titan_uranus

Cameron got 0. Zero. Zilch. Nothing. MRP said he had no reasonable alternative. I'm [censored] livid. Someone explain to me what Spencer's 'reasonable alternative' was?! Meanwhile, Cameron clearly could have gone for the ball instead of the man. I hate the MRP.

We need to be honest. We're Melbourne. No one watches our games, we're not in prime time, we're low on the priority list. We usually get at least one young, inexperienced umpire, or at least one umpire who really isn't that good. Yesterday's umpiring was as bad as I've ever seen. The inconsistency in paying holding the ball (generally favouring Sydney), the tendency to pay free kicks for minor contact (the Fitzpatrick in-the-back at the end was the worst free kick I think I've ever seen, the Kelly deliberate included), and the number of absolute howlers was disgraceful. Both the Tippett ones were holding the ball. The Fitzpatrick one was holding the ball. No one pushed Grundy in the back (he dived/fell over). Pyke was not pushed in the back. The Clisby deliberate rushed behind I'm not sure about. Whatever the rules say, surely that situation is what the rule is there to prevent. He had his chance, he didn't take it, he was asked to play on, and he went over the line. Pressure or not, he had his chance and he didn't take it. If that's not paid, then players could abuse it to stand there, wait till play on, and then rush the ball over the line. I'm not sure a distinction between handpassing and kicking is relevant at all. What is clear, though, is that nobody knows what the rule is. The umpire didn't seem sure, the players sure as hell didn't know what the rule was. We cannot have a game where we don't know the rules - this has to be addressed, clarified, and explained to all.

Loving seeing Carlton fall apart. They've got one key forward who only plays well once every two-three weeks, they've got two key defenders, one of whom is pretty one-dimensional (Jamison). They've got three dud ruckmen, a bunch of softcocks (Lucas, Gibbs, Yarran), and they are giving games to some awful footballers (Bootsma would be struggling to get a game here, FFS). Before last night their biggest losing margin was 22 points, but it's all coming apart and it's clear that their list isn't good enough. And I doubt there's any non-Carlton supporter out there who isn't happy about that.

So if WADA banned Powerade, would we all just accept that? In the extreme, what about water?

I didn't say they needed a test. My point is that without one, they need strong circumstantial evidence to prove it. With Essendon continuing to deny it, that becomes harder. As for compulsion, as I said in my post, a new Bill has just been passed by Parliament which gives ASADA the power to compel anyone it wants. It's called the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013. I'm not sure when it takes effect though, but when it does, it will allow ASADA to interview whoever it wants.

Who did that?

Not sure what your point is...

No matter what ASADA's investigation reveals, no matter what any court proceedings lead to, Essendon will be penalised for bringing the game into disrepute. They have to. If us not tanking constitutes $500,000 worth of disrepute, then Essendon must be fined at least double this, and hopefully more. Essendon's defence is now appearing quite clear. They are going to question the ability for ASADA to prove that any banned substance was actually taken - not a moot point, as many want to believe. They aren't helped by players like Watson deciding to make statements which sound like admissions. The issue is, ASADA has no evidence from 2012 to say Essendon players had any substance in their system. There are no positive tests. It's been glossed over a lot, but ASADA has to prove it was taken, and invoices don't do that. Putting that to one side, Essendon has two more arguments. The first is that whatever they took wasn't banned. I believe there has been talk about Essendon receiving information from ACC or ASADA saying AOD-9604 was not a banned substance. The ACC website currently lists AOD-9604 as 'not currently prohibited' by WADA'. Conflicting information isn't likely to prove a defence, but Essendon appears to be of the opinion that it's of some relevance. Their final argument appears to be that, even if it was banned, it shouldn't have been. This, I think, is where Essendon is drawing its confidence from. Evans stated that they'd done research and that AOD is not performance enhancing. WADA can't put anything it wants onto its lists - there has to be something in the nature of the substance to classify it as performance enhancing. I don't know how it works, clearly there is scientific research done, but there may well be an argument to be raised that AOD should never have been on the S0 list because it never should have needed to be approved. This is going to be heavily debated, I think, and in legal arguments could well drag the saga out for a long time. That's all for the EFC. As for the players, I don't believe that, on the current evidence, players should be penalised. Many people say it's their responsibility, that they could have Googled AOD and found out it was banned. I don't think it's that easy. Football clubs demand respect of leaders and 'buy-in' of processes. Bruce Reid told the players it was OK to take. To have players second-guessing their own club's doctor undermines authority, undermines leadership, and creates systems of doubt, not to mention inefficiency. It also pre-supposes players could have found definitive information - what if they'd gone to the ACC's website to read that it was not banned? What if they'd found conflicting reports, so had decided to get an answer by asking their doctor? It's not that easy to say that 18 year old kids should be taken to be capable of doing this all themselves. Some also say that in the past only those who have been virtually forced, unconscious, to take a drug, have been able to use the 'no fault' clause, that doesn't preclude a finding here of no fault. That just says that it's never been done before. What? That article admits in the middle that it might just have been the harmless version of the substance (the 'beta', or whatever). Changes nothing. New legislation was passed the last few weeks allowing ASADA to compel anyone to answer questions, though I'm not sure when this takes effect.

