titan_uranus

I'm sure you'd also be in trouble if you forced your staff to take ice baths and run 10kms time trials whilst yelling at them.

Some of the stats being talked about around here are useful, but not as much as is being made out by some. For instance, comparing Cross with Jones serves to show that Cross isn't falling apart as some think, nor did he have a particularly bad 2013. However, it is valid to note that he compiled those statistics in a better midfield with quite a bit of support. At Melbourne he'd be midfielder number 1 or 2, with little to no support. Nonetheless, as has been noted, he's not the only mid we're going after, and IMO the benefits clearly outweigh the positives. No, he is not, and not even close. For one, we can put him on a one year deal. That's immediately a more enticing prospect than signing pick number 80-something in the National Draft for two years. Moreover, we know exactly what we're getting. It may not be A-grade, but he showed more than enough this year to suggest a good enough level of consistency and output. He'll take the heat off the developing younger players, but he'll be squeezed out if it turns out he's no better than the kids. No price, only one year, potential upside with little downside on the facts.

You can try Pates, but talking sense to that troll is a total waste of time.

Pretty poor umpiring for a semi final, I thought. The free kick to Schulz late in the third was awful, should have been a free to Rivers for a sliding tackle. The free to Corey in the goal square for 'holding' was worse though, Corey was the one holding. I don't think I've seen 22 more arrogant players. The way they celebrate goals and whinge about free kicks, the way they appear to feel so entitled to everything, it infuriates me.

Rubbish. Whether you like it or agree with it or not, they spent a long time working with the AFL to ensure that there was no statement that they gained an unfair advantage, and all penalties were referred to the poor governance issues. Of course they are going to get upset when a rival CEO says they 'cheated'. They worked hard to get away from that tarnish and, if they can, they want to avoid it.

I'm a big Cross fan, so I'd love to see him down here.

Some of the celebrating and ridiculous statements (e.g. 'disease') on here are disgraceful. IMO it was the right thing to do - a midfield coach at some point has to take responsibility for a disastrous midfield. So I agree with the decision. But I don't rejoice at it - some people ought to consider pulling their heads in.

The surprises in today's announcement aren't in the names of those delisted, it's in the names of those who, at least for now, were spared. 7 senior spots freed up, one to be taken by Hogan leaves 6. Clisby gets one, surely, and Magner's still here. If they were both to get spots, we'd only have four live picks, which isn't enough I don't think, so I'd expect at least one more to come off (Magner + Nicholson/Jetta, I suspect).

Interesting article. He starts by talking about how good we were under Bailey when we beat them, then proceeds to highlight everything that was wrong with the Bailey era: 'Far too many of the Demons experienced players love playing the game on their own terms. They run forward of the ball, rely on opposition turnovers and seem capable of starring only when they are not tagged and get silver service from ruckman Mark Jamar. There is no shortage of talent at Melbourne. However there is a shortage of the commitment to the standards required to be, firstly, a great AFL player and, in turn, a great AFL team.' Not sure what he was trying to say with this one.

You know, if you read what I said, I agreed with that. Their premature selection aside, they were still talented players taken onto our list. Take their draft pick allocation out of the equation - we brought in Cook, who had the talent of a pick 30-odd, and Gysberts, who had the talent of a pick 20-odd. Within three years they're both gone. That's where the development argument comes into it.

Better get rid of Clark, Viney and Dawes then.

Those three marks are all good. I'd have had Howe in there instead of Naitanui, but the context of Naitanui's mark adds to its greatness. Schulz's the best for mine. As for the goals, wow, all three of those goals are amazing. I'd go with Franklin's for it being more of a team thing, but Walker's run (with great support from Garlett) and Ablett's freakishness are great too.

You're making it sound like we drafted 14 year olds who'd never played football before. I completely agree that we erred in selecting both of them, but to have talent that was more worthy of picks in the 20s or 30s become such poor players, such that after 2 seasons Cook's AFL career was over whilst in Gysberts' 4th season he's failed to get a single senior game, says a lot about how poorly we developed the talent that was clearly there in their juniors.

There are a few arguments in this thread that aren't great, tbh. The argument that we've had PPs before, and therefore don't deserve one again, misses the point. The allocation of a PP is not about 'deserving'. It's about need. If we're talking about 'deserving', you could argue Hawthorn deserves it, given they've worked hard to become a strong club, and thus they 'deserve' a reward. I'm not interested in what Melbourne deserves, I'm interested in what Melbourne needs. In order to maintain our competitiveness, we need a PP, else we risk damaging the competition at large. The argument that our culture of taking high picks and relying on them to improve is, again, not really directed at the true issue. Do we need a PP to be competitive? Our culture in 2008-2010 is, given Bailey, Schwab, Connolly and Prendergast are all gone, irrelevant to a substantial degree. The other clubs arguing that it's unfair is nonsense, as I addressed earlier. For one, these are the same clubs that don't want to host home games against Melbourne because the crowds are so low and the standard of football is so pathetic that no one watches on TV. Now, in saying all of this, I won't be furious if we don't get one. I can understand the reservation from the AFL, and whilst I don't agree with it, I'll live with it. Agreed. Reading between the lines of Demetriou's statement, at best any pick we'll get will be end of first round. Those statements aren't inconsistent with each other, I'm not sure what you're on about.

Sydney gets extra money for some sort of 'cost of living' allowance, which we all know isn't used on cost of living. Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond get to avoid trips to Geelong. Hawthorn travels to fewer interstate clubs because it gets accommodated for its decision to play down in Tasmania. In one way or another, many other clubs get some sort of leg up from the AFL. We happen to be the biggest basket case the competition has ever faced. Unlike the other nice little advantages the other clubs get, ours is to help us out of the quagmire, to ensure we don't fall apart, that we don't continue to ruin their financial bottom lines. A strong Melbourne is in everyone's best interests, whether Damien Barrett likes it or not. Was about to post the same thing. Damien Barrett = AFL's biggest [censored].

