tiers

Maybe May to FF, BBB to FB, Tracca to HBF, Clarrie no change, Viney to BP, Kosie (with his leap) to first ruck, Maxie to FP, Lever intercepting our goals, and many others strategic manipulations so that our players do not get too comfortable in their normal roles but get to learn what it feels like to play in the other positions. Why not? Could do not worse than perfect passing in an open space.

In 2021 we had a charmed injury run. Fit players in every position except for May in the GF. But nobody told him he was injured. In 2022 and 2023 we suffered from injuries that took off the top percentage of our form. Losing by 7 points and 2 points does not a culture issue make. Simply we could field our best combination. Injuries decide flags every year. Let's hope for a benign injury year. GO DEES

Let's leave Clarry alone. If there are still some issues, let him and the club sort them out without any pressure from us, who should be his strongest supporters. GO CLARRY GO GOODY GO DEES

Great score, great scoreboard. Notice how many shots at goal require only 6 or so steps for the run in and no 30 second time delays. No mouthguards in groins, no flipping of the ball, no high fives and fist pumps for a goal. Who says today's footy is better? Sadly there is no going back.

What team wouldn't want to have two talents such as Petty and JVR as key position players in their forward line? Both are young, talented, versatile and, surprise, surprise, can kick straight. If these two were not worth at least 2 goals a game, then we would have won another flag.

At least Peter McLean 1964 and Cameron Mooney in 1999.

Why not go the whole hog? Give one vote to each of the three players considered to be the best. Then at the end of the year, the player(s) with the most votes for being in the best three the most number of games wins the medal. A reward for consistency, evenly spread amongst the players and less likely to be gamed or mixed up by the umpires. In the dees case, no more vote losses due to team mates spreading the votes. To tighten it up, give each umpire on the ground three votes to allocate in private (ie. 12 votes) and only the top three players in this voting system as selected by the umpires get one vote each for the end of the year tally. Complex, complicated and possibly confusing but it should get a better result and might be worthwhile to avoid the annual heartbreak and heartache of the current system. Why not?

Can't help it. Whole of life condition.

It would be interesting to analyse the positions of medal winners over the decades. I can only recall two full backs - Fred Goldsmith SM 1955, Verdun Howell StK 1959. Back pocket Bernie Smith Geel 1951, John James Carl 1961; Brad Hardie Foot 1985 CHB - Brian Gleeson StK 1957, Neil Roberts StK1958, Gordon Collis Carl 1964, Ross Glendinning NM 1983 HBF Gavin Wanganeen Ess 1993 CHF Kelvin Templeton Foot 1980 FF Tony Lockett St K 1987 All the others were rucks, rovers, ruck rovers, centres and on-ballers. Not a single set position player since 1993 and not even a single ruckman since 1992. Maybe it is time to reconsider but there are too many conflicting themes to find the truly best solution. Modern footy surely rewards those who attend as many contests as possible rather than those who "beat their man" and contribute to a result.

The result of the Brownlow voting by the umpires might be anomalous compared with the other so called expert awards but, and this is a big but, they are only ones who can see how hard the players are working on the field. It is an award for fairest and best, not for accumulating possessions, and should rightly go to a player who strives the hardest for each possession. Coaches award votes for the impact on the result which is why, for example, defenders can often win votes for a minimal possession defensive role. This sort of analysis is beyond the umpires on the field and it is no wonder that it throws up different results. The so called expert awards in the media also appear to be slanted towards favourite or prominent players whose stats sheets are overflowing but who might not have worked as hard or made much of a difference. Think about the "ring-a-rosy" in the backlines that often can inflate stats that have no meaning. For all the criticism of the umpires voting, there have been no undeserving players (duds) who have won and, in any given year, there are many players who would qualify. There is an element of luck in the result especially when a team has many potential vote winners every week eg Melbourne's Petracca, Oliver, Viney, Gawn. My own preference would be for a system that selects which player had the most influence on a result (similar to the coaches award) but I acknowledge that this would be too hard to determine by a group of independent umpires in the short time frame after a match. Leave it alone because there is no demonstratively better system

What would any other team give to have both Petty and JVR as their main forward kp prospects? Both are tough, strong, good marks, good kicks and can ruck in the forward line and at a pinch around the ground to give Maxie a rest. The key to their success will be to keep Maxie out of their way as he attracts too many oppos. BBB and TMac are mostly spent but keeping one as back up (and perhaps surprise comeback form) might be prudent. I believe that if BBB can overcome his knee problems, then he represents the better option because of his ability (if properly coached) to straighten up the forward line. Plus add Fritsch, Kozzie, Chandler, ANB, Spargo and occasionally Tracca and we have a potent, match winning forward line if only they can kick straight. And we have some high draft picks. Not yet the end of the world.

