titan_uranus

This is spot on. We are far too lenient on Grimes. He is a C-grade footballer at best. Without being melodramatic at all, his kicking is probably the worst of anyone on our list. We make fun of Dunn, Nicholson, McDonald for their kicking, but they are adding value in other areas. It's sad, but right now I query whether he's adding any value to the side. At all. Howe's worse. 8 disposals today. That is pathetic. He is lazy, he doesn't care about doing team things, he bobs up for a few flashy runs/kicks/marks but generally gives us nothing for most of the game. Trengove at least tackles. But otherwise he continually looks like he's running on a treadmill. He can't get to enough contests, he can't apply defensive pressure because he can't run. Sylvia's got mostly the same issues as Howe. Plenty of talent, nowhere near enough effort. Davey's another 'leader' who is giving us squat. It's killing us.

To be honest, I think this thread crosses a line. This kind of thing is a serious problem and I feel this thread makes fun of it. I might just be a bit glum at the moment and missing the joke, but yeh, I think this thread maybe crosses the line.

6. N Jones Daylight 5. M Jones 4. Pedersen 3. Kent 2. Viney 1. Spencer

This is a bigger issue, IMO. Grimes' kicking is atrocious. Absolutely atrocious.

No, I didn't say that at all. Good on him from doing his job last week. What I said was that I'm not impressed that he's recording good statistics in one-on-one marking contests. This, IMO, comes from the fact that he takes the third, fourth, sometimes even fifth forward, a forward who is commonly shorter than he is (Thomas is a case in point, 180cm compared to Dunn's 192).

I doubt we'll see Strauss in the middle. Far too soft for that. However, his form at Casey seems to warrant a game at half-back at least for us. I don't know why Craig isn't playing him, whether there's some sort of attitude/other issue there, or if Craig's just stubborn, or if Craig wants to keep our back six settled. But I'm surprised he hasn't been given another chance.

His kicking is poor, but IMO getting better. The rest of his game is superb. Positioning, marking, endurance, strength, chasing. He's doing everything you'd want of a CHB. A long-term key player for this club, and will only get better as he continues to improve his kicking.

This was brought up in the preview thread. I don't think this is a particularly noteworthy stat. Dunn regularly takes the third/fourth forward, often a player shorter than him (e.g. Lindsay Thomas). I'm not that surprised or impressed that he's winning one-on-one contests.

Great cricket from Australia, but I don't think we're good enough to get a win in this Test. That missed chance/drop from Cook in Lyon's first over might come back to really bite us. Lyon showed why he should never have been dropped; Agar will be back one day, but not right now. I think I can understand why Warner reviewed, with his bat hitting his pad. I think. It didn't cost us (unlike Watson's selfishness did) so I'm not too fussed. Bresnan I think was victim of the DRS' problems. A fully functioning DRS system would have encouraged him, but once Erasmus paid that out, how confident can you be of Dharmasena overturning it? Bresnan wasn't to know which angles were going to be available and what mood Dharmasena is in. I understand his decision, but obviously a bad one.

dee-luded, your opinion of Clarke is misguided, ill-informed, and just plain wrong.

Dunn's played most of his games on smaller forwards. I'm not that impressed that he's beating them in the air. What's interesting to note, though, is that there are Melbourne players in most of those categories. Not surprising, given the number of inside 50s we concede. However, there's no Melbourne player in rebound 50s. Despite the huge amount of chances our defenders get to rebound, we don't have anyone who is stepping up and providing that run (Terlich's trying though).

Unfortunately, those 'contributing factors' include such minor things as the fact that Mitchell is a second year player.

Unfathomable decision. If that isn't considered conclusive evidence, then there's no point having the DRS at all.

Correct decision to replace Agar with Lyon. I certainly don't think Lyon is going to magically bowl us to a victory, but I think he will not only do better than Agar (with the ball, anyway), but he deserves a crack. Warner for Hughes is much of a muchness, really. Bird's pretty unlucky to miss out, I think. Good start so far from the openers. Some of Rogers' stroke play has been great. Obviously the key is to get a nice big platform to give the middle order something to work with, but it's been good so far.

Team's in: MELBOURNE In: D.Terlich, C.Garland, J.Spencer Out: J.Frawley (hamstring), C.Dawes (calf), S.Blease

Round 19 Melbourne team B: Lynden Dunn, Cameron Pedersen, Dean Terlich HB: Colin Garland, Tom McDonald, Mitch Clisby C: Jack Viney, Jack Trengove, Jack Grimes HF: Matt Jones, Jack Watts, Jeremy Howe F: Dean Kent, Max Gawn, Jack Fitzpatrick FOLL: Jake Spencer, Colin Sylvia, Nathan Jones I/C: Jimmy Toumpas, Shannon Byrnes, Aaron Davey, Luke Tapscott EMG: Jordie McKenzie, Daniel Nicholson, Troy Davis IN: Dean Terlich, Colin Garland, Jake Spencer OUT: James Frawley (hamstring), Chris Dawes (calf), Sam Blease

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-07-31/melbourne-board-review-released The review led by John Trotter has been finished and the executive summary is available on the above website to view. Makes for interesting reading.

