titan_uranus

So true. Imagine having a Monday Morning article in the realm of MMQB, or my personal favourite, TMQ with Gregg Easterbrook. Someone just providing an unbiased take on statistics, tactics, trends, players, etc. Would be fantastic. Instead, we get Mark Robinson's 'The Tackle'. Putrid filth.

Classic Barrett. Quite easily AFL's biggest [censored]. Edit: [censored] = choose your own derogatory word.

It's been covered, but this view is unfair, ridiculous, and down-right wrong.

I just re-read that thread, which was something of a mistake. Aside from it being abysmal at times, what I did note was that you weren't at all 'shouted down'. People disagreed with you, just like you disagreed with them. There was a major p!ssing match between some trolling fools, but take those out and it essentially was you asking people why they were happy to put faith in Neeld, and them telling you why they believed it was fair at the time to have faith in Neeld. FWIW, you'd do well to remove your own pompousness (e.g. continually cherry picking moments in the past where you said something that later proved correct, or someone else said something that later proved wrong). You may well be a more rational and open-minded poster than some, but your attitude to proving it is just as bad as those you get upset with.

Paine for Karnezis today was another one. Not sure why you think this matters at all though. I think the simple reason why so many people are doubting what we've done is the cultural tendency to regard trades of high draft picks as silly. When was the last time a high draft pick got traded? 3 for Judd? I don't know, I'm just guessing, but the trend is obviously for clubs to hold top 5 draft picks, and as such, close-minded people who don't know much about Tyson and/or don't care much about Melbourne to know what our list is like just look at it and see 'pick 2 gone, some kid in' and that appears 'radical' to them. This trade period has been fantastic for this club.

Do you have any data to back that up? I'll hazard a guess and say our 2014 membership will be greater than our 2013 figure, despite selling the extra home game interstate.

Nothing new, but interesting to hear CA admit a mistake: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/simon-katich-should-not-have-been-dropped-ca-20131024-2w3uf.html

If so, either they're leaving it very late, or they have plans that haven't been caught wind of in the media yet. I'm inclined to go with the former. Brisbane of 2013 has exhibited management decisions rivalling Melbourne of 2007-2013, which is to say, deplorable.

On face value, those two trades from Brisbane don't look very good. Unless they know something we don't (e.g. they have a trade lined up for one of those picks for some good player), that's a horrendous way to finish the year. Three more players to leave, too (Karnezis, Yeo, Longer).

Did you even read a single word of what I wrote? I quoted the f**king AFL. Read it again - 'They [teams ranked 13-18, such as Melbourne] will have a minimum of two double-meetings of sides ranked 13-18 and a maximum of three double-meetings of sides 13-18' FFS.

I'm not sure that's right. The bottom 6 sides get more games against each other, but we're not certain to get each of them twice. From the AFL website: 'Sides ranked 13-18 on the ladder will have either no double meeting or a maximum of one double meeting with a side ranked 1-6. They will have a minimum of one double-meeting with sides ranked 7-12 and a maximum of two double-meetings of sides ranked 7-12. They will have a minimum of two double-meetings of sides ranked 13-18 and a maximum of three double-meetings of sides 13-18.' So of the other members of the bottom 6 (GWS, St Kilda, Bulldogs, West Coast, Gold Coast) we'll get either two return matches or three (but not five).

As much as we may dislike Pedersen, Strauss, Dunn, Byrnes and whoever else is contracted, I really don't think we're in any position at all to be paying out contracts by delisting contracted players. It's not good PR, for one, and it's not good financial management, for another. Pedersen isn't great but he provides some key position depth. Better throwing him to the wolves if need be than drafting some 18-year old skinny kid and having him destroyed by a Cloke or a Franklin.

Word is that Freeman is out concussed and Ponder will start on SNF: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000268404/article/josh-freeman-has-concussion-christian-ponder-at-qb Freeman's surely the better long-term option, but comparing Freeman to Ponder is a bit like comparing Weeden to Gabbert.

Why are you assuming West Coast is on the road in Round 1? The Derby could easily be Round 1, leaving Melbourne to play St Kilda. I'd be quite surprised if they schedule one of St Kilda or Melbourne, two of the three worst sides of 2013, to play Fremantle in Perth in Round 1. That'd be a 10-goal thrashing for either side, not the way the AFL would want to get their years off to a start I don't thin.

