titan_uranus

You have more than enough evidence with which to win this argument. Resorting to crap like this is unnecessary. Why is it that when the evidence clearly suggests a certain course of action, and BP takes it, he is wrong (e.g. Scully, in your view), yet, when the evidence clearly suggests a certain course of action, and he doesn't 'just go along with the crowd', he's also wrong (e.g. Cook)? Scully was a completely valid number 1 pick. If looking at the film was as clear-cut as you're making it sound, we wouldn't have had reviews of him like this one from Emma Quayle. Clearly, Blease, Strauss, Gysberts, Tapscott, Cook were all poor picks, so as I said, I don't dispute your view on BP overall, but at least be fair to him on the picks that were completely fair to make.

If there's one area of our team that we have some genuine hope in, it's our forward line, with Hogan, Clark and Dawes. And yet we manage to spend our time complaining about Cook v Darling. Standard Demonland. Most of the consensus is that Cook was a second round pick. Something like pick 25-40. Imagine we took him at 25. Or 30. Or 35. If we'd taken him where he was supposed to go, we still managed to turn pick 25/30/35/40 into a 0-game delisted player. He wasn't worth pick 12. But, given what we're all conceding now, he should have been more than a 0-gamer. That means some of the issue is with what happens to the talent when it walks through our doors.

I couldn't care less if he uses the word 'competitive', provided he does what he did in this video and adds to it. The issue most people had with Bailey was that that was all he ever spoke about. Ever. Already in that video Roos spoke about making sure we have bigger bodies in the midfield and working to improve our percentage (which comes not just from scoring more, but from improved defence too). Small things, but things that gave meaning to the vagueness that is 'competitive'.

Summary for those who can't watch: Players not being here makes his transition (e.g. moving from Sydney to Melbourne and straight into drafting/trading/list management) easier Said that on OTC all he was trying to do was answer the questions as best he could Getting a senior assistant was always going to be a process, even though 'we would have liked to get it sorted straight away' it was always about getting the best person; it's now about the players now, focus on next year, the senior assistant will wait In the 2-3 year timeframe that he's committed to, his aim is to set some high standards to emulate the likes of Hawthorn/Fremantle. Will take some time. 'We understand where we're at'. Benchmark is percentage, more so than win-loss. It's about being competitive for longer. Coaches have been watching game film the last few weeks, they're learning about what is needed Bringing in his new coaches is no disrespect to the past, but he feels it's more efficient to not have to coach the coaches, his people know him and his style and that means they'll work well together. Getting Brad Miller back was something he wanted to do, not just because he's past-MFC but also for who he is as a person. Having his own coaches helps 'fast-track' things. Jade Rawlings will probably have his status 'elevated' a little bit (he's been here longer than the others and knows more stuff, so he'll get a bit more responsibility) Clear strategy in trade period (even before Roos was here) was the midfield, we are really pleased with how things went. Fremantle didn't want to lose Michie but Roos' friendship with Lyon seems to have helped us get him. Roos says Tyson is 'an absolute star in the making'. Instead of another 18-year old, we decided it was better to get a slightly older player to help Viney/Toumpas/Hogan. Tyson has a bigger body, the kids in the draft are going to be smaller bodies. We kept pick 9 which was great, so it was a win-win all round. Vince 'sort of popped out of nowhere'. Losing Sylvia but getting a genuine midfielder back for him was a good thing, Roos says Sylvia made the right decision but getting Vince out of the blue to replace him is a good thing. His age, plus Cross, helps us out. 'Really successful period'

Bucs led Seattle 21-0. After the Jets beat the Saints and the Eagles put up 7 touchdowns today, I thought maybe they were a chance. Nope. Seattle wins 24-21 in OT after Marshawn Lynch dominates their OT drive. Biggest ever comeback for Seattle. They're not playing well but their next two games are at Atlanta and the Vikings. Meanwhile, Jets beat the Saints (wtf) and the Eagles put 49 points up against the Raiders (wtf). Redskins over the Chargers too, which really helps the Jets in their search for a Wild Card. Chiefs will be undefeated going into their SNF game with the Broncos. Huge. And now Cleveland beats Baltimore for the first time in six years. They're 2 back in AFC North.

