titan_uranus

It's an away game to St Kilda in Round 1. That's the pre-season.

Given what you're saying here, it looks like this is semantics more than anything. To me, a 'mistake' is something that you shouldn't have done. If you're willing to accept that this was a 'category 2' pick, and justifiable, then I'm not sure that it's a 'mistake'. Yes, it wasn't great, and yes, if we had our time again we'd obviously pick someone else, but as a matter of semantics that's not a 'mistake' to me, given that, as you've said, the pick was wholly justifiable. The real issue for me when it comes to recruiting is that final line - it's the indefensible, harder to justify picks that are the true mistakes, and they're the ones where it's fair to have a go at the recruiters for.

Disappointing if the HUN's statement that this is a home game is true. That will mean only 8 of our 11 home games will be at the MCG, and that's assuming there are no more Etihad home games. Hopefully we get, for example, an away game against St Kilda at the MCG (like we did this year) to try to even things up a bit.

Indeed. Hard to believe I forgot. Another big innings, another step towards taking the number 6 spot.

Disagree. Can't really be bothered saying it all again, but drafting Morton on the evidence that was available in 2007 was not a 'mistake'. To disagree is to reason with hindsight. Drafting Cook was a mistake. Arguably the same goes for Gysberts. And maybe a few others here and there. But not Morton. The issue with Cale was that we failed to make the most of the decision we made.

First round of Shield games kicked off today. Cameron White continued his great form with an 83, Michael Clarke got an 88, but the rest of the Test players/hopefuls were just average (Rogers 36, Wade 33, Warner 21, Smith 42). Tom Cooper is on 165* though. As for bowling, Ashton Agar grabbed a couple of wickets on Day 1 against Victoria, which is good. Lyon now plays for NSW so his turn comes tomorrow against Tasmania, as does George Bailey's with the bat. Siddle also bowls more tomorrow, as does Hazlewood. Hilfenhaus took just the one wicket.

It's insanely frustrating, isn't it? I mean, it's not like there isn't enough material with which to have a go at him. But people just keep making stuff up to suit their pettiness.

You can bag out his on-field performances as much as you want, but you're flat out wrong about point 2. He did not run away from Lade, you clearly haven't seen the whole footage and you are like the scores of other bitter MFC people who just like paying out on Cale. As for his being drafted at 4, that was not a shock selection by any means, so you need to learn to get over it. Unlike the Cook or (arguably) Gysberts picks, there was clear form for picking Morton at 4. West Coast was tossing up between him and Masten at 3. Picking Morton at 4 was absolutely fair and was not a bad decision by our recruiting panel. We can chalk this one down to Morton simply not being able to get weight on his body; whether that's his fault or ours, we may never know.

I think this is probably the real reason for our large membership number. No other club gets that space on the MCC form, and that renewal happens in August, meaning that by then there are a stack of MCC/MFC members already signed up, before most other clubs are even thinking about membership for the upcoming year. Nonetheless, good to see people getting on board.

No such thing anymore. Being a veteran is relevant to the salary cap, but in terms of the list, that got changed recently and there is no more 'veteran's list', it's all players on the one list (except for rookies, but there is a growing push to do away with rookies and have expanded senior lists).

Long and Quinn were dominant, tore up Seattle's offensive line. Pretty good defence you've got assembled down there.

Sidney Rice may be out with a knee injury though, so Harvin may just offset Rice. Either way, he'll help, but the main issue is the offensive line not giving Wilson enough protection. Until they get Okung and Giacomini back, they're not going to be as potent.

From the 2011 list, we still have: N Jones, Watts, Frawley, Trengove, McKenzie, Dunn, Grimes, Garland, Tapscott, Gawn, Howe, Jetta, Jamar, Spencer, McDonald, Bail, Blease, Strauss, Fitzpatrick, Nicholson ® and Evans ® Gone are: Warnock, Bartram, Gysberts, Bate, Bennell, Morton, Sylvia, Petterd, Green, Maric, Cook, Moloney, Jurrah, Rivers, Macdonald, Scully, Wonaeamirri, Martin, Davey, Davis, Campbell ®, Newton ®, McNamara ®, Lawrence ®, Johnston ®. That's 21 out of 46 remaining, or 46.7%.

Whilst I'm surprised Taggert got the chop over Jetta and Nicholson, who IIRC are out of contract, I'm very happy to see Clisby get promoted. Hopefully he starts Round 1 and continues to go from strength to strength.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/melbourne/news/2013-10-29/clisby-upgraded-three-delisted

Well yes, I think that's a given. What I was trying to say was, if we were to focus on either our top six or our bottom six, which should we focus on? My answer to that is the top six.

