Deemania since 56

Enlightening perspective from the tables. SD is a good measure representing a team's recorded aptitudes (positives). It just amazes me that whilst Richmond is deservedly 'at the top' on the 'aptitude' scale, the MFC is a clear second in its performances this year without the 'wins on the board' that the latter is obviously due. However, an overlay of the reasons why we are struggling relative to other teams is needed for that vital information which explains and/or demonstrates our actual likelihood of not making deep progress into the finals. As I harp on about umpiring and officially organised results of games before players even step onto the ground, my conviction of this occurrence is strongly supported by evidence of this nature not published (or pursued) in this statistical offering or in any allegedly official, honest evaluation of the games that are played in this AFL competition. The evidence stems only from an observational perspective of the conduct of game after game, game after game. Team strengths, aptitudes and game dominance tendencies are measured in such statistical analyses; the power of intended outcomes is only observational and highlights the dreaded evidence of an uneven playing field where umpiring opportunities consistently overturn such aptitude evidence into outcomes of game loss - the ugly head of vested interest and distinct preference - for hidden reasons - is reared. Explain that, AFL!

That is a rather - and again, sadly - overt realisation. I am also interested in the AFL's (Gill's) intent to trial another round of rules variations in the next couple of rounds and into the finals, this year. As if these modifications, omissions, oversights and changes to rules coupled with deliberate umpiring interferences and selective attentions have not already been active this year in 'working over' certain teams in the competition to their distinct disadvantage, such as the MFC. Vive la revolution!

It is like a schematic process of intended early elimination to assist guaranteed ticketing sales across the finals season. If the AFL can eliminate a 'lesser' competitive team before the finals, gate receipts will be larger from the errant minds of supporters from 'greater' clubs. Sad, heh?

It is a minGF for us. Thank the umpires across 2018 as it was almost a strategic series of losses interrupted by screening through a few wins being 'permitted' as a smokescreen.

Zac would be a real asset - and a two-for-one deal would be feasible, particularly if those two were from Tyson, OMac, JKH, Bugg, Smith - not Joel. Oh, hell ... a 3-for-one deal!

Yes go for Hannebery after Gaff Yes go for Swallow after Gaff No Frost is too versatile to lose - good coaching will be all it takes to amend his ways as he really is a talent at 100mph Yes Lewis has reached an onfield sunset but would be a great 2IC coach

There may well be some blood-letting and incredible acts of footballing bravery, and heroics, going on in the match this week. We need a mobile bench that is well-selected with critical inputs available for engaging onfield at a moment's notice. It needs to be tough, angry and ready to perform. The first selected onfield will be that way and must perform exceptionally against a Crows team that can be shaken. For this match, I'd bench Jones at the start so that he can put in a second half of which his mum would be proud. Hogan needs to be rampant and stay local to the goalmouth. Hogan must lead to receive. Big test for Goodwin, making match day decisions and strategic intent.

Vanders - an inspirational return awaits. Pedo - an inspiration return awaits. Frosty - an inspirational return has occurred. Some things are good and I suspect Clarrie is really just fine - he'd train but he needs little of the skills drills, this week. Wagner may be useful this week with mobility and height.

Good news, singular, but good. A big body to challenge the brainless one (Tex).

This year, and certainly in the recent past, Jones has given some great performances of which leadership was one of those traits; his strength in this regard has been his undoubted ability to so often 'read the play', the intercept, run around and through opponents, so often demonstrating - to the myriad numbers of younger players across the MFC field in recent years - how to get the ball, how to progress the ball, how to demonstrate a desire for the ball. As his game has recently modified, his ball delivery can be tenuous yet is so often very good in 'eyes up' roles; as his recovery from elements of the game has declined somewhat, his desire to clear the ball is still there but he has the notion that long clearances and bombs are his own best resort. This has been frustrating. He has been a stalwart of effort for the MFC. In his sunset role I can imagine him being a very useful HBFlanker with run from defensive territory and similarly, as a FwdFlanker in roles where 'leap' is of less importance. There are those younger players who might blend all the required skills better than Jones can, these days. There are very few who can demonstrate his endeavour for the Club, producing such impressive short, sharp outcomes onfield - even when these are less frequent than in the past. Perhaps a role from the bench might be more appropriate at this stage of his career.

