titan_uranus

I wouldn't go that far just yet. I'm sure there are tonnes of other clubs interested. Nonetheless, the fact that we're in his ear is nothing but a good thing and hopefully he's up for a new challenge in his life and views the chance to take our list and mould it into a premiership-winning team as something he wants to go after.

Melbourne should be moving heaven and earth to get Ling to come here as an assistant. Would be an enormous influence on our developing players.

Mclean is the only player mentioned in the OP who is playing regular decent football. And even then, it's easier for him to do it at Carlton when he fits into a midfield with Murphy, Judd, Carrazzo etc. He can be the slower midfielder of that bunch. At Melbourne he'd continue to stand out for plodding and being one-dimensional, but at Carlton, with the support he gets, he is able to take his game past the ceiling he had here.

This argument is raised all the time. It's utter crap. You can do your knee at training. You can roll your ankle running in the park. Essentially, you can get injured at any time, it's often nothing but luck. I'd rather Hogan continue to build confidence and understanding at Casey.

Final team: Round 21 Melbourne team B: Lynden Dunn, Colin Garland, Dean Terlich HB: Matt Jones, Tom McDonald, James Strauss C: Jordie McKenzie, Jack Trengove, Jeremy Howe HF: Jack Viney, Jack Watts, Shannon Byrnes F: Colin Sylvia, Jack Fitzpatrick, Troy Davis FOLL: Jake Spencer, Jack Grimes, Nathan Jones I/C: Sam Blease, Dean Kent, Luke Tapscott, Aaron Davey EMG: David Rodan, Cameron Pedersen, Max Gawn IN: Sam Blease, Jeremy Howe OUT: Mitch Clisby (suspension), Daniel Nicholson

Neil Mitchell usually gets this stuff right. I'm glad. I think Bartlett will be a good choice. Much better than Stockdale, I think.

Didn't know that. I had Gawn in there to help Spencer against Sandilands and Clarke, but in the rain we may as well use Fitzpatrick and have another runner.

I haven't seen the footage, so I can't comment on what he said. But based on what people have said here, it does sound like he's strongly considering leaving. That in and of itself is disappointing for various reasons. Nonetheless, if he wants to go, then we need to ensure he plays a blinding three weeks to up his value on the market. If we end up trading him out for a high draft pick and/or a decent player, the 'pain' of losing him won't last too long.

His speed (particularly his horrendous lack of acceleration) will stop him from being any better than just OK, support or no support. I wonder if he's had OP but his captaincy duties have maybe pressured him somewhat into pushing through. Whatever it is, something's gone wrong because the footage of him has a youngster showed he had great speed and could really burst from a pack with ease.

Round 21 Melbourne team B: Lynden Dunn, Colin Garland, Dean Terlich HB: Matt Jones, Tom McDonald, James Strauss C: Jordie McKenzie, Jack Trengove, Jeremy Howe HF: Jack Viney, Jack Watts, Shannon Byrnes F: Colin Sylvia, Jack Fitzpatrick, Troy Davis FOLL: Jake Spencer, Jack Grimes, Nathan Jones I/C (from): David Rodan, Sam Blease, Cameron Pedersen, Dean Kent, Luke Tapscott, Aaron Davey, Max Gawn IN: David Rodan, Sam Blease, Max Gawn, Jeremy Howe, Cameron Pedersen OUT: Mitch Clisby (suspension), Daniel Nicholson Choices on the bench aren't great. I'd pick Kent, Tapscott and Gawn, then one of Rodan/Blease.

Sorry, that's total crap and completely unfair on Haddin. His keeping has been superb. Hasn't dropped a thing and has made some tough chances look easy. Wade's keeping is abhorrent by Haddin's standards, and as much as I love Wade's batting, he's nowhere near good enough as a keeper. Specialist batsman or nothing for Wade.

I think this is correct. I felt that we recruited too many of a particular 'type' at times. At the end of Daniher's reign we took on Jones, Bartram, Dunn, Bate, Moloney - slower, stockier, stronger players, but not necessarily the most skilful (Jones the exception). Then under Bailey we took players like Morton, Blease, Strauss, Gysberts - I felt like it was almost over-compensation for the previous era's quest to bring in the tough nuts.

You mean like when those 'champion teams' rest players towards the end of the year in preparation for finals? Being pragmatic is not mutually exclusive with being a successful team. There was little to gain from Clisby's suspension, and poor Mitch could have lost a lot more. You don't seem to care about Clisby, you only care about the MFC being 'macho' or 'aggressive'. At a player's expense?

The correlation between the score margin and the uncontested possession differential is interesting; remarkable, even.

