two sheds jackson

Bradshaw may have been the difference between winning 4-6 games and winning 9-11 games next year.

We definitely wouldn't have won eleven games instead of four, purely on the strength of having Bradshaw in the team. He's good, but he's not a gamebreaking superstar who'll win us seven games off his own boot.

He might have been worth an extra win or two, but whose to say McDonald won't be? We have a talented but inexperienced backline, and a handy 26 year old defender will do a bit to remedy that. It could also free someone up to move further up the ground; if it let's us try Martin or Garland up forward, it might help us fix some of the problems you alluded to. I actually think it's at least highly debatable that Bradshaw, at this stage in his career, will be emphatically more influential than McDonald over the next 3 years, let alone the next 6.

I wasn't at the function, but did Connolly actually say he wasn't good enough, or just that he's been highly overrated and is nowhere near Jurrah's level at this stage? There is a pretty big difference.

I definitely don't think we'll take him with pick 11; I think it's a bluff by Connolly to try to get someone like Essendon to use a first round pick on him, effectively bumping us up to picks 10 and 17. If the bluff works I'll be surprised and elated, if we actually take him at 11 I'll be surprised and disappointed.

I don't think he's bluffing about pick 18 though; if Ball is still around by then we'd have to seriously look at him. We lack experience, physicality, leadership and quality midfielders, and Ball brings all those things to the table. Despite his injury concerns, we can be pretty confident of getting at least 3-5 good years out of him. And as HT said, he won't just sit out the contract, because if he does, there's no guarantee he'll ever get another one. If somebody we rate higher slides to 18 and we take him instead, great. If Ball's not around by pick 18, we're effectively bumped up to 17. Whatever happens, we win.

shame they cant call out Jacktom Scullgove.. and they be joint #1's

Especially since Kelly Underwood will be calling them that for the next 3 years anyway (ba-doom, tish).

this is all a bunch of hot air.

All that this article states is that Ball does not want to play for Melbourne.

All of you people get in up in arms saying "well he can go F&^% himself" or "good riddance" just need to take a step back and look at the situation. Deep breaths, relax, there is no point getting all flustered about a player who never played for us in the first place.

It is not a crime to nominate which clubs you want to go to. This gives the clubs notice that he does or does not want to play for your club. "Pick me if you want, but i probably wont be too passionate."

He wants what is best for him and his career. He is not trying to insult the club or YOU as a supporter.

I tend to agree with this. It's not like he's even stuffed us around in the way that say, Judd arguably did. In fact he's been nothing if not absolutely forthright; he didn't express any interest in us at any stage, so he hasn't led us on. When you consider that Ball spent the first few years of his career in a rebuilding side stacked with promising but then un-proven high-end draft picks, it's not surprising that our "exciting young list" isn't a major selling point for him- he's been there and done that, and I don't think he's being overly arrogant in wanting to get to a side who'll be playing finals next year instead of going through it all again.

I do agree that he's being a bit short-sighted; I don't really rate Collingwood as a serious premiership contender even with Jolly, and the gap between Melbourne and Essendon is smaller than people think. In four years time, I'd be surprised if we're not a long way ahead of Collingwood, and probably Essendon. Then again, the way his body is, maybe Ball and Connors arent sure he'll even still be playing by then, and see the short-term solution as the best one for him.

Brad was never a gun midfielder and never will be. In fact he's not even a real midfielder.

With Scully, Trengove, Grimes and maybe pick 11 in Lucas or Rohan or Melksham or Tapscott coming in, Green might get bursts if he's lucky.

Problem is -assuming we don't get Luke Ball- where is the experience going to come from in the midfield next year? With McLean gone and McDonald and Bruce spending more time on the HBF as you pointed out, if we made Green a permanent forward the closest we'd have to seasoned midfielders would be Moloney (who's just had his first real season in four years), Davey (who's just had his first good season in the midfield) and Jones (who'll be 22).

Don't get me wrong, I prefer Green as a forward pocket/HFF and ultimately see him finishing his career there, but I think that at least in 2010, he'll be played as a utility and used to plug gaps anywhere we need him and mostly in the midfield and backline, much like this year. If we can get Luke Ball or if a few of our midfielders mature quicker than expected, it could obviously free him up to spend more time up forward sooner.