Horrible! Best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery, SPC, from us all.

Brilliant!

Holistically, they sure did! Saw it appearing in the first, second and third quarters where we built a lead in the game by an impressive margin - with an allegedly 'lesser side' than Geelong. With a 'lesser' game plan. The final quarter decisions almost en masse were the icing on the intended cake.

It would almost seem as if the decisions that they dish out during the game are not actually legitimate but work to even the score by keeping a team like Geelong in contact...and that the umpires do not pay these decisions as frequently in the critical last quarters because the intended result would be in jeopardy.

Just presume that we did make the finals and yes, Geelong were the team we played against in the first round as you suggest.(I mean, it is a possible scenario, even now.) Could we also presume with any legitimacy that the umpires might suddenly improve in their balance of decisions between MFC and GFC? Would the umpires do so more fairly, consistently and not so blatantly affect the outcome of the game - or prevent a Geelong loss through their inteference? Whaddya reckon?

One likes to be seen to associate with footballers and showers them with soft-touch decisions, and the other likes to shower with footballers capable of deciding who is a soft touch.

''Atta boy! How are we supposed to sit back to accept a 'nice loss' when supporters start out with limited hope of a win. That is the second time in one season that we have been nuzzled out of a win against Geelong - and it is not good enough. Mental toughness is critical to sealing a game and win/loss is all that matters at the end of the day. We do not even get a fair shake of the saveloy to inspire the team to a higher plane - the AFL/umpires appear against it. Many of our opponents seem to be able to sense preferences onfield and are permitted by selective attention and rule stretching to do as they might please to 'extract' a contributed win.

Not sure about the 'we' bit but there are exceptions, obviously.

B: Weideman Frost Jetta HB: Salem Pedersen Jones Mid: TSmith Brayshaw Fritsch HF: Petracca TMac Melksham Fwd: Garlett Hogan Spargo R: Gawn Oliver Tyson Int: Wagner Vince ANB vandenBerg

He's probably on a bonus pay system for every goal he kicks ...

Sadly, it may also mean these two may not actually disappear - as these should. If the AFL have said that '...no more rule changes...' will take place, then scrapping a rule is a change and thus, will not take place. What the AFL does when it has these genius moments is pile heaps of controversy down the track without thought of the consequences, the implications and the net effect to the stability of the game. There are talented people who have played football at the top level - these are the people who should be leading and regulating the AFL - immediately.

Well, why not? Errors permitted lead to acceptable stains on the game. The precedent has been set by Dangerfield! All approved.

They will do absolutely nothing about it! It was definitely staged free, for which the Geelong team - as one of quite a few clubs in this regard - is so adept at 'pulling' in some annoited opinions of some equally annointed umpires. It has now become a standard part of the game for which the 'lesser' teams of recent footballing history pay dearly. This game last Saturday against Geelong had 'constructed' victory written all over it with several, highly obvious umpiring decisions 'shaping' rules violations to the distinct advantage of a Geelong win. It is impossible to believe that a selected umpire or two, working in tandem, did not see or evaluate or be concerned of a rule violation where a legitimate penalty would apply (had it not been Geelong playing against the MFC); key evidence of confirming examples of this wilful rules abuse to the advantage of Geelong in the last quarter of this game include: the penalty against Gus with a staging Dangerfield, and its outcome the kicking in danger of Harmes' hand and wrist for a goal (Ablett?) the penalty against Harmes for running into the protected zone on a Geelong mark despite indicating clearly that he was already located in that position at the time of the mark and was moving carefully outside that zone in compliance with the rules of the game, and its resulting goal. An official review is essential although now, nothing can be done to right these wrongs, and Geelong know it.

Of all places, heard it on a train from some yobbos. Not going myself, until the Dees win a few.

Don't, rumours are around Adelaide, already. Buy a seat or watch it on Foxtel.