Jumping Jack Clennett

Very well said, "Why you little....".

I'm still desperately trying to detect what we're supposed to notice. I suspect it's to do with our midfield, which has barely changed(apart from Godfrey, the hardest in-and-under midfielder during our years of relative success). This is worrying, since it seems that in 2 seasons we haven't progressed much in the midfield, which is now considered to be one of our glaring weaknesses.

McLean.... MUST HOLD CHESTMARKS!!!!

Thanks a lot for alerting us to this, KC. There's no way I would have known it was on without your info. And what an important game it was for Melb supporters to see! Watts' first intro to senior footy. The emergence of McKenzie, McNamara , Valenti and Hughes. Also the chance to see Cousins coming back. Plus we won (in stark contrast to the likely outcome this arvo!)

I agree with those picks, Freak. Pretty encouraging that the two Macs are beginning to look like good prospects, I suppose with Sam Blease going down, the Rookies see an opportunity. Jordie McKenzie reminds me of that young Carlton guy, Mitch Robinson, who's surprised everyone this year. I'd promote him on that effort. Valenti was good, too. We must avoid closed minds on Valenti...."good VFL player" etc. While Hughes lacks key position height, I reckon he's got midfield aggression plus a goal sense, We must keep our eye on him. Let's not forget that the opposition had Cousins, Cotchin and Simmonds.

[quote name='james1977' "What about Joe Gutnick? Weren't people aware before the vote that he was offering $3 million?" Yes,we were aware. Ridley chose to turn his back on it, since it opposed his plans for personal glory. Also, in response to another post on this thread, the Fitzroy Reds have dropped the "Reds" part of their name, thus abandoning their link to my old team, the Uni Reds.

Ridley's tirade at Dallas Brookes Hall that night was reminiscent to me, of films I've seen of Hitler brainwashing the masses. He shouted with emotional rage, while repeatedly playing propaganda films. It was Ridley who caused the bad behaviour(by both sides) that night. I can never understand how so few ex-players stood up for the continuity of our club. Brian Dixon(despite all his acknowledged failings) should feel proud of his stance. Ron and Robbie were torn between their loyalty to Tiger and their love of the Club. Both eventually came out against the merger, but too late. Either could have swung the vote enormously by speaking against the destruction of the MFC. The absence of other ex-players reinforces the fact that the real heart of a footy club is the die-hard supporter group.Players come and go. They give their all on the field, but their allegiance changes with a whim. People like us Demonlanders will never forsake our Club. Ian Ridley was my favourite player when he represented us on the MCG. I was unable to forgive him, in my own mind, for his misguided, dishonest attempt to disbandon our club.

I think a lot of the MFC members who voted "FOR" the merger were under the mistaken impression that Melbourne would effectively "take over" Hawthorn, and that , before long, we'd be back in the same jumpers as the Demons, with Dunstall at full-forward. These were the lukewarm supporters, looking for an "easy fix". They gravely underestimated the passion of the Hawks, who never would have let that happen. They also over-estimated the Hawthorn playing list , which was way past its prime. Also, many members who attended the Freemasons Hall meeting were exposed to scandalous lobbying by supposedly neutral MFC staff, and Arthur Andersen employees who were manning the polling booths. This happened to me, and I witnessed it happening countless times to others. Also, the press and others who stated that the MFC vote proved that the majority of MFC members wanted the merge ,gravely underestimated the resolve of the very large number of members who opposed it , and who were aware of the shonky election. I'm convinced that we never would have merged with Hawthorn, even if they'd voted "for" it.

Did anyone else see the show last Thurs with the Rob Flower interview? His highlight package was fantastic!

I was delighted to see that beautiful long left-hand hand pass by Jones.(that set up a brilliant chain of foot passes). Nathan has been so predictably right-sided it has limited his elusiveness. His kicking was superb on Sunday,too.

[quote name='rusty_corner' What exactly happened? Green and Rance both went hard at a low chest mark running from opposite sides. I suspect Greenie's face collected Rance's head or shoulder. Rance looked seedy too, and didn't achieve much else during the game. If it's a depressed fracture of the maxilla, it's usually 3 weeks max. They always predict more, but they come back early.

Thanks a lot for the updates, you guys. Watching with interest.

