titan_uranus

Where did this 'personal' stuff come from? As you say, forums are about debating things and having opinions, and all that's gone on here is discussing various opinions. Your argument in this thread has been that, apparently, many on here argue that a good first year indicates a poor career to follow. I don't agree with that, but regardless, the point I made was that it's entirely possible that Toumpas will end up better than Wines, and that Wines' better first year is not definitive of the issue. I think, after all this time, you agree.

I quite enjoy the irony of Caro spending all year bleating for Essendon to be taken out of the finals, only for their replacement to beat Richmond. Only slightly helps deal with Carlton winning a final, though. You clearly didn't read my post. I absolutely agree with you! Yes, a player having a good first year does not mean he will go backwards. Let me be clear - Wines may well end up a much, much better player than Toumpas. What you don't seem to accept, though, is that the reverse is just as possible. As has been seen before (Rhys Palmer's a classic example), a stand-out first year does not automatically mean you will continue to be the best of your fellow draftees. One good year from Wines vs one ordinary year from Toumpas, with all of the relevant factors I'm sure you'd like to pretend don't exist (Port's midfield, Port's coaches vs Neeld), does not rule in your favour.

Yes, I understand his argument. His support for his argument is that Wines played well in a final. That argument is ridiculous, which is what I posted above. Don't you get it? I apologise I know you are a little slow.

About the only positive I can think of from Richmond losing is the reaction it will hopefully stir in Caro.

Their supporters are going to be insufferable.

Your argument was clearly made in reference to Wines-Toumpas, so I'm not sure what point there is going on about Cook (who, for the record, I thought was a terrible draft choice). Yes, you're absolutely right, having a good first year may mean you end up have a great career. But at the same time, having a good first year might mean nothing about where you end up in your career. Thus, the mere fact Wines has had a better first year than Toumpas does not mean he is the better player overall, and thus does not mean we should have taken him. I've argued the point repeatedly, and will continue to do so.

I have no idea what you mean by 'blinkered to the obvious'. Your Toumpas-Wines arguments are getting worse by the day. I'm sure most people on here think Wines will end up a very good player. That conclusion is not mutually exclusive from arguing that Melbourne did not make a mistake in taking Toumpas.

You're still completely off it. Your argument is that Wines is better because he can play finals. How do you know that Toumpas can't? Because you didn't like him in the home and away? That's a horrendously biased and ridiculous argument. Firstly, Toumpas played the year in a bottom 2 side. Of course he's not going to look like he would play well in finals football, but you wouldn't know until it happens. Moreover, there's no rule that says poor in home and away = poor in finals. Look at Nick Duigan right now. Immense third quarter for Carlton despite playing a grand total of two games all year. Toumpas has never played a final. Until he does, and sucks, you cannot use Wines' finals form to argue he is better than Toumpas. Your arguments are pathetic.

Quite unbelievable, really. I think that makes it four consecutive years of finishing top 4 but losing two straight finals to be knocked out in straight sets. I think that also makes it three consecutive years where Werribee has beaten Casey in the semi final. That must mean Casey's lost 8 consecutive finals. Tough stuff for the Casey players.

This from a poster whose name asks us to bring back possibly the softest player Melbourne's had in our 7 year debacle.

Funny that. You didn't answer the question. I'm going to take it that you don't actually think that we play worse simply by putting a white jumper on. But if you wish to clarify your stance on this, go ahead. OK. They have a black and red home jumper. That's 'dark'. To get out of clashes, they've got a grey and red jumper. That's 'light'. That gets them out of their clashes with Richmond and St Kilda. Maybe Melbourne too, if we ever get a home game against them. Try again.

The fact that you think Nasher's point was poor is just another example of how pathetic your view on this is.

You're an absolute joke, bub. You're now saying that Wines is better than Toumpas becuase he plays well in finals. How the f**k do you know what Toumpas would be like in a final? Stop whinging, stop crying, learn to move on.

We've been over this a million times before. Why did we need someone ready to go in Round 1? Were we going to make a charge up the ladder? Our best is, quite clearly, a few years down the track, when Toumpas will be in his prime. Contrary to yours, and many others', hyperbolic bleats, we did not need Wines. We did not need a player like Wines. And we are not worse off for not having Wines.

So you do actually think that wearing white makes us play worse? Read what I'm saying closely before you answer - do you think that putting on a white jumper makes our players play worse?

Wonderful. A thread about finals football and it degenerates into typical Demonland.

No need. Their blue is much lighter than ours and as such there's no clash at all. Case in point - watch the two games we played against them. Clear difference. You don't seriously believe that wearing white makes us play worse, do you?

Collingwood's run at the flag just took a turn for the better. They've won their last three games against Geelong. I'm sure they'd much prefer them than a trip to Perth off a six day break. That's kind of sickening, but I guess watching Geelong lose in straight sets would be enjoyable too.

Dockers! Brilliant effort. To be only the second team to beat Geelong in Geelong in the last six seasons is phenomenal. Home preliminary final means you can probably rule out Sydney, Richmond and Carlton. Hawthorn now has the prospect of playing Geelong in the preliminary final, but Geelong has to beat (likely) Collingwood next week, which is no certainty. In other words, the finals just got interesting.

Fingers crossed for a Fremantle win. Would top this weekend off, football-wise. Fremantle winning puts them in the GF, given they're highly unlikely to lose a home preliminary final. It also sends Geelong into Hawthorn's side of the draw, which will hopefully lead to a Hawthorn-Geelong preliminary final, good for a few reasons (one of the two teams has to lose before the GF, and it might knock Hawthorn out of contention for a flag they should have won by now). But most of all, I want to see Fremantle win the premiership, and a home preliminary final helps them get there. Also, I can't stand Geelong.

This year, in our away games, we wore white against Essendon, Brisbane, Carlton, Fremantle, St Kilda, and Adelaide. We wore blue in our away games against Richmond, Geelong, GWS, Gold Coast, and Western Bulldogs. The only one of those that bothers me was the white jumper against St Kilda, where I felt the blue would have done the job. Probably could have got away with wearing the blue against Brisbane, but that's neither here nor there. Same with Fremantle. So long as we aren't asked to wear white in any away game to St Kilda next year, the situation is completely fine for us.

Nope. He thought too much of himself last year. Going back to him would just make his opinion of himself even worse.

Ling on 3AW now: Hasn't spoken to Melbourne other than a brief coffee with PJ a few weeks ago Doesn't believe he's ready to be an assistant coach next year Thinks he wants one more year out of the game before starting a coaching career Acknowledges that the opportunity to be with Roos and to learn from him is great Hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about Melbourne's list, but has been meeting Trengove on a semi-regular list 'Talent-wise', isn't sold on our list, but says there are some 'fantastic kids' on our list All in all, was non-committal either way.

Disagree entirely with this thread. I want all our energies and resources spent on making us powerful on the field. If we do it wearing the current strip and people don't like it, so be it. More importantly, though, the current strip is just fine. We're never going to be able to have one that's any colour other than white, so given the white requirement, the current design is fine. Let's let it go and move on.

Bartlett, Jackson, Roos. McLardy, Schwab, Neeld. Haven't we come a long way this year.