titan_uranus

The guy running it was, I think, Andrew Nichol (backline development coach, and was the runner who stepped on Jake King's foot earlier this year. I don't know if any of the coaches were there - would have thought it unlikely, given they'd be in the coaches box on game day for sure.

Has been since Round 12.

Misson says Frawley should be right to go this week. McKenzie is 50/50. Grimes is about to commence contact training, but his stint on the LTI doesn't finish until next week. I'd say Evans and Grimes might be back at similar times (2-3 weeks away), whilst I think Jamar and Viney will be another week or two after them. Round 14 Melbourne injury list Mitch Clark (foot) indefinite Michael Evans (foot) 3 weeks James Frawley (hamstring) test Jack Grimes (collarbone) 2 weeks Mark Jamar (toe) 4 weeks Joel Macdonald (toe) 1 week Jordie McKenzie (elbow) test Nathan Stark (ankle) 3-4 weeks Jack Viney (toe) 2-3 weeks

I think it's great. Hopefully the players take it in the right spirit and the group can begin the process of becoming smarter, better footballers. All the boys who weren't playing against St Kilda sat together in a box/suite thing to watch the game (seemed like most/all of them were there: Grimes, McKenzie, Jamar, Frawley, Viney, Tapscott, Barry, Hogan, Sellar, MacDonald...I'm sure I saw others). The idea was that they could discuss what was happening together and learn from what happened on the field. They were given sheets with questions to help stimulate their thinking.

Ugh.

You're a lot better at citing irrelevant Biblical quotes than you are at discussing football.

I don't really disagree with your analysis of Pedersen, but in terms of our ruckmen, I think we have the opposite to backups. I'd suggest that Jamar, Gawn and Spencer are all what would be thought of as 'number 1 ruckmen'. That is, they're all more suited to playing in the ruck for the majority of the game, and having someone come on to provide chop out for 15-30% of the game. So I think we're actually OK for ruckmen (Spencer looked alright against St Kilda).

MFC statement - http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-06-25/harrington-moves-on.workstation

It's not a requirement at all. So stop mentioning it. There are plenty on here who don't know what they're talking about, including in their (at times) abhorrent comments on Toumpas, but that is nothing at all to do with whether or not they have played football before.

Jackson has made it sound like we've made him redundant because we're making the position redundant. This makes sense. No one on here seems to adequately know what a 'List Manager' is. Does he do recruiting? Well, maybe, but Viney and Taylor do that too. Does he manage contract extensions? Well again, maybe, but Neeld clearly had a say in those decisions. Does he decide who we bring in from other clubs? Again, that's a role split between various people. Seems like Harrington's job was, to be blunt, redundant. The work Jackson is doing is amazingly efficient. According to the article 'he was on staff rather than a long-term contract, so the decision will not force the club into another costly exit after the $600,000 Neeld payout.'

You'd have to think he was told it was OK to make these statements. Very odd to say this stuff otherwise (though I guess we all knew it anyway).

Another of you knobs with the 'you haven't played football, so shut up' rubbish. None of us have. FFS. Being an ex-AFL footballer is not a requirement to be able to express opinions on football.

I doubt he has a chance on impact, Redleg. He got concussed and was subbed off. The AFL is hyper about concussion. For mine, he has to use Hodge as a precedent. If Hodge was deemed to have had no alternative, then surely Spencer was no different.

You think the MRP is biased against Melbourne? Or deliberately sets out to ensure our players get screwed? That just doesn't happen. The MRP is just an inconsistent mess. If we challenge, I think our only hope is to argue that Spencer had no alternative. That's how Hodge got off last week. I can't see any other avenue. Long term change is needed. That's not correct, the MRP classed Spencer as negligent.

Another problem: Simpkin's was intentional (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is six points, which led to a 'Level Two offence' and 225 points. Spencer's was negligent (one point), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is also six points, but it led to a 'Level Four offence' and 400 points. Why? Because the AFL views Spencer's charge, 'Making Forceful Contact from Front-On' as worse than Simpkin's charge, which was striking. In other words, the same consequence is considered worse by the AFL if you cause it by bumping as compared to punching. What a joke.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-24/mrp-full-statement-round-13 The MRP system is a joke. Simpkin intentionally hits Dawes in the head, and gets two weeks. Embley intentionally drops his knees into a defenceless player on the ground and gets one week. Spencer negligently (i.e. not even recklessly) bumps McEvoy in the head and he gets three weeks. Why? All incidents were assessed using the medical reports. MRP once again using the effect instead of the cause. The system is a farce.

If Toumpas doesn't excite you, I don't know what does. Finally we have a young midfielder who is showing marked improvement, is clearly learning from his mistakes, and has skills that the rest of our side dream of.

This is an option. Trading Hogan is not.

I think North's is quite important - against Geelong their regular jumper clashes heavily (effectively white on white). The variant removes that clash. The Hawthorn one is a mystery. I guess it's just like the Gold Coast one - an extra jumper for the sake of it.

Leroy Jetta received a reprimand for it in Round 8 last year. I've not heard of it in any capacity since, and I can't find any mention of it in the 2013 Laws of the Game booklet.

Hawthorn is like the Gold Coast in that they have a home jumper, an away jumper, and a clash jumper. Hawthorn has its regular jumper (predominantly gold, with brown stripes), but has worn a variant this year, which is the reverse (predominantly brown, with gold stripes). They also have a clash jumper (white). GC is similar (home and away are different, with the away having an extra wave/sash on it; their clash jumper is white). North has two jumpers - home and away, with home being white with blue stripes, and away being blue with white stripes. My understanding is that North has these because in some games where they are the away team, their regular jumper is too white (e.g. against Geelong). So they change it so that it's mainly a blue jumper. Collingwood has done this for a few years now, with their away jumper being white with black stripes, instead of the standard black with white stripes. I don't know why Hawthorn has the variant jumper - it's new this year, I think. I think it's just an excuse to have a different design to market and sell, but I don't know.

So Jones isn't a 'boisterous footy type'? Moloney is an average player. Yesterday he played well. He also played well against us. He's also been a nothing influence in many other Brisbane games. Nothing to write home about. You didn't like it. So be it. Move on.

We all know why we were booing Riewoldt. He's a champion, and well done on playing 250 games. But that episode of flailing his arms around for a free kick that not only wasn't there, but should have gone against him, was disgraceful, and incited the booing.

I believe the argument is that, since we've already been given PPs, and of our own fault we messed them up, we don't 'deserve' to get another chance. The idea being we've made our bed, now we lie in it. It's not a good argument. The AFL's financial bailing out of us goes to show that it's not a good argument. If the AFL considers us to be an impediment on the league, which almost everyone does, then they would do worse than to give us a PP. Whether we are allowed to use it, or are forced to trade it, is another matter.

He does everything right except dispose of it. Hopefully he can fix that with time. At the moment he's a liability when under pressure (and even sometimes when under no pressure) with the ball in hand, but if he can work on his kicking, then we've unearthed a quality half back flanker. One of 2013's few bright spots.