titan_uranus

Salem back to Casey. We've all seen enough to know he's going to be fine, but right now he's not, and he needs some time back in the VFL. I'm not sold on the height of our side but Essendon is very tall so we may need the extra tall. Kent for Salem I reckon. Those calling for Blease have more to work with now than they did a month ago, but it's not enough. Until we get 2-4 weeks of reports that don't speak to any level of defensive lapses, we won't see him. Can I play 'semantics' with you? Terlich may be 'firmly entrenched' right now, but IMO I'd drop him if there was anyone to bring in for him. That is, he's only 'firmly entrenched' in my book because there isn't anyone else at Casey to play his role. It was all 'bad Terlich' yesterday with no 'good Terlich'. Slowest decision-maker in AFL history, and usually ends up making a bad one too. Runs the wrong way (to the danger side of a contest rather than the open side) and when I was bored of watching us turn it over, I took a look at his defensive positioning a few times, and he gets lost a lot more frequently than I'd want from anyone, let alone a defender in this side. I'm desperate to see Mitch Clisby make it as a small defender, if only because I'm still utterly unconvinced that Terlich is worth persisting with. As for Garland, I agree with you. In awful form right now. Another example of a player who is not being discussed as a potential out mainly because there's nothing at Casey to warrant talking about it.

6 - N Jones 5 - Vince 4 - Pedersen 3 - Jetta 2 - Cross 1 - Dunn

Haven't had time to read through everyone else's thoughts so I may be repeating some obvious observations here, but anyway: Leaving aside the umpires and the standard of the game in general, that was our worst performance since West Coast. We turned it over like the Melbourne of 2013, we had no structure forward of centre, and we were far too quick to look backwards/sideways for the first three quarters. It was utterly incomprehensible how often players would first look sideways before looking forward, ending up with leads not honoured and free players gone missing (Watts was left hanging so many times it was insane). We saw how important Tyson has been to our last month - no Tyson yesterday and our clearance work went down the toilet. With Cross doing tagging jobs it means it's Nathan Jones or nothing without Tyson. Dom's going to have to learn how to shake a tag because it's going to come more often now. How often did we kick to a leading forward who had no separation at all on his defender? I'm not sure what the cause of this is, whether it's slow forwards, lack of bodywork, poor kicking to the lead, or something else, but the difference with Collingwood forwards yesterday in terms of separation on the lead was very noticeable. A lot of passengers too. Salem had a shocker, which is fair enough. Gawn wasn't very useful either. Wasn't happy at all with Terlich's game, nor Dawes. Garland is also not playing well right now - I think we all love him so much that we're a bit clouded with him. He's not at the level he was at least year, not close. Part of that is of course due to his coming back from injury, but even allowing for that he's not performing well enough IMO. On the flipside, another great shutdown job from Cross, Jetta took another step forward, Dunn beat Cloke for 90% of the game, Nathan Jones was fantastic again, Vince had a great game and I thought Grimes was markedly better than he was a fortnight ago against Richmond. As for those external factors - the umpiring somehow gets worse by the week. That was so despicable yesterday (not in terms of us only getting 5, but the way they interpreted the rules was just mindboggling). And on the standard of the game - we're copping a lot of flak for it being ugly, but Collingwood flooded just as much as we did, and played the same game we did for most of the day. They just did it better than we did, so we look worse. Ultimately, a good reminder yesterday that we're not improving meteorically and that it isn't just going to happen. There is a lot of work to do and only small failures from small areas will lead to losses quite easily.

Some interesting quotes from that piece: It is an open secret that Mark Neeld and Neil Craig were too negative on a fragile playing group scared of punishment. But Roos managed the perfect blend of teaching fundamentals yet encouraging freedom. A player’s progress is monitored by weekly meetings with Roos and review sessions where the players openly assess their peers’ mistakes and achievements, not just the coaches. “I liked Neeldy but we were too regimented. We all had to be in certain spots and we were good at being over-coached,’’ says Pedersen. “We would run to our spot at a stoppage and someone would be free five metres away but we would just stand in our spot. And that bloke would get the ball. Now we play with a bit mor freedom. Last year we were always in damage control, we tried not to get beaten by too much. We never believed we could win." Also, in the video, Jamar talks about how there's been 'no knife in the back' this year from Roos. Shows how he felt at the treatment he got last year.