You clearly didn't watch the Bulldogs game, nor noticed they only beat GWS by 3 points today after trailing all day. The Dogs are insipid and even under Neeld we would have stood a chance to win the game. Your argument otherwise is nothing more than anti-Neeld bias.

It's the HUN. That says enough. Nonetheless, that's one of the most biased pieces of writing there's been in a while.

The news continues to indicate that Warner's going to play the first Test - e.g. http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/648105.html Disgraceful, if true.

Dunn won't play on Kennedy, he'll play as he has done all year at half-back. Why would we change that now, especially after a win? Dunn may play on Mitch Morton, if he plays, or maybe Jude Bolton if he rests forward. Kennedy will be in the middle and we will lose every game we ever play if Dunn plays in the middle. Sending Jones to anyone, let alone Hannebery, doesn't help us. We need to let Jones do his own thing and win his own ball. Nicholson can run with one of their mids (Kennedy), and maybe we can use Clisby or Matt Jones or the others.

BFRE was right. If we show the same standard of improved football against Sydney and Geelong, it will indicate that there has been genuine improvement. If we regress into poor football, the likes of which we saw before Craig, it will suggest that our perceived improvement may have been due to playing the next two worst sides in the competition. Of course, we might have improved but still suck against Sydney and Geelong, but the next two weeks do stand to show how, if at all, we've improved.

Back this week. B N.Smith, T.Richards, D.Rampe HB N.Malceski, H.Grundy, J.McVeigh C D.Hannebery, J.Kennedy, A.Everitt HF B.McGlynn, S.Reid, J.Bolton F M.Pyke, K.Tippett, L.Parker Foll S.Mumford, K.Jack, R.O’Keefe I/C (from) T.Armstrong, C.Bird, B.Jack, J.Lamb, T.Mitchell, M.Morton, J.White In: M.Morton, T.Armstrong, S.Mumford, S.Reid Out: X.Richards (quad)

Team is: B: Lynden Dunn, Colin Garland, Dean Terlich HB: Tom McDonald, James Frawley, Mitch Clisby C: Matt Jones, Jack Trengove, Jack Grimes HF: Dean Kent, Chris Dawes, David Rodan F: Jack Fitzpatrick, Jack Watts, Jeremy Howe FOLL: Max Gawn, Colin Sylvia, Nathan Jones I/C (from): Jimmy Toumpas, Shannon Byrnes, James Strauss, Cam Pedersen, Daniel Nicholson, James Sellar, Aaron Davey IN: James Sellar, Jack Grimes, James Strauss, Cam Pedersen OUT: Sam Blease (ankle) From http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-07-04/grimes-returns-after-extended-layoff Edit: As Nasher said, surely this is just Grimes in for Blease. The only possible other change would be Strauss for Byrnes, but I'd leave the team as is otherwise.

