Engorged Onion

Harbour Lights? 😇

Wouldn't a team at 0-1, 0-2 and on 0-4 come out firing? How many rounds in on '0 wins' does it become a non danger game and you can see a team for who they are, that is, just a bit off the pace overall for the leauge? Or are they all danger games for the team that you support when they come up against that sort of team because, well you know... MFCSS? What about the Gold Coast. do they ever cop it in the media, perhaps the Gold Coast Bulletin doesn't care to really report on them, thus doesn't influence the GC Suns performance? So many questions 😃 Anyway, I'm being a little provocative. It's such a tight league due to the spread of athletes, that all opposition are respected..except maybe WCE... Your last sentence feels about right though!!

Fascinating how certain players are key to teams fortunes (structural integrity) and are overshadowed by the glamour of goals and high possession gatherers. They used to be called ‘workman like’ or ‘agricultural’ and now ‘role players’, yet even (to my mind) that is underselling them. ANB’s career has been encapsulated by what he does defensively which is ultimately unheralded unless you are a key back man. It’s not just the last 3 years, and I get that people see his last match as a version of a ‘break out’ - but he’s been consistently consistent for years with the attributes that he has. I loved hearing that someone from the Hawthorn FD flagged that people should sit down and watch what ANB does with the down the ground footage. They watch it knowing how subtly yet significantly influential he is. For a thoroughly obscure reference - he is the Claude Makelele of Melbourne.

Someone will get the specifics right... andeffectively out of each teams scoring shots in each game - you have a slightly higher percentage that is goals than points - ie: 60% of your scoring shots are goals. Then they've added in, where those shots are taken... that is my understanding. So for last night - Ports - 13.11 becomes 15.9 Mebs - 15.6 becomes 12.9 and then

Well, observing whether Harry Petty stays with Melbourne or not for the next 7 months is like peeking into Schroedinger's box - he's simultaneously both a Demon and not a Demon. And we know human's dislike uncertainty immensely...

Apologies if this has already been put forward. It's probably more of a general comment of team selection... but. Can we have a discussion on the non selection of Thommo, in the sense that most people agree he was stiff to be dropped. Was he dropped because he had a poor game? That seems unlikely Was he dropped because he is behind TMAC in the pecking order - potentially. Was he dropped because he failed(s) to meet certain internal KPI's - potentially as well. What I think also needs to be considered is that over the course of the season, certain teams, have certain preferred match ups, and all things considered some of the players in the picked 20-27 range will be in and out of the side based on that weeks opponents, and non selction is not an indicator of a binary, are you good or are you poor.

I wonder if it's a prelude to publicly consider shortening matches...

Typical week on Demonland after a loss eh... How lucky are they AFL as a junket organisation, that the majority fans are so emotionally attached to meaning of one single game and the fortunes of the club, that they spend thousand of dollars of membership each year and 10's of millions on punting annually. They've curated it well.

An overall comment on language of calling that game style 'chaos'. I really dislike the language of chaos/chaotic use of the ball when it is clearly a preferred game style of breaking down defensive structures by certain teams. That game style is planned, and it's a deliberate strategy around willingness to risk, and wear the fall out if it comes unstuck. It's a territory at all costs game plan. And I think it infers that the decision to play like that is not bound by strategic thinking. However maybe I'm just a bit sensitive and that's all my [censored] interpretation of the word. Probably a comment directed to the overall media as residual from the Tigers 3 premierships really, rather than you @binman or anyone else that uses it.

the narrative that there are cultural problems will only get louder in the media... and then chuckle at the inanity of linking those two things together.

@Six6Six I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude for your dedication and effort in documenting the history of the Melbourne Football Club. over the last decade. Your work is an invaluable tool for acknowledging just how far we have come as a club. The Melbourne Football Club has a rich and storied history, filled with triumphs, challenges, and moments that define our identity. By documenting this journey, visually, you preserve the legacy. It's not how I would ever dream of spending my time, so thank you for spending yours in this way.

yes, good guy, knows his stuff, Stephen Rendell.

