titan_uranus

I was meaning to say our fast bowlers would thrive here, and I think they will. India's most recent Test series was in England and they were absolutely humiliated against the pace bowling from the English. Their younger batsmen all struggled - Vijay, Pujara and most of all, Kohli. Dhoni was the only one able to score runs. You'd expect them to have worked on it to an extent but they were as bad there as we were in Pakistan. Not sure if Maddinson has the form to warrant selection, but then again Maxwell didn't. If Haddin's not right who takes his spot? Wade? Paine? I'd be going for Paine.

The Austin return was perplexing - guess just excitement more than anything but running sideways in the end zone, seriously? Sometimes I wonder if the players are fully aware of the rules around safeties (e.g. last week Luck was convinced it wasn't a safety when he was tackled but it clearly was). The thing about you is you seem to play much better against the NFC West than anyone else. You played well against us, beat the Seahawks, then had a shocker against KC, then beat us.

MFCSS.

You're talking Crabtree's, right? Can you explain why that wasn't a TD? That ball definitely crossed the plane...

For mine Rogers stays. He and Warner at the top is working, and even in the UAE it worked to an extent. Maxwell must go, not just from 3 but from the side. He is everything that is wrong with Australian Test cricket at the moment - doesn't have perseverance, no technique, gets selected based on limited overs form, thinks he's the bees knees without having any points on the board, and of course underperforms. The Shield games to be played prior to the Brisbane Test might give us a stronger indication of who is in form but right now the spot should go to Hughes. I'm not convinced Doolan has what it takes. Watson's not a 3; ideally if he plays he bats at 6 to allow him to bowl. I'm not sold on Marsh but he probably holds his spot for now. As for the bowlers, neither Starc nor Siddle impressed but Siddle at least kept a good line and length. I'd drop Starc for whoever's ready to replace him (Harris? Pattinson? Cummins?) but keep Siddle with Johnson. Remember, of course, that in Australia against India we'll thrive.

You say 'groupthink', I say 'revisionism'. You're spinning the positives of the Bailey era to make it sound like he was better than he really was. Whether or not you're saying he was 'good' or 'great', I simply cannot agree with the comments you've made about him. We were soft under Bailey. We played football that was uncontested, free-flowing, based on running out of the backline. When it didn't work for us we got belted. It was nice to watch when we pulled it off (e.g. vs Sydney), and since we've been starved of wins since 2011 it might be easy to say 'well at least he got us wins!'. But it's not like 2011 was some sort of turning point for the club. We were simply never going to make it as a club playing that kind of footy. It may have been 'fantastic' when it worked but it was god-awful when it didn't. You say the alternative is Neeld, as if they were the only two options. They were polar opposites, one at each end of the spectrum, neither good enough. Neeld was worse, sure, but again, the fact that Neeld came straight after and was worse does not justify what Bailey was doing. It just shows that there is more than one way to be a bad AFL coach. I don't think there's a single rational person who thinks Neeld was better than Bailey, but if we'd had pretty much any coach other than Neeld to replace Bailey I don't think you'd be looking so fondly back on that time. It was a poor time for this club, just a different kind of poor to the Neeld era.

We all know he's right. Melbourne gave him the worst possible chance to become a top-flight AFL player. But could you imagine Nathan Jones coming out and saying this? The fact he signed with a new club and immediately started placing blame for his time here on the club and hardly on himself is reflective of his poor attitude, which is the primary reason he's not made it yet.

First and goal from the Rams' 2 on the final drive of the game. We lost. Only Colin Kaepernick knows how to lose games from that position.

We are a joke. Younis Khan scored 3 centuries in 3 innings, we finally get him out in the fourth (while trailing by 400 or something) and David Warner claps in his face when the LBW is given. We bat Glenn Maxwell at 3 who shouldn't be batting in any side higher than 7 (get him out of the side, not a Test cricketer). We lose 0-4 in India 18 months ago and in the intervening period we've learnt absolutely nothing. If there's no bounce in the pitch we can't bowl, neither pace nor spin. And in the same circumstances, where batting should be easy, we can't score at all because we don't know how to play spin. It won't matter of course because we're about to reverse the roles and play India in Australia where it all goes in our favour instead. But we're still a joke.