Having now watched the game, Griffin's stats flatter him. His impact on the game was minimal. No influence in the first half, a lot of statistics added in our fourth quarter fade-out which wasn't all Nicholson's fault. Nicho's tagging job wasn't flawless, it wasn't even great. He made mistakes in positioning and lost touch at crucial stages. But his overall job in quelling Griffin's impact was felt, and IMO was a good reason why the Dogs were struggling so much for 3.5 quarters. Also don't agree with the notion that we're playing a Bailey-style game of all offence and no defence. I thought our pressing, zoning and pressuring was still pretty good. I also noted from watching the game that, for once in recent memory, our senior players stood up when required (fourth quarter). I noticed Dawes, Sylvia, Watts, Trengove, Garland and Frawley making some key plays and stepping up at key moments in the fourth. At the same time, it was our junior players tiring out late that started to cost us. The fact we'd played as a far better team prior to the fourth and thus had a lead was crucial to us winning, but so was the ability of our senior players to lead us to the end when the younger kids tired out. Gawn's first half was really good, but went too hard, too early and was out on his feet from three-quarter time. With Jamar and Spencer still out, he has to continue to ruck the whole game, but we're going to need to use Fitzpatrick as back up more than we did last week. We can't afford to have Gawn losing all his energy so early. Toumpas again showed improvement (his decision-making is fantastic, which isn't something we say about MFC players regularly), Watts was great, Howe looked dangerous as a forward, Fitzpatrick showed that his upside is enormous and he seems to be developing confidence by the week). Still problems with clearances, still skill errors, but it's clear that we're playing with more freedom and our players seem to be growing in confidence.

I don't disagree with the effect Neeld had on our players, but I don't agree with your assessment of McKenzie. Even under Bailey his primary value to the team was defensive, not offensive. Yes, he may have got more of the ball pre-Neeld, but I don't think that's because Neeld changed him or made him more defensive. I'm sure at some point he'll return to the senior side, but right now I'm not sure I see a long-term place for him in the side. He's clearly a strong contributor and has an effort and grunt that others lack, but I'm just not convinced that even the McKenzie of 2011 that you think was more offensive is good enough.

Very odd. The one I posted is directly from the MFC website. How could there be differing lists?

I'm going to believe this like it's the truth, whether it is or not.

Joel Macdonald is available, Jack Grimes is 'likely', whilst Jack Viney and Jordie McKenzie are said to be 50/50. Sam Blease has received 'positive news' about his injury but has to pass a test. Mark Jamar and Michael Evans have both been pushed out to 4 weeks. Round 15 Melbourne injury list Jack Grimes (shoulder) available Joel Macdonald (foot) available Sam Blease (ankle) test Jordie McKenzie (elbow) test Jack Viney (foot) test Nathan Stark (ankle) 2-3 weeks Rohan Bail (knee) 2-4 weeks Michael Evans (foot) 4 weeks Mark Jamar (foot) 4 weeks Mitch Clark (foot) indefinite

We can't afford to bring back two under-done players. It's risky enough having one in the side, sub or otherwise. If a player goes down five minutes in forcing us to activate the sub, we'll be at a major disadvantage straight away. It's not ideal that Casey has a bye in the week we may be getting some players back, but we can't afford to be playing both Grimes and Viney if they're both not at 100%.

Your other points? They were these: You called me a 'fwit' You said [censored] spills from my mouth You said I believe that players who start well go downhill from there. Of course, that's not what I said, but what do you care? I didn't respond to these points because you didn't deserve a response.

Maxwell's a fantastic captain, but a terrible footballer. Can't mark, can't defend one-on-one, turns it over. He really only looks good when allowed to play loose and to roam up the ground. As a footballer, Garland is a million miles in front of Maxwell.

Well I guess that means we agree. The irony in your last sentence is enjoyable, really.

Really? I wouldn't have thought Malthouse would be interested in a soft half-back flanker when he's already got Gibbs? In all seriousness though, I don't see how Strauss solves any of Carlton's problems, which are numerous but don't include running players. They need key forwards and key defenders and a decent ruckman, not a half-back.