Just got back from a pretty big night out, I'm a bit [censored], so I'll keep this as brief as possibl so as not to make too much of a [censored] of myself. Thanks to everyone whose given me support via this thread or in PMs (and to everyone I havn't gotten back to yet, especially AFI and It's A Nightmare, I'm sorry and will do so in the next couple days, swear to God).

Just thought I'd give a brief update. As I said, when I was originally diagnosed, they did an x-ray and found a bunch of small dots (which turned out to be tumors) in my lungs; the largest was about 4x4cm. Since then I've had two bouts of chemo, which actually hasnt been too bad, I've lost my hair and for the first three days after each treatment I've felt pretty tired, but I havn't got sick from it, and three days after I get a dose I feel completely normal. Anyway, I had a CT scan the other day to see how the treatment is going, and it went way better than expected; alot of the dots arent even showing up anymore at all, and the biggest tumor has shrunk by more than half- the doctor said about the biggest tumor "we think it's still technically measurable, but we're not even sure about that, definitely less than a cm", so yeah, after two treatments the biggest tumor is barely measurable. And I still have another four treatments to go. The doctors didn't expect anywhere near this good of a result; when I started treatment, they told me that if the tumor didn't shrink but didn't grow, they would consider the treatment extremely successful (and by the sound of it, they would have been surprised even by that). This is after two doses. I have another four to go.

The type of cancer I have is slow-growing, and slow-growing cancers don't generally respond that well to chemo (although this one obviously has). But it's also a pretty rare cancer, and it's a bit of an unknown quantity since theres not much data available yet (from what I remember, the specific type I have accounts for about 2% of salivary gland tumors, and of that 2%, only 10% turn out malignant: I pretty much did the opposite of winning the lottery). So I figure [censored] it, every illness in the world was incurable at one stage until somebody survived it, and I'm [censored] well going to survive this [censored].

Again, thanks so much to everybody for the encouragement, I'm feeling [censored] terrific right now.

I don't expect you to name your source, but can you at least provide some details about why Melbourne expect Butcher to slide to 11, and how we managed to convince Ball that we'd be a good option, just to show you're serious? I'd love to believe you obviously, but it's hard to take you seriously when all you've said is "this is definitely going to happen", without elaborating. You've got to give us something.

You've either totally misunderstood, or deliberately misrepresented, what I said. I'm not saying "let's not get him because we already have enough promising midfielders", in fact, I said we should get him if we can.

What I'm saying is, and I'll make it as simple as possible: from Luke Ball's perspective (that's Luke Ball's perspective, not the Melbourne Football Club's), Melbourne are a club whose midfield is in it's formative stages. They have four promising midfielders coming in next year, who may not play the same role as Luke Ball but they do play the same position, i.e., the midfield, where there are only so many spots available hence the amount of gametime they get will impact on the amount of gametime given to Luke Ball. Likewise, as you said, Melbourne will need to see if players like Sylvia, Grimes, Aussie and Maric are any good in the midfield. They will do this, believe it or not, by giving them stints in the midfield. This will also impact on the amount of gametime given to Luke Ball. If some of these players succeed in the midfield, they will be given a more permanent role there, which will impact on the amount of gametime given to Luke Ball. Somewhere like Collingwood, with a more settled midfield structure and without four or five promising new midfielders coming in, Ball's long-term place in the side is more secure and he can be given a solid answer as to how much gametime he can expect in the short-term, at Melbourne it's a bit more hazy. I want him, but for this reason and others I'll understand if he doesn't want to come, and I won't put it down to the football department being a bunch of wankers. I hope that's cleared it up.

I will be bitterly dissapointed if we don't ge Luke Ball & not because of his on field/off field benefits to the club.

It would be a massive slap in the face to the MFC if he does not want to come to us, we have no1 PSD pick, room in the cap , he is guaranteed major playing time and the MFC want him.