If Watson misses the first Test due to his hamstring, you have to wonder whether sending him out to bat was the right thing. Regardless, Indian cricket hit a new low when Dhawan mocked Watson's limp. India's young crickets are, without exception, a bunch of petulant brats (Dhawan, Kohli, Raina). Puts the wonderful attitudes of Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman to shame. No. Six batsmen. One keeper. Four bowlers. Great innings from him (fastest Australian ODI century I think) but that was a small ground where most batsmen were finding the fence with ease.

How many injuries this season! I feel like the number of injuries isn't correlative to the size of the sport, just feels like far too many players going down. It's just the one 15-minute period in the regular season. If there's no score after 15 minutes it's a tie. Of all the ways to lose, to be sacked (just, mind you) is one of the worst, surely. Came about because of the drop on the previous Bengals possession. Had Sanu held that catch, they'd have been close enough to go for the FG. Big result, that. Miami has games left against Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh, plus two games against the Jets, and the Bills as well. The division is not completely out of the question if New England stutters a tad, otherwise a wild card is achievable. As for Cincy, they've still got the Ravens twice, plus the Chargers and the Colts, so the door is open for the Ravens to snatch the division off them I guess.

Sure, but how many rumours are there going to be about who we draft? Given the leaks coming out of the club right now, I'd say none. It's all mainly opinions from here on out, or phantom orders etc.

Per day or per notice, either way it's a fair amount of money he's going to have to cop if he wants to stay silent. You can't just 'claim bankruptcy'. If he has money or assets then he will owe ASADA. If he doesn't want to lose that, then he has to answer the questions. If he is truly bankrupt then he's bankrupt, but he can't just make it up. His only real defence is the get-out clause provided in the Act for the immunity from self-incrimination. If answering the questions would incriminate him, then he doesn't have to answer (e.g. if he had to admit to trafficking illegal goods or something). No evidence to suggest he can use this, though.

Rohit Sharma - wow. Australian bowling - not so wow. Brisbane and Melbourne. You're right, though. These pitches are made for Tremlett, who dominated when he played last time, and Broad. Tough for us all round. Timely from Doolan, with Shane Watson injuring his hamstring - no surprise with that one. If we rate Watson as highly as we appear to, he shouldn't be bowling meaningless overs in an ODI in India three weeks before the Ashes starts. In other scores, Cowan made just 4, Lyon took three wickets but it wasn't enough to stop Tasmania, Marcus North took WA to a draw by batting out the fourth day for 118* off 314, Marsh made just 4, Cameron White backed up his 83 and 61 with the bat by taking 4 fourth-innings wickets, Ahmed couldn't get a single one, Trott and (surprise surprise) Bell made 100s too. White a sneaky chance for a Test spot this summer if he keeps it up. Domestic form right now has him right up there, and if he's taking wickets too, you never know, what with Australia's penchant for 'all-rounders'.

Clarke should bat at 5, especially if his back is playing up. More rest. I'd put Bailey at 4, with Smith at 6. Smith's more suited to 6, plays spin well enough. Bailey's got a good enough technique to bat at 4. In order to win, we can't afford to regress from our platform from the winter. By that I mean, we have to keep Cook and Trott quiet, Root the same. To go the next step, we then have to work out how to get Bell out and how to play Anderson's swing.

I vote for this thread to be locked. It's run its course.

I agree with all this; I don't think any of it contradicts my argument. Yes, if we don't improve on the field we're in trouble. Yes, we have to get better. If we do get better, yes, we could cash in on some fixtures. I'm prepared for the club to struggle financially next year; we're implementing structural changes, paying Roos a big salary, and we have a fickle supporter base who won't start coming to games unless we start winning. We will start winning soon, so they'll come back, but that may not be in early 2014. You speak of the 'opportunity' to stand on our own two feet. I believe the AFL has given us just that. By ensuring we have a fixture in which the opportunities to win are there, whilst limiting the games where beltings are likely (Port the only finalist we have to play twice, no trip to Geelong, etc.), they have given us as good a chance as they can to get some confidence in our game, get some wins on the board, and get fans coming back. Indeed, we can't live off handouts forever. But when we need them, the AFL has been there to give them. Where does that money come from? In part, its large broadcasting contracts. I hate Channel 7's coverage and commentators, but I'm at least thankful for the reality that they pay a huge amount of money for it, and that has helped us in our time of direst need. So if they don't want to show us right now, tough for us. Let's make them, and our rival Victorian clubs, want to deal with us again.