The Yankees stuff is being used by Caro/The Age to get attention. What Bartlett was really saying was as AoB put it - it's about making the Melbourne Football Club a bigger and far more relevant club in the scheme of the AFL. That's all he's getting at. Changing the song doesn't help. Changing the logo might. Moving from Casey I don't think will do anything. Getting on Collins Street, however he envisages that happening, is a waste of time. Winning games of football, that will help. That will give us more TV exposure, better fixturing, more positive write ups in the papers (we're already seeing that even this year), and that will give us more relevance and more strength in the market. Those are all far, far more powerful than anything Bartlett suggested in his article. Richmond, Sydney and Melbourne's songs are usually discussed as being the best 3 songs in the competition. Richmond's song doesn't contain the word 'Richmond' in it. Sydney's song doesn't contain the word 'Sydney' in it.

Just saying what? Our song is inherently who we are and there is absolutely nothing to be gained from changing it.

They can do whatever they want to anything at the club...except the song. If they change the song, even one bit, I don't know what I'll do. That song is precious to me, it's one of the best in the league, it carries meaning to most of us I'm sure. It's not some half-baked rock song written in the 90s that can be altered because who cares.

I guess he'd justify it along the lines of playing with us circa 2008-2013 is hard work enough? I agree though - surely you'd be so far gone into our cause that nothing would satisfy save for seeing it through and being there with us? I mean, no matter what he does, if we do go on to win a flag during his career, is he going to be happy? I doubt it.

I feel like it might be the most even flag race we've had in years. Sydney, Port Adelaide, Fremantle and Hawthorn (at full strength, anyway) are up there, and though Geelong's form is currently pretty poor, they're 8-3 and they've been written off before. Throw in Collingwood, who are also 7-3, plus the giant killer in North Melbourne (beaten Sydney in Sydney, Fremantle in Perth and Port Adelaide) and there's a legitimate 7-horse race for the flag. Which of those clubs miss the top 4? Right now you'd say Geelong's not good enough, but if they finish 5th or 6th, who knows what they could do. Ditto North, who play their best against the best.

Big move, IMO, keeping Gawn, especially when they've decided not to play Grundy. A lot of marking ability and we're going to stretch their undermanned defence, but will we have enough run?

I'm not sold on Spencer at all, but ruckmen don't grow on trees and we're better off with him as our insurance than anyone else, to be frank. Not the worst idea, unless we actually got Wood.

It's not been done to help the club, it's been done to help the players.

MFCSS strikes again. Frawley is not smart. He has been told by his manager to trot out the same line any time he's asked - that he's waiting to see where the club is going and that he's not going to rush. He said the exact same thing in his interview on the MFC website back around the time of the Carlton game. His manager obviously has taken the 'sit back and push the price up first' strategy; if he wants to stay here I don't think it's a good strategy, especially when players like Dunn come out and commit and talk of being a one club player. But I see the idea.

This is generally how I feel. However, this year there has been a significant shift in the football landscape, with the AFL finally going too far in favour of Channel Seven and away from the fans. As a result there are too many things the fans are (rightfully) upset about (cost, timing, spreading out of games, etc.). The AFL has to concede on some issues, and Seven is likely to budge. The TV spectacle benefits from a strong atmosphere at the stadium, so crowds cannot continue to fall. General perception of AFL also obviously impacts on who watches games, and if there is a continued trend of apathy and disappointment with the AFL, that will hurt them too. First step is to reduce the bias with prime time fixturing - yes, overall they have to be given to the clubs that are going to draw the crowds and play the best football. But you can't just base that off the previous year, Carlton and Richmond being perfect examples. Carlton has at least 4 Friday night games still to come this year - who wants to watch Carlton? I think this may be the least year we see a handful of teams getting 8-10 Friday nights whilst others all get 0 or 1. Next step is to reduce the spread of games. No more Monday nights, everyone hates them (players, coaches, fans, TV, it's not working at any level). I personally don't like Thursday nights but if the AFL is intent on having flexibility and on having the occasional extra game (and it has to be occasional), use it sparingly. Sunday nights can work too, but they should only ever be before Public Holidays (and should be before every Monday public holiday, such as QBD, Easter Monday and ANZAC Day when appropriate). Spread the byes over two weeks, not three, to get the season back to full pace as quickly as possible.