The fact that our era under Neeld was worse than our era under Bailey does not mean Bailey was a good coach. He was not. Our side under Bailey was able to win 8.5 games in 2010-2011 because we played reckless, bruise-free football which, against the right sides, would score heavily and win games. It was not finals football and it was 3 years too late for the way the game was progressing. The mitigating circumstances you've raised, such as senior players retiring/leaving, are valid for sure, but the fact that Neeld was his immediate successor and was incredulously worse doesn't change the fact that Bailey was not a good coach. You also noted that he focused on list development not winning games. Our list when he left was still terrible. Then to say Roos' record doesn't compare to Bailey's is ridiculous. For a start it's 1 season to 3.5 - comparing the debut seasons has Roos at 4-18 with a percentage of 68.4 and Bailey at 3-19 with 62.61. So I can't agree with your statement at all.

Interesting theory. I don't agree. The forward line probably was responsible in part for our inside 50 count, but I'd apportion the blame something like 80-20 or higher. Meaning the midfield remains the number 1 concern. By definition we are going to pass on every single player except one. I fully expect you to complain about whichever player from pick 4 onwards does well before either of our players does well.

Their Friday nights are Sunday nights, not Monday nights, and they have similar issues with that to the AFL - certain clubs get the majority of the games whilst big market clubs also get them when they have bad seasons (e.g. Giants, Cowboys). But they also have the advantage of being able to move games in and out of the Sunday night game to ensure the best games are in prime time. They get that by playing all but 2 games per week on a Sunday, not fussed with having multiple games start at the same time.

I'm more upset with the fact we went so early on him, as if we were keeping the throngs of other clubs at bay. It's not like there would have been any other interest in him, so why did we lock ourselves in so early? If we end up forced to leave ND40 behind because the list is full and we can't afford to pay out contracted players, that would constitute the exact reason why we shouldn't have gone so early on a line-ball, fringe-22 player at best.

Why do you feel so compelled to send a message? Do you not think the club is aware of how poorly they're doing, that the supporters want to see us leave this era of mediocrity behind? The message has been sent, numerous times.

Personally if it was ND40 vs Terlich I'd take ND40. The fact that re-signing Terich may mean that we're not able to use ND40 annoys me.

Interstate home game splits: 2015 - 4-7 (WB, NM, St Kilda, Collingwood) 2014 - 4-7 (WB, NM, Geelong, Collingwood) 2013 - 4-7 (WB, NM, Hawthorn, Collingwood) 2012 - 5-6 (WB, Hawthorn, Richmond, St Kilda, Collingwood) 2011 - 4-7 (Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood) 2010 - 6-5 (WB, NM, Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood) 2009 - 6-5 (WB, NM, St Kilda, Geelong, Richmond, Collingwood) 2008 - 7-4 (WB, NM, Hawthorn, Geelong, Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood) 2007 - 6-5 (WB, NM, Carlton, Geelong, St Kilda, Collingwood) So in that period (9 seasons), home games tally against the Victorian clubs: Collingwood - 9 WB - 8 NM - 7 Hawthorn - 5 Richmond - 5 Geelong - 4 Carlton - 3 St Kilda - 3 Essendon - 1 So we're essentially not getting Essendon home games, we're running at 1 home game every 3 years for St Kilda (who over this period was a generally successful club) and Carlton, whilst the 5 home games against Richmond were all 2008-2012, during which time Richmond did not play finals once. We've been given some home games against Hawthorn to placate us, as well as QB of course, but otherwise we're being fed a diet of WB and NM. In 2011 we hosted every single interstate club, and six other times in these 9 years we have hosted all but one.