We are a few years away from a flag and -here's the thing- when our list actually does start really coming together, Ball's a fair chance to get pushed out of the side. Even in the short-term, we'll want to get as many games as possible into Scully, Trengove, Strauss and Blease next year, with Jones, Moloney and McDonald no chance of being dropped unless they hit seriously bad form and with guys like Sylvia, Grimes, and even Aussie and Maric a chance to get extended runs in the midfield next year. I'm sure Ball would make our best 22 next year, but I don't think he'd be "guaranteed major playing time"; certainly other teams would be able to provide him more. In that sense, even the positives about Melbourne arent so positive from Ball's perspective.

I'd love to get him in the PSD- he'd be a perfect replacement for McLean, and his experience and physical maturity would be invaluable right now, but I can see why he might not be keen, and without having a go at you personally (because it seems to be a reasonably widespread concern on here), I think some of the people who keep shouting this whole "oh noez no1 wanz to cum to uz dizrespect fo da club!" line of reasoning, need to settle down bit and think things through.

Bradshaw is 33 and will either be ineffective or be out of the game in 2 years time. Rischitelli is just another average mid, and to make it worse Carlton have no first round pick. Carlton are getting screwed royaly by themselves and are without question the most poorly managed and dumbist AFL club.

While there isn't a strong enough pejorative in the English language to fully express my hatred for the Carlton Football Club, I think anyone even pretending to be objective would concede that since Pratt's takeover (and complete overhaul of the club's operations), they have been one of the more shrewdly run outfits of the competition. If the deal goes through as is it will be a very un-Carltonlike move, and will suggest that they are absolutely desperate to get rid of him, at any price. Which really makes you wonder about the problems described by GNF, and just how deep they really go.

It's a nightmare scenario, and it couldnt be happening to a nicer club.

delist him now he would be better as assistant coach then instead of list clogging

You're missing the point. A forward coach can teach skills and impart strategies, but it's not the same as having an experienced forward actually out there on the field directing traffic and leading by example (as well as lending some strength to a physically underdeveloped forwardline and taking some of the heat off of Watts, Bate and Jurrah, as others have already pointed out).

I agree with TU; clearly we've decided that if we're not going to get anything for him, then we might as well keep him around to aid in the development of our young forwardline. I'm happy to have him on the list for another year or two, considering what we could have gotten for him in a trade (i.e. not much) and who we'll have to delist instead of him (i.e. no one special).

I wasn't keen on the McLean trade when it was put forward and I'm still tentative about it now, but to say that pick 21 is worth pick 11 in this years draft is just pure hyperbole. Sure, it's compromised with age restrictions, but come on.

wats difference between cousins and fev...he's had all his issues but is still killing it..

Glad you asked. Cousins stuffed up repeatedly at West Coast and was banned for a year by the AFL for a series of drug and alcohol related incidents. During that year off, he put his head down, got clean, and worked his arse off to get picked up in the PSD despite most of the football world telling him he didn't have a chance and was wasting his time. I'm not trying to make him out to be a hero; he got himself into that situation afterall, but he deserves credit for fighting his way out of it and getting to where he is now. On the other hand, Fevola has had a series of major alcohol related incidents including sexual harassment and drunken assault (and while this statement goes against the arsed-backward yob culture prevalent in all codes of football, the fact is that sexual harassment and violence are a hell of a lot more serious than recreational drug use- Cousins hurt himself, Fevola has hurt other people). He has been given countless "final chances", and has repeatedly promised to turn things around, only to come out a few months later and make a complete dick of himself and everyone who believed in and supported him.

And even at his absolute worst, Cousins was always a great on-field leader with a legendary work-rate. I wasn't keen on Melbourne picking him up last year, but at least there was a genuine argument that even though he wouldn't be around when we're pushing a flag, Cousins' experience and exemplary work ethic would have fast-tracked the development of our young list and he would have a positive cultural impact outlasting his playing days. Fevola is the exact opposite; at his best he is incredible, at his worst he is an absolute liability, giving away ridiculous free kicks and showing little to no interest in chasing and pressuring. Not only will he not be around when we're pushing for a flag, but he's more likely to inhibit than improve our development. The guy is a culture sore on-field and off, and I'm happy but not surprised we're not giving him the time of day.