Probably useful to post this here - it's a universal truth of all codes. " Ange Postecoglou’s mature response to referee decisions shows up Mikel Arteta’s immaturity Spurs manager's post-Chelsea comments were a rarity – like Arteta, he is not a fan of Var but was still able to swallow officials' mistakes There was, all told, nothing much that Ange Postecoglou could argue with when it came to the decisions of Michael Oliver and his team of officials on Monday night in one of the great Premier League games of the season so far, although his post-match analysis was welcome nonetheless. There is a great interview with Brian Clough from his 1970s heyday when an anxious looking John Motson gets taken apart by the great man over television’s treatment of referees. Motson points out that the pundits in the studio with the benefit of replays do not always criticise the officials – sometimes they praise them too. “I’m not interested whether it proves him [the referee] right occasionally,” Clough says. “The point is that he [the referee] makes his decisions in five seconds, or two seconds, or one second, in the heat of the moment with 22 players and 30,000 people shouting and bellowing. All I’m saying is that you don’t make that point strongly enough. It should be over-emphasised how hard it is to referee a match.” It does take people in football of stature to stand up for referees because, simply said, they cannot do it for themselves. They have no militant fanbase upon which to fall back upon, and no scope to do interviews because, as Clough rightly pointed out 50 years ago, the only interest in them would be when they foul it up. And it is a hard job – so hard that more than 48 hours on from Mikel Arteta’s tantrum on Saturday night he was still not prepared to say which of the three possible infringements on offer he thought should have stood against Anthony Gordon’s goal. Even when managers are not sure why they think the referee might be wrong – or indeed if he is – they still have the confidence to embark on these remarkable diatribes, and none more so than Arteta this weekend. Football has been diminishing the authority of its referees and assistants for so long that Postecoglou’s intervention was vanishingly rare. He said what so many of his managerial brethren must know in their hearts but find so difficult to articulate. That the referee’s job is made almost impossible by the pressures of players and managers. Not to mention an expectation that Var can solve everything. What is it about these managers – Jürgen Klopp, Jose Mourinho, Arteta, and many others over the years – that makes them do it? One suspects that it is often reluctant, prompted by an irrational fear that if they do not do so then it might beget more decisions against them. A notion that the only way to control fate is to rail against the day’s referee to ensure the next one is more compliant. What is it about the club issuing statements in support of their managers in meltdown, as Liverpool and Woolwich have this season? Again, one suspects it is not a task they relish but feel obliged to do. Doing nothing would leave some kind of awkward misalignment between them and the man on the touchline so they take the path of least resistance. One presumes that then someone is deputed to email a list of complaints, or conspiracy theories, to Howard Webb, and he is in turn obliged to make a solemn phone call to “discuss” it. So the whole dismal dance plays out. ‘You have to accept the referee’s decision’ – Postecoglou It took Postecoglou – who was himself booked on Monday night for leaving his technical area – to break that cycle. “You have to accept the referee’s decision,” he said. “That is how I grew up. This constant erosion of the referee’s authority is where the game is going to get – they are not going to have any authority. We are going to be under the control of someone with a TV screen a few miles away.” Easy to say of course, when one is, for instance, in a pre-match press conference ahead of a big game against Manchester City on a good run of domestic results. Just as Arteta did on October 6 when, in the aftermath of the Var errors in Tottenham’s win over Liverpool, he said of referees, “we need to give support and understand that mistakes happen”. Those principles did not survive their first contact with a referee’s decision he did not like the smell of. Postecoglou, by contrast, swallowed it after a 4-1 defeat at home to one of his club’s biggest rivals. Perhaps he considered himself fortunate that Destiny Udogie was not given a red card for what turned out to be his first yellow card – that tackle on Raheem Sterling. Postecoglou is not a fan of Var, as he has said many times since he arrived in the Premier League this summer, although he tends not to blame the people whose job it is to operate an imperfect system. In case it needs repeating, Var was brought in as a response to television’s coverage of football, not to the game itself. Referees and their assistants had been getting decisions right and wrong since the ball had laces in it and the half-time norm was a restorative Woodbine. The difference in the 21st century was technology that could prove the case within seconds to a global audience who were consequently better informed than the men running the game on the pitch. That was why Var came in, and of course because television loves a new gimmick to sell its package all over again to subscribers. Either way, the spirit of what Postecoglou said was pure Clough – the kind of stern good sense that will stand the test of time, and there is a good chance that others will be quoting it in 50 years. Although hopefully by then, someone will have got Var to a point where we can all tolerate its existence. *read VAR for ARC, or any slow mo replay in the AFL context.

My views are, I feel so surprised that supporters get upset, when someone (only ever of value) wants to change their lifestyle for reasons they chose not to publicise. At least he has had the decency to let the club know in advance so they can plan for it. Of course, in the end he may stay - and that benefits us. But I'd argue he is one leg/foot injury away from having a career severely compromised by injury, conversely he is one non injury away from having a very very good career. This is the dice to be rolled.

A definitive statement - and he won't get better. His accuracy fluctuates on the first kick for goal of the game - if he nails it - he tends to be 'on'. It's more of case of accepting he has a range of assets, and with that are the flaws, and thus the ceiling to his game in certain areas is what it is... a la Joe Daniher.

Presumed they are OS ;)

Great reference!

Ok, so staying for this year and leaving at the end of the season... Good to have clarity. Plenty of time to organise deals in the meantime with transparency. He better not say he misses his family though - that's the sort of talk that gets you ostracized, by wankers... <----- cannot believe that word was not moderated! Huzzah!

Well, it was clear as day when Tim Lamb said - he will play for us next year - those last two words being the most meaningful ones.

Thanks for bringing joy to 1000's of people James. You lived the dream of many supporters. Good luck to you in your career going forward. All the best. Your Secret Admirer from afar...

