titan_uranus

I don't see how it's relevant. Of course he could have been ours. But he isn't. The fact that he liked us does not mean we should have given him greater thought. If we were going to consider him, it would have been for his ability and whether we thought he was the right fit. Not because he told us he wanted to play for us.

You're so blind to reality it's ridiculous. What do you want him to do? Kidnap him, tie him up, and waterboard him until he agrees? He didn't want to come here, he was going to go to Fremantle, and there wasn't anything that we could have done. Get over it. Stop dwelling on things in the past that could have happened differently (or in this case, were never going to happen differently) and think about reality.

As good as a Hawthorn-Geelong preliminary final would have been, I can't deny that I'm happy they lost tonight. They've been great the last 6 years, but I'm happy for their time as a dominant side to end, and this hopefully caps off their era of dominance. That would be bliss. And not without hope, either. I reckon West Coast is hitting some form right now, despite losing to Hawthorn. They should deal with North tomorrow, and they did Collingwood over a fortnight ago, all over the ground. So Collingwood wouldn't be certainties to win that, if they got them. Nor would they be certainties to beat North, if they get North.

I tend to agree. Back in 2004/5/6, Davey was one of the reasons people went to Melbourne games. He made defensive pressure for small forwards a requirement. He made chasing and tackling mandatory (and frightening, for half backs). He showed that a forward pocket can and should do more. Yes, his career didn't hit the heights it could easily have, but in the years we were playing finals, and even since, he's been a loyal servant to the club. He's struggled of late, and for that reason it's neither surprising nor terribly disappointing that he's considering not playing for us next year, but I think it's rather sad and insulting for us to just turn on him and say things like 'get lost' and 'useless' or whatever words people are using. Congratulate Davey on serving the club for 8 years (or however long), and just be at peace with him leaving.

Disappointing end to the season for Casey, they'd had such a good year but to finish top 2 only to lose both finals and fall out in straight sets must be really heartbreaking for the Casey players. Whether or not we should be fielding a standalone side, however, is a totally separate issue and has no bearing whatsoever on this result.

With Sydney winning today, there is now a chance for the Preliminary Finals to be Hawthorn v Geelong and either Sydney v West Coast or Sydney v Collingwood. Any of those games would be rippers. Hawthorn v Geelong as a Preliminary Final is insane; Hawthorn's only real threat in the finals. And Sydney's only threat at home is Collingwood. Although there's talk that the Prelim will have to be held at the SCG for scheduling reasons, which gives Sydney a huge advantage. I'm certainly tipping a Hawthorn-Sydney GF, which I think is the best reflection of the year. Adelaide just aren't as good as the other top 4 sides (and are as good a chance as any side has been in the last 10 years to be knocked out of the finals in straight sets, given they're most likely to get Geelong next week.) Whatever happens, though, the remaining finals are all really really exciting, and the standard has been high so far even if the margins have been a big large.

Injured. Not good enough even if not injured. In RR's world, logic and reason don't exist.

You are bleating on about how Talia wanted to play here, and thus we should have taken that into account. Naitanui wanted to stay in Perth, but you don't seem to have cared about that one bit in all your whinging about that decision.

What was your view on Naitanui again?

Observations on tonight's game: 1) We're a long, long, long way off being competitive. 2) Nick Maxwell is a total and utter dog. 3) Sam Mitchell is a total and utter star. 4) Hawthorn are very likely to go all the way. 5) Umpiring is bordering on ridiculous. The game is being over-policed.

Right. So we have a duty to pick players who want to play for us, do we? I'm glad our recruiters aren't picking players just because they tell us they want to play for us.

This post, like every other one of yours, makes no sense.

At least you realise people think you're an idiot.

I haven't read the whole thread, so words to this effect may have already been said. But: 'I didn't want to go overseas and get my manager Bruce to ring up Mark Neeld and say Brent wants to leave. I wanted to sit down with him and talk to him about it and that's what we did'. Memo, Tom Scully: this is how you do it. From: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/147042/default.aspx

Darling plays for West Coast. He gets to watch and learn from Cox, Kerr, Embley, LeCras, Kennedy, Glass and Waters. Not one Melbourne player has the leadership that any of them provides. Darling also has Worsfold. And a more highly-paid team. Many other factors have made Darling a better player now than he would have been if he went to a club like us. Also, your argument about McDonald, Howe etc. is a little strange. You're trying to say that, since we've managed to develop them, it follows that every player who fails is a failed draft pick, because we're able to develop players. Everyone is different. In the case of Cook, we weren't able to provide him with what was required to make him an AFL player. Poor leadership, poor coaching, etc.. The way I wrote that made it sound like I thought he's not soft. I'm pretty sure he is. What I meant was that I disagree with the notion that, because he is inherently soft, there's nothing the coaches could do. I disagree with that argument. Do you have any 'evidence' of this (that he wasn't worthy of being a first round pick)? And by that I mean evidence that was available in 2010? From this: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/105263/default.aspx, and before you rant and rave, it says that Cook was a 'monty' to be picked first round until his form dipped in the second half of the year. The point being he displayed the ability to be a top player. Also important: you as yet have provided no evidence to suggest he was no chance to be a first round pick. Of course there is no evidence, he hasn't actually been developed by anyone else! What a ridiculous thing for you to say. What is fair to say on the 'evidence' (which you are so keen on) is that certain coaches have better track records of developing players than others. I cited coaches like Malthouse, Roos and Sheedy as coaches who have taken players who didn't seem like much and turned them into better players. All you did was cite some examples of failed players to say that coaches aren't always able to do this. That's my point. Bailey wasn't able to do with with Cook. He wasn't able to do it with many players, which is my broad point. You see it as flawed draft choices. I see it more as a bad system, of coaching, development, and leadership, which has failed to take a player with talent and make an AFL player of him. Your 'evidence' about Cook is all hindsight. Hardly fair. I've said it from the outset that this is my opinion. At any rate, I don't think you have any more evidence than I have.