Gahh frustrating end to the Seahawks-Rams game. Seattle only managed 135 total yards to St Louis' 339. Rams also had 23 first downs to 7. But an early turnover and one 80-yard play to Tate gave them two TDs. Then, Zuerlin misses a 50-yard FG, meaning that on the final drive, the Rams were forced to get in the end-zone rather than settle for a FG. They swiftly get into FG territory, but botch their final set of downs, with an awful play choice on 4th and goal, emptying the backfield to pass the ball when they'd rushed so well all day. At least it showed Seattle's big weakness at the moment - offensive line. They're a few down, but until they get Okung and Giacomini back, they're beatable on that line.

Again, I don't want to turn this into the 400th instalment of the top six v bottom six debate, but when you are down the bottom of the ladder, growth doesn't come from the bottom players. You might argue that our bottom 6 are comparable to Carlton's too. But our top 6 are nowhere near it. IMO, clubs down the bottom of the ladder need to develop a core top group of players to help push the up the ladder. Once that growth has been achieved, and you start looking like playing finals, then your bottom six need to come into the frame. Thus, yes, Carlton at the moment needs to fix its bottom six, or it won't compete with the likes of Hawthorn. Melbourne, on the other hand, needs to develop a top six capable of matching it with the better sides. Our bottom six is irrelevant until we have a top six that is good enough.

Bottom six v top six, another of Demonland's 'great' debates. FWIW, given how insipid our leadership and 'star' qualities have been the last decade, I'd put my eggs in the top six basket. We won't go anywhere until we get more from our top players, meaning Trengove, Grimes, Watts, Howe, Frawley all need to lift on their 2013 output.

The exception to that rule would be Atlanta right now. Matt Ryan's numbers are putting him up in the top 5 QBs in the league right now, but with a dodgy receiving unit and no running game to speak of (60 passing attempts this week!), they can't produce the goods on offence (not to mention their secondary can't stop anyone right now). It's definitely a QB league at the moment, but a QB alone isn't enough. Packers are amazing. Doing it all despite their injuries. Adding in a running game just makes them even scarier (and Clay Matthews has to come back too). Arizona beating Atlanta wasn't expected. They're 4-3, just going about their business without anyone watching. Long term I don't think they can keep it up, Palmer's just too erratic and throws too many INTs. The two West divisions are so tight at the moment. The fact that the Giants are two games out of the playoffs right now shows you how awful NFC East is. What a joke. San Diego has double the wins and they're 4 games back in their division! In the NFC you'd expect one of Seattle and SF to get the first wild card (not a certainty, but the way they're both playing you'd expect them to stay in front of the other non-division winners). As for the other one, there's a fair bit of contention for it. Won't come from NFC East, but there's Detroit, Chicago, Arizona, and my smokey, Carolina (Newton's game right now is so good). In the AFC, after KC/Denver, the other card is up for grabs. San Diego currently has it from the Jets (would you believe!). Too early to call it, if Baltimore and/or Houston can get their act together who knows.

Calvin Johnson. Wow.

I don't want to turn this into another drafting vs development thread. Suffice to say, whether we picked these players higher than they deserved to go (which IMO only applies to Gysberts and Cook), we still brought in talented players worthy of decent picks, meaning that, even if they weren't worth a first round pick, they still didn't reach their potential while at the club.

You think that the three years he spent here had no impact at all on his growing body? His maturing process was destroyed by two things - this club, and his own mindset. The persistent rumours of laziness and a lack of work ethic suggest a player who wasn't prepared to put in the hard yards to get the most out of what talent he had. The fact that he spent his formative years as an AFL player at the same club where Cale Morton, Lucas Cook, Jack Watts and co. all failed to develop muscle mass in line with draftees at other clubs indicates we did little to help him.

Indeed I have been around long enough to know that B-H is no more prescient in his observations than anyone else. We all get things wrong. B-H's two main differences are his stubbornness and his sense of entitlement. Combined, they lead to the chain of comments you posted above. As I said before, you happen to be correct and rational in a lot of your posting. I'm not sure I agree with your final sentence, but regardless, you didn't need to dredge up those old posts to prove your point against B-H. We all know it. He's also not the only one (Range Rover's stance on Neeld, and subsequent posting, took an identical course). I quite enjoy your views on football (e.g. the thread you linked to), but I don't like having to listen to you complain when people don't agree with you, or when people change their mind. Maybe not on this board, maybe never, but I'll bet you've changed your mind on something at some point. No need to harp on about it.

Interesting thought that hasn't popped up too much. There might be something to be said for having a decent opponent in Round 1 to take the pre-season expectations and pressure off a tad. A loss in Round 1, even a big one, wouldn't smash our confidence as much as a loss in the mould of losing to Port or to Brisbane last year.