This is a complete about face from your previous complaint: You originally were carrying on about us playing a single home game outside of Melbourne. Now you're saying the 'essence of the angst' is that we're playing in Darwin. What is it you're upset about, bub? You're just like WYL in that you have nostalgic, historic notions of what Melbourne has been, and could be, but you don't want to contemplate the reality. The reality is that we don't draw big crowds to MCG games. The reality is that we're in debt. The reality is that we are incurring increased costs (e.g. Paul Roos) on top of this debt. As such, the reality is that we have no choice but to sell off home games to make money. Your solution is 'down south', getting bums on seats here. That is classic WYL think. Being a Melbourne powerhouse is the long-term goal we all want. Short-term, that is simply unrealistic. We're not going to magically start attracting Collingwood-like attendance figures to our MCG games. That's going to take time. In the meantime, we need to pay off our costs and our debts. If you want to call us selling home games as 'prostituting' ourselves, then you have to apply that term to Hawthorn, who are doing mightily well from their Tasmanian deal.

Like Hawthorn, right? Oh...

With two byes, it's possible we'll get both byes after each of these games, which would be nice. Edit: This would make our byes in Rounds 12 and 17; surely they'll be further apart than 5 weeks, so I doubt this will be the case. More importantly, let's hope that moving a second home game interstate means we don't get shafted with a home game at Etihad.

Fremantle's first game will be in Perth, as they're playing Round 2 in Melbourne (against Hawthorn). If they host West Coast, then the other two games should be Collingwood v Bulldogs and St Kilda v Melbourne. If they host a Victorian side, I'd bet on it being Collingwood (they don't really want to send St Kilda, Melbourne or the Dogs to Fremantle in Round 1, do they?). If so, then you'd expect something like St Kilda v Melbourne and Bulldogs v West Coast, or something like that.

Isn't it the case that you can't trade a player before their original two-years out of the draft is over? Or is that not a thing?

I was referring to his field kicking, sorry. Should have been clearer with that. It definitely did improve. I still feel he over-kicks the ball sometimes, but it's not as bad as it was last year. Dunn's in a similar boat. He kicks at goal quite well, but his field kicking is no good.

Howe's kicking is indeed average. In fact, it might not even be that. I don't think that makes him someone we should be trading (not even close, to be honest), but he's not a good kick.

Read all the media and press surrounding the end to Cross' time at the Dogs. What you'll find is a theme generally along the lines of: 'someone had to go'. The Dogs have a lot of problems, but the midfield is not one of them. Indeed, in that regard they're quite the opposite to us: strong midfield, terrible spine. As for your line about getting experience by playing games, we've been trying that since 2008, to little success. It goes to show that it's not all about playing AFL football (in fact, Toumpas' best improvement game from, after a brief stint at AFL level, working hard at VFL level). Cross will lead our kids both on and off the field, and when he's out there, he'll be doing what he could also be doing for the Dogs if they didn't have an abundance of mids - working hard at stoppages and leading from the front.

Most of these have popped up in various articles in the last month or so. Melbourne hasn't been the away team in Round 1 since 2008 (vs Hawthorn at the MCG); that's five consecutive years of being given Round 1 as a home game. We also haven't been interstate in Round 1 since 1998 (vs Fremantle at Patersons). If the AFL is going to send teams interstate in Round 1 to compensate for the lack of the MCG, you'd have to think we're in line for a trip. We've had a great run, to be honest. With Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney all ruled out, maybe West Coast in Perth or Gold Coast on the Gold Coast are options? If we get to stay here, it'll be an Etihad match, most likely away and most likely against St Kilda or the Bulldogs. Edit: Can't see the AFL scheduling us against any decent side in Round 1 - they want to maximise the chances for each team to get a win in Round 1 to build up excitement and suspense. Putting us against Geelong in Geelong is an automatic Round 1 dud, they don't want that.

Oh no. Not this again...

B: Garland McDonald Clisby HB: Toumpas Frawley Terlich C: Vince Trengove Tyson HF: Howe Dawes Watts F: Kent Clark Hogan R: Gawn N Jones Viney I: Grimes Fitzpatrick Michie S: M Jones Clisby is our best small defender - should undoubtedly be promoted of the rookie list and start Round 1. Terlich starts in Round 1, but needs to have improved his disposal and decision-making, or he won't hold his spot. Toumpas runs off the other half-back. I think Toumpas and Terlich provide us with better run and attack off half-back than Grimes, who should be playing midfield. I have Fitzpatrick in the side because I don't think Clark as a ruck is good for the side, nor do I think it's sustainable. However, this presents an issue - I'm not sure Dawes, Hogan, Clark and Fitzpatrick can all stay in the side, but at the same time I don't think we can ruck Clark. That's going to be an interesting plotline through 2014. Gawn gets the start over Jamar. M Jones starts as the sub, but Pick 9 (and/or Cross, if we get him) could change the structure of the midfield, and M Jones is the first player out. Beats Blease to the role due to Blease not being good enough.