Dee tention; You seem to have this idea that if you offer up two substandard players for trade, the opposition will give you something of value in return, as if offering two crap players makes your offer two times as good simply because there are two of them. It doesn't- I doubt Sydney would even take Valenti for free, all he would do is occupy a spot on their list that could go to a player with some prospect of being a good player one day. Maybe we can get trade Miller, but I'm not banking on it, and he certainly won't feature in a trade for a second round pick. What's their motivation to do this trade? The fact that you want them to?

Have you seen Panos play? If so, what it is about him that makes him better than Garland? Why trade someone who has shown that he definitely has the talent to be a very good KPP (injury permitting) for a kid who might not even make it and an inconsistent, injury-prone midfielder? Being aggressive is fine, but that seems almost suicidal. And again, if Garland alone is not enough to get pick ten and Davey, how is throwing in a depth player like Dunn going to make any difference? With several promising young utilities coming through, what are Essendon's supposed to do with someone like Dunn?

Going on what we know so far, I would probably keep all our picks. If a very good 23-26 year old crops up during trade period that's another story, but I dont want to swap any of our top four draft picks or anyone on our list who'd have currency, for a Lake, Everitt, Gibson or any of the names that have cropped up so far, nor do I want to trade another established player for draft picks (as I said before it happened, I wasn't even too keen on McLean for pick 11).

I actually find it almost impossible to predict how we're going to perform in 2010, or even give a rough estimation. I just think there's too many things happening that could really hurt us in the short term, and too many things happening that could really help us, and it's hard to tell how all these things are going to balance out.

Reasons why we might go backwards:

- With the expected influx of young midfielders into the side and the departure of McLean, we will have a real shortage of mature-bodied players all over the ground but particularly in the midfield, and could find ourselves being pushed off the ball alot and running out of legs in the last quarter, even moreso than we did this year.

- Without McLean, the opposition will be able to give Jones much more attention. I'd also expect Jurrah and Aussie to attract the oppositions best tall and small defenders every week from round one onward, and they might have some very quiet games before they adapt to it (if so, we'll no doubt get plenty of posts on Demonland screaming bloody murder about how promising youngsters always go backwards at this club and calling for the forward-line coach/fitnesss coach/drinks man to be sacked, so that should be fun).

- We are losing alot of experience this year. If we delist Miller, we will have nobody over 23 in the forwardline and only one 50 game player in Bate (I'm not arguing against delisting Miller, I'm just saying). This will lead to alot of trial and error, and even just basic things like not having anyone experienced actually out there in the forwardline directing traffic, telling first and second-year players where to lead and things like that, will hurt us at times.

Reasons why we might improve:

- We were dogged by injury last year, and by the end of the season we were fielding an incredibly second rate side even by our standards, and one that will hopefully be almost unrecognizable with the one we'll be fielding next year. It's not just that we'll be bringing in quality players like Garland, Aussie and Maric, it's also the fact that we wont have to play guys who aren't quite AFL standard like Newton, Valenti and Bartram (please don't bother replying and telling me I'm not exchanging like-for-like; I'm just trying to illustrate a point).

- Some of our most promising young players like Morton, Grimes, Wonna, Martin and others have had a few years in the system now, and it's no longer ridiculous to hope that a few might have a breakout year next year. This could make a huge difference, depending on how many kids improve and how much they improve obviously. If someone becomes an out-and-out gamebreaker, our situation is suddenly completely different. While we shouldn't bank on a kid blossoming into a star, it's not as unrealistic as it was at the start of this year.

- If we werent tanking, we probably could have finished with 6 wins or so. There'll be no real incentive to tank next year. So -and pay attention, because I'm about make the single most thought-provoking, sage-like comment in the history of football-related discussion- when you field your best available players and you play those players in their actual positions, you've got a better chance to beat other people at football.