I don't like Sunday games because my wife says..."Sunday's the "family "day. Especially Mothers Day, Easter Sunday, and our Wedding Anniv(Sunday this year). I think of Saturday as "sport day". Of course, I still go to our 15(or whatever) Sunday games, but it causes friction in the Clennett household. There's nothing better than a good win on the Friday night, then watching the other teams injure each other over the next two days. The fact that sponsors don't like Sunday games is all important, and a major reason to oppose the AFL's tendency to schedule us for Sundays.(unless Joe wants to dub in another few mill.!)

[quote name='titan_uranus' date='Apr 4 "They've been worse than they were today Jack. " But only by us!

[quote name='Clint Bizkit' date='Apr 5 2009, "What I don't understand is why every single forward has to push up the ground? Why not leave one or two, right on the goal line. " I like this idea. But I'm dead sure no-one will ever try it. It's too far removed from "conventional wisdom". Football departments are reluctant to try anything TOO different, I think because they're too worried it might come badly unstuck. We're in a great position to try new tactics. Losing a game because of an unsuccessful experiment wouldn't be the same disaster for us as it would be for a team battling to acquire a top 4 position. We need to try something radical in point kick-ins, too. Now's the time to experiment.

I thought Martin was a shining light. Ok, Anthony's no star, and he got 4 goals, but Martin took several goal-saving contested marks, and made some good spoils. The full -back line was under tremendous pressure all day. Frawley, Warnock and Martin did well under the circumstances. It would help to have some sort of tactic worked out for kick-ins, so the ball doesn't come straight back all the time. Also, I'd like to pay tribute to Brad Green, who courageously ran with the flight into an oncoming pack when it was his turn in(I think )Q4, Members' wing, Richmond end half-forward. He'll get hurt one day, but he never shirks it. Jones gave his guts, and kicked MUCH better.

AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm really disappointed. With Rivers, Warnock and Martin down the backline, I was hoping that Colin Garland could be released to be converted into a tall forward. He has the mobility and ball-handling, plus the attacking creativity. I still hope for that, but now it's on the backburner for months. Marking forwards need to be able to keep their head up with the pack approaching from behind. Garland has this quality. We need Zomer or no.29 to show the sort of improvement that Cheney has, to provide the marking strength up forward that we lack so badly. I was surprised how well Ricky Petterd led and held his marks last Sunday, I'd never have picked him as a leading forward. Probably the ability to time your lead and hold on to the ball at pace is as important as taking contested marks. Contested marks in the forward 50 must only account for a small proportion of goals ,compared to goals from marks by leading forwards.

I'm interested in the Stadium Deals argument. Presumably this argument is between the AFL, on behalf of its 5 MCG tenants, and the MCC. There is also a battle(but ? less intense) between the AFL and Docklands Stadium on behalf of its tenants(who ?don't fare so badly). If the MCC decides to favour the MFC, where does it leave the other tenants? Are we, the MFC on the MCC's side against the AFL and the other tenants? The MCC is in a strong bargaining position, owning the biggest stadium, but most of the income comes from TV rights, and it doesn't look good on TV with half empty stadia(even when we know there's 45000 in them). The AFL likes the idea of a boutique stadium. So does the MFC(???Casey). I see potential conflicts arising. Don't get me wrong,I'm rapt that we're in with the MCC, but I'm glad Jimmy's got such a savvy group together to tackle the complicated scenarios which will undoubtedly evolve.

Neita's off overseas for a few weeks with his girlfriend. He wanted to be away for the season opening since he's missing it so much. He hopes to set up his own marketing business. That's what he studied at Uni. He's not married.......yet!

I heartily endorse the positive posts above, and I particularly laud Jim Stynes for his fantastic efforts. I do wonder, though, how the complicated interaction between the MCC, the MFC, and the Stadium deal arrangement can pan out. We must bear in mind that the MCC committee(???and the government-influenced MCC Trust) must represent fairly not just the 25% of MCC Members who support the Demons, but also those who support other clubs. As an MCC Member, if I,(God forbid), barracked for Richmond, I'd want equal favours given to my Club....or perhaps on a pro-rata basis. With Essendon, this would amount to half our benefits. I know that there's a fair bit of partiality to the Dees on the current MCC committee,(long may it continue), but it worries me that a lobby group could evolve that opposes favouritism to Melbourne. Presumably we should always keep the balance of power due to us having the highest proportion of supporters. It's going to be a very intricate problem to sort out the stadium deals(which so far have been so unfair to Melbourne, and the other tenants), now that one tenant is in a privileged position. The other tenants must be a bit miffed. What does the MCC think about Melbourne's distant hopes for a boutique stadium in South Gippsland? CEO Steve Gough's a Carlscum devotee, but he has to do what he's told by his committee.