Remember last year when Watts induced a cringe in everyone when he said 'we just need to turn around a bit of mindset' (or something like that)? I genuinely believe that, if nothing else, our mindset has changed so much for the better. Much more confidence, much more positivity, football is now enjoyable again for some of these guys, and that is helping us turn our form around as much as anything.

I had the same reaction! I guess a combination of Sunday twilight, cold, rain, GWS (having lost their last two by 100 each) and Hawthorn fielding the Box Hill side led to no interest. But still, that's shocking.

What I'm seeing is a team that is finally improving, and a player who is starting to stand out now because he's treading water. Not a scapegoat so much as a player whose lack of improvement this year mightn't have mattered much last year, but does now. I don't agree that he's strong (for mine he lacks upper body strength) or quick, but even those to one side, you've identified all the good things about him like his work overhead, his defensive work one-on-one, his running and his team-minded play. All of those are positive qualities. But they're qualities he's had his whole career. Similarly, he still has the same flaws - the dodgy kicking, the poor decision-making, and they're now standing out a little more because we're seeing less of that from others. I'm not writing him off to any degree, and as I've said, he has some fantastic traits that are needed in any side. His work against Adelaide and Carlton exemplified that. But his mistakes and his flaws are holding him back, he's not improving and he's not at a quality that we need him to be at if we want to truly become an A-grade side. He has to work on his kicking and decision-making because if he doesn't, he's going to get left behind.

Great call. It's already started, at least for me. I can't stand it. But I suspect we won't be able to get rid of it unless and until we start making finals and being successful, so that we get some bigger games and QBD doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in our fixture.

Let's hope Richmond 2015 = Melbourne 2012. That would be grand. Their list is awful.

I think that has to be it. Someone has to make room for Dawes and it has to be Gawn; we're too tall otherwise and Gawn is at the bottom of the talls we're playing. Pedersen will cope fine in the ruck, it's not Collingwood's strength anyway.

The reasons some of us are worried about Grimes' form have nothing to do with what he's doing off the ball, which is fine. It's what he does when he has it, or is getting near it, that is the problem.

Fantastically, both games. The other games? Not so much. That's the problem. He's capable of being great, but he's also capable of being a liability. Jeepers, ease up. The point is a valid one - it's not that Blease or Strauss are right now in a position to challenge Grimes, because they're not. But we all want them to pull their fingers out, and what do we do if that does indeed happen? On a related note, McKenzie has equal intent to Grimes, but we had no problem dropping him for his poor skills and drop off in form. The thing that troubles a few of us is this - if the deficiencies are so easily fixed (and they probably are), why has he had them for years now?

Why is it 'laughable'? Right now of course not, but who is saying right now that Blease or Strauss or McKenzie should come in for him? No one (I don't think). We're not halfway into the season yet though. Those VFL players may not improve, which makes the point redundant, but we'd all love to see them push their claims, and what happens if/when they do? Grimes' AFL trajectory has flatlined over the last year or two. If we get some players who can up their form (no guarantee, but let's hope), whether it's Blease, Strauss, McKenzie, Kent, or anyone else, Grimes' position simply has to come into question the way he is playing. His redeeming features are good enough, but as I said earlier, we don't see them enough and we see the faults more than we should be at this stage.

That makes more sense, given Jetta was in most people's votes. He's really developing into an integral part of our side now. Did Grimes run with anyone?

Just watched the highlights on the AFL site. Tyson's goal in the third quarter was outstanding. I really can't understand the negativity. We matched it with, and for long periods were better than, the best side in the competition. And don't tell me they're 'pretenders' - they've convincingly beaten Hawthorn, Fremantle and Geelong and they continually play fast, skilful, strong football. They're the real deal. Meanwhile we have spent the most part of the last 7 years in the bottom four (didn't we read that the win against Richmond took us out of the bottom four for only the second time in 2.5 years?). We're still going to have poor games, but we look more and more likely to win a game or two you never would have thought we'd be winning this year.