Obviously there are still all the usual variables as well; the increased attention on Wonna and Jurrah might be balanced out or even outweighed by their improvement over the preseason, we might be even harder hit by injuries this year than last, a heavily fancied early draft pick whose not expected to make much of an early impact (e.g. a Watts or a Blease) might develop quicker than expected, Davey might follow up his great season with an absolute shocker, we might have a first year player come in and tear it up immediately like Rich has for Brisbane and Rioli did for the Hawks. I know it's always difficult to predict how your side's going to go, but I think it's truer than usual for Melboure in 2010. I'll have a wild stab in the dark and say 8.

I also think it's worth pointing out -for anyone who thinks Robbo has a point about the way this club treats its veterans- that neither Yze or White ever carried on in anywhere near the manner that Robbo has been doing. Sure, they both publicly said that they felt they had more to offer and were disappointed not to get another year, but neither of them came out and slagged off the club in as ridiculously petulant a manner as Robbo has been doing. If you genuinely disagree with your clubs list management strategy and want to publicly comment on it, then there's a way to go about it. The way that Robbo has done it has been flat-out embarrassing. He's coming across like an 8 year old kid trapped in a 30 year olds body.

While I'll be gutted if we lose Davey, I'm a bit surprised by the amount of people suggesting offering him captaincy or vice captaincy just to get him to stay- I realise some people are saying it with tongue firmly in cheek, but some seem to actually be serious. I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but apparently it needs to be said that it's a pretty important job, and it should go to the best qualified player rather than being used as a carrot on a stick. Davey wouldn't be last on my list for preferred captain, but until he stands up in big games theres a fair few people I'd have ahead of him. He was flaky and inconsistent until this year, and while he seems to have turned the corner, there have been plenty of talented players who've had one great year and then fallen off the rails again (see Travis Johnstone, circa 2005).

I'm not saying could never be captain, but he's a long way off at this stage- far too many unanswered questions.

I don't think McLean is going to be a star either, but if what everyone is saying about this years draft is true, with the quality dropping off dramatically after the first handful of picks, then it's speculative at best whether we'll pick up a better player than McLean at pick 11.

At his best, I rate McLean ahead of Jones and Moloney, and consider him our best clearance player. I would prefer to trade either one of those two over McLean, particularly Jones, as I actually think he has as much currency at the trade table as McLean, possibly more given he is younger, has no real history with injury, and arguably has more upside (I obviously don't think so, or I'd prefer Jones). I actually agree that we have too many sluggish, in-and-under types, and I'd trade any one of these three for the right deal. But by taking pick 11 in a heavily compromised draft for someone who -for all his flaws and limitations- is still a very handy player, I just think we'd be taking a needless risk where the chances of losing out are probably better than the chances of breaking even.

I would hate to barrack for Richmond right now more than any other club. While there are other clubs (North and Sydney come to mind) who I think will have trouble rebuilding in the next few years, I cant even imagine how Richmond are going to meaningfully improve, and I wouldn't say that about any other side. They're going to go backwards in the next few years with a spate of retirements, and make no mistake, they're already atrocious. I really feel for Hardwick; he's really come into the job at the worst conceivable time. At least Bailey got given a blank canvas, and was allowed to rebuild right from the get-go- for Richmond, it'll be another two years before they even get an uncompromised draft, at which point they'll probably need yet another few years to put together a core group of players seriously capable of challenging for a flag one day.

If he's nominated Hawthorn, I'd imagine the only way he's even remotely a chance to fall to the PSD is if the Hawks absolutely refuse to trade pick nine, which I can't see them doing. I wouldn't pay much attention to any rumblings that Port won't do a trade unless it's for something better than pick 9; theres no way in hell Port are stupid enough to knock back a top ten pick out of sheer principle.

To be honest, Port would probably be relieved he picked Hawthorn; pick 9 is absolutely as early a draft pick as you're going to get this year, even for Shaun Burgoyne. Throw in a half-decent player, and suddenly Port haven't come out of this too badly.

If Robbo is unhappy with the way he's been treated, and he thinks that the most sensible and mature way to deal with it is to go to the media and slag off the club, then that's disappointing, but it's his prerogative. But he really, really should not be airing details about football operations matters -i.e. by publicly suggesting that Dean Bailey is basically a lame duck, who is having list management decisions made for him by the board and the football operations department, which is what he seems to be inferring, even if he doesnt realize it. It really is poor form, and potentially damaging to the club.