Robinson's disposal is quite iffy. Kicks it like Dunn (up and under, and long, with not a lot of skill/purpose). In saying that, his rough, hard-at-it mentality is quite appealing, really, and might help set tones on and off the field. At a cheap price, I'd take him, but only at a cheap price.

The advice from the club to Clisby would have been that, whilst there was a chance he could get off, there was probably an equal chance he'd lose his appeal (given the tiny proportion of players who succeed at the Tribunal), and would therefore be risking missing Casey's entire finals campaign. Clisby would have decided that the safety of playing that one final meant that he'd rather accept the penalty and move on. This isn't a case of MFC weakness, as some are bleating. This is a pragmatic decision that Clisby himself will have taken.

Well I genuinely didn't think I'd wake up after it was raining over lunch to find we'd been bowled out. I should have known better.

Aannnnd it's raining.

You're conflating the club with the players. Treat them as separate and you'll see where the issues are. Your argument about muddying the waters and deflecting arguments is completely spot on - when levelled at Essendon/Hird/Thompson/Evans/Robson/Reid/Corcoran/Robinson/Dank. The players, though, are different. What you've got there from Watson is not an admission to anything. The only interview that is really going to count is the ASADA one, so we'll have to wait and see what he really admitted to in that. We're just going to have to see exactly what was said, exactly what evidence ASADA has, and what they have compiled it towards. On what we know right now, I cannot see anything other than severe legal challenges to anything ASADA tries to level against the players.

Huge fightback from Harris to get rid of Bell and Prior, then Broad. But those late runs to Bresnan and Swan have pushed the lead up to 299, and I reckon that's about 40-50 too much for us. To chase this is going to require a really concerted effort from our top 7. With the freedom of time to help us (let's hope there's no rain), we need our batsmen to get themselves in and then to diligently work together to knock this off. You'd think we'll need one of Rogers and Clarke to post a big score, but I want to see Warner, Khawaja, Smith, Watson and Haddin show something.

This explains why you're not a prosecutor. Did he carry through? Do you have that evidence? Did he fail to object? What if he claims he was unsure at the time, but was pressured into signing it? You think this is all so clear, mainly because you dislike Essendon and want to see them fail. The club is going down, that's for sure, but there are significant legal issues at play with the players.

Watson said that he believed he was being administered AOD. That doesn't mean he wanted to take it at the time, or intended to take it at the time. It means, after the fact, he thinks he may have taken it. That is a difference. Lees was charged with 'attempted use of a prohibited substance' in purchasing the drug. Watson didn't buy the drug, he doesn't even know if he was given the drug. Whilst the club could well be analogised with Lees (in that, whether or not they gave the drug to anyone, they bought it to use on someone), the players didn't buy it, and is not enough evidence to suggest they 'attempted' to do anything with it. There may definitely be evidence, that's completely true. But it's not in the public domain right now. On what we know at the moment, there isn't enough. Also remember that it's going to take more than a balance of probabilities (WADA Code 3.2). Yes, Lees was charged with 'attempted use of a prohibited substance'. It's going to be interesting to see what those 'consent forms' actually say. I'm not sure they specify the drug to be taken, there have been some conflicting reports on what they were and what they said. Essendon bought the drugs. So, Essendon can be liable. Unlike Lees, no player bought anything. The situations are different.

Jay Clark is a pathetic excuse for a journalist. Seriously, he's probably the worst of the lot.

The situations are markedly different. Lees bought a drug. The drug was a banned substance. He was charged with 'attempted use of a prohibited substance' Which Essendon player did this? There is no argument that an Essendon player 'attempted' to use a banned substance like Lees did when he imported it. The situations are completely different. The concept of 'intent' is not relevant to the Essendon saga.

No, it's absolute rubbish. There is a difference between having circumstantial evidence that Essendon administered some of its players with drugs (likely to be the case) and having circumstantial evidence regarding specific players having consumed the drugs (unlikely to be made out). Blanket hyperbolic statements like 'WADA has the power to rub out the entire club if it sees fit' is nothing more than sensationalist speculation. WADA can't just rub out clubs as it sees fit. If ASADA thinks it's going to be lawful to charge every Essendon player without being able to back up any specific claim against any specific player, they're going to be slammed in court, which is where such a situation will end up. That is a total abuse of due process and a complete lack of natural justice. Moreover, what FerdDaDee said supports my case, not yours rjay. The standard of proof is higher than the balance of probabilities. It's not enough, therefore, for ASADA to state 'it's more likely than not that player X took a banned substance'. They need to go beyond this. If they don't know who took what they won't meet this threshold.