Those who have been involved with GWS in its infancy seem to be enjoying their time there and want to be part of the club's successes. IIRC, Chad Cornes and Dean Brogan are sticking around after their retirements to help out, too.

Liam Jurrah is the only player who has been on an MFC list previously, but is currently not, that I would 'take back'.

The video's not too bad, actually. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2013-09-09/my-heart-beats-true-2014-membership Given the material we have to work with, I reckon they're doing about as well as they can.

I personally was hoping for Richmond to beat Carlton, I can't stand the Blues, but the irony of Richmond losing to 9th is just so good, it evens out. Here's to hoping Fremantle wins the premiership. Good one.

No, actually I've covered that point. Grey is considered a light colour by the AFL. They want clubs to have light and dark options. Essendon's home jumper is dark, obviously, so they use a grey alternative as their light. Melbourne's home jumper is dark, so we need a light jumper. We chose white. We once chose a non-white option, remember the silver abomination from a few years back? No one liked it. I'm sure we'd all like it if we could wear the home jumper every week. But we can't. Last week's Port-Carlton game involved a clash of jumpers and the outcry was notable. The AFL wants to avoid clashes. By asking each club to have a light and grey jumper, they avoid clashes. Essendon has grey, we have white, but the outcome is the same - both are light jumpers to provide alternatives to the dark home jumpers.

It's plainly obvious that Essendon players were administered substances, the point of which was to make them better footballers. That does not automatically lead to the conclusion that they cheated. Clubs regularly give their players completely innocent supplements. The lack of concrete evidence as to what was administered, as well as the doubt as to the medical effects of such things as AOD, leaves the possibility open that whatever was given to Essendon players, it made them worse, not better. In the end, Essendon deserved to be punished, and it was completely fine for the AFL to remove them from the finals, but I don't think it's fair to say that they were banned from the finals as punishment for cheating in 2013. If they gained an unfair advantage at all, it would have been in the 2012 season. Under your argument, if we don't know what advantage they got, why couldn't that advantage continue into the 2014 season? Should the AFL ban them from the 2014 finals too? I agree with this. Your view is fair and rational. This isn't the same as bub saying 'we stuffed up', and that's what frustrated me.

Your first point - so you do actually think that Melbourne plays worse simply by putting the white jumper on. I'm genuinely flabbergasted that anyone could think that. I refute that completely and utterly. I couldn't consider a statement on this site to be more ludicrous, really. We don't play any better or any worse wearing white - there is no correlation at all. I note, though, that over the last couple of years, two of our best performances (both against Essendon) were in the white. There is no relationship at all. We're equally bad with blue as we are with white. As to your second, that's not what I said. Essendon's clash strip is grey instead of black. The idea is to remove the clashes they are perceived to have with sides with dark jumpers (e.g. Richmond and St Kilda). The red has nothing to do with it. They don't wear a red clash strip. They wear grey, which they've chosen instead of white. We had grey/silver a few years back, but now we're with white.

Breaking a rule doesn't necessarily mean you cheat. If a player strikes another, they didn't cheat, they just did something that the game doesn't stand for and get penalised accordingly. Essendon broke the rules regarding conduct unbecoming/bringing the game into disrepute, but that doesn't necessarily equate to cheating. There is no evidence of any advantage either (though this may change if ASADA does end up issuing infraction notices). I see what you're saying, but I don't think this is what has happened. They definitely sought an advantage, but, until ASADA says otherwise, they did so within the rules (for doping). What they failed to do was consider the welfare of their players properly and keep records and all that stuff. They pushed the envelope, sure, but that's all. Brisbane pushed the envelope when they started doing IV drips, arguably Collingwood's pushed the envelope with its altitude trainings. The crux of the Essendon issue is the lack of regard for player welfare and the dangerous failure to keep records. Those serious governance issues are why penalties were laid, not because of any insinuation that there was an advantage in 2013. So, I don't think it's fair to say that Essendon was removed from the 2013 finals because they had some sort of advantage in 2013. They didn't. Their punishment was due to their breaching rules in their 2012 conduct.

I don't think this is correct. Essendon were demoted because they breached the rules regarding bringing the game into disrepute and conduct unbecoming. They didn't necessarily need to cheat in any way to breach those rules, and the general consensus is that the breached the rules through their inept standards of governance and their disregard of their players' safety in not being diligent and pushing the boundaries. As far as I know, there's not once this year been an argument that any substance Essendon took in 2012 has affected their performance in 2013. As it stands, there is still no charge that there was performance enhancement in 2012, either, but that's another issue. Essendon was punished by the AFL for what happened last year, and the AFL saw fit to banish them from the 2013 finals, as is their right. I don't think it's fair, though, to say that the punishment was because it is assumed that Essendon had an unfair advantage in 2013.

Right. So, if you accept (as you do) that this year isn't determinative of the issue, then making statements as many are doing that we made a mistake in taking Toumpas is unfair, given that Toumpas could yet end up better than Wines. This has been my point all along, and comments like bub's frustrate me endlessly because they speak as though the matter is done and dusted, we mucked up and it's end of that story. Your part about Port's midfield being where it is because of Wines is a pretty weak argument. They have Boak, Ebert, Hartlett and Cassisi as well. Boak and Ebert are true A-grade stars, Hartlett's not far behind. They have a much more complete midfield and Wines has been a valuable addition to it, rather than is the core of it. As for the personal stuff, I'm not playing dumb - I'm genuinely not being personal about any of this. If you're referring to the past, feel free to enlighten me (by PM).