My understanding is that failing to answer is a $5,100 fine. That fine accrues every time you fail to comply with a notice. Therefore, the notice could ask you to come to an interview in a week. Fail to do so, get $5,100 fine. Then, ASADA could issue you a second notice. Fail to answer that one, another fine. Therefore, Dank could run up a bill he simply cannot afford. He can't run away from them forever.

I actually laughed when I saw that team. It's a bit sad that we thought that was an AFL-standard side, really. I'll back B-H in with his assessment of Hogan; he appears to have seen more of him than most of us. I too would be wary of putting too much on his shoulders, but I guess if you're going to do it, at least do it with a mountain of a man who has played his final junior year with men and not boys. Also, starting him as an interchange makes it worse, if anything. Think of the raptures of the supporters as he strides onto the ground 2 minutes in. At least Round 1 is at Etihad and thus without the MCC behind him. Agree re: Blease, but I have no faith whatsoever in him. If he does come on, that would be a wonderful X-factor to add to the side, but I fear that ship has long-sailed (add Strauss to that category). To me, pick 9 may be duelling with McKenzie for the final spot in the side. Depends on the type of player we take, of course.

Over-simplistic much? The number of members is relevant. So is the number of people watching our games on TV. So is our 'culture'. So are the demographics of those members. So are a host of other things. They are looking overall at our brand.

We're currently in the bracket of clubs you'd deem 'small'. What is the number one predominant reason for this? Our sustained inability to be a competitive AFL side. I maintain that if we can sustain AFL-level competitiveness, our fans will get back on the bandwagon, our crowds will go up, interest in us will go up, and that will lead to us getting a better commercial fixture. You also can't separate the home games issue from the prime time issue. 7 gets better ratings from two Victorian clubs than it does from a Victorian club hosting a low-rating interstate side. If you give Melbourne more home games against Victorian sides, then you end up with more 'Melbourne v [Victorian club]' games, which Channel 7 doesn't want because Melbourne's in them, and more '[Victorian club] v GWS/GC/PA/Fremantle/etc' games, which Channel 7 also doesn't want. Let Melbourne host the crappy low-ratings interstate sides, and you then get more '[Victorian club] v [Victorian club]' games, which is what Channel 7 wants. So Channel 7 asks/demands the AFL for more games with two Victorian sides, which means, to get the interstate sides playing in Melbourne, the crap clubs like us end up hosting them, taking them off Channel 7's hands. As I've said all along, if you were to take your complaint to the AFL and succeed in convincing them of your argument, you would end up with us getting more home games against Victorian sides, but that doesn't do a lot for us in the long run. It gives us short term modest profits, but if we keep losing and being absolute crap on-field, it does nothing in the broader scheme of things (we'll keep pulling crowds of 28,000 to home games against Hawthorn and QBD crowds will keep declining). But for long term financial success, we simply need to be a more competitive side, which will boost attendance at all games, assist sponsorship, get us back in prime time, and make us an enticing brand and opponent.

Agreed, I think that'll be the side. The third paceman is an issue - I don't rate Johnson with the red ball at all. His current form is white-ball stuff, which he's more suited to. Short spells, bursts of fire and bounce and pace. Major psychological issues with the English batsmen too. Having said that, if not Johnson then who? Bollinger did just take a six-for, but I'd rather go with Johnson if Dougie's the only other option. Hazlewood's not taking enough wickets. Hasting's isn't good enough. Coulter-Nile is thereabouts but again, wouldn't put him much in front of Hastings. Ben Hilfenhaus is another option but he's had one good summer his entire career (two years ago v India's awful batsmen). Bird, Starc, Pattinson and Cummins are the future of Australian fast bowling. Such an enormous pity (and problem) that they're all out for the summer.

