can be pessimistic as much as you want but you're not going to change the fact that we won those two games fair and square against quality sides, both of which went on to play finals. Moreover, in both games we dominated for four quarters playing a brand of football that stands up in finals. The fact we couldn't do it for more than about 6 games last year is relevant, as is the fact that when we don't do it we play horrendous football, but no need to discredit two strong, stand out performances.

Good to see you don't go all optimistic over the summer, old dee. What if he'd pulled a hamstring going for a run himself? What if that run was to the shops? Or he broke his toe playing backyard cricket? He's entitled to a life. He's entitled to play casual basketball with mates. He didn't put his body or health at risk by his actions, so why do we care? Freak accidents can happen anywhere, anytime. I understand the frustration but I'm not sure what people want - wrap players in cotton wool, or let them be themselves and simply deal with the fact that injuries happen.

Rise: Port Adelaide (fully expect them to be a top 4 contender), Melbourne (not to finals though), GWS (should be making finals next year), Geelong (should be closer to finals than they were this year) Fall: Sydney (it's going to fall apart very soon, if not 2016 then 2017), North Melbourne (this list is already maxing out to be making preliminary finals, not sure how much longer it can keep doing that), Richmond (see North, except replace "preliminary" with "elimination"), Fremantle (peaked at the wrong time (i.e. Hawthorn's peak)) Stagnate: Bulldogs (will be thereabouts for finals but not going to be top 4), St Kilda (most over-rated side going into 2016), Carlton (need another bottom 2 finish), Essendon (list is weak)

Looks great!

Aside from the unfortunately all-too-normal dominance of New England, I'm loving this season of the NFL. Seattle back to the pack. Green Bay faltering. Denver looks 50% infallible and 50% awful. Indianapolis isn't going to win the AFC South by default. Arizona, Cincinnati and Carolina are developing into powerhouses. NYJ, Oakland, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, even Tennessee are showing improvement and promise for the future.

Don't know about you but I got an email when I signed up thanking me for signing up and then offering me a survey where I could choose the benefit to get with the membership. I don't remember the exact choices but along with the scarf option was a voucher/discount to the MFC store and...something else. I forget. Point is, the club gave me a choice as to whether I wanted a scarf or not. Possibly gave you the choice too.

I think actually the situation is that the contract requires a certain minimum number of games to be played at Etihad per year. Carlton and Essendon no longer play all their home games at Etihad plus NM and WB sell home games, so to make the difference up the MCG tenants usually have to host one. This year Hawthorn doesn't have one which may come from St Kilda not selling a game to NZ this year. I fear that without a new contract we will continue to be forced to have one game at Etihad unless the Dogs or North stop selling home games which probably isn't going to happen.