In all seriousness, McLean and Jones are currently our two best on-ballers. Now admittedly, given our current midfield stocks, that's not saying very much, but it's a fact that should be acknowledged before entertaining a trade. Some of the suggestions here have been way off; while it's great to see Moloney have an uninterrupted season, the fact remains that he is not as good as either of these two, and is in a slightly different mold as a footballer in any case. Valenti is not even in the same league, and will be off our list before long.

The fact that our two best midfielders are good honest toilers, rather than genuine gamebreakers, accounts for part of the reason we're currently sitting on the bottom of the ladder. We desperately need class in the midfield, but I tend to believe that this situation can drastically improve without aggressive trading: we will pick up the two best midfielders in the draft this year, and we seem to have an abundance of good, emerging players with class and/or pace who can at least pinch-hit, if not play full time in the midfield in future (Davey, Blease, Strauss, Maric, Wonna, Sylvia, Jetta, just to name a few).

While I don't think this thread is entirely without merit (another top 10 pick would certainly be handy), I believe that trading either McLean or Jones at this stage would be a mistake, as they'll be very important players in a few years time. When Watts, Morton, Scully, etc are hitting their straps (provided they turn out as good as we hope), other sides won't be able to afford them the same amount of attention anymore, and they will provide our better players with first use of the ball time and time again. They will be in their mid-20s by this stage, and will be senior players in a very young team. They will be at the physical peak of their careers and they'll be downright intimidating to play against.

Alot of people are blinded by the fact that McLean and Jones aren't going to be the superstars we once hoped they might be, and blind to the fact that, FFS, both are under 24.

Who is this Borck McLean you speak of?

I wouldn't trade him either.

I'm not really sure what's possessed me to post this thread; I don't really know anyone here, and theres not much anyone can do to help me. I hope it doesn't seem like an appeal for sympathy, because that's not what I'm after. I guess there's just alot of things I need to verbalize and get off my chest, and some things are actually easier to say to a bunch of strangers than to the people you care about most.

Early in the year, I found a lump just in front of my ear. I went and saw a doctor about it, and he assured me it was only a cyst, but told me to watch it for the next month or so and to get an ultrasound if it didn't go down, not because it was possibly cancerous, but because the type of cyst he diagnosed it as can get painful if left untreated. It didn't go down, so I went to a radiology clinic, had an ultra-sound and was told that it was not a cyst but a tumor in the salivary gland; I was told not to worry about it too much, that the overwhelming odds were that the tumor was benign, but that I would need a biopsy to confirm it. I was [censored] myself at this point, and absolutely rushed to get a biopsy, but it still ended up taking about a month to get one; the health-care system is a joke: the radiology clinic told me I needed a referral from a GP so that I can go back to that same radiology clinic and get a biopsy, and so I went to the GP, got the referral, went back to the same radiology clinic and, when I was literally on the table about to have the biopsy performed, the doctor read through my file, saw that I hadn't seen a private specialist, and told me I would need to go back to the same GP, get them to give me a referral to a private specialist, who in turn would have to give me a referral for the biopsy. This was important, they explained, because it would eliminate the risk of performing a biopsy if I do not need one. I'm still kind of ashamed of myself for having fell for it; everybody could see I needed a biopsy, but theres obviously some tacit general agreement in place between these types of clinics and private cancer specialists to do this type of thing, because it's the specialists bread and butter. I ended up paying the specialist $140 for a five minute appointment in which he told me precisely what the GP and radiology clinicians told me; that I have a tumor and need a biopsy. If you're EVER in this situation (and I hope to god none of you ever are), and you're about to have a biopsy done and the doctor tells you you need a specialists referral, please, in the politest possible way, say "either perform the biopsy, or have me arrested and thrown out of here". Don't fall for their [censored].