This could equally mean 'we're going to wait for a new coach so that we can sign a contract that reflects what the new coach wants'. And at any rate, given he's been played forward, back and ruck this year, maybe he's interested in knowing what his future holds?

I cannot wait for NFL to start. With Melbourne and the Australian cricket team absolutely stinking, I need to see the 49ers again. Something that resembles a professional, successful team.

Some of what PJ said last night is the kind of thing we've needed to own up to, admit, and remove from our club. We too often look to MFC people to help us. As PJ said, we need the best people, not the best Melbourne people. Cameron Schwab appeared to favour previous Melbourne people in his attempt to revitalise the club. I don't agree with that, and as such I applaud PJ for admitting it and noting to Healy that we won't be doing that anymore. He also admitted what many on here have suspected for a long time - in the Bailey/Schwab/Connolly era, we focused far too much on taking high-end draft picks, clearing out older players, stocking up on talented youth, and waiting 2/3/4 years for them to drag us off the bottom. It reinforces much of what those of us on the 'development' side of the 'drafting v development' debate have been saying. We simply assumed that these players would, of their nature, fix us, without investing properly in their development, both physically and mentally. The mentality developed from 2008-2010, that it would all change in time, meant that we instilled in the club a culture that accepted far too little as being satisfactory. His admission that to be a great football club you have to have a great football team was refreshing. He was totally honest and completely devoid of spin. That is in utter contrast to Schwab. With his honesty, his accuracy, his fairness and his business sensibility, he is totally different to previous people brought into this club. He is not just sacking people, as some are saying, he is re-structuring the club. It's not just about hiring a GMFO, it's also about changing the internal structure, internal reporting, and role delineation (e.g. making Harrington redundant). The decisions he is making are all designed to bring the MFC in line with the league's leaders. How this could be construed as anything other than what we need is beyond me.

In the same post you're admitting that both players are long term prospects and then saying that we should have taken Wines solely because he would have had more of an impact for us in 2013. So, you're saying we should have taken Wines simply and only because he is better in 2013, despite admitting that both players are going to improve in the long run. Pick 4 is never about an impact from day 1. Pick 4 is about making sure you get the player who is most likely to give you 200 games. Wines might do that, but Toumpas equally might, and as many have said on here, Toumpas is showing signs of being a classier, more complete player than Wines. Yet you continue to bleat on about how Wines would have had more of an impact in 2013. The impact our player from pick 4 was going to have in 2013 should not have been relevant at all to the drafting decision.

rpfc and the master have addressed this adequately, but since I might well be the Chairman of the 'I Can't Stand Lynden Dunn' fan group, I thought I'd comment. Your second paragraph is almost entirely incorrect. He doesn't 'go hard' in every contest; he doesn't go hard in half the contests! He continually shirks contested ball. He doesn't show 'controlled aggression', he shows fake aggression at best, and often gives away stupid free kicks in the process. He doesn't 'wear his pride on his sleeve'; Nathan Jones, Mitch Clark, they wear pride on their sleeve. Dunn just pretends. He doesn't usually win his position (I'm happy to admit he did that on the weekend, so good on him), Thomas is a win but beating his opponent is not a week-in-week-out thing, it's a rarity. What's worse is the less tangible stuff. The way, when we're in defence, Dunn will continually point at space and yell at others to position better, whilst ignoring play, and himself doing nothing special other than manning up some grass (reminds me a lot of Nick Maxwell in that regard). His field kicking is also one-dimensional and flawed - he continually resorts to long kicks which go far too far up in the air. They look good when they cover 60 metres, but they're predictable and they continually lead to turnovers because they get spoiled/marked by opponents. Anyway. He beat Thomas on the weekend, so good on him, and he keeps his spot. But the fact he is in our side right now is an indictment on the position of this club (that goes for more than just Dunn, but he's a perfect example).

That's absolutely not what your contention has been until now. You've continually said that Wines is able to impact games right now, and as such, is the player we should have taken. Nonetheless, if you want to say that both are long term prospects, then why are you complaining? If you're happy to admit that both Wines and Toumpas are going to reach their prime in future years, why does what Wines is doing right now matter? It doesn't. I wonder if backing up from Geelong in the wet and Darwin in the past fortnight took its toll on his clearly underdeveloped body. You'd hope, with the coming pre-season, his fitness improves next year, as that's definitely something (along with his strength) that he needs to work on to get the most out of his skills and smarts. I'm with you on the positioning and running. He has what most of the players on our list right now don't have - footy smarts.

They won't get close to Brisbane in Brisbane. It doesn't matter, of course, since, even if we do beat GWS, we won't win another game, and our percentage is so far below St Kilda's that we won't be able to bridge the gap.

I don't mean to be rude, but are we basing this on nothing other than Jay Clark? I'd be hesitant to accept this as fact without some other, more trustworthy source, confirming things. If it's true, however, it's a great get for the club, IMO.