What's perplexing about it? He is coverage and on low $...and has a contract. It's not even slightly perplexing. You can't delist everyone you think is a bit average every post season. Sometimes you keep people on, because they have been in the system for a long time, they know the grind, they adhere to training protocols and they're good club folk.

Fear, a deep-seated evolutionary emotion, often acts as a motivator by triggering the body's "fight or flight" response. This is marked by the release of stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline from the adrenal glands. These hormones, while heightening our awareness and increasing heart rate for immediate threats, can be detrimental when experienced chronically, causing health concerns like suppressed thyroid function. From a familial perspective, when parents employ fear as a motivating tool, it can lead to immediate compliance and heightened caution in children. However, the darker side reveals chronic stress, eroded trust between parent and child, the development of avoidance behaviors, and diminished self-esteem in the child. Similarly, in sports like AFL, when coaches regularly resort to yelling, players might momentarily become more alert and responsive. Yet, the lingering effects can be detrimental: the players may develop performance anxiety, leading to more mistakes; they might constantly be under heightened stress; the coach-player relationship could deteriorate; and, over time, players could experience burnout, associating the sport with negative emotions rather than passion and enjoyment. In essence, while fear can be a powerful motivator in the short term, its prolonged use can have lasting negative impacts on individuals, be it in familial settings or sports environments. FEAR (YELLING, ANGER) IS A GREAT MOTIVATOR - SHORT TERM - > IT THEN BECOMES EXHAUSTING AND ATHLETES (ADULT HUMANS) - DISENGAGE EMOTIONALLY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES - THE TRUST BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE (I could get nerdy into inconsistency of a coach, and attachment styles of the player - uncertainty of how a coach responds, and what that brings out on the field when we make errors)...

Can you outline what that would even look like ?

Hee hee... once upon a time :) and with another club. 😵**don't know that I could be objective enough to work with the team that I love.

Title: "The Contractual Conundrum" INT. MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - FOOTBALL DEPARTMENT OFFICE - DAY Simon Goodwin, the head coach of the Melbourne Football Club, sits behind his desk, wearing a sardonic grin. Ben Brown and Tom Macdonald, two veteran forwards who played pivotal roles in the club's Grand Final win two years ago, sit on the other side, looking bewildered. SIMON GOODWIN (raising an eyebrow) G'day, fellas. I've called you in today because apparently, you've forgotten about a little thing called a "contract." BEN BROWN (confused) A contract, you say? Is that like a footy team subscription service? TOM MACDONALD (scratching his head) I thought we were still in the "free trial" period. Simon Goodwin takes a deep breath, his sardonic grin unwavering. SIMON GOODWIN (with a smirk) Yes, a contract, guys. It's that pesky document that says you're legally obligated to play for this club, whether you remember signing it or not. BEN BROWN (defensive) We didn't exactly throw a contract-signing party, Simon. It's not like we RSVP'd for this. TOM MACDONALD (agrees) Yeah, we're just a couple of accidental champions, apparently. Simon Goodwin exchanges a sarcastic look with the Football Department representatives, who are struggling to contain their amusement. FOOTBALL DEPARTMENT REP 1 (smiling) You know, contracts are these quaint little things that specify you're supposed to kick footies, not miss goals, and avoid falling apart like a house of cards in a storm. FOOTBALL DEPARTMENT REP 2 (nods) And, believe it or not, the supporters expect you to remember how to do all that. BEN BROWN (confused) But we've still got the moves, coach! We've accidentally pulled off some magic tricks on the field. TOM MACDONALD (enthusiastic) Yeah, remember that time I turned a fumble into a goal? The crowd went wild! Simon Goodwin can't help but roll his eyes before regaining his composure. SIMON GOODWIN (rolling his eyes) I appreciate your inadvertent showmanship, but we've got this minor issue called "team performance" to consider. It's not a comedy show out there. FOOTBALL DEPARTMENT REP 1 (sighs) And, by the way, the medical team thinks you're trying to set a record for time spent in the treatment room. BEN BROWN (defeated) So, what's the verdict, coach? TOM MACDONALD (nervous) Are we being sent to join the local circus, at least officially this time? SIMON GOODWIN (grinning) I'm not saying you're headed to the circus, but perhaps you could head the entertainment at our next fan event. Wink, wink. The room erupts into sarcastic laughter as Ben Brown and Tom Macdonald finally realize the point about their valid contracts. BEN BROWN (sarcastic) Oh, got it, coach. We'll make sure to honor our legally binding obligations as footballers. TOM MACDONALD (smiling) Absolutely, time to dust off those clauses and fine print. The Football Department representatives and Simon Goodwin join in the sarcastic laughter, relieved that the humorous take on the situation has lightened the mood. CUT TO BLACK. [End of Scene] In this revision, Ben Brown and Tom Macdonald, still under valid contracts, are reminded of their contractual obligations in a sarcastic and comical manner, highlighting the irony of their situation to the supporters.