Anyway, eventually I had the biopsy done, and it came back benign. However, by this point the tumor had grown huge, had begun to impinge on a nerve and I had some restricted facial movements. I was told that in the operation to remove it, they would have to take the facial nerve, meaning I would lose movement in the right half of my face. This was obviously a massive, massive blow, especially given the type of field I want to work in- I'm 23 years old and have been trying to figure out what to do with myself since I was 18, but have turned things around dramatically in the last year. About a year ago I switched to a media course majoring in radio, after basically flunking out of a very unfulfilling BA course. I'd put together two really good semesters, getting a credit average in one and a distinction average in the other, and was actually enjoying uni and becoming passionate about radio, but there was a chance my speech would be effected after the operation. I'd also started taking an interest in stand-up comedy, having entered a comp at the start of the year (the Raw Comedy competition for peoples who are in the know) and done well, and performing a few shows since then, I'd begun to seriously consider making a real commitment to it, maybe even making a career of it if I'm good enough. I do a character-based routine, and its obviously a bit hard to play a range of characters with half a face. So, going into the operation, I was feeling a mixture of huge relief (because I'm not going to die) and utter devastation. Days before the operation, I was told that they'd perform a nerve graft, taking nerves from my leg and putting them in my face, so there was a good chance I would regain most of my facial movement over the course of two years or so. This lifted my spirits a bit.

Had the operation on the 22nd of last month. When they cut me open, they found out the tumor was actually either malignant, or a highly aggressive form of benign tumor. They conducted an extremely aggressive, 14 hour operation -the swelling hasn't even fully gone down, yet- and I was in hospital for 7 days. It took a while to get used to not being able to move the right side of my face, but either the graft worked better than expected or the damage wasn't as bad: I was told that I would be unable to close my right eye, but I have full movement, I was also told that my face would drop (similar to alot of stroke victims) but that hasn't happened. If I'm not being expressive, I basically just look normal. So that was a relief, but now I'm once again worried that I have a life-threatening illness, even though at this point they were pretty confident they got it all. I healed quicker than expected; was up and walking around on my third day in hospital (the doctors said they'd actually never seen anything like that) and could have probably been discharged on the 5th day, but they kept me in as a precaution. It's not uncommon for people to spend 10 days in hospital for that sort of operation, apparently.

Anyway, a week after being discharged, I had a PET scan and they were absolutely shocked to find a whole bunch of little dots in both of my lungs. It's been an absolute nightmare since then; I went into hospital a week ago and had a lung biopsy (pretty full-on stuff; they perform a sort of keyhole surgery where they go in, take out a bit of your lung and stick it under a microscope) and it confirmed that the cancer had spread to my lungs. I was told that what I have is terminal and inoperable, I asked for some idea how long I had, and the doctor told me it was impossible to say, but on average, about a year or two.

The last week or so has been absolutely indescribable. You know how, with victims of trauma (Vietnam vets, refugees etc) they say that going to sleep can be absolute hell, because you're letting go of all your ability to distinguish past from present, fantasy from reality, and you find yourself thrust into this sort of hyper-realistic nightmare where you have to relive the experience? I've kind of been the opposite; when I WAKE UP I'm thrust into a nightmare, reality itself IS the nightmare. I know that sounds kind of like a sob story, but I desperately needed to say that, and I couldn't say it to my own family, because it would [censored] torture them to hear it. I actually havn't even been coming on here much (I used to come on every day and stay up to date with all things Melbourne-related), the reason being that I found it completely depressing; the line of thinking was, "Melbourne will be a fantastic side in 5 year time, and I wont even be around to see it". Reading all about Watts, Jurrah, Scully etc just depressed me.

Went to Peter McCallum yesterday and talked to the chemo doctors. It actually went pretty well. They stressed that the difference between "incurable" and "untreatable" is not just semantic; they can hit this thing with chemo and, if it reacts well, it is absolutely impossible to say how long it could stay down for; it could be any number of years. The only thing keeping me going in the past week was the hope that I'd hear something that would give me some hope -a story about someone who lived with this same type of cancer, a prospect of a cure, anything that gave me some hope that I might grow old. I kind of got that yesterday; at least I feel like there's a bit of a fight now, and I'm not just sitting around waiting for the inevitable.

Again, theres no particular point to this thread and I wont be upset or embarrassed if nobody replies, I just really felt the need to get the story down in words.