At the time he was drafted, the evidence suggested he'd make a good AFL player. That's what I said. The evidence now clearly goes against that, but that's not my point. When we picked Cook, his football warranted first-round selection. Did it warrant selection over other players? Arguably not. But it warranted selection nonetheless. He then came to the club and failed. So part of the blame goes to the recruiters for picking a player who couldn't make it at Melbourne. But part, and I argue much more, of the blame goes to our coaching and development structure/team, for taking a player whose talent as a kid was there, but who wasn't able to convert it. Sometimes you do pick a dud, correct. Picking out one or two players here and there to suggest that my point was without base is ridiculous. My point was that what makes a good coach is their ability to develop players. Nowhere did I say that every player under Malthouse/Sheedy/Roos has been a star. Nowhere did I say that failures make a coach crap. You've managed to pick only a handful of fails anyway, against years and years of successful player development. But that's not my point. My main point is that those coaches were able to take and nurture talent. Bailey wasn't. And that has a greater role to play (in addition to our total lack of on-field leadership) than our decision to pick him in the first place.

Your last sentence ruins your entire argument. Agreed. What do you say to La Dee-vina Comedia's argument above? I'm happy to say that picking Cook clearly has turned out to be an awful result, and that part of the blame has to rest with the drafters for that. But I disagree with the idea that he was soft and therefore there was nothing the coaches could do. What makes a good coach good? Surely part of it is the ability to make men out of boys, to turn average players into good ones, and to lead. Bailey didn't offer this. In addition, did Cook enter a club with role-models? Those kind of leaders who drag the under-performers with them? Nick Riewoldt, Jonathan Brown, Matthew Pavlich, Chris Judd, etc.? No. He entered a club with no one, on-field or off, to spark anything in him. Melbourne got it wrong taking Cook (mainly in hindsight, but whatever). What is more of an issue is that no one at Melbourne was able to get anything out of a kid who has the talent, but needed nurturing. If you don't agree with that, you have very little respect for what Mick Malthouse, Paul Roos, and Kevin Sheedy are fantastic at. Agree too.

I've seen him play once, and the signs he showed that day were encouraging but not outstanding. Maybe with Cook going, the position of 'young developing KPP' might rest with Davis, and he might stay. But I similarly wouldn't be surprised if he was released, given he's had two years and hasn't really looking like cracking into the side.

Pot calling the kettle black. Spot on. So glad someone else thinks this too! I can't stand players moving numbers. The lower numbers are only more 'prestigious' because players who have worn them before have played well in them. Howe can make 38 the next prestigious number if he wants. Heck, 31 is only famous because Barassi didn't move down to something lower. The whole premise of moving numbers is so silly. You come to the club, you get a number, that's your number for your time here.

Single most incorrect statement ever uttered on this forum. Second most incorrect statement ever uttered on this forum.

A combination of disappointed and meh. Disappointed because, in the end, there's no denying that Jurrah possesses talent which is lacking from the rest of our list, and showed that he can change games off his own boot. Fully fit and engaged (a caveat, sure) he adds enormous value to our side. Meh because there's always been something iffy about him, and he's been out of the game for so long that even if everything went perfectly from here, who knows if he'd be able to get back to any sort of AFL-level football. In the end, these things happen. People get homesick, family situations change, and people need to move city to continue their life. That's just how it is. Sometimes opinions can be offensive. Your suggestion implied that Rudeboy has had something to do with a potential move to Collingwood. That's offensive to Rudeboy. Yes, it's your opinion, but Hitler had opinions and no one's response to him was simply 'oh, just build a bridge and get over it'.

His set shot kicking for goal seems to say he's not the greatest forward, but at the moment I think he's still better suited to a HFF than a wing. If he can develop his stamina/motor then maybe the midfield will be his home. Still feel he's a forward at heart though.

It's got a lot more to do with hindsight than you're allowing. And you gave no credit whatsoever to the fact that Darling was inserted into a top 4 side, with the ability to watch and learn from the likes of Cox, Kerr, Kennedy, Priddis, Embley and LeCras. Whilst Cook has had the wonderful leadership of Bate, Dunn, Moloney, Rivers and Davey to guide him. As for the 'everyone passed on him is a lamentable argument' bit - how often do we bleat on this site about how KPFs don't grow on trees and are hard to come by? You can't on the one hand note that Darling was touted as a top 3 pick, but then say clubs weren't in the market for him. If he was as good as you claim, every club would have been interested in him. One or the other. I will, however, congratulate you on at least coherently presenting some arguments (a feat which seems to escape many). I disagree with almost everyone of them though.

I have no anger at all about your poll's result. For one, it's flawed, because you let people pick multiple answers (something to which you have no defence). For another, it's merely reflecting the sheer pessimism of this board. Most importantly, people with half a brain haven't bothered voting because you made the poll, and because there's nothing at all to be gained from entering this debate. Naitanui is over-rated, your stats are selective and don't reflect his overall game, and he gets to play for a top 4 side, not a bottom 4 side. And it's Mr Uranus, to you.

You are an absolute moron, and every time you've posted in this abomination of a thread, you've reinforced that.