Herein the paradox. Even if we had a target, and even if we could pass laces out to that target, would we have still had more forward entries and more scoring shots than we had in the two finals? I agree that a better entry could not be worse, but, even so, our more chaotic, undisciplined entries still generate more opportunities than the oppos and we dominate possession and forward entries. Our big issue is kicking straight. As has been stated earlier in this thread, one or two better shots per game and we would be top two and in the preliminary final. So long as we can generate greater numbers of possessions and forward entries, we have the basis of a real successful future. A settled forward structure is what we need.

No. Even with Petty, JVR, Fritsch, TMac, Melksham, Brayshaw out or recently returned, we came within a total of 9 points to be in both finals. Teams don't get to top 4 and so close in finals without considerable talent playing well. It was our misfortune to lose a forward line at the wrong time. Backs, midfielders and on ballers are still top class. The loss of Brayshaw hurt us more than is superficially evident. Brayshaw on the ball would release Petracca to play near the goal square and enhance our forward potential. What do we need? Who knows but, at a minimum, a settled forward line with Petty and JVR, a better chop out for Gawn (I reckon JVR and or Petty could play the Hawkins role in the forward line) and perhaps one more dynamic, speedy midfielder/half back to carry the ball would improve us a lot. We have good draft positions so let's use them well.

The way the ball is held and the ball drop is the main influence on the kick. Some players have the innate skill to be able to "fee" the ball in their hands and adjust for the perfect ball drop. Others can't. It's all in the hands. Why this fails them in set shot goal kicking is a mystery but I offer three suggestions as a fix. One, before each set shot, prepare as if it is not a set shot. Shorten run up (except BBB), no walking slowly, no placing the mouth guard where is shouldn't be, no twisting the ball in the hands, no shuffling at the start of the run up and any other distraction. Two, each player should have a simple routine developed at training eg. 3 deep breaths, or count to ten, or bend at the knees twice etc that he is reminded of by a team mate. Three, do not take notice of the 30 second timer. Get on with the job. I note that when watching replays from earlier VFL times, long before the 30 second times was introduced, kicking for goal was much quicker, although not any more reliable on any given day than today. Many years ago, the great RDB taught how to kick with the opposite leg. He suggested one hand behind the back, only one hand (coinciding with the leg to be used) controlling the ball and kicking off one step. An excellent, easy kicking drill that perhaps has more relevance with goal kicking today.

1964 GF Footy Record signed by players at anniversary lunch. Note Ron included 31. Melbourne 50th anniversary GF 196419092023.pdf

We are truly grateful that our great game has been blessed by the life of Ronald Dale Barassi. His name is synonymous with the greatest game on earth and his memory will live on for as long as and wherever our great game is played. R.I.P Ron.

Me too for both. But my autograph included "31".

There is no denying that EJ played it tough but he was no thug and, when needed, could play the game as well as anyone. I was once fortunate, in a state game at the MCG, to see him play probably the best game I have ever seen by any player in my time (except for the incomparable Robbie). He was that good. Like most true champions, he would have been able to adapt to today's rules and still be able to dominate.

EJ was too good to need to play as a thug. He had skill, strength, flair, footy smarts and a desire to win in a regularly losing side. But for his role as the umpires shadow, he might have won a Brownlow. His best mates in footy were the champions of his time, the sort of champions who would cross the street to avoid real thugs (eg Maynard) who had none of their abilities. But, yes, he was tough and could dish it out as well as take it.

EJ Whitten's catch cry was "stick it up 'em".

It might be a football act (so is bumping and tackling) but it can still be reckless, careless and dangerous. Becoming a 90kg projectile of his own volition and then pretending to be "sweet and innocent" is an offensive insult. The tribunal not calling it a bump but something else, when in fact it was, is a legal and factual nonsense. The AFL not appealing is an abominationj for our great game of footy. Shame on them all. It is time to rise up and stick it up them. Where is EJ to act as our leader when we need him?

ITS NOT ANGUS'S FAULT. HE DID NOTHING WRONG. This discussion is only feeding the despicable views of the triibunal, the thugs and the scum.

Is Gleeson hopelessly conflicted in this proceeding? If he is the only legally trained member of the tribunal and if he acts like a judge by giving directions to the other tribunal members and then he sits in judgement on his own direction, how is this not an egregious breach of procedural fairness and natural justice? To a non-lawyer this seems to be grounds for an appeal against the tribunal and the decision. What do the lawyers say?

If he is replaced now it is already too late.

As I understand the process, should the thug be deservedly suspended for 4+ matches and seeks to appeal, then the appeal will be only on questions of law, not facts or opinions. So long as the AFL and the tribunal on Tuesday apply the correct legal procedures (procedural fairness including the correct wording of the charge) then the thug's anticipated suspension should be upheld on appeal. (OTOH should the tribunal fail to carry out its duty to our great game of footy, then the AFL will have to find a legal basis for its appeal to the appeal board). Let's all hope (and pray) that the lawyers get it right, the thug is suspended and there are no grounds for a successful appeal. Our Angus deserves nothing less than this.