I've never understood the whole 'I'm not renewing my membership because the team doesn't deserve it' thing. If you're not paying up this year, do you think that has some sort of positive effect on the team? Or, do you think that by not renewing you are sending some sort of message that hasn't already been received by the low crowds, the booing, the hate mail, and the general obvious nature of how bad we have been? All you are doing by not paying up is hurting the club's bottom line. Worst thing is, when the club gets good again you are going to jump back on and say you made some sort of difference or that they have 'earned' your membership, when all you did was throw a hissy fit when you weren't happy. If it's a financial decision that's a different story but if you're simply choosing not to renew when you are able to, I don't rate you as a supporter.

I generally agree with the argument that until we get more competitive we're not going to get good fixtures, but Carlton was average at best this year and got 6 Friday night games. Hell, St Kilda finished below us and in addition to somehow getting a Friday night game they also have 7 home games against Victorian sides (including Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond and Geelong). St Kilda's draw makes me really angry. I don't see the fairness in that.

It's a shocker. Only 4 homr games against Victorian clubs (like this year) - Coll, WB, NM and St K. That's Collingwood plus the three worst Victorian clubs. The remainder of our home games are against interstate sides, including GWS at Etihad. We also go to Geelong and have 4 home games starting at 1.10 on a Sunday (the worst timeslot in terms of interest). The Richmond Friday night and the Sydney Saturday night are nice, plus we play Collingwood twice this year. But otherwise it's a really awful draw financially. To be expected of course, but nonetheless it's bad. Return games against GWS, Collingwood, WB, St Kilda and Fremantle. That's OK overall.

If the season ended now neither Seattle nor SF would be in the playoffs. 2 games back in the division just short of halfway through. It's going to be a wild ride to the end but right now I'd put Arizona first for the division and I'd put Detroit/GB ahead of both Seattle and SF in the fight for WC1. Meanwhile Cleveland, last in its division (4-3), has a better record than Carolina (3-3-1) who is first in its division. Who'd have thought NFC South would be this weak this year? Tampa Bay seemed to be the popular choice in the pre-season, and Atlanta started the season very strongly. Coupled with two 2013 playoff sides and it promised so much more than it has delivered so far.

Surely Doolan's not the answer at 3. He's either unable or unwilling to rotate the strike and moves far too slowly. Shaun Marsh got harshly treated in South Africa, and Hughes scored well in the warm-up game. Plus Shane Watson's in the wings. I think we may see one or more of them at some point this summer, I'm not confident Doolan will see it through.

Yep, we're winless in Rounds 1 and 2 since 2005 where we won the first three games. So difficult to build momentum, both on and off the field, when you're consistently starting 0-2 (and almost always 0-3).

Standard Australian cricket. In Australia/South Africa where bounce and pace is the key, both our pacemen and our spinners take loads of wickets. Dry, spinning pitch and both our pacemen and our spinners are largely ineffectual. We made 300 with the bat which is good enough, but we couldn't keep their first innings down, 450 is huge. I'd say we're a strong chance to lose this one. Already 200 behind with most of 2 days remaining, and I don't know if we can bat out an entire Day 5 on a pitch like this.

Seriously? After the last three years of disgrace, we get a prime time, Friday night game against a Victorian club at the G, totally undeservedly, and you complain? This is a huge win for our club, and if the clubs are intending for it to be permanent, then you'd expect it to be shared every year as to who hosts.

We have to be considered mighty lucky to be in Melbourne in Round 1. In fact, we have not been interstate in Round 1 since 1998, where we played Fremantle in Perth. Since then, we've been at Etihad twice (2006 v Carlton, 2014 v St Kilda) and every other Round 1 game has been at the MCG. The other Victorian sides last interstate Round 1 game: Carlton - 2004 Collingwood - 1990 (but now 2015) Essendon - 2013 (and again 2015) Geelong - 2012 Hawthorn - 2011 North Melbourne - 2011 (and again 2015) Richmond - 2014 St Kilda - 2013 Bulldogs - 2014 Collingwood's had its charmed run end this year, which will make us next cab off the rank. Better get to Round 1 next year, the one after is surely going to be out of Victoria.