We're both. I'll back PJ in to prioritise the latter over the former, but it won't be an easy sell.

I think we all are. Just because he's very good at his job doesn't mean he can pull sponsorship out of his butt. We are a hard sell. We're not exactly a brand with which you would want to associate your product, are we.

St Kilda's PR manager should be fired (assuming they have one). That press conference was abysmal. Nothing but corporate buzz-words and dodging the issues. Refused to answer questions and now won't do any media. No wonder their fans are furious. Melbourne's made more mistakes over the last few years, but at least when PJ came in to clean things up he fronted up to things and admitted exactly why we had to sack Neeld and why we had to beg the AFL for money. Stark contrast.

I'd agree with that. I'm not sure how many other clubs we're in front of, but if you run over both lists, I'd have ours in front of theirs, and that's before you add in their off-field dramas.

I know. I then proceeded to discuss his solutions, which involve giving Melbourne home games against Victorian sides. It was a rhetorical question before I discussed it. Pretty simple. I assume by referring to white you're referring to home v away. I'm not otherwise sure what you're trying to say with this line. Yes, I am. Stop talking about a 28,000 home game attendance against Hawthorn as being some sort of financial boon. It's a modest profit. Running three or four modest profits doesn't make us financially stable in the long run. Yes, it is better than running those same three or four games as 15,000 crowds. But that's a 2014 thing. Not a long term thing. If we keep drawing 28,000 crowds to home games against Hawthorn and co., we're going nowhere. What will fix that? Becoming more competitive. Ergo, 2014 home games against Victorian clubs do very little for us. His argument has been refuted - North Melbourne. North Melbourne is not a big club. In 2014 they will play five Friday night games, and have home games against Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn and Geelong. Why? Because in the last two years they've lifted their performances, become more attractive and competitive, and have a brand that is not disastrous. Meanwhile, Collingwood in 2014 has 2 fewer Friday night games than 2013, plus 9 games on Foxtel and three consecutive Sunday twilight games. Why? Because they weren't as good in 2013 as they have been in recent years. I don't know what our status is on the percent of the salary cap that we're able to pay, but I also don't know what that figure is for any other club, so I can't speak to whether we're at a disadvantage. How melodramatic. Fair and equitable fixturing is impossible in our game. Unless everyone plays the same games, the draw will inherently be unfair. Interstate clubs have to travel 11 games per year, most Victorian clubs are half that. Once you accept that AFL simply cannot, in the realm of possibility, be fixtured fairly, you have to accept that there will always be some clubs with better draws than others. Why do we have no power? Because no one cares about us. People care about Collingwood and co - their members care, their fans care, Channel 7 cares, the radio broadcasters care, etc. No one cares about Melbourne, so we have no power. How might we go about getting some of that back? A few home games against Victorian clubs does nothing, especially given that at this point in history Victorian clubs are quite good on-field. What might help is us starting to win again. If we lose the 'impediment' tag that PJ has said, that will make Channel 7 less fearful of having our games on TV. That will mean more games vs Victorian clubs, and that will begin to make us a more enticing scheduling prospect. Fair and equitable fixturing is not a 'basic right' at all. That is fanciful to say the least. Fixturing is unequal, and to get a better slice of the pie we have to earn it. We will earn it by winning games, and that is exactly what the 2014 draw allows us to do. If we stop relying on the AFL to float our boat and we start doing the hard work ourselves, through good recruiting, coaching, training, playing, administration, all that stuff, and we improve our brand, then the commercial fixturing will improve for us.

Unbelievable. Even more so given the comments he made this morning on radio. This. Morning. "St Kilda coach Scott Watters has maintained that there was "massive upside" and "a very optimistic feel" about the Saints team he was leading despite reports that the club's football department was fractured, with substantial conflict between Watters and football chief Chris Pelchen." "Speaking on Radio SEN on Friday, Watters said suggestions that his relationship with Pelchen was strained were "almost laughable". "Chris and I are absolutely perfectly aligned from a list-management point of view and that really was from day one," Watters said.

Apparently one of the radio stations just said that Scott Watters has just been sacked. Watch this space...